FCC Chairman Copps: ‘Tear down this wall’
By Ronald O Carlson
It’s time that the wireless carriers and cable companies realize and accept the fact that their place in the world is to provide bandwidth. What goes through the pipes and over the air really isn’t any of their business or concern.
News.com reports that media group Freepress has asked the US Federal Communications Commission and Chairman Michael Copps to enforce the agency’s policies regarding device and network openness, specifically regarding limitations placed by AT&T on Skype for iPhone and the carrier’s obvious reluctance to allow handset tethering. According to Ben Scott, policy director with Freepress:
This issue is not new—it is simply unresolved. Wise voices at the FCC have long said that the Internet Policy Statement [on Network Neutrality] applies to wireless. As more and more consumers begin to access the Internet wirelessly, it is critical that the FCC clarifies that online consumer protections that prohibit blocking are the same regardless of how we access the Web.
Freepress is taking the stand in response (USAToday) to the Wi-Fi only limitation placed on Skype, a voice over IP (VOIP) software telephony solution, and AT&T’s statements that it shouldn’t be forced to facilitate the services of a competitor. Jim Cicconi, a public policy executive with AT&T, said:
We absolutely expect our vendors [ie Apple] not to facilitate the services of our competitors. Skype is a competitor, just like Verizon or Sprint or T-Mobile. [Skype] has no obligation to market AT&T services. Why should the reverse be true?
Of course, the obvious point Cicconi glosses over is that AT&T is providing a utility, like water, electricty or natural gas, which is fundamental to people’s lives and economy. That is, given that certain technical specifications are met, neither the water nor gas companies have any right to tell us how, when or why you use their product.
Really, would the world have progressed as it has if electric companies could tell us which appliances, functions, etc we could put in our homes and businesses? The notion of limiting the uses and applications of the internet is just as absurd.
It’s just a pipe
It is rather perverse that AT&T demands the exclusive right to sell specific devices, what functions those devices have, what services to charge for and how much to charge for them. The ultimate irony is that all of these distinctions and limitations are false, because voice, video, webpages, audio or whatever are just bits.
Whether it’s AT&T and the other wireless carriers, or the cable companies video over Internet quashing data caps, it’s more than reasonable to enforce the same neutrality on the mobile internet that the FCC has said it wants for the wired internet. Bits are bits. Data is data.
And, like people and information, bits and data will find a way to be free.
Although Ronald Reagan was talking about politics, his Berlin Wall speech seems an a appropriate metaphor for the drive to keep the internet, whether wired or wireless, open and free.
Chairman Copps, tear down these walls.
Related:
Entry was posted
on Saturday, April 4th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
under 
Print This Post
Read more entries by Ronald O Carlson.
Stumble It!
April 5th, 2009
Okay, it’s just bits, but then again, if utilities charge us by the amount used, whether it’s water, electricity or natural gas, and some utilities even differentiate pricing by user, ie commercial rates are higher than residential ones, and some utilities change rates depending upon hour of use, ie peak hours, then what you’re arguing FOR is metered bandwidth. Are you sure you want to go there?
April 5th, 2009
@KenC
Perhaps ADSL connections are a better comparison. ADSL connections are priced, based on the data rate. Slower connections cost less but may limit what you can do on it (e.g. poor video streaming). Faster connections cost more but give you better performance.
Perhaps the same model should be used for “wireless” ADSL connections.
April 12th, 2009
Metered bandwidth? No, because unlike water or electricity there actually is an unlimited supply of bits and the marginal cost per user of adding is infinitesimally small.
HereAndNow raises an interesting approach—pay for a level of performance though data usage would be unlimited.