[AusNOG] Net Neutrality: President Obama's Plan for a Free and Open Internet

[Jake Anderson]

Saw this in the news, seems pretty recent and I figured there could well 
be flow on effects here in terms of precedent at least.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/Net-Neutrality

Text of the statement

An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly 
to our very way of life. By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, 
igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer 
together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing 
influences the world has ever known.

“Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since 
its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for 
granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict 
the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace 
for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million 
public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect 
net neutrality.

When I was a candidate for this office, I made clear my commitment to a 
free and open Internet, and my commitment remains as strong as ever. 
Four years ago, the FCC tried to implement rules that would protect net 
neutrality with little to no impact on the telecommunications companies 
that make important investments in our economy. After the rules were 
challenged, the court reviewing the rules agreed with the FCC that net 
neutrality was essential for preserving an environment that encourages 
new investment in the network, new online services and content, and 
everything else that makes up the Internet as we now know it. 
Unfortunately, the court ultimately struck down the rules — not because 
it disagreed with the need to protect net neutrality, but because it 
believed the FCC had taken the wrong legal approach.

The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs 
alone. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net 
neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone 
company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do 
or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps 
that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs 
already observe. These bright-line rules include:

  * *No blocking.*If a consumer requests access to a website or service,
    and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block
    it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated
    with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
  * *No throttling.*Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down
    some content or speed up others — through a process often called
    “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
  * *Increased transparency.*The connection between consumers and ISPs —
    the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might
    get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use
    of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if
    necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection
    between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
  * *No paid prioritization.*Simply put: No service should be stuck in a
    “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping
    would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s
    growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on
    paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

If carefully designed, these rules should not create any undue burden 
for ISPs, and can have clear, monitored exceptions for reasonable 
network management and for specialized services such as dedicated, 
mission-critical networks serving a hospital. But combined, these rules 
mean everything for preserving the Internet’s openness.

The rules also have to reflect the way people use the Internet today, 
which increasingly means on a mobile device. I believe the FCC should 
make these rules fully applicable to mobile broadband as well, while 
recognizing the special challenges that come with managing wireless 
networks.

To be current, these rules must also build on the lessons of the past. 
For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect 
you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly 
they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business. That is why 
a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a 
customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely 
for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense 
that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the 
transmission of information — whether a phone call, or a packet of data.

So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is 
of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of 
the other vital services do. To do that, I believe the FCC should 
reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the 
Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate 
regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. 
This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American 
homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to 
ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.

Investment in wired and wireless networks has supported jobs and made 
America the center of a vibrant ecosystem of digital devices, apps, and 
platforms that fuel growth and expand opportunity. Importantly, network 
investment remained strong under the previous net neutrality regime, 
before it was struck down by the court; in fact, the court agreed that 
protecting net neutrality helps foster more investment and innovation. 
If the FCC appropriately forbears from the Title II regulations that are 
not needed to implement the principles above — principles that most ISPs 
have followed for years — it will help ensure new rules are consistent 
with incentives for further investment in the infrastructure of the 
Internet.

The Internet has been one of the greatest gifts our economy — and our 
society — has ever known. The FCC was chartered to promote competition, 
innovation, and investment in our networks. In service of that mission, 
there is no higher calling than protecting an open, accessible, and free 
Internet. I thank the Commissioners for having served this cause with 
distinction and integrity, and I respectfully ask them to adopt the 
policies I have outlined here, to preserve this technology’s promise for 
today, and future generations to come.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20141111/303a408f/attachment.html>