The following speech by U.S. Federal Communication Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski, entitled “Remarks on Preserving Internet Freedom and Openness”,” was posted online by the FCC on December 1, 2010. Here it is, verbatim:
Good morning. After months of hard work at the FCC, in other parts of government, in the private sector, and in the public interest community, and after receiving more than 100,000 comments from citizens across America, we have reached an important milestone in our effort to protect Internet freedom and openness.
Yesterday, I circulated to my colleagues draft rules of the road to preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet. This framework, if adopted later this month, would advance a set of core goals: It would ensure that the Internet remains a powerful platform for innovation and job creation; it would empower consumers and entrepreneurs; it would protect free expression; it would increase certainty in the marketplace, and spur investment both at the edge and in the core of our broadband networks.
I am gratified by the broad support this proposal has already received this morning — including from leading Internet and technology companies, founders and investors; broadband providers; consumer and public interest groups, civil rights organizations, and unions.
This proposed framework is rooted in ideas first articulated by Republican Chairmen Michael Powell and Kevin Martin, and endorsed in a unanimous FCC policy statement in 2005. Similar proposals have been supported in Congress on a bipartisan basis. And they are consistent with President Obama’s commitment to “keep the Internet as it should be – open and free.”
Their adoption would culminate recent efforts to find common ground — at the FCC, in Congress, and outside government, including approaches advanced by both Democrats and Republicans, and by stakeholders of differing perspectives. In particular, this proposal would build upon the strong and balanced framework developed by Chairman Henry Waxman, which garnered support from technology and telecommunications companies, big and small, as well as from consumer and public interest groups.
The animating force behind all of these efforts is a shared appreciation for the Internet’s wondrous contributions to our economy and our way of life.
Millions of us depend on the Internet every day: at home, at work, in school — and everywhere in between. The high-speed networks we call broadband are transforming health care, education, and energy usage for the better. It’s hard to imagine life today without the Internet — any more than we can imagine life without running water or electricity.
The Internet has been an unprecedented platform for speech and democratic engagement, and a place where the American spirit of innovation has flourished. We’ve seen new media tools like Twitter and YouTube used by democratic movements around the world.
If we want the Internet to be free and open around the world — and, for global peace and prosperity, we do – we must ensure its freedom and openness here at home.
Not only is the Internet becoming a central part of the daily lives of Americans, the Internet has been a strong engine of job creation and economic growth.
Internet companies have started as small start-ups, some of them famously in dorm rooms and garages with little more than a computer and access to the open Internet. Many have become large businesses, providing high-paying, high-tech jobs in communities across our country. It’s the American dream at work.
Small businesses and start-ups have accounted for more than 22 million new American jobs over the last 15 years. And broadband has played a central part, enabling small business to lower their costs and reach new customers in new markets around the country and, indeed, the globe.
Why has the Internet proved to be such a powerful engine for innovation, creativity and economic growth? A big part of the answer traces back to one key decision by the Internet’s original architects: to make the Internet an open platform.
It is the Internet’s openness and freedom — the ability to speak, innovate, and engage in commerce without having to ask anyone’s permission — that has enabled the Internet’s unparalleled success.
This openness is a quality — a generative power — that must be preserved and protected. And the record in the proceeding we’ve run over the past year, as well as history, shows that there are real risks to the Internet’s continued freedom and openness. Broadband providers have natural business incentives to leverage their position as gatekeepers to the Internet. Even after the Commission announced open Internet principles in 2005, we have seen clear deviations from the Internet’s openness — instances when broadband providers have prevented consumers from using the applications of their choice without disclosing what they were doing.
The proposed open Internet framework is designed to guard against these risks, while recognizing the legitimate needs and interests of broadband providers.
In key respects, the interests of edge innovators – the entrepreneurs creating Internet content, applications and services — broadband providers, and American consumers are aligned. Innovation at the edge catalyzes consumer demand for broadband. Consumer demand spurs private investment in faster broadband networks. And faster networks spark ever-cooler innovation at the edge.
A central goal of the proposed open Internet framework is to foster this self-reinforcing cycle of massive investment in both the edge and the core of broadband networks, to the benefit of consumers and our economy.
Protecting Internet freedom will drive the Internet job creation engine.
The crux of the proposal, which would establish open Internet rules for the first time, is straightforward:
First, consumers and innovators have a right to know basic information about broadband service, like how networks are being managed. The proposed framework therefore starts with a meaningful transparency requirement, so that consumers and innovators have the information they need to make smart choices about subscribing to or using a broadband network, or how to develop the next killer app. Sunshine can help solve problems early, reducing the number of issues that come to the FCC.
