FCC Votes "Yes" on Net Neutrality

The FCC approves Net Neutrality rules for wireless and fixed broadband

2 min read
FCC Votes "Yes" on Net Neutrality
Image: Getty Images

As expected, the Federal Communications Commission today approved proposed Net Neutrality rules by a 3 to 2 vote. Two Democrats joined FCC chairman Tom Wheeler in voting for the rules. Two Republicans dissented at great length. The audience at the open meeting greeted the approval with loud applause. The rules apply to both wireless and fixed broadband. 

At the heart of the FCC proposal are three "bright line rules" embraced by net neutrality advocates. They bar broadband providers from blocking or throttling legal content and services transmitted over the Internet, and prohibit providers from charging content or service providers such as Netflix a premium for high-speed connections. 

The Internet is too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.

Throttling became a hot-button issue after widespread claims that cable companies had deliberately slowed to a crawl streaming video from third-party services such as Netflix. Cable companies denied they deliberately throttled the video traffic, and a study [PDF] by Measurement Lab found the choke points were at interconnections between local broadband services and long-distance traffic routes. But users remained worried that broadband providers could throttle traffic if they wanted to. 

Net neutrality advocates also jumped on plans for paid priority services because of worries that they could create a two-tier Internet, with the fast lanes reserved for companies with deep pockets. Cable companies contributed to that concern when they pressed large content providers such as Netflix to pay them to make direct high-speed connections.

The new rules do allow carriers to use "reasonable network management" techniques other than paid prioritization, as needed for various services. Details are not yet available, but this presumably would allow assignment of priority codes to speed transmission of packets carrying time-sensitive data such as for voice telephony and interactive gaming.

An earlier FCC attempt to impose open Internet rules was blocked by the courts on the ground that the agency lacked authority. The new FCC proposal seeks to overcome that limit by classifying broadband Internet service as a "Title II telecommunications service" akin to wireline telephony, which it does have the authority to regulate.

Republican commissioners vehemently objected both to using Title II authority and to giving the FCC authority to regulate the Internet. "The Internet is not broken, there is no problem for the government to solve," said commissioner Ajit Pai. Retorted Wheeler, "The Internet is too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules."

The Conversation (0)

How the FCC Settles Radio-Spectrum Turf Wars

Remember the 5G-airport controversy? Here’s how such disputes play out

11 min read
This photo shows a man in the basket of a cherry picker working on an antenna as an airliner passes overhead.

The airline and cellular-phone industries have been at loggerheads over the possibility that 5G transmissions from antennas such as this one, located at Los Angeles International Airport, could interfere with the radar altimeters used in aircraft.

Patrick T. Fallon/AFP/Getty Images

You’ve no doubt seen the scary headlines: Will 5G Cause Planes to Crash? They appeared late last year, after the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration warned that new 5G services from AT&T and Verizon might interfere with the radar altimeters that airplane pilots rely on to land safely. Not true, said AT&T and Verizon, with the backing of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, which had authorized 5G. The altimeters are safe, they maintained. Air travelers didn’t know what to believe.

Another recent FCC decision had also created a controversy about public safety: okaying Wi-Fi devices in a 6-gigahertz frequency band long used by point-to-point microwave systems to carry safety-critical data. The microwave operators predicted that the Wi-Fi devices would disrupt their systems; the Wi-Fi interests insisted they would not. (As an attorney, I represented a microwave-industry group in the ensuing legal dispute.)

Keep Reading ↓Show less