Kerry Applauds FCC Support for Net Neutrality Rules

[ProSense]

Kerry Applauds FCC Support for Net Neutrality Rules

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), today released the following statement after FCC Commissioner Michael Copps announced his support for proposed FCC rules to safeguard network neutrality. The three Democratic members of the five-member commission have now come out in support of new network neutrality rules, paving the way for their approval.

“The FCC’s Democratic Commissioners should be applauded for reaching a consensus on rules that will protect network neutrality on the Internet. As Commissioner Copps, a lifelong champion of open communications and democratic discourse, said in his statement today, vigilant and vigorous implementation of the rule is critical to its success. And while he and Commissioner Clyburn, as well as many of the champions of network neutrality, including myself, would have supported a stricter order, I commend them for rising to the moment and making possible very meaningful progress to preserve the freedom to communicate and compete over the Internet. I also join them in commending Chairman Genachowski for his inclusive, thoughtful, and creative work in bringing parties together, airing all points of view, and finding a principled center.”

[Kdillard]

1. Well I am not reading good things about this proposal so I am disappointed that Kerry is supporting

Opening the door to paid prioritization and allowing companies to charge special fees on those with unusually high bandwith which could lead to higher bills being given to consumers. I would love for someone to tell me that is not what they are doing.

[politicasista]

12. It's ok to be disappointed

People we like aren't perfect. :) Also, call his office and Senators to tell them how you really feel about this.

[TheWraith]

36. Here's a thought--maybe Kerry actually knows what he's talking about.

By the way, companies already charge fees for higher bandwidth usage, both on websites and end users. They always have.

[hlthe2b]

2. F__k... It appears Al Franken is about the only one that understands

the whole principle behind net neutrality. Damn.... I fear we are getting sold down the river.

I'd gladly be wrong... :shrug:

[ProSense]

3. This is what happens when Congress drags its feet

Kerry has been at this longer than most, and it's a good thing the Republicans on the FCC didn't get their way. Congress can still act. Net Neutrality is not dead. Kerry:

<...>

One of the big things some folks are saying is that the FCC shouldn’t act before Congress acts. But look, while it’s still a battle we’re fighting to write a good law, we can’t wait for a new law; the Internet is changing so rapidly, we have to bring clarity to what’s going on, and the FCC can do that right now. (And for the irony department, it's a little like the battle they waged against climate legislation - they say Congress not the regulators should act - then they stop Congress from acting. Feel familiar?)

link

[hlthe2b]

4. Ahh, sheesh...

All I want is some sane policy. I don't care how we get there. Damn it all..... :shrug:

[flpoljunkie]

39. Senator Franken emailed this today...

If you saw my op-ed in the Huffington Post yesterday, you know how concerned I was about today's FCC meeting on net neutrality (and, by the way, would you mind sharing it on Twitter and Facebook?).

Chairman Genachowski's draft Order was worse than nothing--and we needed to make sure the FCC didn't approve it today.

Well, there's good news and bad news. The good news is that, thanks to Commissioners Copps and Clyburn--not to mention a nationwide network of net neutrality activists like you--the proposal approved today is better than the original. For instance, the FCC has now stated that it does not condone discriminatory behavior by wireless companies like Verizon and AT&T--an important piece that was missing from the first draft. We made a difference.

The bad news is that, while it's no longer worse than nothing, the Order approved today is not nearly strong enough to protect consumers or preserve the free and open Internet. And with so much at stake, I cannot support it.

I'm still very concerned that it includes almost nothing to protect net neutrality for mobile broadband service--often the only choice for broadband if you live in rural or otherwise underserved areas. And I'm particularly disappointed that the FCC isn't specifically banning paid prioritization--the creation of an Internet "fast lane" for corporations that can afford to pay for it.

But here's the important thing to remember: This fight's not over. The FCC must vigorously enforce these new regulations--and it must follow through on addressing wireless discrimination going forward.

So what now? First, we need to work together to make sure the FCC keeps the promises it made today--just as our movement was instrumental in improving these regulations from the first draft, we'll be critical in ensuring that the regulations are enforced vigorously.

And I'm going to keep working with net neutrality advocates to see if there are legislative or administrative steps that can be taken to strengthen these protections.

But, for today, know that the work we're doing to save the Internet is making a difference. Today, the FCC took a small step forward--too small by my estimation, but forward nonetheless.

