As it stands now, the order would prohibit the blocking of any Web sites, applications or devices by fixed-line broadband Internet providers like Comcast and EarthLink, essentially forbidding the providers from picking winners and losers on behalf of consumers, F.C.C. officials said Monday.
The F.C.C. officials also said that the order would broaden the government’s enforcement powers over broadband. They spoke only on condition of anonymity ahead of Tuesday’s meeting on the matter. The F.C.C. order has not been made public.
If approved, the rules “will give some assurances to the companies that are building Web applications — companies like Netflix, Skype, Google — that they will get even treatment on broadband networks,” said Rebecca Arbogast, a regulatory analyst for Stifel Nicolaus, a financial services firm.
The prohibitions, however, are subject to what the F.C.C. calls “reasonable network management,” and they are considerably watered down for wireless providers. “It is by definition a compromise,” Ms. Arbogast said.
Critics have condemned Mr. Genachowski’s proposal as “fake net neutrality.” One of those critics, Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, said over the weekend that the F.C.C. was effectively allowing discrimination on the Internet by adopting weak rules for wireless Internet access.
“Maybe you like Google Maps. Well, tough,” Mr. Franken said on the Senate floor on Saturday. “If the F.C.C. passes this weak rule, Verizon will be able to cut off access to the Google Maps app on your phone and force you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it is not as good. And even if they charge money, when Google Maps is free.”
He continued, “If corporations are allowed to prioritize content on the Internet, or they are allowed to block applications you access on your iPhone, there is nothing to prevent those same corporations from censoring political speech.”
On Monday afternoon, two Democratic commissioners, Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn, the other Democratic commissioners, signaled that the order was not as strong as they would have liked, but that they would not oppose it. Their votes along with Mr. Genachowski’s would be enough to approve the order. Two Republican commissioners, Meredith Baker and Robert McDowell, are expected to oppose it. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, Mr. McDowell asserted that “nothing is broken that needs fixing.”
Mr. Copps staunchly disagreed. In a statement Monday afternoon, following three weeks of discussions with Mr. Genachowski about modifying the order, he said he wanted to ensure that the Internet “doesn’t travel down the same road of special interest consolidation and gate-keeper control that other media and telecommunications industries—radio, television, film and cable—have traveled.”
“What an historic tragedy it would be,” he said, “to let that fate befall the dynamism of the Internet.”
He said he could not wholeheartedly vote to approve the order, but that he would not “not block it by voting against it. I instead plan to concur so that we may move forward.”
Ms. Clyburn said similarly in her own statement, “The open Internet is a crucial American marketplace, and I believe that it is appropriate for the F.C.C. to safeguard it by adopting an order that will establish clear rules to protect consumers’ access. The commission has worked tirelessly to offer a set of guidelines that, while not as strong as they could be, will nonetheless protect consumers as they explore, learn and innovate online. As such, I plan to vote to approve in part and concur in part the Open Internet Order during the F.C.C.’s open meeting tomorrow.”
The Democratic commissioners received sharp rebukes from public interest groups that favor stricter steps toward fair Internet access. Craig Aaron, the managing director of one such group, Free Press, said “these rules appear to be flush with giant loopholes, and the FCC chairman seems far more concerned with winning the endorsement of AT&T and the cable lobbyists than with listening to the millions of Americans who have pleaded with him to fix his proposal.”
Updated
Mr. Genachowski’s office on Monday night released excerpts of the remarks he will give on Tuesday about the net neutrality order. They are reprinted in part below:
As we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the Internet is unprotected. No rules on the books to protect basic Internet values. No process for monitoring Internet openness as technology and business models evolve. No recourse for innovators, consumers, or speakers harmed by improper practices. And no predictability for the Internet service providers, so that they can manage and invest in broadband networks.(The New York Times)
That will change once we vote to approve this strong and balanced order…
On one end of the spectrum, there are those who say government should do nothing at all.
On the other end of the spectrum are those who would adopt a set of detailed and rigid regulations.
I reject both extremes in favor of a strong and sensible framework – one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment.
We are told by some not to try to fix what isn’t broken, and that rules of the road protecting Internet freedom would discourage innovation and investment. But countless innovators and investors say just the opposite, including many who generally oppose government action. Over the course of this proceeding we have heard from so many entrepreneurs, engineers, venture capitalists and others working daily to maintain U.S. leadership in innovation. Their message has been clear: the next decade of innovation in this sector is at risk without sensible rules of the road…
At the same time, while acting to preserve Internet freedom and openness, government must not overreach by imposing rules that are overly restrictive or that pretend to knowledge about this dynamic and rapidly changing marketplace that we simply do not possess.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar