By Chloe Albanesius
PCMag.com
Net neutrality is in the headlines again, but what does it mean for you? Is this just some wonky, inside-the-Beltway chatter that won’t have an impact on our daily lives or an issue that will affect how we access the Web in the future? The short answer is: both.
The basic news is that the Federal Communications Commission approved net neutrality rules yesterday and those rules give the commission the authority to step into disputes about how Internet service providers are managing their networks or initiate their own investigations if they think ISPs are violating its rules.
One important thing to note is that the FCC hasn’t actually released the full text of its net neutrality rules yet. The Republican commissioners voted against the plan yesterday, and according to FCC procedures, the commission must respond to any dissent before releasing its rules. So it could be another day or two before the commission adds that response and publishes the rules.
That being said, the FCC did provide an overview of what’s included in the order and it breaks down to three high-level rules: transparency; no blocking; and no unreasonable discrimination.
Transparency: Does your ISP slow down its network at peak times? Does it have a usage cap? What about roaming fees? The transparency requirement basically requires broadband providers – fixed and wireless – to be more transparent about their activities. They need to be upfront about how they manage their networks, how well (or poorly) their networks perform, as well as details about their plan options and pricing. Most ISPs would argue that they already do this, but if you disagree, you could conceivably take it up with the FCC.
No Blocking: Much of this net neutrality debate started in 2007 when Comcast was accused of blocking access to P2P networks like BitTorrent because people using BitTorrent on Comcast’s network were slowing down the experience for everyone else. Comcast denied cutting off access completely but said it did delay access to P2P sites during peak times. Under the FCC rules, an ISP would not be able to pick and choose apps or service to block in order to improve network performance. Your ISP would not be able to block access to Netflix’s streaming service, for example, or Xbox Live just because a select few people were clogging the system.
The rules differ slightly on this for fixed versus wireless. Fixed providers cannot block lawful content, apps, services, or “non-harmful” devices, or charge providers of these services for delivering traffic to and from their networks. Wireless providers, meanwhile, cannot block access to lawful Web sites or block apps that compete with their own voice or video telephony services. It does not apply to mobile broadband app stores.
No unreasonable discrimination: A key term being thrown around this week is “network management,” which basically governs how an ISP like Comcast or Time Warner Cable runs their operations. Under the FCC rules, ISPs can manage their networks, but it can’t be “unreasonable” or discriminate against specific applications. In other words, Comcast could slow down its entire network to handle an influx of users, but it could not cut off a specific, bandwidth-hungry service – like BitTorrent or Netflix or Hulu. The FCC acknowledges that network management is necessary to block harmful things – like malware and child porn – from making its way onto ISP networks. Blocking child porn and spam? Good. Blocking Netflix or BitTorrent because it competes with your own service or eats up bandwidth? Bad.
Again, we haven’t seen the actual text of the rules, so what makes something “unreasonable”? In a press conference after Tuesday’s meeting, an FCC official said the agency has included specific language in its rules to define unreasonable network management.
“Generally if there are practices that are targeted for specific use – like controlling spam or malware – [that] would be reasonable,” she said. “Certainly things that appear to be discriminatory would be a red flag.”
Among those things that would probably be unreasonable? Paid prioritization. The whole idea behind net neutrality is that everyone has equal access to the Web; a wealthy company like Amazon should not be able to pay to have their Web site load faster than a mom-and-pop e-commerce site. While this practice of paid prioritization is not strictly banned in the net neutrality rules, the FCC said yesterday that it would likely be deemed unreasonable.
“It’s a very dynamic marketplace … so everything would have to be evaluated,” the FCC official said. “I think there’s significant concern about paid prioritization … but it’s not ruled out.”
Can I Report a Violation? If you think your ISP is violating these rules, you can complain to the FCC. The agency has two types of complaint processes: an informal consumer complaint and a more organized formal process.
Going forward, consumers can go to the FCC Web site and file their complaint at no charge. This is mainly for those who suspect that something is going on and possibly have a certain amount of proof, but lack the ability (or funds) to pull together a more formal complaint.
As Free Press did with its original complaint against Comcast, larger, more organized groups can band together and file a formal complaint with lawyers and fees and affidavits.
When asked yesterday if formal complaints would take priority over individual consumer complaints, the FCC said it would evaluate everything individually on its own merits. The agency will also keep tabs on individual complaints to watch for trends that require a larger investigation, the commission said.
