All posts tagged ‘Net Neutrality’

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski presides over an open-internet meeting in March 2010.

In a closely watched vote, the Federal Communications Commission approved compromise net neutrality rules Tuesday that would forbid the nation’s largest cable and DSL internet service providers from blocking or slowing online services, while leaving wireless companies with much more latitude.

After five years of contentious debate that polarized the tech-policy world, FCC chief Julius Genachowski made good on President Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to strengthen rules governing the nation’s ISPs. The measure, which passed 3-2 along party lines, did not go as far as supporters would have liked, but the FCC faced steep resistance from Republicans and the powerful telecom lobbying machine.

The FCC’s order is a milestone in the multiyear battle over so-called “net neutrality,” which is the principle that broadband service providers shouldn’t be able to interfere with or block web traffic, or favor their own services at the expense of smaller rivals. Without net neutrality — which ensures that everyone has open access to the internet — revolutionary web startups like Google, Facebook and Twitter may never have gotten off the ground, proponents argue.

The three new rules, which will go into effect early next year, force ISPs to be transparent about how they handle network congestion, prohibit them from blocking traffic such as Skype on wired networks, and outlaw “unreasonable” discrimination on those networks, meaning they can’t put a competing online video service in the slow lane to benefit their own video services.

The measure pleased few, and provoked howls of outrage from those who say the it will either stifle broadband investment, or not do enough to keep online innovation thriving. Net neutrality advocates on Obama’s left flank were not impressed.

“Despite promising to fulfill President Obama’s campaign promise of enacting network neutrality rules to protect an open Internet, the FCC has instead prioritized the profits of corporations like AT&T over those of the general public, internet entrepreneurs and local businesses across the country,” said Sascha Meinrath, director of the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative.

Meinrath served on Obama’s idealistic technology, media and telecom working group during the 2008 campaign — Genachowski was in charge of the group. Google CEO Eric Schmidt is the Chairman of New America’s board, but that hasn’t stopped Meinrath from ripping the search giant in the past.

Google declined to comment.

During the meeting, Genachowski chided what he called “extremists” on both sides for their “chutzpah.” He said the new rules would advance the administration’s goal of making America’s broadband system the “freest and fastest in the world.”

So what actually has changed here? Although there is much sound and fury being devoted to the new rules, in reality, they differ little from the principles put into place by former Republican FCC chairman Michael Powell in 2005. Those principles set the foundation for the concepts of transparency, nondiscrimination and reasonable network management at the heart of the FCC’s present order.

Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company, offered cautious support for the new rules.

“While we look forward to reviewing the final order, the rules as described generally appear intended to strike a workable balance between the needs of the marketplace for certainty and everyone’s desire that internet openness be preserved,” Comcast executive vice president David L. Cohen said in a statement. “Most importantly, this approach removes the cloud of Title II regulation that would unquestionably have harmed innovation and investment in the Internet and broadband infrastructure.”

The need for the new rules largely stemmed from Comcast’s court challenge to the FCC, after the regulatory agency ordered Comcast to never again block peer-to-peer file sharing. In April, a federal judge ruled that the FCC’s legal basis for the order was inadequate, essentially neutering the agency’s ability to regulate internet access providers.

Comcast, AT&T and Verizon had vigorously opposed an earlier FCC plan — which still technically exists on the FCC docket, which would have reclassified broadband as a communications service. That would have given the commission clear authority to enforce net neutrality, but opponents likened it to returning to the days of government regulation of the phone network.

Today’s order does not formally extend the protections to wireless networks, nor does it prohibit so-called “paid prioritization,” in which the broadband companies could create high-speed, high-priced fast lanes for premium customers. In fact, the order goes so far as to actually create a new category of internet service — so called “specialized services.”

Industry experts predict that the rules face almost certain challenge in federal court. Just minutes after the meeting ended, Verizon Wireless, the largest mobile provider in the country, said it was “deeply concerned” by the FCC’s move.

“Based on today’s announcement, the FCC appears to assert broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband wireline and wireless networks and the internet itself,” Tom Tauke, Verizon’s executive vice president of public affairs, policy and communications, said in a statement. “This assertion of authority without solid statutory underpinnings will yield continued uncertainty for industry, innovators and investors. In the long run, that is harmful to consumers and the nation.”

Verizon did not say if it would seek to challenge the new rules in federal court, but most industry observers expect an eventual legal showdown, whether it involves Verizon or one of the other broadband giants.

“Because the rules are very high-level, their meaning and impact will be determined by how the facts on the ground develop over the next few years, and thus we expect the battle will continue in the marketplace and through FCC case-by-case enforcement, as well as in Congress and the courts,” Rebecca Arbogast, managing director at Stifel Nicolaus, wrote in a note to clients.