Second, consumers and innovators have a right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic — to go where they want and say what they want online, and to use the devices of their choice. Thus, the proposed framework would prohibit the blocking of lawful content, apps, services, and the connection of non-harmful devices to the network. Third, consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. No central authority, public or private, should have the power to pick which ideas or companies win or lose on the Internet; that’s the role of the market and the marketplace of ideas. And so the proposed framework includes a bar on unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful network traffic.
The proposed framework also recognizes that broadband providers must have the ability and investment incentives to build out and run their networks. Universal high-speed Internet access is a vital national goal that will require very substantial private sector investment in our 21st century digital infrastructure. For our global competitiveness, and to harness the opportunities of broadband for all Americans, we want world-leading broadband networks in the United States that are both the freest and the fastest in the world.
To this end, broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage their networks — for example, to deal with traffic that’s harmful to the network or unwanted by users, and to address the effects of congestion. Reasonable network management is an important part of the proposal, recognizing that what is reasonable will take account of the network technology and architecture involved.
The record also demonstrates the importance of business innovation to promote network investment and efficient use of networks, including measures to match price to cost such as usage-based pricing.
The record in our proceeding reflects both the importance of openness principles to mobile broadband, and the appropriateness of recognizing differences between fixed and mobile broadband. This is not a new point, but one that I’ve made consistently since the beginning of this proceeding. For example, mobile broadband is at an earlier stage of development than fixed broadband, and is evolving rapidly.
Accordingly, the proposal takes important but measured steps in this area — including transparency and a basic no blocking rule. Under the framework, the FCC would closely monitor the development of the mobile broadband market and be prepared to step in to further address anti-competitive or anti-consumer conduct as appropriate.
The work of the FCC staff on this proceeding has been exceptional, no more so than in connection with the complex legal issues. Informed by the staff’s additional legal analysis and the extensive comments on this issue over the past year, the proposal is grounded in a variety of provisions of the communications laws, but would not reclassify broadband as a Title II telecommunications service. I am satisfied that we have a sound legal basis for this approach.
I want to emphasize that moving this item to a vote at the Commission is not designed or intended to preclude action by Congress. As always, I welcome the opportunity for the Commission to serve as a resource to Congress.
The Commission itself has a duty and an obligation to fulfill — a duty to address important open proceedings based on the record, and an obligation to be a cop on the beat to protect broadband consumers and foster innovation, investment, and competition. I believe the proposed framework advances this mission, and that its adoption will provide increased certainty and benefits to the American public.
I look forward to ongoing work with my Commission colleagues on this and other issues. We have very important work to do for the American people in the months ahead, as we strive to harness the opportunities of broadband and communications for the benefit of our economy and for all Americans.
Thank you.
Source: FCC
MacDailyNews Take: Beware unintended consequences – and intended ones, too.
Looks like Superior Being just got his arse spanked. Maybe his parents should have done more of that early on.
Free television that was intended as a service to educate and enlighten Americans became Free TV loaded with 60 second ads that became 30 second ads to fit more ads in. Then Pay TV came about and the notion of educating and enlightening was assigned to Public TV (which it all was to begin with) that is now seen as Evil, Socialistic and a burden on the economy.
Why would anyone expect anything different in regards to the Internet. Broadcast TV, as you’ve known it, will go the way of radio. Big money will ruin the Internet as it did TV and the manipulated, loser, rich people want to be’s will tell you how great it is that you get to be screwed and how you should be thankful for it or leave the country. Can hardly wait for the websites reporting of how much they charge for a Superbowl ad on the Internet. “The retched refuse of your teaming shore….” – that’s the real America.
I just read this book again and found it particularly enlightening even today. Many times the government will name initiatives with names that are the opposite of what ends up happening. To have the FCC proclaim they will maintain an “open” internet by their regulation is chilling. Better be ready for a tightly regulated internet without freedom if this FCC Bozo-in-chief gets his way.
So if the providers are “transparent” in what they do — and so long as they don’t completely block any “legal” content — then anything they do is OK?
So they can provide to the end user a 100 page document delineating all the details of the various ways the provider uses different qualities of service for different kinds of information going through thier system and from different sources then that’s OK? If they get paid a huge sum by a certain information provider so that their assured quality of service is very high (think someone like Netflix) versus another that won’t pay for that high quality of service (think someone like Apple with the iTunes store) then if they report in a “transparent” document to the end user that they have a tiered quality of service plan then that’s OK?
It the provider has a “transparent” plan that slows down all P2P traffic to a crawl — but does NOT block it — then that’s OK? If that provider is the only broadband provider for your area and “transparently” explains that they slow down all P2P traffic in that 100 page document, that’s still OK?
Sounds like a provider can easily get away with these things as long as they re “transparent” about doing so.
