Home ›

network neutrality

Minnesota Will Stand for Network Neutrality

Keywords:
By christopher on August 18, 2010

Update: You can watch a recording of the event here.

In anticipation of the FCC discussion on Thursday night in Minneapolis (details here), I have a short post up over at Tech.mn.

Although network neutrality can be easily distracted by partisanship, perhaps it is better viewed through the context of scale and long-term impact. Economically, for example, massive media conglomerates like Fox News, ABC and Disney (who can afford to pay ISPs to favor their content channels) could obtain crucial advantages over new and innovative startup ventures that lack both the cash and clout necessary to strike deals with ISPs.

Be sure to attend the FCC Hearing if you are able.

Photo used under Creative Commons license from AdamWillis.

Network Neutrality: Google, Verizon, and Us

Keywords:
By christopher on August 9, 2010

A few thoughts on the Google-Verizon talks and behind closed doors FCC stakeholder meetings with industry...

First, neither the FCC nor Google is likely to defend the interests of the vast majority of us and the communities in which we live. Companies like Verizon don't dump millions in lobbyists and lawyers on a lark - they do it because that level of spending gets them access and action. Google, its don't-be-evil mantra notwithstanding, remains a company that looks out for its interests first.

And Google's interests may well be ensuring that its content is always in the "fast lane" despite their historic approach of pushing for an open internet where no business can simply pay to get get a higher level of service from an ISP.

This is not an "abandon all hope" post about network neutrality. The FCC has substantially changed course on this issue many times (largely due to massive public pressure - thank you to Free Press for organizing so many folks), so I still have hopes that it will enact regulations to preserve the open internet.

However, these regulations are certainly not the best approach. It is a messy approach to solving a problem that fundamentally comes down to the fact that network owners operate essential infrastructure in the private interest rather than the public interest.

We don't have to worry that national bakeries are going to be prioritized over local bakeries in access to the roads they need to make their deliveries. UPS, FedEx, and the US Post Office do not have to engage in separate agreements in every community over who gets to use the roads and what speeds they can travel on them. When it comes to roads, the rules apply to all like vehicles equally (which is to say that all big trucks are treated like big trucks and passenger cars are treated like passenger cars).

If I lived in Chattanooga, Monticello, Lafayette, Brigham City, Bristol (TN or VA), Wilson, perhaps soon Opelika, or dozens of other communities with publicly owned broadband networks, I would be watching this ongoing network neutrality fight with a rather bemused expression because my network is democratically accountable to the community and that offers far greater accountability than anything that will come out of an FCC proceeding.

Update: A fascinating reminder from the Economist on the proper role for regulators:

If companies always agreed with regulators' rules, there would be no need for regulators. The very point of a regulator is to do things that companies don't like, out of concern for the welfare of the market or the consumer.

Photo used under Creative Commons license from AdamWillis.

Understanding - and Rethinking - Broadband Regulation

Keywords:
By christopher on June 21, 2010

Though we certainly support the FCC's reclassification of broadband to ensure companies like Comcast do not interfere with the open Internet, we focus on policy at the community level. We fully support the efforts of organizations and people in DC to work at the federal level.

But for those who are utterly baffled at the questions being raised the the last 15 years of Internet policy, I strongly recommend a recent op-ed by Wally Bowen: "FCC needs to rethink broadband regulation."

The stakes are high. The Internet's explosive growth – and the spectacular innovation it spawned – were enabled by common-carrier rules that still govern the nation's dial-up telephone networks.

Before 2002, online users were at the center of the Internet and World Wide Web, free to choose among competing ISPs, and free to roam and innovate. With the removal of common-carrier rules, the cable and telephone companies occupied the center of a broadband-driven Web, free to pick winners and losers among innovators (e.g. AT&T's exclusive iPhone deal with Apple) – and free to dictate when and where broadband access will be deployed.

In short, the definitive battle for the future of the Internet is underway.

Rules Matter - Network Neutrality and Transparency

Keywords:
By christopher on April 29, 2010

I was briefly checking out the Open Internet Workshop when I got into a short tweet-argument with someone I did not know. Bear with me as I recount the discussion then explain why I think it worth delving into for a post. This person caught my attention by tweeting, "Which means the Net is already open, right?"