“We expect the order to come under attack from Republicans in Congress and from stakeholder critics in court,” Arbogast added.

The meeting exposed the bitter philosophical and ideological differences that have pitted supporters of net neutrality with opponents, including the big broadband companies and their allies, who say the rules are an unnecessary burden on a system that works just fine.

“We are skeptical Republicans will gain enough Democratic support to undo the FCC order and could also face a presidential veto if they get a bill through Congress, while litigation prospects will depend on the strength of the FCC’s order, the parties that are challenging it, and the court that hears the case,” Arbogast wrote.

The formal order has not been released yet, because the FCC needs to incorporate the majority’s response to the written dissents of the commissioners who disagree with the order. FCC officials said it could take a few days before the order is made public.

The FCC did, however, release some key snippets from the order, which you can read below.

Snippets of Net Neutrality Order

Additional reporting by Ryan Singel.

Follow us for disruptive tech news: Sam Gustin and Epicenter on Twitter.

Photo Credit: Flickr/Greg Elin

See Also:

• FCC Announces Net Neutrality Order for December Meeting
• Mobile Carriers Dream of Charging per Page
• Telecom Giants Cheer FCC Plan, Net Neutrality Advocates Aren’t Amused
• FCC Delays Net Neutrality Vote — Again
• Did Republican House Landslide Kill Net Neutrality?
• Net Neutrality Groups Push for FCC Action to Buck GOP Tide
• FCC Backs Net Neutrality — And Then Some
• Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey
• Appeals Court Throttles FCC’s Net Neutrality Authority
• Dems Go Populist on Net Neutrality
• FCC Delays Net Neutrality Over Mobile, ‘Managed’ Services
• Net Neutrality Advocates In Charge Of Obama Team Review of FCC
• Commission Ready To Act in Net Neutrality Fight, Says FCC Chief
• Google, Verizon, Net Neutrality and The Grateful Dead

Just a week before the FCC holds a vote on whether to apply fairness rules to some of the nation’s internet service providers, two companies that sell their services to the country’s largest cellular companies showed off a different vision of the future: one where you’ll have to pay extra to watch YouTube or use Facebook.

The companies, Allot Communications and Openet — suppliers to large wireless companies including AT&T and Verizon — showed off a new product in a web seminar Tuesday, which included a PowerPoint presentation (1.5-MB .pdf) that was sent to Wired by a trusted source.

The idea? Make it possible for your wireless provider to monitor everything you do online and charge you extra for using Facebook, Skype or Netflix. For instance, in the seventh slide of the above PowerPoint, a Vodafone user would be charged two cents per MB for using Facebook, three euros a month to use Skype and $0.50 monthly for a speed-limited version of YouTube. But traffic to Vodafone’s services would be free, allowing the mobile carrier to create video services that could undercut NetFlix on price.

In short, you’d have a hard time creating a better graphic of the future that net neutrality advocates warn will be imminent if the federal government does not apply fairness rules to the mobile internet. A court struck down an earlier set of fairness rules in the spring, but it was never clear if those rules applied to wireless carriers.

“It certainly is exactly the thing we have been warning the companies will do if they have the opportunity and explains why AT&T and Verizon are so insistent that the wireless rules be solely about blocking and not anything else,” said Public Knowledge legal director Harold Feld. “If you want the slide deck to show why we need the same rules for wireless and wireline, this is it.”

The FCC is set to adopt some net neutrality provisions Tuesday, but they will not apply to mobile devices.

Feld says the slide shows that the wireless companies’ seemingly successful fight to not have net neutrality rules apply to them is not about a desire to make sure that critical services get priority.

“It’s not about wirelessly monitoring people’s pacemaker data,” Feld said. “Its about charging you extra to access Facebook.”

In fact, it looks suspiciously similar to a graphic created by a net neutrality advocate to satirize the dreams of ISPs.

The ideas don’t look too different from the way cable companies price their video offerings, with different packages of programming at different levels.

Continue reading …

Amid the cacophony of reactions to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski’s proposed internet openness rules, one group has been conspicuously absent — the world’s largest internet companies.

Not any more.

On Thursday, the Open Internet Coalition, a diverse interest group that represents Google, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Skype, Amazon, eBay, and scores of other internet-dependent companies, will run ads in two prominent Washington, D.C., publications — Politico and The Hill — expressing their displeasure with Chairman Genachowski’s new compromise rules.

The Open Internet Coalition participated in the now-infamous closed-door talks held by FCC Chief of Staff Edward Lazarus last summer. It didn’t end well. Markham Erickson, the respected tech policy lawyer who is Executive Director of the OIC, confirmed the authenticity of the ads in a phone conversation with Wired.com Wednesday evening.