“Oh, I’m going to make your life hell, but I’m going to go into excruciating detail about how I’m going to do it so as to qualify as transparent. Therefore I fit within the rules. You’re stuck since I’m the only provider in your area. Sucks to be you.”
.
.
My personal opinion is that unless you are the source of information on the Internate or the end user of information from the Internet then you are nothing but a pipe — bits are bits. Period.
Now if I want to pay MY ISP to filter MY data and prioritize data that comes to ME then as the end user I should be able to pay MY ISP to do so for data coming to me. This does not affect the little old lady next door who rarely even surfs the web but loves to see videos of her grandchildren her children post on social web pages nor does it affect the avid gamer across the street nor the P2P using data addict one block over. I’ve asked my ISP to filter or prioritize the bits coming to me. My ISP can even charge me handsomely for that service.
Anything else is counter to the concept of free and open communications.
That’s right, it’s the gubmint tryin’ ta get u agin’.
That’s why “Federal Trade Commission weighed in on the issue of Internet privacy Wednesday, calling for development of a ‘do not track’ system that would enable people to avoid having their actions monitored online—prompting immediate objections from the online-advertising industry.
“Self regulation of privacy has not worked adequately and is not working adequately for American consumers,” said FTC Commissioner Jon Leibowitz. ‘We deserve far better.'”
But of course the paranoid see this as disinformation. Maybe the closet anarchists need some new meds…
What he is saying is they want to protect all lawful traffic on the Internet.
So whatever they decide is unlawful they can block.
There u have it.
Gabriel:
Never mind the bollocks, stand firm man.
The letter says “I want freedom for the things I do while applying measures of security, regulation, and punishment against those who do or say things I don’t like.”
It’s called “BanHammer Freedom”:
And it’s a lot like an Iraqi leader who said he wants democracy just as soon as he kills all the scumbags who oppose him.
NET NEUTRALITY FOREVER!
BRAVO FCC!
*Kick the Corporate Oligarchy in the balls*
Gabriel
Well said my friend, don’t let the paranoia of this site affect you.
Just a short message to try & get through to you…
Superior Being? You’re not.
You just sound like an ideologue who runs everything through your conservo filter.
I vote & I bet I’ve been around longer than you smart guy. Step off from the ideological based name calling…
Obviously (to most), traffic lights are quite a different thing than Genachowski’s stream of bullshit above.
Again, if you think the government is looking out for your best interests, you are painfully naive.
We are all fscked either which way. You know why?
Because the “choice” between corporations (telecoms in this case) or government interfering in our lives and activities is set up so neither choice benefits you as a consumer.
Just like Republicans and Democrats–both are nearly equally bad choices that don’t benefit you as a voting citizen.
I support the principle of net neutrality, so far as ensuring the ISPs don’t give preferential treatment to corporations that pay extra. So friggin’ simple this could be written on a single sheet of paper!!! But the US system is so totally fscked that after the totally unrelated rider bills and other special interest bullshit is piled on top of it, it’ll take up 200 pages.
This is a no-win situation, except for the lawyers and politicians.
It’s quite funny to watch this argument back and forth… And perhaps this can be seen as a microcosm of what is happening on the internet in a way. Some folks make comments, other folks respond politely, and others respond with anger, slander, and narrow thought.
So, here is one for you to think about “Superior Being”… All of the freedom’s we have in the United States are protected by our vast military – would you agree? Indeed, our vast military has traveled throughout the world over many decades to protect, promote, and provide for our way of life. Sometimes in war, sometimes in peace, they stand guard against our enemies of all sorts. Agreed?
So… this vast military – you would think it is run with the same kind of freedom, the same kind of reverence even for our individual rights, unencumbered by regulations, rules, laws? In fact, the very opposite is true. The very efficiency, precision, power, and incredible abilities of our military come from a tremendous set of rules and regulations, laws and codes, which strictly dictate every aspect of military life, action, etc. Necessary in order to manage such an enormous group of people who share this incredible responsibility – the protection of our way of life.
Kind of ironic – the nation that strives for the most freedom, the least amount of regulation and government (when compared with most of the rest of the first world at least) is dominated and protected by a system that is it’s total opposite.
What’s the moral of the story? Human Beings require a certain degree of rules and regulation, laws and so forth to play nice with each other. The internet is just a new avenue of human interaction. A new frontier, a wild west if you will… Back in the wild west, some folks were treated very poorly, some folks were raped, beaten, robbed, killed, and some folks had all the money and power. Then slowly, the rule of law, regulations, and security made it’s way west. And good every day folks followed.
Perhaps a way to think about it is this – are we looking for short term solutions to small problems, or long term solutions to large problems?
