 |
FCC Chairman Claims He Will Protect Internet Openness |
 |
The Washington Post reports this morning that Federal Communication Commission Chairman Kevin Martin has suggested his agency is ready to intervene to stop internet providers like Comcast from controlling what information users can access over the Internet. “The commission is ready, willing and able to step in,” said Martin yesterday, at a hearing held at Harvard that involved representatives from Internet providers as well as scholars and advocates of Internet openness. Some analysis from the Post:
The issue is among the most hotly debated in technology. Comcast and other service-providers say they must be able to control the flow of information over their networks in order to ensure quality service and to protect their multi-billion dollar investments. Proponents of openness rules said Comcast’s admission that it controls its own network unfairly restricts what users can do online…Industry watchers said the chairman’s comments were his strongest yet against the carriers. The prospect of punishment for those who violate the FCC’s 2005 policy statement safeguarding net neutrality could pave the way for legislative action, some analysts said. With the backing of Martin, a Republican, the FCC’s two Democratic commissioners — both supporters of net neutrality — would have the majority.
Call me a cynic, but to me Martin’s comments seem suspicious. A Bush appointee (whose wife, by the way, works in Dick Cheney’s office), he is considered a proponent of media deregulation, while he is best known for his efforts to crackdown on “indecency.” His agenda favors big telecoms but hammers the cable industry, generally allowing media ownership consolidation while seeking to establish government controls over content. Martin is famous for his secretive and suppressive management style at the FCC, so it should come as no surprise that he has not historically been an advocate of consumer access to free, transparent and unadulterated information.
Far more characteristic of Martin’s stance, for instance, was the FCC’s major recent decision to lift a long-time ban on “cross ownership,” meaning broadcasters in the nation’s largest local markets can now own other media outlets such as newspapers and radio stations. As reported here by the Seminal, this move (voted against by Democrats) encourages media consolidation, further restricting market access for local news outlets as well as consumer choices for how and from whom we get our information.
And while Kevin Martin’s latest comments on net neutrality seem to express the view of his Democratic rivals at the FCC, who tend to support transparency and open competition, many have noted they were also squarely aimed at Comcast. Comcast Corporation is the country’s second largest internet service provider, but it is also its largest cable provider, and is therefore the most frequent target of the Chairman’s obsessive attacks on cable television content.
Martin’s comments at Harvard thus raise questions about his commitment to net neutrality for its own sake. Let us hope his suggestion that the FCC would intervene to prohibit traffic controls and protect Internet openness is more than just lip service or tactical threats.
From everything I’ve read it seems as though Comcast’s network management, while inconveniencing some users, benefits the overwhelming majority of them. If p2p applications were not shaped then they would consume so much bandwidth that the network would become so slow that it would hinder average users. The fact remains that a majority of users do not use BitTorrent and yet it is BitTorrent that is the greatest contributor of network congestion. It is logical that ISPs would have to manage their network, networks can not handle an unlimited amount of information simultaneously. In order to ensure the best Internet experience for the most users it seems that this type of management is necessary.
Of course, this doesn’t seem to be a problem in countries with net neutrality, like Japan or Europe.
Simply put, allowing Comcast to shape traffic give business and incentive to offer worse service to their users instead of building out and investing in more bandwidth. If we allow Comcast to shape traffic, what incentive do they have to widen the pipes? If you want faster, cheaper Internet access, then you want net neutrality.