In their ads, for which the group paid tens of thousands of dollars, OIC makes a simple point: What Chairman Genachowski is proposing isn’t real net neutrality.

This is the ad copy (emphasis original):

“President Obama promised to protect the open internet,” the ad reads. “That means no gatekeepers. That means no internet access providers building toll roads or blocking traffic.”

Here the group is making a not-so veiled reference to Comcast, which this week startled internet users after the cable giant got into a screaming match with backbone provider Level 3 over streaming video.

“It’s called net neutrality, and it’s not a new regulation. It’s the way the internet has always worked.”

Here the group is trying to make the point that net neutrality is the de facto standard on the web — which is why a lot of people take it for granted. The Open Internet Coalition wants to keep it that way.

“Our companies, public internet groups, and millions of Americans are united in support of real Net Neutrality without paid prioritization that applies to wired and wireless connections.”

Here OIC is taking a shot at Chairman Genachowski over what the group sees as a wimpy stance. Real net neutrality is code for “Title II” re-classification, which apparently scares the bejeezus out of Genachowski. That would have put ISPs like Comcast in the same regulatory category as the phone company, and left no doubt as to its authority to prevent abusive behavior by the companies that control the nation’s internet pipes.

“The FCC is poised to act. We join President Obama in our support of real Net Neutrality. Americans should expect nothing less.”

Ok, thanks for clearing that up guys.

Full list of OIC members after the jump:

Five years after the federal government first began considering rules designed to keep the internet free from meddling by the huge phone and cable companies, the nation’s top communications regulator is finally set to take action. But the agency’s approach means the case will almost certainly wind up in federal court.

On December 21st, the Federal Communications Commission is set to vote on rules to protect network neutrality, the principle that broadband companies shouldn’t block or degrade rival web content, services or applications. The FCC said Wednesday that Chairman Julius Genachowski would address the topic in a live webcast starting at 10:30 a.m. ET during which he was expected to outline the agency’s approach.

President Obama included net neutrality in his campaign promises, but even before the Republicans took over the House in the November elections, there was fierce resistance from Republicans and members of Obama’s own party.

Genachowski appears to have the votes needed — at least three out of the five commissioners — to establish the new rules under so-called “Title 1″ authority, a centrist approach that shies away from reclassifying broadband as a “Title II” communications service, a move fiercely opposed by the telecommunications industry. Still, any move to establish net neutrality rules will likely cause a political firestorm with Republicans and centrist Democrats in Congress.

On the eve of the decision, a bitter war of words erupted between cable giant Comcast and internet backbone provider Level 3 over broadband policy.

The spat was prompted by revelations that the nation’s largest cable company could interfere with Netflix, the upstart online movie service that competes with Comcast’s own video offering Xfinity. One of Level 3’s biggest clients is Netflix, whose customers account for an estimated 20 percent of net traffic during peak evening hours.

Comcast wants to charge Level 3 more for the increased bandwidth usage; Level 3 doesn’t want to pay. Comcast says it’s a business dispute; Level 3 calls it a matter of internet freedom.

The FCC said it is investigating.

The fight between the two corporate giants provoked an explosive reaction from net neutrality proponents and activist groups who marshaled their forces for a last ditch effort to sway the FCC. In less than 48 hours, over 80,000 people had signed an online petition urging the FCC to act to “stop this type of abuse — and protect Net Neutrality.”

Many advocates of net neutrality believe that the most effective way to ensure internet freedom — in the long term — is through new legislation from Congress. But with anti-regulatory Republicans taking over the House of Representatives there is virtually no chance of that happening for at least two years. So, advocates say, it’s up to Genachowski.

Republicans have been lashing out at possible FCC action for years. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, the outspoken Tennessee Republican who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee pledged Tuesday to overturn the rules.

“This is a hysterical reaction by the FCC to a hypothetical problem,” said Blackburn. Genachowski “has little if any congressional support for net neutrality.”

Since her election in 2002 to represent the “Volunteer State,” Rep. Blackburn has received $114,000 in campaign payments from AT&T, Verizon, and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association; her second, third, and fifth top career contributors, respectively, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Meanwhile, AT&T met with FCC Chief of Staff Edward Lazarus six times in the last month to make its views on the matter known.

In many ways, the net neutrality argument has mirrored a broader philosophical debate — all too familiar to Americans — about the role of government in the United States.

Huge corporations and their ideological allies have advocated a vision of free market capitalism unfettered by burdensome regulation that, they argue, threatens to hamper their businesses. Public interest groups and consumer advocates have argued that regulation is needed to protect people and the market itself from abuse by the nation’s highly profitable and politically connected cable and telecom companies.