I responded, "Yes Internet is open. Trying to keep it that way. Idea that net neutrality is 'new' is absurd."

Shortly thereafter, I got a response that fits a standard script: "Then how about proving actual harm first? Burden of proof to hand Net to govt is on you guys."

I responded, "Comcast, RCN, Cox block applications ... why must we wait for you to break the Net further to fix it?"

The final response was that the market forces will solve the problem and my "examples are outdated."

I later discovered that I was wasting time responding to someone from an astroturf think tank. Odds are that this person was simultaneously tweeting that cigarette smoking is not correlated with cancer and that burning coal actually cleans the air.

But this is a common argument from those who want to allow companies like Comcast and AT&T to tell users what sites they can visit and what applications they can use. Some "free market" advocate (who is actually defending firms with serious market power, the antithesis of a free market) says that no private network owner would violate network neutrality. Then, when presented with companies that have violated network neutrality, the response is invariably that those are "old" examples" or somehow not relevant.

To sum up:

Person A: No company would violate network neutrality.

Person B: What about Comcast, Cox, RCN, and the famous Madison River Communication?

Person A: Those don't count.

Aside from the absurdity, the larger problem is that we do not always know when companies are violating network neutrality. Comcast was violating network neutrality for at least a year before tech journalists successfully outed the practice. Over the course of that year, many subscribers called Comcast and asked why they were having problems with certain applications. Comcast lied to them and said the company was not interfering with them. When finally backed into a corner with incontrovertible evidence, it admitted it was.

These companies know that users have very few choices for broadband. In my case, I have a choice between slow DSL and comparatively faster cable. Though we may soon have access to WiMax in Saint Paul, the speeds will not be comparable to what I need for my communications. I have one option for relatively fast broadband. And that company has no problem lying to me about whether it interferes with my surfing.

Transparency matters. Communities cannot depend on these companies to provide the infrastructure they need. If my city owned the network and treated its customers this way, we would have the power to shake up the management and put local needs before profits.

Photo used under Creative Commons license - thanks to flickr's limonada.

FCC and Network Neutrality - A Quick Take

Keywords:
By christopher on April 13, 2010

A quick reaction to the court decision that the FCC cannot currently prevent Comcast from telling subscribers where they can and cannot go on the Internet: This is what happens when private companies own infrastructure.

Comcast owns the pipes so it makes the rules. The FCC, authorized to regulate "all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio" by Congress, most assuredly is supposed to have the authority to ensure Internet Service Providers cannot arbitrarily block some websites to subscribers. Whether it really has the power or not is determined by courts - and the courts are massively swayed by the arguments of Comcast, related trade associations, and powerful organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce. So long as Comcast and other massive corporations own the infrastructure, they will make the rules. We can attempt to fiddle at the edges by responding via the FCC, or we can build public infrastructure (over which they can provide services without making the rules) and avoid this entire problem.

On this particular issue, though, I found the following bits helpful in understanding the decision and how it changes federal policy.

Cecilia Kang of the Washington Post posted a video interview with Ben Scott of Free Press that is well worth watching to understand what is at stake and what is not. For instance, the FCC is not proposing to regulate the Internet so much as the wires and transmissions that allow the Internet to run. As long as Comcast can decide what bits it wants to transport (as in, it will transport bits from CNN but not Fox News, for instance), the open Internet is at risk. Ben Scott also appeared on the excellent Diane Rehm show that asked Who Controls the Internet?

If you really want to get into the nuts and bolts of what the Court said, you never go wrong by starting with an analysis by Harold Feld, who notes (with more authority than I when yelling back at my radio at misinformed tech reporters) that lots of folks are talking about this decision (including a certain FCC Commissioner) without understanding what the ruling actually said.

The FCC does not require an additional grant of power from Congress to enforce network neutrality, as noted by Public Knowledge:

The real tragedy of today’s ruling is that this entire issue is a self-inflicted wound by the FCC. When it decided not to regulate broadband Internet under Title II (by placing cable broadband into Title I and moving DSL broadband from Title II to Title I), it turned its back on a specific delegation of powers from Congress. There would be no debate about ancillary authority if the FCC were to recognize that broadband Internet is a Title II “telecommunications” service. The FCC has the statutory power it needs if it chooses to use it.

Photo used under Creative Commons license from AdamWillis.

Deadline for Network Neutrality Comments Draws Nigh

Keywords:
By christopher on January 11, 2010

The FCC asked for comments on its plans to make rules to protect the open Internet [pdf] from companies that may exert more control over the sites you want to visit in order to boost their profits.

Free Press made the video below to encourage people to comment before the deadline. Though we believe Network Neutrality provisions would be unnecessary with policies that encouraged public ownership and open access, the reality of networks today dictates rules that do not allow Comcast or AT&T to turn the Internet into the wasteland of FM radio today.

SavetheInternet.com makes it easy to comment if you don't have a lot of experience with FCC notices.

Photo used under Creative Commons license from AdamWillis.

Video: 
Link: 
Public Knowledge on Network Neutrality

Network Neutrality and Public Goods

Keywords:
By christopher on October 16, 2009

Following up on my recent piece about Comcast and the public interest, I wanted to note some good arguments for network neutrality.

Teresa Martin penned a good article for capecodtoday.com that noted:

That notion of the public good is a quaint concept, one that has been bludgeoned out of favor over the past 30 years. But maybe it is time to re-think that a little and to take the concept and re-examine it in the face of the 21st century.

Is the Internet part of the larger public good? If so, net neutrality would seem to flow naturally.

Does this impede an operator’s ability to make money? Not at all. But it does prevent the asset from flowing to the highest bidder first. It means that information isn’t given priority based on the pocket book of its sender. It means that the recording industry and the movie industry, two strong opponents of net neutrality, can’t use their profits to buy preferred space in the network and block competition.

Photo used under Creative Commons license from AdamWillis.

Video: 
Link: 
SavetheInternet.com Brief rebutting the old myths against net neutrality
Link: 
An update on the Comcast BitTorrent blocking case

Comcast, Caps, and the Public Interest

Keywords:
By christopher on October 14, 2009

While I try to keep postings on this site to the subject of publicly owned networks, I think it important to discuss the ways in which some major carriers routinely flout the public interest. Thus, a little history on how Comcast has acted against the public interest.

Most of the readers of this blog are probably aware that Comcast has been dinged by the FCC following its practice of interfering with subscribers legal content (and undoubtedly illegal content as well) by blocking and disrupting the BitTorrent traffic. BitTorrent is frequently used to transfer large media files because it efficiently breaks large files into many little pieces, allowing the user to download from a variety of sources concurrently - the file is then reassembled.

When Comcast detected BitTorrent connections, it would effectively hang up on them, regardless of the congestion level on the network at the time. The FCC (the Bush Administration's FCC) said it couldn't do that and Comcast is currently in the courts trying to tell the FCC that it can't tell Comcast what it can't do on its network.

Prior to a journalistic investigation that proved Comcast was doing this, net geeks had repeated asked Comcast if it were blocking the BitTorrent protocol. Comcast never admitted to anything, often claiming it did not "block" anything... as time would go on, Comcast would refuse to admit it was blocking anything - as if permanently delaying traffic was anything other than a blockage. "I'm not blocking you, try back in 20 million years."

Around this time, Comcast quietly changed its policy regarding the maximum amount of bandwidth subscribers could consume in a month. At the time, I thought it was a result of the FCC cracking down on the arbitrary policies frequently used by cable companies, but it turns out we can thank the State of Florida for forcing Comcast to enact a transparent cap on monthly usage.

Prior to the official cap, there was an unofficial cap. Every month, some number of people would be notified they were kicked off Comcast's service for using too much bandwidth - but no one knew how much was too much and, perhaps more importantly, how to keep track of how much bandwidth they were using. Discussions on geek-hangout Slashdot suggested a monthly cap of between 100 Gigabytes and 300 Gigabytes depending on the neighborhood. There was no limit documented anywhere and Comcast representatives refused to acknowledge any hard cap.

