On December 21st, the FCC passed a report and order designed to promulgate net neutrality. The Commission opens its report with three basic rules “grounded in broadly accepted Internet norms, as well as [its] own prior decisions”:
The report has received mixed criticism from both proponents of net neutrality as well as those who oppose regulation. Many neutrality proponents say the regulations fall far short of what they could (and perhaps should) have been – some go further and argue that the regulations essentially codify an approval of corporate censorship. Particularly at issue in the regulations is an exemption for mobile carriers.
Mobile Carriers
Per the new regulations, wire-based broadband carriers are prohibited from blocking legal web content, applications and services, subject to “reasonable network management” (a phrase heavily debated by critics of the report). Exempted from this rule are mobile broadband carriers, who are only prohibited from blocking voice or video telephony services which compete with their own services, a process which will be monitored by the FCC. This means that wireless providers will be able to block certain types of traffic or, as WIRED.com’s Ryan Singel suggests, will allow wireless providers to charge more for users to access certain websites. Many believe that the internet is moving away from wire-based and toward wireless services, which makes this exception particularly concerning. Singel examines a PowerPoint slide, allegedly used during a web seminar between Allot Communications and Openet (suppliers to wireless companies), which suggests that users may soon be charged 2 cents per MB to use Facebook or 50 cents monthly to use Youtube. Facebook recently topped Google as the most visited website in the United States, making up 8.9% of all internet traffic.
Many view a plan like this as a form of double-charging: Not only can mobile providers charge users for a certain amount of bandwidth allotted per month, they can also charge users to access certain websites. Proponents of a neutral net cry foul, citing this as a violation of their image of a single, free internet. Free Press Managing Director Craig Aaron states that the rules “don’t do enough to stop the phone and cable companies from dividing the Internet into fast and slow lanes, and they fail to protect wireless users from discrimination. No longer can you get to the same Internet via your mobile device as you can via your laptop.”
Whether Aaron’s concerns play out will remain to be seen. Nevertheless, the Powerpoint slide that Singel examines is a cause for concern: the increasing popularity of high-bandwidth services like video streaming will only give companies more reasons to charge users for access to such websites. The Economist suggests that the solution comes not from a different regulatory regime, but by imposing a data limit on both fixed (or wire-based) and mobile (wireless) networks.