The internet is different from other industries that have become flash-points for the debate over government regulation. There is no catastrophic oil-slick befouling the coastline and devastating local economies. There is no institutionalized system of mortgage fraud or predatory lending. There is no out-of-control speculation on toxic investments that nearly bankrupted the country.

In this case, a de facto state of net neutrality exists on the internet at present.

Most people take this idea for granted every day while using online services, devices, browsers and software. To the big cable and telecom giants like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable, ignorance = money. So, they’ve compared new rules enforcing internet freedom to a “solution without a problem.”

But net neutrality rules are critically important to the health of the internet, advocates argue, because without them cable and telephone giants could block or slow down certain types of content, like bittorrent or YouTube, prevent or discriminate against against certain web services and applications like Netflix or Skype, or even censor free speech on websites they deem objectionable.

They could also try to create a private, ultrafast virtual highway designed for their own next-generation video products — think bandwidth-intensive applications like 3D-video to the home.

This cleaving of the internet could have grave and unintended consequences because it could decrease the incentive and the possibility for smart young entrepreneurs to create the next Google or Facebook or YouTube on the newly “public” internet, as Google CEO Eric Schmidt has taken to calling it.

In short, advocates argue, net neutrality is like a First Amendment for the 21st century: the broadband giants shall not infringe upon the freedom to access the open internet.

For their part, net neutrality opponents seem content simply to ask Americans to trust Comcast, AT&T and Verizon to respect internet openness and freedom, or to be forced to respond to customer outrage.

We’ll self-govern, the cable and telecom giants say.

Ask yourself: do you trust these companies to look out for your rights?

One year ago, the FCC seemed well on its way to implementing basic net neutrality rules and even expanding them to cover wireless as well.

But last April, a federal court ruled that the agency lacked the authority to enforce the principles established in 2004 by then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell, a Bush-appointee. Those simple principles held that consumers had the right to use the devices, software and online services of their choice, and have competition between ISPs. Genachowski had hoped to expand on those, but now even those most basic rights appear to have no basis in law.

Powell’s successor, Bush-appointee Kevin Martin, used those principles in 2008 to sanction cable giant Comcast for blocking peer-to-peer traffic. But the court ruled that Comcast was correct: the Bush-era deregulation of broadband, had, in fact, eviscerated the FCC’s power to enforce the rules.

That leaves the FCC where it is now — largely powerless over internet policy and facing a political juggernaut from Republicans and their well-funded cable and telecom allies. See you in court.

(Updated 12:16 a.m. 12/1 to include FCC announcement.)

(Updated 9:18 a.m. 12/1 to include word of Genachowski webcast)

Photo: FCC head Julius Genachowski told John Heilemann on stage at Web 2.0 Summit 2010 in early November that net neutrality rules were coming. Credit: James Duncan Davidson

Follow us for disruptive tech news: Sam Gustin and Epicenter on Twitter.

It’s like Groundhog Day — without Sonny and Cher.

The federal government has again delayed a highly anticipated vote on rules designed to keep the internet free from meddling by the huge phone and cable companies. The Federal Communications Commission has pushed back its December meeting by one week — from Dec. 15 to Dec. 21 — which means the agency doesn’t have to publish the meeting agenda until next week. That means the public won’t know if new rules will be taken up or what form they will take until next week.

Without informing the public, the federal government simply changed the meeting date on its website.

That means more uncertainty for both the public and the broadband industry over the government’s plans to regulate the internet. It’s just the latest delay by the government on the issue of network neutrality, the principle that broadband companies should shouldn’t block or degrade rival web content, services or applications. The delay also pushes the FCC’s meeting to the week of Christmas, typically a slow news week.

“An extra week will help us evaluate potential agenda items for December,” Jen Howard, press secretary at the FCC, told Wired.com.

Net neutrality proponents and opponents have been deeply divided over whether the FCC should reclassify broadband to put it back into the same bucket as the phone service – essentially a traditional telecom, rather than treating it as an “information service,” to which few rules apply.

Reclassifying broadband as “Title II” would allow the FCC to impose common carrier rules – requiring ISPs to deliver all legitimate traffic and allowing users to use whatever software they like, just as the phone company must complete all calls and let you use whatever phone you like. But opponents say that would be shackling a new industry to an old category of regulations, even if it that’s the logical category and the FCC promises to waive off onerous rules, such as price regulation.

“If it takes an extra week for the FCC to do what the public has been telling it to do for several years now, so be it,” said Tim Karr, campaign director for Free Press, a nonprofit group that advocates for internet freedom. “The process has run its course and the overwhelming majority of public comments have urged the FCC to create real net neutrality protections.”