In stepped Florida's Attorney General, who reached an agreement with Comcast to create a transparent cap and fined them for their actions.

It turns out that Comcast's "network management" strategy was to take the top 1000 subscribers who used the most bandwidth over a month and disconnect them. Harold Feld had the best reaction:

Comcast is almost certainly telling the truth when it says the highest 1000 users were atypically intense bandwidth consumers. duh. Of course the top 1000 out of 14.4 million will be at the high end of the curve.

No, the more interesting question is what the hell kind of a system is it where Comcast simply goes after the top 1000 users no matter how much they actually use, and why Comcast would adopt such a policy if it wants to reasonably manage network congestion? It seems rather . . . inefficient and arbitrary. Unless, of course, one is trying to save money running a crappy network and generally discourage high-bandwidth use.

Now Comcast has a transparent cap - 250 GB/month - that we still have no way of really knowing how close we come to it (nearly all of us don't come close). Was that so hard? Apparently. Meanwhile, they keep claiming that network neutrality requirements would leave them unable to exercise reasonable network management. How would they even know what reasonable network management is?

Though defining the public interest may be difficult, it is easy to show what is against the public interest: Comcast calls you and tells you that you have to use less bandwidth each month. You ask how much you can use and they say they cannot tell you but you need to use less.

Fortunately, we now know how much is too much. If only we could tell how much we were using...

Photo used under Creative Commons license, courtesy of Titanas on flickr.

Link: 
Coverage from Harold Feld's blog
Link: 
Coverage from Muniwireless.com
Link: 
Comcast Installer Defines Violating the Public Interest
Link: 
Cox Caps Too

FCC Chair: We Need Network Neutrality

Keywords:
By christopher on September 23, 2009

The Chair of the Federal Communications Commission has taken a stand for network neutrality - the founding principle of openness of the Internet. In short, network neutrality means the entity providing you access to the Internet cannot interfere with the sites you choose to visit - it cannot speed them up or slow them down in order to increase their profits. See video at the bottom of this post for a longer explanation.

FCC Chair Julius Genachowski recently spoke at the Brookings Institution [pdf] on the importance of an open Internet. He started by noting many of the ways we depend on services delivered over the Internet:

Even now, the Internet is beginning to transform health care, education, and energy usage for the better. Health-related applications, distributed over a widely connected Internet, can help bring down health care costs and improve medical service. Four out of five Americans who are online have accessed medical information over the Internet, and most say this information affected their decision-making. Nearly four million college students took at least one online course in 2007, and the Internet can potentially connect kids anywhere to the best information and teachers everywhere. And the Internet is helping enable smart grid technologies, which promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by hundreds of millions of metric tons.

However, because most Americans get access to the Internet from large, absentee-owned profit-maximizing companies who are often de facto monopolies, we have to beware the gulf between community interests and the narrow interests of these companies.

A second reason [for network neutrality rules] involves the economic incentives of broadband providers. The great majority of companies that operate our nation’s broadband pipes rely upon revenue from selling phone service, cable TV subscriptions, or both. These services increasingly compete with voice and video products provided over the Internet. The net result is that broadband providers’ rational bottom-line interests may diverge from the broad interests of consumers in competition and choice.

For this reason and others, the Chair suggested adding two new "freedoms" to the four Internet freedoms [pdf] already recognized by the FCC (freedom to access content, use applications, attach personal devices to the network, and obtain service plan information).

The fifth freedom expands on the first two - to access content and applications. Under these rules, providers will be explicitly prohibited from interfering with legal content - something that is currently less clear (which is why Comcast is suing the FCC over its power to enforce this rule).

The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers’ homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed.

And the sixth freedom expands on our previous freedom to obtain service plan information - it expands the required transparency of Internet Service Providers.

The sixth principle is a transparency principle -- stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices. Why does the FCC need to adopt this principle? The Internet evolved through open standards. It was conceived as a tool whose user manual would be free and available to all. But new network management practices and technologies challenge this original understanding. Today, broadband providers have the technical ability to change how the Internet works for millions of users -- with profound consequences for those users and content, application, and service providers around the world.

