Today in a speech at at The Brookings Institution, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski outlined the steps he believes the Commission must take to preserve a free and open Internet for all.

“The Internet is an extraordinary platform for innovation, job creation, investment, and opportunity. It has unleashed the potential of entrepreneurs and enabled the launch and growth of small businesses across America,” said Chairman Genachowski. “It is vital that we safeguard the free and open Internet.”

The plan lives up to President Obama’s campaign promise to “protect the openness of the Internet” who also said that throttling of BitTorrent and other P2P applications would be illegal.

The Commission has already embraced four open Internet principles affirming that consumers must be able to access the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, and attach non-harmful devices to the network. These four principles guide the FCC’s existing case-by-case enforcement of communications law.

In today’s speech, Chairman Genachowski proposed the addition of two new principles. The first would prevent ISPs from discriminating against particular content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management. The second principle would ensure that ISPs are transparent about network management practices. He also proposed clarifying that all six principles apply to all platforms that access the Internet.

Chairman Genachowski will seek to begin the process of codifying these six principles through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) during a meeting of the FCC in October.

The NPRM will ask for input and feedback on the proposed rules and their application, such as how to determine whether network management practices are reasonable, what information ISPs should disclose about their network management practices and how the rules apply to differing platforms, including mobile Internet access services.

Wireless carriers have already voiced their opposition to the proposal.

“We believe that this kind of regulation is unnecessary in the competitive wireless space as it would prevent carriers from managing their networks — such as curtailing viruses and other harmful content — to the benefit of their consumers,” said Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA, the wireless industry’s trade group.

I’m surer it has nothing to do with keeping their customers locked into a fixed platform with usage, content, and applications all dictated according to what serves their bottom line best.

Either way, it’s nice to see the FCC living up to the promises Obama made during the campaign. Maybe ensuring a free and open Internet will settle down the “Teabaggers” and “Truthers” for a little while.

Stay tuned.

jared@zeropaid.com

.

UPDATE:

The FCC has launched OpenInternet.gov to give people a chance to weigh in, learn more, and get involved.

There was already word that there is some dissent on the FCC ruling over throttling BitTorrent, but commentary from CNET seems to point out that there is much more going on at the FCC then originally thought.

Apparently, after the FCC issued a press release on the matter (DOC, PDF), Comcast basically cried foul over it – no fines, just a measly press release.

The interesting part is the idea that prioritizing Voice Over IP is actually perfectly fine – so does BitTorrent need to be left alone? You can read the comments yourself:

Critics correctly note that Congress still has not given the FCC explicit authority to decide Internet policy. Even as the FCC issued its decision, Chairman Kevin Martin went on record writing that while Comcast had no right to prioritize Internet traffic, it’s fine to prioritize voice over IP:

We do not tell providers how to manage their networks. They might choose, for instance, to prioritize voice-over-IP calls. In analyzing whether Comcast violated federal policy when it blocked access to certain applications, we conduct a fact-specific inquiry into whether the management practice they used was reasonable. Based on many reasons, including the arbitrary nature of the blocking, the lack of relation to times of congestion or size of files, and the manner in which they hid their conduct from their subscribers, we conclude it was not.

We do not limit providers’ efforts to stop congestion. We do say providers should disclose what they are doing to consumers.

So it’s OK to put individual data packets under a magnifying glass? But in its group statement–which Martin presumably signed off on–the FCC approvingly cited MIT professor David Reed, a respected Internet notable, who believes “that “(n)either Deep Packet Inspection nor RST Injection”–Comcast uses both to manage its network–”are acceptable behavior.”

This takes Emerson’s apercu that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds to an extreme. Maybe the private sector can figure things out without confusing itself over regulation from bureaucrats. But they first need clear rules of the road to follow. Otherwise, expect more of the same.

It seems there is a lot of confusion about this ruling. It may be possible that the theory from the FCC is that ISPs can do something to give priority to a packet, but it’s not OK to take priority away from a packet. Put it in another way, it’s fine to add carpool lanes, but it’s unfair to put speed limits on the other lanes. Either way, one may wonder if Comcasts punishment is simply some bad publicity and a subliminal note saying they can keep doing what they are doing. With some suggesting that the FCC can’t do much with little legal authority (a fact that contributed to the downfall of the broadcast flag originally), there isn’t much that can be done at this point.