Color of Change, a web-based African-American advocacy group, isn’t backing down from Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Illinois, pictured at left), who attacked the group for asking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to block him from taking a key spot on a technology committee because of his close ties to AT&T and other telecoms.

Late last week, Color of Change Executive Director James Rucker sent Pelosi a letter in which he said expressed “grave doubts that Congressman Rush is capable of being an honest broker on important telecommunications matters.”

During his congressional career, Rush has received $78,964 from AT&T — his second largest career contributor. He’s also gotten $43,499 from the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and $42,000 from Verizon, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

“Congressman Rush has repeatedly supported the interests of the telecommunications industry over the interests of regular people, and has been a fierce opponent of network neutrality,” Rucker wrote. Color of Change has 800,000 online members. Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers shouldn’t pick favorites on the web or discriminate against rival content.

The spat between Rush, one of the most senior African-American members of Congress and a former Black Panther, and Color of Change, an upstart internet organizing group, highlights a growing generational fissure in the civil rights community over broadband policy, and in particular, network neutrality. Color of Change, which was founded in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina and was a part of the coalition that helped elect President Barack Obama in 2008, has been a vocal proponent of net neutrality.

In response, Rush issued a statement in which he said: “I will not allow the Silicon Valley funded Color of Change.Org group, which purports to ’strengthen Black America’s political voice’ through the Internet, to call into question my integrity and honesty to lead the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet as its Ranking Member.”

“The notion that this Silicon Valley-controlled group should have the only word on what is in the best interests of people of color is foolish,” Rush added. “When an organization rents a Silicon Valley glass house, they ought to be careful about throwing stones.”

Now, Color of Change has responded, issuing a statement in which Rucker said: “Congressman Rush’s baseless attack on ColorOfChange is a weak attempt to distract the public from the fact that he has reliably and consistently championed telecom-industry profits over the interests of everyday Americans.” Rucker added. “In the realm of telecommunications, Congressman Rush can’t be counted on to fight hard for regular folks when the chips are down.”

Rucker took particular issue with Rush’s characterization that Color of Change is “Silicon Valley-controlled.” Rucker called that “a laughable claim” given the group’s August protest outside Google headquarters against the search giant’s net neutrality compromise with Verizon.

Rush has generally been seen as the leading contender to become the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. It’s up to the members of the committee to make the final determination, but Pelosi’s endorsement is clearly important. A representative for Pelosi did not immediately return a request for comment.

The founder of an influential, left-leaning web-based organization that advocates on African-American issues is asking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to oppose the candidacy of Bobby Rush (D-Illinois, pictured at left), who is African-American, to become the ranking member on the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet.

The reason?

“Congressman Rush has repeatedly supported the interests of the telecommunications industry over the interests of regular people, and has been a fierce opponent of network neutrality,” James Rucker, executive director of Color of Change, which has 800,000 online members, wrote in a letter to Pelosi Thursday.

Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers shouldn’t pick favorites on the web or discriminate against rival content. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is under intense pressure from his left flank to establish rules protecting net neutrality — and he has said those rules are forthcoming. Meanwhile, incoming Republicans are threatening to put the FCC on ice and warning him not to act on the issue, following the telecom party line that regulation is overkill since competition will preserve a fair internet.

Net neutrality backers argue that without regulation, the nation’s telecoms will unfairly discriminate against content, warping an open platform that has allowed services such as Google, Netflix and Pandora to thrive.

Rucker made it clear where he thinks Rush’s allegiances lie.

“I have grave doubts that Congressman Rush is capable of being an honest broker on important telecommunications matters,” Rucker, who headed grassroots mobilization for MoveOn.org Political Action from 2003-2005, wrote. “AT&T, America’s oldest and largest telecommunications company, has long been one of the largest donors to Congressman Rush’s campaign committee and leadership PAC.

“In addition, from 2001 to 2004 the company donated $1 million to a community center Rush founded in Chicago – an off-the-books donation that could lead one to wonder about the prospect of quid pro quo regarding the Congressman and AT&T,” Rucker added.

During his congressional career, Rush has received $78,964 from AT&T. The telecom giant is Rush’s second largest career contributor, which is also true for the leading Republican candidate to run the committee, Fred Upton (R-Michigan). Rush’s other top donors include the National Cable and Telecommunications Association ($43,499), and Verizon ($42,000), according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Color of Change was founded in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina and was an important part of the grassroots coalition that helped elect President Barack Obama in 2008. The group has also been active in recent media battles, opposing conservative personalities such as Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart.