Thanks for your support,

Al

[jaxx]

5. Net neutrality rules poised to win FCC approval

By Cecilia Kang

Updated 5:09 p.m.
The Federal Communications Commission is poised on Tuesday to pass net neutrality regulations, rules that would for the first time prevent Internet service providers from blocking or giving preferential treatment to Web sites on their networks.

The FCC's proposal will receive support from a majority of the five-member commission, after intense lobbying. Telecom and cable companies have said that the new rules could deter them from expanding broadband Internet connections and bolstering speeds. On the other side, Internet giants such as Google and Skype, along with public interest groups, have for years pushed for such regulation, saying the increased importance of the Internet calls for clear rules to ensure that consumers get equal access to all legal Web sites and applications.

The rules would prevent Internet service providers from blocking Web sites and applications on Internet lines feeding into U.S. homes. Those carriers -- such as Comcast and AT&T -- could not deliberately slow down one Web site over another. The rules frown on the practice of charging Web sites for better or faster delivery, but observers say that practice would not be strictly prohibited.

Wireless networks would not be covered as broadly by the rules. An FCC official said carriers such as Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel would be prohibited from blocking competing voice and videoconferencing applications. Any other practices would have to be disclosed by the carriers.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/12/fcc_copps_to_vote_in_favor_of.html?hpid=topnews

[Kdillard]

6. How is deterring companies from expanding broadband and bolstering speed a good thing? This makes it

sound slightly better than what I have been reading but not really comforted. I wish Kerry would not support this proposal.

[ProSense]

7. Kerry has been at this for years,

expanding access to broadband and strongly advocating net neutrality. While there is support for new rules, the FCC should act. Next, Congress needs to make this a priority.

[jaxx]

10. I think the comcasts are whining the rules could deter....not that they will.

Look at this paragraph again:


*Telecom and cable companies have said that the new rules could deter them from expanding broadband Internet connections and bolstering speeds. On the other side, Internet giants such as Google and Skype, along with public interest groups, have for years pushed for such regulation, saying the increased importance of the Internet calls for clear rules to ensure that consumers get equal access to all legal Web sites and applications.*


The cable bunch want to be able to slow down sites...and they are wrong. But they will fight for this because they can make more money. Really I can't see how they can not continue to expand broadband, they would be put into the extinct column in a few years.

[karynnj]

32. I read this as you do

In essence it means the Comcasts, AT&Ts etc did not win -- otherwise, they would hailing the decision, not whining.

By the way, Mitch McConnell just blasted it on the floor of the Senate. (A good decision rule might be that if Waxman and Kerry are for it and McConnell is against it, it is likely not a bad - even if disappointing - decision. )

[Imagevision]

8. Can anyone clearly define Net Neutrality Rules...?

[Imagevision]

9. I didn't think so

[dennis4868]

11. plain and simple...

for some here, no matter what Obama does, it will never be enough....there are those that will always whine and bitch about something....it's getting old.

[politicasista]

22. Not just Obama, but any Dem that tries to support him n/t

[politicasista]

13. Doesn't sound like a good idea

Based on the comments in the thread. Plus, the FCC is a joke IMO.

[burning rain]

14. This is disappointing.

Probably even moreso than his opposition to drug reimportation.

[ProSense]

15. Kerry is not

opposed to drug reimportation.

[burning rain]

16. Well, he's voted against it.

Such things would not suprise me much coming from a conservative Democratic bum like Ben Nelson, but Kerry is not a conservative bum. He's a moderate liberal and a good egg 9 times out of 10, so it comes as a rather nasty surprise.

[ProSense]

18. No, he

voted against one bill and supported another. You don't have to like the one he supported, but that doesn't change that he supports drug reimportation.

[karynnj]

33. The two times he voted against it have been when there was an

attempt to add it to landmark legislation where it was known that had it passed and been added, the entire bill would fail. One time it was Ted Kennedy's bill which greatly strengthened the Food and Drug Administration and the other was the big Healthcare bill - passing that amendment was a bill killer for some Senators with major drug companies in them - including Senator Carper, who said as much on this and other pieces on the Finance committee that would have hurt the drug companies.

However, Kerry was a sponsor - for at least two Congresses of the legislation. (I actually disagree with him - preferring a law that would require US companies to not charge far more here, that elsewhere. It would seem that there could be some ratio that can't be exceeded. Right now, the high US prices recoup their research costs - where it would be fairer to spread the recovery over world wide costs. It is the US patent, which they deserve, that gives them monopoly rights in setting the price. That would make it fair to legislate against the huge differences in price that lead to the arbitrage situation where drugs, shipped to Canada and then re-imported are cheaper.)

