Clearly, a lot of time and thought went into the creation of the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on preserving the open Internet. Much of the nearly 90 pages of the document seems to justify its very existence, but that’s probably because the authors anticipated critics like Sen. John McCain, who blasted the net neutrality rules as another government “power grab” even before they were unveiled.
As part of the proceeding, the commission is asking for input on whether mobile service providers should be required to allow any device with a compatible air interface on their network, so long as it doesn’t harm the network. It also asks who should be responsible for ensuring that devices are not harmful: the providers themselves, third-party organizations, industry associations/laboratories or the FCC?
That’s a good question – and one that raises even more questions. Historically, wireless service providers decide which devices get certified to work on their networks. Surely, they don’t want to give that up, but if the “any device” rule is adopted, the public at large most likely isn’t going to trust operators to make the decisions alone. Likewise, an industry association isn’t the first choice. That leaves a third party or the FCC.
Why does another party need to get involved? To keep operators “honest” about what devices would harm their network? If a device is really cool and appears to be the kind of thing that consumers will want, an operator would be foolish not to certify it or request modifications so that it does work properly. But I can see another argument as well – how do operators know what consumers really want? Some of them were slow in coming to the Wi-Fi party, and they’re slower still when it comes to allowing VoIP applications.
The NPRM does answer some questions when it comes to handsets. The commission clarifies that this particular proceeding is not about exclusive handset arrangements between carriers and device makers; that issue will be considered separately. It also says that the “any device” rule would differ from rules adopted for the upper 700 MHz C Block. For example, the proposed rule would not necessarily prohibit the practice of handset locking, which was explicitly prohibited in the rules for the upper 700 MHz C Block.
Interestingly, in paragraph 99 of the NPRM, the commission proposes not to adopt a specific definition of “content, application or service provider” because any user of the Internet can be such a provider. I’m not sure what, if anything, to read into that. But later, the NPRM refers to a letter from Robert Quinn Jr., senior vice president, federal regulatory, at AT&T, in which he called for the FCC to apply net neutrality rules evenly – not just to network operators but to providers of Internet applications, content and services.
The NPRM says: “Although the question of Internet openness at the commission has traditionally focused on providers of broadband Internet access service, we seek comment on the pros and cons of phrasing one or more of the Internet openness principles as obligations of other entities, in addition to providers of broadband Internet access service.” Score one for AT&T. The commission seems to open a window here, and in my mind, Google should be required to play by the same open rules as those in the telecom sector.
Of course, there’s a lot more to the NPRM. So far, a lot of the comments are generally supportive of net neutrality. A group of academic researchers who study Internet policy applauded the commission for launching the proceeding. Mobile entertainment provider Myxer says that applying the commission’s open Internet concepts to the mobile Web and SMS would even the mobile commerce playing field by ensuring that mobile operators can’t unilaterally impose restrictions.
There’s a lot at stake for everyone. It’s going to be interesting to see how various parties weigh in between now and Jan. 14.