The fact that a group dedicated to empowering African-Americans, which devoted so much time to getting Obama elected, has come out strongly against one of the House’s senior African-American members — and a former Black Panther — demonstrates how important the issue of net neutrality remains among Obama’s base. In August, Rucker led a protest outside Google headquarters expressing displeasure with the search giant’s net neutrality compromise with Verizon.

A spokesperson for Rush did not immediately return a request for comment on Rucker’s letter to Pelosi.

Update 7:30 p.m. EST: Rep. Rush’s office just issued the following statement:

“I am extremely proud of my decades of service to the people of my district, city, state and nation.  It’s a record that is open and above board for all the world to see.  It’s a record of service to African Americans, the poor, communities of color and minority- and women-owned businesses that is too voluminous to list in the space of this brief statement.  As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee since 1995, I have worked tirelessly and effectively on a vast number of issues.

“My position on those issues as well as my sources of contributions are a matter of public record.  I will not allow the Silicon Valley funded Color of Change.Org group, which purports to “strengthen Black America’s political voice” through the Internet, to call into question my integrity and honesty to lead the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet as its Ranking Member.

“The notion that this Silicon Valley controlled group should have the only word on what is in the best interests of people of color is foolish.  When an organization rents a Silicon Valley glass house, they ought to be careful about throwing stones.”

Pelosi Rush

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski now finds himself caught between unfulfilled promises made to the tech community to keep the internet open, and a Republican Congress ready to portray any new rules on broadband ISPs as heavy-handed, economy-killing regulation.

Genachowski said Wednesday that the rules are coming. He didn’t say how — the $64,000 question — but only that the FCC is being slow in order to be careful.

“That will happen,” Genachowski said, referring to so-called net neutrality rules designed to make sure that the telecoms that own the net’s pipes can’t control what goes through them. “We will make sure that we get the rules right, we need to make sure that what we do maximizes innovation and investment across the ecosystem.”

Genachowski, a former tech executive for IAC, was clearly at home speaking to top Silicon Valley executives at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco.

He made it plain to his audience that he wanted to keep the net as a platform for “innovation” — meaning online companies should be able to build businesses without having to ask permission from the telecoms to do so.

But his use of the word “investment” is a signal to the telecoms that he’s thinking of them as well. They are fighting to stave off regulation from the FCC, saying they will hurt the companies financially, ultimately reducing how much tech infrastructure they build.

The telecoms argue that competition will keep them playing fairly, even as all of them fight to find ways to be more than just a utility company — building out app stores, Comcast buying NBC, and wireless companies offering TV services on their networks.

Genachowski made clear he wasn’t too happy when Google and Verizon announced a net neutrality policy proposal in the spring. The companies released that controversial proposal at same time the FCC was trying to forge a compromise with industry players behind closed doors, effectively ending the FCC’s effort.

“I would have preferred if they didn’t do exactly what they did when they did it,” Genachowski said. “It had the effect of slowing down some processes.”

Genachowski defended the FCC’s actions over the last 22 months, and sought to downplay likely confrontations with the new Congress.

“Things shouldn’t change because the kinds of issues we work on aren’t partisan,” Genachowski said. He named the plan to have an incentive auction get broadcasters to auction off the spectrum they have to make it available for mobile broadband, and transforming the $8 billion Universal Service Fund to help people get broadband, not just phone services.

Unfortunately for the chairman, net neutrality does include some partisan elements, and as Wired.com’s Sam Gustin wrote yesterday, the FCC is already being warned by the likely heads of a powerful House committee that it should not act unilaterally to impose rules on wireless and wireline ISPs.

Genachowski, who worked at the agency in the early 1990s when mobile broadband and internet policy was just being set and mobile phones were as heavy and big as bricks, said in the long view, the FCC is facing great problems.

“These are exactly the issues we hoped we’d be dealing with in the future,” Genachowski said. “The biggest issues involve the opportunities of wireless, mobile broadband and whether we have the spectrum we need. In our wildest dreams we hoped the country might have to deal with problem like that.”

Photo: Fraulein Schiller/Flickr

Follow us for disruptive tech news: Ryan Singel and Epicenter on Twitter.

See Also:

• Net Neutrality Groups Push for FCC Action to Buck GOP Tide
• The Wired Interview: FCC Chair Julius Genachowski on Broadband
• Appeals Court Throttles FCC’s Net Neutrality Authority
• FCC Delays Net Neutrality Over Mobile, ‘Managed’ Services

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in an interview at his Washington office, March 12, 2010. AP

With the patience of his natural allies wearing thin, and a hostile new Congress taking over in January, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski is under intense pressure to make good on his and President Obama’s pledge to force fairness rules on the nation’s ISPs.