Cable modem companies, DSL providers, broadband over powerline, satellite internet companies and even some universities all have until the end of today to ensure “…the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities.”

The Justice Department began lobbying the FCC in 2002 to reinterpret the law as applying to the internet as well and last June a divided federal appeals court upheld the expansion 2-1.

Basically, this means that starting today the FBI will have the ability to wiretap your internet connection, and means that “Common carriers, facilities-based broadband Internet access providers, and providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service…” must all now have incorporated into their networks the ability for law enforcement agencies to snoop on those for which they have a court ordered warrant.

It’s been pointed out however, that even though it may not necessarily be easier to get a warrant and eavesdrop on somebody, the temptation to do so and avoid real gumshoe detective work will be high. Instead of having to really investigate what a person is up to, they may choose to just try and take a look at what they’re doing instead.

Also, what will eventually happen I think is that the RIAA and the MPAA will try to petition courts to snoop on suspected file-sharers and gather intelligence and incriminating information with which to build a case against them.

I mean look how they were able to get so many congressman on board with the whole crackdown on colleges and universities, invoking phrases like “file-trafficking” and warning against job layoffs and unemployment due to losses from piracy. I mean if a law is being broken who’s to say which ones they will or will not enforce? I think its only a matter of time.

No longer will ISPs be able to claim that it just doesn’t have the means to assist copyright holders in determining who has been uploading content illegally, for now they will be able to monitor an IP address and all the traffic that it’s responsible for on the network.

It also means that the govt will now have the ability to monitor for other illegal activity, like buying prescription drugs from Canada, browsing and purchasing drug paraphanalia like bongs, pipes, etc., or perhaps even forums or chatrooms of leftist or other radical organizations.

After today the internet will forever be under the watchful eye of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and you can rest assured that corporations and other private entities will do in everything in their power to use this resource for their own ends.

** UPDATE > Alberto Gonzalez now proposes giving law enforcement “…access to the full range of lawful investigative tools when they investigate intellectual property crimes.” ———————————– READ MORE **
(I hate to say I told you so but, isn’t it funny how compliance and increased enforcement of copyright protection laws have coincided with one another?)
digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Tomorrow_the_FBI_will_be_able_to_wiretap_all_internet_users’;

Looking for more stuff to watch or download?
Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007 will crack down on file-sharing
3 quick ways to watch TV shows for FREE
3 Quick Ways to Watch Movies for FREE!
BitTorrent torrent sites & search engines
Azureus – A Beginner’s Guide to BitTorrent Downloading
uTorrent – A Beginner’s guide to BitTorrent downloading
Watch The Simpsons, The Office, Jackass, South Park, Lost, X-Men, and More, On-Demand For Free

The TV industry is particularly worried about violating decency standards because fines are now $325,000 per incident, 10 times the penalties until a new law was signed last month.

“The rules are murky and none of (the broadcast networks’) business plans are designed to handle such huge fines,” Peter Liguori said Monday during Fox’s portion of the Television Critics Assn.’s summer press tour.

Fox, along with CBS and NBC, is urging speedy court review of an FCC decision finding some of their shows violated decency standards, opposing a delay sought by the government.

The FCC ordered Internet telephone services like Vonage Holdings Corp. to contribute part of their revenue into the Universal Service Fund, which subsidizes phone service to rural and low-income areas as well as communications services and Internet access for schools, hospitals and libraries.

The agency also increased the amount wireless telephone providers would have to pay into the fund. The move may lead to higher bills for wireless and Internet telephone customers because the companies typically pass the fees on to customers.

Companies offering long-distance and international telephone services as well as high-speed Internet service via digital subscriber lines (DSL) must currently contribute 10.9 percent of that revenue into the $7.3 billion fund.

By a 34-22 vote, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee rejected a Democratic-backed Net neutrality amendment that also enjoyed support from Internet and software companies including Microsoft, Amazon.com and Google.