Note that these are not yet rules, they are potential rules that have to go through the FCC process - something that should be a given as 3 of the 5 FCC Commissioners support Genachowski on the matter and even President Obama has praised the idea.

The LA Times also endorsed the idea, further explaining why it is necessary:

Lobbyists for phone and cable TV companies argue that there's little evidence of ISPs playing unfairly or violating Powell's four freedoms. Yet when the FCC moved to stop Comcast from surreptitiously interfering with a legal file-sharing application last year, Comcast sued, claiming the commission had no power to enforce the principles. It's paradoxical that the government should have to regulate the Internet to preserve its unregulated essence. But with so little competition in broadband service, the major phone and cable companies have the power and the incentive to stop worthy but disruptive innovations in the name of "managing congestion." The FCC should set clear rules that enable ISPs to keep data flowing from all legal services and applications, not just favored ones.

Network Neutrality is a necessary but insufficient rule to protect subscribers. Service providers must not be allowed to interfere with user freedom to boost corporate profits but this is just a small part of the problem outlined by Genachowski above: the divergent interests of profit-maximizing companies and the communities that depend on broadband infrastructure. Community networks are far less likely to interfere with subscriber freedoms, something that will not change even as corporate lobbyists chip away at regulations protecting subscribers from companies like AT&T and Comcast.

Photo used under Creative Commons license from AdamWillis.

Video: 
Link: 
Other places Network Neutrality has come up on MuniNetworks.org
Link: 
Free Press on FCC Statement about Network Neutrality
Link: 
David Isenberg's explanation of how Powell and Martin, previous Chairs of the FCC understood the four freedoms
Link: 
An open letter to the enemies of Net neutrality
Link: 
What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
Link: 
Keeping the Internet Open (Even for Those Who Would Prefer it Closed)

New Network Neutrality Bill

Keywords:
By christopher on August 4, 2009

Representatives Markey and Eshoo have introduced a House bill to preserve network neutrality on the Internet - a means to ensure users are able to choose what sites they visit rather than allowing gatekeepers like AT&T or Comcast to influence the decisions by speeding up or slowing down some sites.

Imagine if AT&T subscribers could access Google twice as fast as Yahoo (or another start up search engine) because Google cut deals with AT&T for preferential treatment. The Internet as we know it would change substantially and innovation would slow because those who could afford to cut deals with major service providers would attract most viewers.

It is important to note that public ownership largely solves the problems that make this bill necessary. Companies that maximize profits above all else are willing to degrade the Internet in order to pad profits whereas networks that put the good of the community above profits tend not to interfere with user freedom. However, we find that for an issue this important, having it reinforced both federally and locally is a good idea.

The bill currently has no additional listed cosponsors. To my knowledge, bills like this tend to do well in the House but die in the Senate. Video from Save The Internet:

I have included the text of the bill below for convenience, but did not include the formatting. You can see it nicely formatted via THOMAS or check out the Free Press' Seven Reasons Why We Need Net Neutrality Now.

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a national broadband policy, safeguard consumer rights, spur investment and innovation, and for related purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Our Nation's economy and society are increasingly dependent on Internet services.

(2) The Internet is an essential infrastructure that is comparable to roads and electricity in its support for a diverse array of economic, social, and political activity.

(3) Internet technologies and services hold the promise of advancing economic growth, fostering investment, creating jobs, and spurring technological innovation.

(4) As the Nation becomes more reliant upon such Internet technologies and services, unfettered access to the Internet to offer, access, and utilize content, services, and applications is vital.

(5) The global leadership in high technology that the United States provides today stems directly from historic policies that embraced competition and openness and that have ensured that telecommunications networks are open to all lawful uses by all users.

(6) The Internet was enabled by those historic policies and provides an open architecture medium for worldwide communications, providing a low barrier to entry for Internet-based content, applications, and services.

(7) Due to legal and marketplace changes, these features of the Internet are no longer certain, and erosion of these historic policies permits telecommunications network operators to control who can and who cannot offer content, services, and applications over the Internet utilizing such networks.