But to do so, Genachowski will have to buck a Republican-controlled House and unilaterally move to undo Bush-era deregulation. He has few options in order to restore and extend so-called net neutrality — the principle that internet providers shouldn’t pick favorites on the web, control what software people use, or discriminate against rival content.

The net neutrality debate has become a flash point for the broader discussion about how the internet will be regulated and how services like web phone calls and streaming video will be treated. Public interest groups are cautiously hopeful that Genachowski will act before the new Congress is seated, at which time the environment for the FCC and net neutrality advocates will become much more difficult.

But net neutrality isn’t even on the agenda for November — the FCC meets once a month. That means the agency has one shot, the December meeting, to make it so. The agenda for December should be public by Nov. 24. That’s cutting it very close, but interest groups that want the FCC to assert itself aren’t giving up hope — at least not publicly.

“We expect Chairman Genachowski to complete the job he started on net neutrality by the end of this year,” said Tim Karr, Campaign Director of Free Press, a D.C. interest group that advocates for net neutrality. “Given the spirit of openness with which he began his tenure, we remain hopeful that Chairman Genachowski will put the public demand for an open internet before the narrow interests of Comcast and AT&T,” Karr said. “The process has run its course. It’s time for him to get the job done.”

Adding fuel to the fire is an openly hostile memo being circulated by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan), who is aiming to become chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee which oversees telecom policy. He’s laying down the opposite marker, warning the FCC to back off from an initiative “unauthorized and opposed by Congress.”

To say the least, Genachowski is in a very difficult position. Just over a year ago he pledged to support net neutrality. In April, a federal judge ruled that the FCC lacked the authority to enforce it, a decision which left the chairman with few options — none of them particularly palatable — to make good on his word.

One option would involve reclassifying most aspects of broadband from a Title I “information service” to a Title II “communications service,” which would give the FCC the authority it needs to enforce net neutrality. Genachowski has described this path as the “third way,” and it has garnered the support of many net neutrality advocates. Giant internet service providers like Comcast and AT&T vehemently oppose this, arguing that it would amount to a regulatory over-reach that could lead to price controls or rampant litigation.

A second option would entail keeping broadband classified under Title I, and simply establishing new net neutrality rules as part of the agency’s ongoing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking process.

Both options would almost certainly face legal challenges.

The odds of Title II reclassification — putting ISPs in the same regulation bucket as phone companies — would appear to be very slim, since Genachowski has not exactly demonstrated an appetite to declare what would amount to all-out war against the cable and telecom giants. But either approach will end up in court so the tactical question for Genachowski is which approach has the best chance of withstanding a legal challenge?

That would be Title II reclassification, according to Gigi Sohn, President of Public Knowledge, an interest group based in Washington, D.C., that advocates net neutrality.

“The most legally sound course for the chairman to take would be to reclassify broadband internet-access service under Title II,” Sohn said, because issuing the new rules under Title I was all but precluded by the court’s April ruling. If the FCC reclassifies broadband under Title II, then Genachowski would simply have to prove that the move was not “arbitrary and capricious,” according to Sohn, a standard she believes the chairman can meet in a court of law.

Sohn said Genachowski should act “before the end of the year because it will not get any easier, in fact it will only be harder, after Dec. 31.”

An FCC spokesperson declined to comment on Genachowski’s net neutrality plans.

Incoming Republicans have made it clear that not only is any net neutrality legislation a non-starter, but they will seek to curb the power of the FCC, which they view as an activist regulatory body. (Cable giant Comcast wants to limit the regulatory power of the FCC as well. During a speech on Monday at the Brookings Institution, Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen argued that government regulation of the internet (.pdf) be kept to an absolute minimum, and that the broadband industry should pursue a model of “self-governance.”)

Rep. Upton’s memo, obtained by The Hill newspaper, was a not-so-subtle shot across the FCC’s bow.

“The FCC’s regulatory compass must be broken as they continue in their unrelenting pursuit to impose so-called network neutrality regulations, regardless of whether the agency has the legal authority for such a blind power grab, and whether such regulations will actually undermine the FCC’s ability to achieve the goals of the National Broadband plan,” Upton wrote. “The FCC must stand down from pursuing a course unauthorized and opposed by Congress.”

Since 1989, Upton has received $93,600 from AT&T — his second largest career campaign contributor — $51,500 from Comcast, and $47,550 from Verizon, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

It’s unclear which Democrat will become the ranking member on the telecom subcommittee, but some observers think the most likely candidate is Bobby Rush (D-Illinois), the former Black Panther who is now seen as a big ally of the cable and telecom industry. Since 1989, Rush has received $78,964 from AT&T — as with Upton, the telecom giant is Rush’s second largest career contributor — $43,499 from the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, and $42,000 from Verizon, according to the CRP.

