Connect with us

Broadband's Impact

A History of Network Neutrality

WASHINGTON, October 11, 2010 – The issue of network neutrality is one that has become an increasing problem around the globe. In the United States, the problem became more of an issue with the rise of cable and DSL service.

Published

on

WASHINGTON, October 11, 2010 – The issue of network neutrality is one that has become an increasing problem around the globe. In the United States, the problem became more of an issue with the rise of cable and DSL service.

With the decreasing level of competition among internet service providers and the increasing number of violations of network neutrality, the issue has garnered increasing importance. While Congress has attempted to protect consumers, it has failed. Private industry firms has already begun to adopt rules that they claim will protect consumers but avoid critical issues. The Federal Communications Commission has supported the issue but has yet to formally codify any protections.

In order to understand the importance of network neutrality one must first understand its principles. While there are many variants of the definition, they all agree on some basic points: users should be able to connect to any device they wish. They should be able to run any legal application they want to. They should not have their service degraded based upon usage.

Columbia University Professor Tim Wu, who wrote about the subject in 2003, has said, “Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally.” For consumers, this means that they are able to use their internet connection for any purpose they see fit.

There have been two major violations of these principles. In 2004, Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-IP (voice over internet protocol, or VoIP) service Vonage over its DSL connections. In 2007, Comcast was accused of slowing down the cable connections of customers who used BitTorrent, a file-sharing application.

The Madison River violation was resolved when the FCC intervened, and Madison River agreed to pay a fine and stop blocking access. The FCC consent decree states :“On February 11, 2005, the bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to Madison River, initiating an investigation. Specifically, the bureau inquired about allegations that Madison River was blocking ports used for VoIP applications, thereby affecting customers’ ability to use VoIP through one or more VoIP service providers.” In order to avoid future costs associated with litigation Madison River settled and paid the fine.

The Comcast case went to the courts when the ISP claimed that the FCC did not have the authority to stop them from blocking BitTorrent. In April 2010, the Comcast case went before the D.C. Circuit Court which held that the FCC exceeded its authority in pursuing Comcast.

Shortly after this ruling, the FCC issued a notice of inquiry in May that proposed changing the classification of broadband from a Title I service to a more heavily-regulated Title II service, but it also included a new proposal which the FCC chairman called the Third Way. This Third Way was a hybrid of Title I and Title II regulations. The Third Way gained a support from a wide range of stakeholders including some ISPs and consumer protection advocates. Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Tom Udall of New Mexico all sent letters in support.

In June, a group of ISPs and technology companies announced the creation of the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG or TAG) which would help advise and mitigate the problems of network neutrality. The organization had a wide membership including AT&T, Cisco Systems, Comcast, DISH Network, EchoStar, Google, Intel, Level 3 Communications, Microsoft, Time Warner Cable and Verizon. While many saw this as a positive step, the organization has yet to propose any solutions.

While the notice of inquiry was receiving responses, news that the FCC began to hold closed-door meetings with major stakeholders on the issue of network neutrality created an uproar. Many consumer protection advocates opposed these secret meetings, and they were stopped.

In August, Google and Verizon announced a joint policy statement in which they outlined their own network neutrality principles. Their statement said in part: “Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use, since openness has been central to the explosive innovation that has made the internet a transformative medium.” They however specifically left out wireless since they said it was too new of a market to require consumer protection. Their omission sparked an outcry from consumers groups and others who said consumers’ increasing use of wireless devices showed that wireless is the wave of the future and should be watched closely to better benefit consumers.

During this period, many called upon Congress to act, claiming that the FCC did not have the necessary authority to reclassify broadband even if it wanted to. The commissioner supported this and stated numerous times that he was willing to work with Congress to find a suitable solution. Rep. Henry Waxman, the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, proposed legislation that would codify many of the FCC’s principles and also included language which would require ISPs to disclose accurate speed and pricing information. The Waxman bill also included wireless along with wireline which was further than the FCC’s original plans. Waxman was unable to get the bill passed through his committee due to Republican opposition.

The future of network neutrality remains unclear. However, whatever direction it takes in the policy, business or consumer arenas will affect the growth of the internet for years to come.

Rahul Gaitonde has been writing for BroadbandBreakfast.com since the fall of 2009, and in May of 2010 he became Deputy Editor. He was a fellow at George Mason University’s Long Term Governance Project, a researcher at the International Center for Applied Studies in Information Technology and worked at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. He holds a Masters of Public Policy from George Mason University, where his research focused on the economic and social benefits of broadband expansion. He has written extensively about Universal Service Fund reform, the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program and the Broadband Data Improvement Act

Broadband's Impact

Sunne McPeak: Achieving True Digital Equity Requires Strong Leadership and Sincere Collaboration

Collaboration between community leaders will be essential in ensuring success of the Biden infrastructure bill in California.

Published

on

The author of this Expert Opinion is Sunne Wright McPeak

This week, President Joe Biden signed the infrastructure bill, which includes $65 billion for expanding broadband deployment and access for all Americans.

The national plan is described as the most significant infrastructure upgrade in the three decades since the Cold War. “This is an opportunity to create an Eisenhower national highway system for the information age,” says a former White House National Security Council senior director.

For California – the nation’s largest state – it means a minimum $100 million for broadband infrastructure that is designed to expand high-speed internet access for at least 545,000 residents, particularly in unserved and underserved communities, according to the White House. The federal funding will support California’s $6 billion broadband infrastructure plan.