(8) The national economy would be severely harmed if the ability of Internet content, service, and application providers to reach consumers was frustrated by interference from broadband telecommunications network operators.

(9) The overwhelming majority of residential consumers subscribe to Internet access service from 1 of only 2 wireline providers: the cable operator or the telephone company.

(10) Internet access service providers have an economic interest to discriminate in favor of their own services, content, and applications and against other providers.

(11) A network neutrality policy based upon the principle of nondiscrimination and consistent with the history of the Internet's development is essential to ensure that Internet services remain open to all consumers, entrepreneurs, innovators, and providers of lawful content, services, and applications.

(12) A network neutrality policy is also essential to give certainty to small businesses, leading global companies, investors, and others who rely upon the Internet for commercial reasons.

(13) A network neutrality policy can also permit Internet service providers to take action to protect network reliability, prevent unwanted electronic mail, and thwart illegal uses in the same way that telecommunications network operators have historically done consistent with the overarching principle of non-discrimination.

(14) Because of the essential role of Internet services to the economic growth of the United States, to meet other national priorities, and to our right to free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the United States should adopt a clear policy preserving the open nature of Internet communications and networks.

SEC. 3. INTERNET FREEDOM.

Title I of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`SEC. 12. INTERNET FREEDOM.

`(a) Internet Freedom Policy- It is the policy of the United States--

`(1) to protect the right of consumers to access lawful content, run lawful applications, and use lawful services of their choice on the Internet;

`(2) to preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of broadband networks and to enable consumers to connect to such networks their choice of lawful devices, as long as such devices do not harm the network;

`(3) to promote consumer choice and competition among providers of lawful content, applications, and services;

`(4) to ensure that consumers receive meaningful information regarding their communications services;

`(5) to ensure the ability to use or offer lawful broadband content, applications, and services for lawful purposes, as has been the policy and history of the Internet and the basis of user expectations since its inception;

`(6) to guard against discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, lawful content, applications, or services by network operators based upon their source, ownership, or destination on the Internet;

`(7) to preserve the freedom of independent Internet content, application, and service providers to compete and innovate;

`(8) to foster an evolving level of capacity available throughout communications networks to support competition and innovation for lawful Internet content, applications, and services, including applications and services that require substantial downstream and upstream bandwidth; and

`(9) to ensure that the Internet remains an indispensable platform for innovation in the United States economy, thereby enabling the Nation to provide global leadership in online commerce and technological progress.

`(b) Duties of Internet Access Service Providers- With respect to any Internet access service offered to the public, each Internet access service provider shall have the duty to--

`(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use an Internet access service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service through the Internet;

`(2) not impose a charge on any Internet content, service, or application provider to enable any lawful Internet content, application, or service to be offered, provided, or used through the provider's service, beyond the end user charges associated with providing the service to such provider;

`(3) not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching any lawful device to or utilizing any such device in conjunction with such service, provided such device does not harm the provider's network;

`(4) offer Internet access service to any person upon reasonable request therefor;

`(5) not provide or sell to any content, application, or service provider, including any affiliate provider or joint venture, any offering that prioritizes traffic over that of other such providers on an Internet access service; and

`(6) not install or utilize network features, functions, or capabilities that impede or hinder compliance with this section.

`(c) Commission Action- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, the Commission shall promulgate rules to ensure that providers of Internet access service--

`(1) fulfill the duties described in subsection (b);

`(2) disclose meaningful information to consumers about a provider's Internet access service in a clear, uniform, and conspicuous manner and in conformity with the duties described in subsection (e);

`(3) generally, to the extent feasible, make available sufficient network capacity to users to enable the provision, availability, and use of an Internet access service to support lawful content, applications, and services that require high bandwidth communications to and from an end user; and

`(4) not operate Internet access services in an anticompetitive, unreasonable, unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive manner.

