4G and the FCC: Wireless Meets Net Neutrality; Does 'Open' Mean Governed?

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed two new “Internet Freedoms” this week, with a focus on including wireless services into the discussion on Net Neutrality.

 

Originally the four freedoms included the right to access content, use applications, attach personal devices and obtain service plan information. These freedoms, called “principles,” in effect were designed to support the concept of a deregulated market.

 

At the time of the 1996 act, which replaces the structure of divestiture, the goal was to enable telecom competition for access. The act of 1996 did not consider the Internet as an access right. The Four Freedoms then were a framework for regulating the data services associated with the Internet.

 

Now the promise of 4G technologies to deliver low cost access alternatives to rural areas warrants their inclusion in the framework. “I am convinced that there are few goals more essential than preserving and maintaining an open and robust Internet,” Genachowski said.

 

The two new principles are transparency and non-discrimination.

 

The concepts behind the non-discrimination freedom set a framework for rules about traffic management. In effect, lawful traffic should not be blocked or suffer from a degradation of service. Systems that are designed to prioritize traffic may have optimization services, but in effect have a must carry component as well. However, the issues associated with high bandwidth users causing problems for the majority of users were highlighted and may mean further definition of this principle may be inevitable.

 

The concept behind transparency is aimed at coping with that ambiguity by requiring the service to be understandable for the end user to make a choice and understand the value being offered in delivering the service. However, it should be noted that the Internet itself has never had a definition of service levels associated with it, since this system is designed to transport on the principles of best effort traffic management.

 

Additionally in the prepared remarks were some potentially ominous discussions regarding the delivery of solutions where discrimination may not be directly associated with the carrier. This may be include some of the concerns associated with Apple’s response to the Google Voice controversy.

 

Other parts of the remarks led to responses from the republican members of the commission pointing out their concerns that the Internet has flourished as a result of deregulation and the guidelines should not hinder the successful hands off strategy that has worked to date.

 

Additionally the jurisdiction of the FCC as to what enables it the right to regulate these principles is unclear since much of the framework could be considered beyond the scope of the FCC’s mandate.

 

This last issue is being argued in the court as Comcast has filed that the FCC had no regulatory jurisdiction when it rendered fines on Comcast for blocking Bit Torrent traffic.

 

The question of governance and openness are hot topics of discussion and will be in contention for this administration.