[burning rain]

38. I'll put more stock in bills to lower drug prices when they get serious consideration in Congress.

For the time being I fault those Democrats who made what I see as a scrawny compromise with big pharma in the health care bill, rewarding them with a protectionist trade policy very much out of step with the generally pro-free trade policies that have been in vogue with top Democrats for some time. America is not a rich country that can afford sky-high drug prices. We are a country with a few rich, vast poverty, and a dying middle class, and life expectancy is dropping.

[karynnj]

40. It would have killed the entire healthcare bill - not just the drug part

The point is that if the drug re-importation bill were a standalone bill, then it is something he has long supported. It is clear that he - and others, made the decision that it would kill the overall bill. Remember we could not lose even one Democrats.

[burning rain]

41. That is arguably true but I see no reason to put stock in bills that don't get action.

.

[ProSense]

17. More on the issue

Excerpt from statement by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski via WaPo:

<...>

On one end of the spectrum, there are those who say government should do nothing at all.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who would adopt a set of detailed and rigid regulations.

I reject both extremes in favor of a strong and sensible framework – one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment.

We are told by some not to try to fix what isn’t broken, and that rules of the road protecting Internet freedom would discourage innovation and investment. But countless innovators and investors say just the opposite, including many who generally oppose government action. Over the course of this proceeding we have heard from so many entrepreneurs, engineers, venture capitalists and others working daily to maintain U.S. leadership in innovation. Their message has been clear: the next decade of innovation in this sector is at risk without sensible rules of the road …

At the same time, while acting to preserve Internet freedom and openness, government must not overreach by imposing rules that are overly restrictive or that pretend to knowledge about this dynamic and rapidly changing marketplace that we simply do not possess.…

We’re adopting a framework that will increase certainty for businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs. We’re taking an approach that will help foster a cycle of massive investment, innovation and consumer demand both at the edge and in the core of our broadband networks.

Our action will strengthen the Internet job-creation engine.

This framework will advance our goal of having America’s broadband networks be the freest and fastest in the world …

… And so today we are adopting, for the first time, broadly applicable rules requiring transparency for mobile broadband providers, and prohibiting them from blocking websites and certain competitive applications.

… I am proud of this process, which has been one of the most transparent in FCC history.

And I am proud of the result, which has already garnered broad support – from the technology industry, including TechNet, the Information Technology Industry Council, the Internet Innovation Alliance and the hundreds of technology companies those groups represent; from investors, including some of the nation’s pre-eminent venture capitalists and angel investors. Our framework has also drawn support from key consumer, labor, and civil rights groups, a list that includes the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Communications Workers of America. And our framework has been supported by a number of broadband providers as well, who recognize the value of bringing a level of certainty to this fraught issue.…

Thanks to their work, today a strengthened FCC is adopting rules to ensure that the Internet remains a powerful platform for innovation and job creation; to empower consumers and entrepreneurs; and protect free expression.

These rules will increase certainty in the marketplace; spur investment both at the edge and in the core of our broadband networks, and contribute to a 21st century job-creation engine in the United States.

Finally, these rules fulfill many promises, including a promise to the future – a promise to the companies that don’t yet exist, the entrepreneurs that haven’t yet started work in the dorm rooms or garages."

link

<...>

What's in the proposal?

Genachowski's plan is reportedly based on a net neutrality compromise brokered by outgoing House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat. Waxman met behind closed doors with broadband providers, Web-based companies and net neutrality advocates earlier this year, but the compromise fell apart in Congress after committee Republicans declined to endorse it.

Under Genachowski's proposal, the FCC would prohibit broadband providers from blocking customer access to legal Web content. The FCC would also require providers to disclose their network management practices to customers.

The proposal would bar wireline-based broadband providers from "unreasonable discrimination" against Web traffic, but it would not impose that same rule on mobile broadband providers. The FCC would watch mobile broadband providers closely and act if it sees evidence of anticonsumer or anticompetitive conduct, Genachowski said in a speech.

The proposal would not reclassify broadband as regulated, common-carrier service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, as Genachowski proposed earlier this year. Broadband would stay classified as a lightly regulated information service under Title I.

