The Ten Things you should know about the FCC’s new net neutrality proposal.
As you may have heard, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has new proposals on net neutrality – the idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally by broadband providers. Some consumer advocates claim the new plan is a reversal of the previous FCC policy, while others, say it’s nothing of the sort.
Who’s right? And what do these new rules mean for you?
Will prices go up for consumers? Will this change your typical monthly billing for Internet Service? Will the FCC be able to make sweeping decisions affecting ISP’s, or does each ISP have the power to influence the FCC?
Below is a list of the top questions and concerns facing the average consumer? Starting off slow, and getting more technical. This isn’t easy for anyone to foresee what’s coming.
Is it good or bad for me?
The new FCC proposed legislation could potentially be good and bad.
Web services could have to pay a toll to reach you. Companies (like Netflix) who provide those services will likely pass those costs on to you. Companies that don’t strike deals with top ISP’s, and pay for preferential delivery of their content to you, could suffer from slower service. Therefore, new content providers with innovative ideas might die because they can’t spare the cash to pay for the preferential treatment that the new net neutrality rules would allow. However, it’s important to keep in mind that many large content providers use technical methods to provide you with faster delivery already. So, ISP’s charging higher rates for better service is not too drastic.
What could be good for consumers is the FCC is proposing to prohibit content blocking. A content provider may not be able to pay for top-tiered service, but you’ll still be able to access it. This is a good thing.
Net Neutrality – in a nutshell
Net neutrality is intended to prevent Internet providers like Verizon and Comcast from dictating the kinds of content you’re able to access online. If ISPs are allowed to block or slow down Web traffic they don’t like — for example, if Verizon slows down Netflix— that could hurt consumers. Instead, Internet providers have to treat all traffic sources equally. Net neutrality is enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC.
For example, Comcast would probably like to promote NBC’s content over ABC’s to its Internet subscribers. That’s because Comcast and NBC are affiliated. But net neutrality prevents Comcast from being able to discriminate, and it must display both NBC’s and ABC’s content evenly as a result.
In short, net neutrality creates an even playing field among content providers to the web. Right now, consumers control what they see online, or stream to their TV, mostly due to net neutrality.
Who’s against Net Neutrality?
Some big Internet providers (ex: AT&T, or Verizon) don’t like the idea of net neutrality. They feel they should be able to pick and choose what people see online and charge content providers accordingly. They feel net neutrality chokes their revenue potential.
Imagine if Verizon has tiers of Internet access. The highest paying customers could access everything on the web. The lowest paying customers could access only the information Verizon chooses to promote. Verizon could even charge web publishers like NBC and ABC to display their content over competitors. This may sound scary to most folks, however it’s already done by many content providers. IXP’s are used, as are other methods for faster delivery of content. Therefore, asking Verizon to go over and above the norm (and paying a fee for this service) is not a big jump from the current implementations no in place.
What is the proposed new legislation about?
The FCC’s old rules from 2010 said that Internet providers could not block or unreasonably discriminate against different forms of Web traffic. Unfortunately for the agency, those rules were struck down by a federal court in January when Verizon successfully argued that the FCC had overstepped its legal authority in creating that rule. Now the FCC is trying to reinstate its regulations via a different legal pathway.
Will the new FCC legislation make everything neutral again?
Not likely. The rules, as proposed, do bring back the ban on traffic blocking. But they also open the door to companies striking deals with one another for better access to customers. Those deals would allow content companies, such as Facebook or Google, to pay Internet providers, like Comcast or Verizon, for smoother, premium service.
What is the Net Neutrality “reversal” everyone’s talking about?
Consumer advocates say that the paid deals that the new rules permit will lead to a tiered Internet in which the wealthiest companies will get the best access to consumers, while smaller companies that can’t afford to pay up will be hurt. According to the proposal’s critics, this could wind up undermining the core ambition behind net neutrality rules, which is ultimately to make sure there is a level playing field for all content.
But FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says, “There are reports that the FCC is gutting the open Internet rule. They are flat out wrong,” he said in a statement Wednesday. “There is no ‘turnaround in policy.'”
This comes as no surprise, that the FCC Chairman feels this way. Both, due to his previous public statements, and the general lack of understanding by most government bureaucrats (and large corporate leadership for that matter) regarding freedom of content on the Internet. For those of you who have surfed the web for as long as I have (over 15 years), you’ll remember what they now coin as the “wild west” years…when all content was accessible to everyone with little more than technical knowledge of how to find it. That was before Google…but I digress.
Will the new FCC proposal stand up in court?
It should appease large ISP’S more than previous legislation, due to compromise. But, consumers may still contest the proposals. Two provisions are at play here. First is the prohibition on blocking that would prevent ISPs from denying customers’ access to individual Web sites. Second is a rule against traffic discrimination, stating that ISPs shouldn’t slow down traffic.
The new proposal continues to prohibit blocking. The more controversial part deals with the rule against traffic discrimination. FCC officials say that the original 2010 rules put limits on “unreasonable” traffic discrimination. In the commission’s view, a pay-for-play Internet does not imply unreasonable discrimination.
The commission’s initial legal strategy was to regulate broadband companies under what’s known as Title I of the Communications Act — the law that gives the FCC its power. The alternative was to regulate broadband companies under Title II, which would have been politically controversial but would have given net neutrality opponents less of an opening in court. Title II is the authority the agency uses to regulate phone companies. If it had gone that route, the FCC would have been free to apply its original rules without fear of a legal challenge. Many say this new change (toward Title II) weaken the FCC’s power to enforce.
How does the FCC intend to enforce competition?
The commission plans to watch the deals that get struck very closely on a case-by-case basis. If it suspects that an agreement violates a “commercial reasonableness” test, it will consider stepping in.
Is Netflix paying for inter-connectivity so unusual?
Paid interconnection is already the norm
The Internet is not actually a cloud but a collection of networks that technically conjoin, or “interconnect,” and exchange traffic based on negotiated business arrangements known as “peering” or “transit” agreements.
Many have reacted with anger to this recent interconnection announcement, viewing it as a direct threat to the principle of net neutrality. But the public responses underscore the lack of technical and economic understanding of how the Internet works.
The agreement is not a unique instance of a content company compensating a network operator for interconnection. Numerous types of paid and unpaid connection arrangements are struck, depending on factors such as traffic volume, network reach, and performance guarantees. “Settlement-free peering agreements” involve network operators agreeing to mutually exchange traffic without payment. “Settlement-based interconnection” involves one network paying another network for either mutual peering or for transit to the global Internet.
Bottom Line: Will this increase prices to consumers?
Considering this is already the norm for content providers, it may not have any significant effect on consumer prices. However, as there are so many new players on the market providing content (who can’t pay for premium delivery) it will become incumbent on the consumer to seek this content out, and enjoy, using their own technical means.
Large content companies like Google and Facebook distribute and replicate their content all over the world, connecting directly to Internet access provider networks either from their own server facilities, via Internet exchange points (IXPs) or via content delivery networks like Akamai and Limelight. From an engineering perspective, bringing multimedia content closer to “eyeballs” without clogging up a tertiary network is a no-brainer: It decreases delays and optimizes bandwidth consumption. This content distribution is particularly important for bandwidth-consumptive applications like video. Therefore, it’s already happening. Google, Netflix, and others have already dominated consumer content delivery on the Internet.
In the end, less will change than most consumers believe. Prices won’t go up considerably, except for those services that are in a very easy to download format. You’re certainly not going to ever get the most cutting-edge content from Netflix, and Google. Never happened – never will! Time for consumers to return to their roots, and check out the Deep Web to access content not already played out and purveyed by companies like Google. The most important thing to watch is if the FCC can successfully enforce the “no content blocking” provision. That will be the key.