`(d) Reasonable Network Management- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an Internet access provider from engaging in reasonable network management consistent with the policies and duties of nondiscrimination and openness set forth in this Act. For purposes of subsections (b)(1) and (b)(5), a network management practice is a reasonable practice only if it furthers a critically important interest, is narrowly tailored to further that interest, and is the means of furthering that interest that is the least restrictive, least discriminatory, and least constricting of consumer choice available. In determining whether a network management practice is reasonable, the Commission shall consider, among other factors, the particular network architecture or technology limitations of the provider.

`(e) Transparency for Consumers- With respect to any Internet access service or private transmission capacity offered to the public, each Internet access service provider shall provide to consumers and make publicly available detailed information about such services, including information about the speed, nature, and limitations of such services. Each Internet access service provider must publicly disclose, at a minimum, network management practices that affect communications between a user and a content, application, or service provider in the ordinary, routine use of such broadband service.

`(f) Stand-Alone Internet Access Service- Within 180 days after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, the Commission shall promulgate rules to ensure that an Internet access service provider does not require a consumer, as a condition on the purchase of any Internet access service offered by such provider, to purchase any other service or offering. The Commission shall adopt any other rules it determines necessary to make such requirement effective and meaningful for consumers.

`(g) Other Services- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, the Commission shall complete all actions necessary to--

`(1) promote an ever-increasing level of Internet access service to end users;

`(2) ensure that such evolving level of service provided to end users is capable of supporting lawful content, applications, and services and provides ample bandwidth for such traffic to and from an end user;

`(3) promote both facilities-based and nonfacilities-based competition to enable information service providers to have marketplace choices for transmission capacity to reach end users;

`(4) define the term `private transmission capacity services';

`(5) clarify whether private transmission capacity services may not be subject to the duties described in subsections (b)(5) and (b)(6);

`(6) ensure that private transmission capacity services do not undermine the purposes of this Act and do not diminish or degrade the level of Internet access service offered to the public by the same provider; and

`(7) ensure that private transmission capacity services are not offered in an anticompetitive, unreasonable, discriminatory, or deceptive manner.

`(h) Implementation- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, the Commission shall--

`(1) prescribe rules to permit any aggrieved person to file a complaint with the Commission concerning any violation of this section;

`(2) establish enforcement and expedited adjudicatory review procedures consistent with the objectives of this section, including the resolution of any complaint described in paragraph (1) not later than 90 days after such complaint was filed, except for good cause shown;

`(3) prescribe rules with respect to the reasonable network management practices described under subsection (d) for all Internet access services; and

`(4) prescribe rules with respect to the appropriate disclosure obligations under subsection (e) for private transmission capacity services.

`(i) Enforcement-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall enforce compliance with this section under title V, except that--

`(A) no forfeiture liability shall be determined under section 503(b) against any person unless such person receives the notice required by section 503(b)(3) or section 503(b)(4); and

`(B) the provisions of section 503(b)(5) shall not apply.

`(2) SPECIAL ORDERS- In addition to any other remedy provided under this Act, the Commission may issue any appropriate order, including an order--

`(A) directing an Internet access service provider to pay damages to a complaining party for a violation of this section or the regulations promulgated pursuant to this section; or

`(B) to enforce the provisions of this section.

`(j) Illegal Conduct- Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to affect any law or regulation addressing prohibited or unlawful activity, including any laws or regulations prohibiting theft of content.

`(k) Definitions- For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

`(1) INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE- The term `Internet access service' means a 2-way transmission offered by an Internet access service provider that transmits information between 2 or more points and that has as its primary, but not exclusive, purpose the enabling of data to be sent or received from the Internet.

`(2) INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE PROVIDER- The term `Internet access service provider' means a person or entity that operates or resells and controls any facility used to provide an Internet access service directly to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free, and whether provided via wire or radio, except when such service is offered as an incidental component of a noncommunications contractual relationship.

`(3) USER- The term `user' means any residential or business subscriber who, by way of an Internet access service, takes and utilizes Internet access services, whether provided for a fee, in exchange for an explicit benefit, or for free.

`(4) REASONABLE NETWORK MANAGEMENT- The term `reasonable network management' shall be defined by the Commission through regulations.'

Photo from Wikimedia Commons.

Syndicate content