"At this time there are no enforceable protections, at the Federal Communications Commission or anywhere else, against even the worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet traffic," he says.
As is true with all grand compromises, the Verizon-Google deal represents "the best policy solution we could devise together," says Whitt. "We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all."
Whitt likely is right about the "best achievable policy solution" angle. Given the serious business repercussions, no endurable solution is possible that fails to give key participants key victories.
If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself, says Whitt.
Though ISPs might prefer another outcome, including unrestricted ability to create new tiers of service that optimize end user experience for real-time services, the Verizon-Google compromise does not preclude such Internet-based services. But the decision is left in the hands of application providers, and is a prohibited option for ISPs. That is a big deal.
Nor is Google foreclosing its ability to act later on wireless network neutrality, should it become necessary, and also gains an important regulatory precedent. "In the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye," says Whitt.
The deal also implicitly creates other precedents. The logic implies that network neutrality is needed when markets are not robustly competitive. Some observers would strongly contest the notion that the fixed broadband market is functionally uncompetitive. But the point is that Google gets recognition that, in the future, if wireless networks become less competitive, rules might need to be extended.
Whitt argues that the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Whitt also concedes that wireless carriers need to manage their networks more actively for several reasons that make wireless technologically more challenging than fixed networks.
"In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content," says Whitt. "Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market."
The other angle is that the compromise does not prevent Congress from acting to impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers. Whitt further argues that the new fourth-generation networks already are more open than 3G networks have been.
"So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms, which we hope will be enhanced and encouraged by our transparency proposal," says Whitt.
There is no danger of Internet "cannibalization" because all Internet access services would have to remain "best effort" services. Non-Internet services could be offered. The best examples likely are the voice and video entertainment services consumers already buy, or private network services businesses buy.
"So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability, so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet," he says.
If needed, the FCC could step in, should abuses in those separate areas occur.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/MKuf/~3/icZfrW2iPuc/facts-about-our-network-neutrality.html
read more
No comments:
Post a Comment