More details of the proposal will come out during the FCC meeting, which starts at 10:30 a.m. EST Tuesday.

link

[ProudDad]

20. Corporate shill appointed by Obama as Chair...

Great source... :sarcasm:

PS: Waxman used to be a good guy...I guess he's shoring up his "old age pension" ...

Probably gonna' go to work for AT&T soon...

[karynnj]

31. Your attack on Waxman is as asinine as your attack on Kerry

In both cases, you disagree with their view that this decision is in the country's interest - which is you're right. What is unacceptable is that rather than argue that there was a better compromise - that the Supreme Court would not declare unconstitutional, you attack the integrity of one legislator and the work ethic of another. Neither attack is justified.

Not to mention, that your expertise, in a somewhat related area is not all that relevant to the issue.

[ProudDad]

19. Even if Kerry were a reliable source, he knows less about the Internet

and Net Neutrality...

Than so many here on DU do...

This breaks the contract of internet site equality just at the execrable "payroll tax holiday" has broken the contract of Social Security as Social Insurance...

[ProSense]

21. Are you joking?

"he knows less about the Internet and Net Neutrality..."

Kerry is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet and he's extremely familiar with the issue.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

25. More than a "blogger"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x573653#573901

[karynnj]

29. Your link is both egotistical and your characterization of Kerry is against DU rules

[ProudDad]

24. Are you joking?

I was in the computer business as designer, software architect, programmer and consultant for over 40 years...

I've forgotten more about computers and the internet than rich dilettantes like Kerry ever knew...

Just being on a Senate committee does NOT provide someone with knowledge...

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karynnj]

28. self delte - dup

[karynnj]

30. You flatter yourself. None of the things that you list give you expertise on the regulatory issues

or the Supreme Court decision that called earlier rules unconstitutional. In fact, nearly any AT&T person, over several decades, who was in the organization that dealt with FCC regulation would likely be more knowledgeable than you on the law behind the FCC's regulation - and few of them would be as knowledgeable as Senator Kerry on how it affects the internet, which is not a settled issue. Many of them have testified over the years before the subcommittee Kerry now holds and before the FCC - others have responded to the interrogatories sent by the Senators, representatives and the FCC commissioners.

It is disgusting that you call Senator Kerry a "rich dilettante". He clearly has been wealthy since he married the love of his life, Teresa Heinz, but he is an extremely hard working Senator, respected on all the committees he sits on.

Now, I do agree that it is entirely likely that Senator Kerry has never written a single line of code - but that has nothing to do with this issue. His role is not to be able to create something for the internet, but to write the laws and oversee the FCC.

[mtnsnake]

34. !!!

I've forgotten more about computers and the internet than rich dilettantes like Kerry ever knew...

:evilgrin: :rofl:

[ProSense]

35. Somehow,

I knew you would find that funny.

[mtnsnake]

42. Sorry,

Just couldn't help myself.

Are we still chums? B-)

[MH1]

37. The folks at SaveTheInternet.com don't agree with you about Kerry

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/09/02/20/net-neutrality-champion-takes-charge-senate

Of course they probably disagree with Kerry's current stance but I doubt that they'd agree that he doesn't know anything about it. I think they're a little more honest over there than that.

Kerry is a longtime supporter of Net Neutrality. In 2006, he wrote for this blog that “Net Neutrality and internet build-out are crucial to building a more modern and fair Information Society.”

In 2007, he engaged SavetheInternet.com supporters in a spirited debate in which he stated that his “bottom line” was to see that “our economic and political future is tied up in a free and open Internet, available to all Americans. That involves making sure the content of the Internet flows freely.”

His voting record bears this out. Kerry has been a supporter of the Senate Net Neutrality bill in the previous Congress, and he voted for Net Neutrality in committee and against communications legislation that didn’t protect the open Internet.

[karynnj]

27. Kerry heads the Senate Commerce Committee's subcommittee on communications, technology, and the

internet. That means he has staff assigned to him in support of that committee. They are clearly experts on regulation, law and the industry. In terms of what legislation is realistically possible and what actions by the FCC are realistically possible, Kerry knows FAR more than anyone here on DU or Daily Kos.

The fact is the Supreme Court ruling hurt. In addition, the Congress does not have the votes for the type of rules that everyone here - or Kerry, from his public comments, which have been extensive, would want. Even this, which relies on the FCC's ability to regulate common carriers may also be deemed unconstitutional by a Supreme Court that would give the providers free rein.