Closing the digital divide and achieving true digital equity requires strong leadership and sincere collaboration among public agencies, internet service providers and civic leaders to seize this unique opportunity to achieve strategic priorities in education, telehealth, transportation and economic development. The 2021 USC-CETF Statewide Survey on Broadband Adoption highlighted that a significant number of Californians will be left behind because they are unable to access the internet and other digital functionality needed for vital activities.

Now, the question is how to ensure the public’s funds will be used as effectively and efficiently as possible. California must implement a thoughtful, aggressive strategy that will maximize immediate impact and optimize return on investment. Separately, for several years, CETF has been calling for broadband deployment as a green strategy for sustainability; that urgency only grows in the wake of the COP26 climate meetings. As leaders begin to make historic investments, they should embrace these key principles for action:

  • Prioritize and drive infrastructure construction to the hardest-to-reach residents — rural unserved areas, tribal lands, and poor urban neighborhoods — and then connect all locations, especially anchor institutions (schools, libraries and health care facilities), along the path of deployment.
  • Require open-access fiber middle-mile infrastructure with end-user internet speeds sufficient to support distance learning and telehealth.
  • Strive to achieve ubiquitous deployment in each region to avoid cherry picking for more lucrative areas.
  • Encourage coordination among local governments and regional agencies to streamline permitting and achieve economies of scale.
  • Develop an open competitive process to achieve the most cost-effective investment of new dollars by optimizing use of existing infrastructure that ratepayers and taxpayers already have built.

To learn more, please contact Sunne Wright McPeak at sunne.mcpeak@cetfund.org

Sunne Wright McPeak is President and CEO of California Emerging Technology Fund, a statewide non-profit foundation with 15 years of experience addressing broadband issues to close the Digital Divide in California. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC. 

Continue Reading

Funding

Bigger Investment Needed for Next Generation 9-1-1 Services, Experts Say

Former head of NTIA said it could cost $12 billion.

Published

on

David Redl, CEO of consulting group Salt Point Strategies and former head of NTIA

WASHINGTON, November 15, 2021–– Experts at a Federal Communications Bar Association event earlier this month said the current funding allocation for next-generation 911 services is inadequate.

Currently, under the Joe Biden administration’s Build Back Better Act, the new 911 services – which will allow people to share videos, images and texts with 911 call centers – is allocated $500 million.

“It’s not enough to fully fund 911,” David Redl, CEO of consulting group Salt Point Strategies, said on the FCBA’s “What Comes Next in 911” panel on November 4. Redl was formerly the head of the Commerce Department’s telecom agency National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

Redl said the number could be “about 12 billion.” For Redl, the challenge is to address the funding gap for NG911 “when there’s skepticism in Washington and the [Federal Communications Commission and] when states have different ideas about the best way to allocate funding and best technology to use.”

Dan Henry, director of government affairs at the National Emergency Number Association, agreed.

While Henry said he’s excited about the national-level interoperability tools for call centers that will allow the ability to transfer emergency calls across states with the call’s incident file intact, the failure to get sufficient funding for NG911 puts health and safety at risk. “We’re not near what we need to get [NG911] across the finish line,” he said.

The technology to deploy NG911 is ready, added Chandy Ghosh, chief operating officer and general manager of emergency services at communications company Inteliquent. “It’s not a tech issue,” she said. Wireless clients have been testing NG911 with successful results.

Stakeholders need to communicate with government

Chris Moore, principal at consulting firm Brooks Bawden Moore, said a federal investment is required to deploy NG911. He suggested that industry stakeholders should convene to tell government what they need.

“For now we’ll get what we get, we’re going to continue to push for more funding, but it’s not going to be this round,” he said.

On October 26, the National Association of State 911 Administrators Association asked the FCC to initiate a rulemaking to assist with the implementation of NG911 by clarifying the agency’s authority to regulate the delivery of 911 services through internet protocol-based emergency networks and shift cost-bearing to service providers.

Continue Reading

Funding

Another $700 Million for 26 States Through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund

Over 400,000 locations across the U.S. will get broadband in this funding wave.

Published

on

Photo by John Staley from NextTV

WASHINGTON, November 12, 2021 – The Federal Communications Commission announced Wednesday that it will authorize $709,060,159 for 26 states through its Rural Digital Opportunity Fund.

These are disbursements of the $9.2 billion that were announced in round one of the RDOF reverse auction that took place in the fall of 2020.

The rural fund supports new broadband deployment efforts for 50 broadband providers in 400,000 locations across the U.S. Much of the funding will go to nonprofit rural electric cooperatives to deploy broadband in their service areas.

But others awarded funding under the auction have already defaulted on coverage that they said they would provide as part of their winning bids.

The 26 states ready to receive Wednesday’s funding include Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said that the announcement “highlights the agency’s commitment to supporting even more opportunities to connect hundreds of thousands of Americans to high-speed, reliable broadband service while doing our due diligence to ensure the applicants can deliver to these unserved communities as promised.”

The Commission’s announcement comes after the FCC launched the second round of its COVID-19 Telehealth Program on Tuesday, granting $42.5 million for health care providers. This telehealth program and exceeds the FCC’s $150 million goal by reaching $166.13 million for telehealth funding.

These funding programs provide reimbursements for telecommunication and information services and connected devices the providers have purchased to continue their telehealth services. The Commission also announced $421 million on Monday to keep over 10 million students connected across the U.S. as part of the Emergency Connectivity Fund.

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

Trending