In other words, if Upton and Rush assume top positions on the Energy and Commerce Committee and telecom subcommittee, then two of the most powerful members of Congress with respect to telecom policy will have received at least $350,000 from cable and telecom interests over the course of their careers.

Follow us for disruptive tech news: Sam Gustin and Epicenter on Twitter.

See Also:

• FCC | Epicenter
• Net Neutrality | Epicenter
• Court Drives FCC Towards Nuclear Option to Regulate Broadband …
• FCC Delays Net Neutrality Over Mobile, ‘Managed’ Services …
• FCC Offers Regulation Lite for Broadband Providers, Pleasing Few …
• The Wired Interview: FCC Chair Julius Genachowski on Broadband …
• FCC Backs Net Neutrality — And Then Some
• Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender …
• FCC Delays Net Neutrality Over Mobile, ‘Managed’ Services …
• Skype, Wireless Companies Fight to Shape Net-Neutrality Regs …
• Another Net Neutrality Option: Remove Financial Incentives …
• Net Neutrality Groups Organizing Protest At Google HQ Friday …
• Net Neutrality Protesters Call for Google to Stand Tall …
• Dems Go Populist on Net Neutrality

Federal regulators are putting off efforts to regain authority over the nation’s internet providers while they seek renewed public input on net neutrality.

The delay shows the intractability of the debate over wireless and wireline openness rules, and the ongoing shock waves of last month’s joint policy proposal from Google and Verizon to create a framework for Congress to enact new competitive rules for ISPs. That proposal in turn seeks to fill a vacuum left by a federal appeals court, which effectively stripped the FCC of its authority to oversee broadband earlier this year.

The delicacy of the negotiations to reassert federal control of the internet were made clear on Wednesday when the FCC announced that, due to unnamed recent events — a clear reference to its failed talks and Google and Verizon’s recent policy “compromise” statement — it needs even more comments on “what framework will guarantee Internet freedom and openness, and maximize private investment and innovation.”

Specifically, the FCC wants feedback on whether ISPs should be allowed to build special web services for their own customers (.pdf), or if they should be prevented from competing directly with companies that create services for the general internet and thus depend on unbiased service from network providers.

At stake is an arcane administrative ruling issued during the Bush administration that reclassified internet providers as “information services” rather than “telecommunications services.” The FCC is specifically authorized to regulate only the latter. Now anti-regulatory factions, which naturally include the giant telecom monopolies that control the fixed and wireless broadband markets in the U.S., are fighting tooth and nail to keep the distinction intact, and the FCC off their turf.

Until the FCC finds a way through the thicket, there is still no federal authority that can prevent your ISP from dictating what browser you use, what brand of mobile phone computer or router you plug into the network or blocking your favorite website or protocol.

Your ISP and mobile phone company can make their services go faster than their competitors without fear of federal regulators fining them, and they can throttle your connection at any time, for any reason, without having to explain to anyone why they did it.

Free market groups argue that’s fine, since the market is competitive enough that ISPs will have to play fair with their customers. Others argue that the very basis of the internet is a transport layer that simply works, tries its best and doesn’t play favorites, and letting large telecoms muck with that puts all the innovation of the last two decades and those of the decades to come at risk.

Google and Verizon had long been at opposite ends of the net neutrality debate. Google, which makes its money on the web, wants the government to ensure that people have the right to use whatever services, devices and applications they want, and that wireless and traditional wired ISPs should be required to act as disinterested conduits — simply ferrying packets back and forth. Innovation, according to Google and many net neutrality supporters, happens in the development of applications and services, not in the network itself, regardless of whether that network is cable or 3G.

But telecoms including Verizon, the nation’s largest wireless company and one of its biggest fixed broadband companies, protest that such rules would be heavy-handed, reduce innovation and throttle investment in new infrastructure, especially in the wireless world.

Making good on an Obama campaign promise, the FCC announced last fall that it was going to formally adopt six broad principles of so-called net neutrality. The first four had been established informally in 2005 for cable and DSL customers: People would have the right to use whatever legal online services, devices and applications they wanted, and Americans would have the right to choose service providers from among various competing ISPs.

FCC head Julius Genachowski, a law school classmate of President Obama, wanted to add two more rules: One, broadband providers cannot discriminate against services or applications by slowing them down, and two, broadband providers must tell customers how its engineers manage the network congestion.

The FCC also wanted apply some of the rules to the growing mobile broadband industry, something that Skype and Google had been fighting for. That fight included a $4.6 billion bet by Google that forced Verizon to buy wireless spectrum with open access rules applied to it. (The FCC has never ruled one way or the other if the original rules applied to wireless.)