Empowered by an Open Network

Gigi B. Sohn, Counselor to the Chairman of the FCC, being interviewed by NPR correspondent Laura Sydell

A few weeks ago the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) re-wrote the rules governing Internet service providers (ISPs) in North America setting off a firestorm among communications corporations and civil libertarians. As you can imagine, many here at SXSW Interactive have an interest (and stake) in the implications of this shift.

For over a decade the FCC has attempted to balance the power of major communications corporations (Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner and AT&T to be specific) over against public interest in Internet access. After many failed legal attempts to re-structure FCC regulations in a way that would broadly benefit the public interest and communications corporations, the FCC exercised the legal option made available by the Courts to reclassify the Internet under the same rules that govern telecommunications. According to Gigi Sohn, Counselor to the Chairman of the FCC, who helped to reshape the new FCC rules, the primary concerns driving this shift were to ensure (a) that packets of data traveling across the Internet continue to be treated agnostically, (b) that broadband access in North America will continue to expand to new regions (especially rural areas and poorer areas) and (c) that the quality of broadband will continue to be enriched to keep the U.S. internationally competitive (our position varies between 11th and 13th depending on the metrics, apparently).

But why is the FCC so concerned? People love the Internet and many love their access to it, so what is the big deal?

First, the companies that have helped to build out and currently operate the Internet in North America (the ISPs listed above and some others) have the power to (and currently do) control Internet traffic based on the contents of the data packets coming across the network. Every data packet is (very quickly) analyzed, identified and then routed based on internal sets of rules put onto the networking systems by the ISPs. Speaking most generously, this “traffic shaping” is done to keep the Internet (and sub-networks off the main Internet) running efficiently so that the system is not overwhelmed by one type of data (primarily video streaming). However, and speaking less generously, many of the large ISPs in the U.S. also own broadcast networks and other companies. The same traffic shaping technology can be used to detect and throttle certain types of “unwanted” traffic. As we saw in a recent instance, Comcast provided more network bandwidth for streaming content from its own service and throttled Netflix (along with other video streaming services) on its networks in a particular region. Prior to the FCC’s action, there was no restriction against this sort or throttling and many of these Internet subscribers did not have another ISP option in their region. Because of the alignments that some ISPs have it media companies (and other corporate entities), the FCC is concerned that data packets are treated agnostically.

Second, there are many areas of the U.S. that still do not have broadband access. Without thinking too hard, you can probably guess the economic classifications of these regions: rural and poor. There are no incentives for ISPs to build out broadband pathways to rural areas or to regions where they know people cannot afford their services. In some cases communities have attempted to broker deals with ISPs to create a co-op of sorts to bring Internet to their areas only to have their request rejected. For these reasons, the FCC wants to encourage ISPs (existing and future) to continue expanding the reach of broadband to these regions.

Finally, the U.S. has been behind the rest of the world for some time in broadband quality. Part of that is the fault of the FCC who initially set the standards for broadband too low and have kept those standards in place for too long. The revised rules raise the bar for what passes as broadband so that the entire Internet infrastructure will be enriched as it is built out.

These three safeguards, if I can call them that, ensure an open Internet that empowers information access and innovation in engineering, design and business. The Internet is currently the pathway for great economic growth for thousands of people. I believe that only by ensuring that a balance of power exists between ISPs and federal authorities through a mechanism like the FCC proposes can an truly open Internet continue to exist.

As you are reading this (given it is within a few day of when I publish it), the current FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, is appearing before Congress to talk about the recent rule changes. As he appears before Congress we will be hearing a lot about Net Neutrality. Many Republicans in Congress do not want these FCC rules to stand because they are an instance of federal regulation on commerce, which runs counter to free market ways of thinking. Comcast and others know this, and will be lobbying Congress to demand a return to the prior set of regulations. As things move forward, ISPs will also be trying to sway public opinion in the direction of returning to the prior regulations. A story posted earlier today signals the sort of political play Republicans and the ISPs will be making, “Wheeler Says Obama Didn’t Issue ‘Secret Instructions’ On Net Neutrality.” Yes, another “Thanks, Obama” moment. Based on what I heard from Gigi Sohn, who helped to reframe the FCC rules, I believe that she sees these three safeguards as the last things protecting an open and expanding broadband network in the U.S. from being something very similar to cable television: An Internet highway with large gates and toll booths at every crossing. I believe she is correct.

All of this said, I overheard a lobbyist for Net Neutrality after the Sohn interview say that he does not believe the recent revisions to the FCC regulations will stand due to the current political climate in Washington. A Republican-led House simply has too much pull and the FCC operates at their behest. In addition, Bruce Sterling, a genuine prophet of the digital age, believes the new FCC rules will not stand and that we are experiencing the death of the Internet of the 90s and the birth of the commodified Internet that will be throttled, segmented, ghettoed and, above all things, not open.

Even in this less-than-open Internet climate innovation will certainly still be possible. The difference will be that much of it will come from R&D shops within larger corporations (Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft) who can afford the resources to allow these innovations to be successful, particularly in the development stages. For makers outside of these resource-rich environments development will happen either outside of the U.S. or will be difficult since it will be impossible to test innovative network technologies to scale. The technological future remains bright, but will match the current bifurcated economic climate.