Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), laid out the plan in a speech here describing it as "an important milestone in our effort to protect Internet freedom and openness."

The five-member FCC is to vote on the draft rules at a meeting on December 21. They come amid a legal setback to the commission's authority in April and resistance from some Republican lawmakers in the US Congress to what they see as unnecessary government regulation.

The rules are a balancing act by the FCC between support for consumers and network neutrality, the principle that Web traffic should be treated equally, and the telecom firms that are the major Internet Service Providers.

Genachowski said FCC intervention was needed to counter "real risks to the Internet's continued freedom and openness."

"Broadband providers have natural business incentives to leverage their position as gatekeepers to the Internet," the FCC chairman said.

"We have seen clear deviations from the Internet's openness -- instances when broadband providers have prevented consumers from using the applications of their choice without disclosing what they were doing.

"The proposed open Internet framework is designed to guard against these risks, while recognizing the legitimate needs and interests of broadband providers," he said.

Genachowski said the proposed rules would "prohibit the blocking of lawful content, apps, services" and bar "unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful network traffic."

At the same time, he said, "broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage their networks -- for example, to deal with traffic that's harmful to the network or unwanted by users, and to address the effects of congestion."

In a move that drew criticism from "net neutrality" supporters, Genachowski drew a distinction between fixed and mobile broadband but stressed the FCC was ready to "step in to further address anti-competitive or anti-consumer conduct" in the management of wireless networks.

Genachowski endorsed extending to fixed broadband providers the metered pricing plans already practiced by some wireless carriers, citing the need for "measures to match price to cost such as usage-based pricing."

Noting that metered pricing is already practiced by wireless carriers for devices such as Apple's iPad, a senior FCC official reiterated later that the commission has "a level of comfort with usage-based pricing."

The FCC official also said he believed the FCC had the legal standing to proceed, despite a court ruling in April that it had not been granted the authority by Congress to regulate the network management practices of ISPs.

The FCC draft rules met with a mixed reaction.

US telecom giant AT&T said its "strong preference" would be for no FCC regulation at all but the proposed rules appear to be "a compromise solution that is sensitive to the dynamics of investment in a difficult economy."

Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy & Technology, said the "critical question of protections" for wireless Internet users "appear limited in the current proposal."

Ed Black, president and chief executive of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, said the new rules had been "drastically watered down."

"If the FCC doesn't take effective steps to keep access to the Internet content neutral, the dominant phone and cable companies will have the power and latitude to control bandwidth and prioritize content and users according to their whims and parochial interests," Black said.

earlier related report
Comcast, Netflix partner feud over 'open Internet'
Washington (AFP) Nov 30, 2010 - A dispute between US cable giant Comcast and a networking company that streams online movies from Netflix is being cast as a potential battle for an open Internet.

The tussle between Comcast and Level 3 Communications Inc., a Colorado-based firm, is being closely watched by proponents of "net neutrality," the principle that Internet service providers should treat all Web traffic equally.

The disagreement became public Monday when Level 3 complained that Comcast for the first time was demanding a "recurring fee" from Level 3 to transmit online movies and other content to Comcast's customers.

Level 3 said Comcast's actions amounted to erecting a "toll booth" around its broadband network while Comcast said the matter was a simple commercial tiff in which Level 3 was seeking to gain an unfair advantage over its rivals.

Whatever the case, the conflict drew the attention of US regulators on Tuesday with Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), saying that his staff would be looking into it.

Genachowski, whose efforts to promote "net neutrality" have met resistance from telecom companies and Republican lawmakers, also announced late Tuesday that the FCC would discuss open Internet rules at a December 21 open meeting.

"These rules would protect consumers' and innovators' right to know basic information about broadband service, right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic, and right to a level playing field, while providing broadband Internet access providers with the flexibility to reasonably manage their networks," the FCC said.

Level 3 operates what is known as "broadband backbone network," transmitting online content such as movies and games to Comcast for delivery to consumers.

Earlier this month, Level 3 signed a contract with movie rental giant Netflix that Comcast said would result in Level 3 sending five times more traffic to Comcast than Comcast sends to Level 3.

Under a long-running and standard industry arrangement known as "peering," Comcast said that it had asked Level 3 to pay a fee to make up for the traffic imbalance.

Level 3, however, accused Comcast of "effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network" and charging for online content which competes with its own cable television programming.

"This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access markets as the nation's largest cable provider," Level 3 said.

Further complicating the issue, is Comcast's proposed acquisition of NBC Universal, a deal that is awaiting the approval of US authorities and one that would give Comcast, the largest US cable television and high-speed broadband provider, an entertainment empire to rival that of The Walt Disney Co.

"After being informed by Comcast that its demand for payment was 'take it or leave it,' Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions," the Colorado company said.

Comcast senior vice president Joe Waz rejected the Level 3 accusations.

"There is nothing about this dispute with Level 3 that concerns an effort by Comcast either to resist carrying Internet video traffic or imposing new 'tolls' on it," Waz said in a blog post.

"This is all about Level 3 gaining an unfair advantage over its competitors by gaining enormous additional capacity at no cost to itself, instead shifting the financial costs to Comcast's high speed data customers," he said.

"The bottom line is that this is a good, old-fashioned commercial peering dispute," Waz said. "It is not about online video, it is not a net neutrality issue.

"And it does not involve putting 'toll booths' on the Internet."

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News