Traffic lights are a great example. The fact that you cannot wrap your head around it and understand that is perhaps most telling. Yeah, it’s a bit inconvenient at times to have to wait at a light, but it sure would be even more inconvenient if you were hit by a bus instead and the ambulance (if any) couldn’t get there because well, no one wanted to pay for any local healthcare and the hospital had to close up.
We live, work, play, socialize in a community – as a result, we have to make some sacrifices in order to be a member of the community. We know this is ok, because everyone else is making similar sacrifices, and that is our investment in our security. It does not mean sacrificing everything, it’s not an all or nothing affair. But the community as a whole is supposed to participate in the discussion of what we can sacrifice (how about child pornography? or instructions on making a bomb?) and then the majority decides “yes, we will regulate this and that, but not all of this or all of that”. And we have to trust that the folks we send to the government are making decisions in our best interests, and not for their own financial gain. So the world of the internet can be a safe place for the exchange of ideas. Where folks don’t send insults flying and make outlandish statements to strangers for some sort of self gratifying agenda.
Does writing fscked instead of fucked get one a free pass into reader’s digest or Sunday school?
I have read the statement above (which, in all likelihood, most of contributors here haven’t). I am not an American, so I don’t know who this guy is, what is his personal history, or the agency he represents. All I can say is, the statement itself seems to promise that his government agency will make efforts to ensure that no entity, be it a private or public company, corporation, governmental organisation or other entity interferes with unrestricted, free flow of information across the internet.
It seems to me that several major telecommunication giants in the US have already been discussing ways how to capitalise on their monopoly position in the industry. We’ve heard from several American ISPs about the idea of traffic shaping based on the racketeering, extortion-type business model: you want your packets delivered to your users in this century, you pay us to use our pipes. You don’t pay, we keep pushing your packets to the end of the queue.
So, the American government agency in charge of telecommunications had decided to prevent these kinds of racketeering and extortion practices. And so many here seem to object.
If you don’t think this is a good idea, could you PLEASE tell me, what do you think would be the best way to prevent your American ISPs from charging you extra, just so that you can use Skype to video-conference with your family when you’re away on business? Or do you believe it is OK to charge extra, on top of paying for your bandwidth?
There are many in the U.S. that have a definition of “Capitalism” and “Free Market Economy” that is akin to Malcolm X’s statement; “By any means necessary.” They don’t understand that this thinking leads to literally, “killing the goose that lays the golden egg”. i.e. The American Consumer. It’s much like a gormand that becomes a glutton. All they seem to be interested in is acquiring more and more money – its use is of no interest, just grabbing more dough. Bill Gates had to be “shamed” by his wife into spending his massive fortune. And we all speculate over what Apple is going to do with the gigantic reservoir of cash it’s amassed. Historical record corporate profits of over One and one half Trillion dollars. Is the water behind the dam going to be put to any use or is it just a giant reflecting pool for Narcissus?
And with this capital gluttony comes a pronounced egotism: “I’m better than the rest of you poor people.” It’s what underlies the hubris that the rest of the world sees in America. And the rest of us see the truth that underlies the hubris: Fear.
Steve516:
Now if only the dd teatard mentality had a connection to functioning brains and factual reality, maybe you’d be preaching to the choir, unfortunately you’re just making total sense.
Predrag:
I have read the statement above (which, in all likelihood, most of contributors here haven’t)
That’s because it has more words than found in the cheerleader’s teatard lexicon or dictionary. Stop making sense.
Gabriel:
Stand firm.
Thanks for the kind words… and for the record, I did read the statement from the FCC chairman also
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
What fascinates me in the discourse above is the level of resentment towards the American government that some Americans seem to have. This is quite perplexing to me, considering that vast majority of Americans seem to be quite proud by their “government for the people, by the people”. They genuinely believe that they have by far the most fair, transparent and reliable democracy in the world, which implies that they themselves, the voters, are pretty much completely in charge of what their government does. I am having a really hard time reconciling such beliefs with this resentment towards anything government.
If you have the best democracy in the world, that means that you can comfortably trust your government to do the things you elected them to do. If you don’t trust your government, then that implies you are running a dictatorship, in which you have no control over your elected officials. So which of the two is it, since it simply CANNOT be both?
Ignorance breeds resentment and in turn bigotry and violence -History is proof.
Ah, well, America is going through a period of change, adjustment, and some fractioning. Technology is dragging the country into the 21st century kicking and screaming – the media is more present today than ever before, the internet allows access to more information at more levels and for more people than ever before, and it’s very scary for some folks to swallow.
@Steve516
So hard to swallow in fact that some people refuse to, and that’s why the FCC is doing this.
and that will be my only comment here; last time I clicked “Notify me of follow-up comments” on one of these political articles I got a few hundred emails :/
I cmd+f-ed for Apple, and, no, there was none in the text.