FTC states in principle that ISPs should not block access to lawful Internet content
[FAC: Hey, RBOCs are now ISPs too! Could it be that the FTC statement pointedly targets the Bells by the manner in which they use the term "ISP"? And how much teeth does a statement in princple have from the FTC, when the FCC and DoC are also chiming in with their views against a backdrop of congressional buzz over the re-writing of the Act? But I'll take most any help that anyone wants to lend toward guaranteeing, or improving, the prospects for a neutrally adminstered network.]
12/28/2005 5:35:18 PM, by Jeremy Reimer
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued a statement in principle that, in theory, should promote the idea of "network neutrality," the idea that Internet network operators should not prioritize or block network data based on content. The FTC stated that ISPs should not block access to any lawful content, services, or applications on the Internet.
The statement is the first ray of hope for saving network neutrality, which has taken a beating recently. ISPs in some countries have been blocking VoIP data as "inappropriate content" while others have announced or implemented plans for offering "premium access" services that favor the ISP's own data while crippling the competition's.
However, there is another angle that the network providers may use to chip away at network neutrality. It involves invoking the modern age's biggest bugaboo: security. The concept is to restrict consumer's access to parts of the Internet based on their computer software and hardware configuration. In the guise of protecting users from malware, certain software packages may be required to connect to parts of the Internet. The presence of software that wasn't on the whitelist, which would presumably include malware (although not the infamous Sony rootkit, as it would probably be flagged safe as coming from a "trusted source"), would deny the user access. This would also encourage the movement to a "two-tier" Internet, where customers would pay for "premium" access to certain content (for example, an ISP's VoIP service).
Besides the FTC, another major voice coming out in favor of network neutrality these days is none other than Microsoft. According to Chief Privacy Officer Peter Cullen, Microsoft is against ISPs doing anything that would restrict customers' choice of software. Certainly the software giant would not like to find its own software on "quarantined lists." Unlike the telcos and cable companies, Microsoft does not own the channel of distribution for its products. It relies on the Internet for distributing and updating much of its new web-centric software these days. And Microsoft has its own VoIP plans as well as new video content offerings over Windows Media Center Edition. Is the company planning on becoming a champion of network neutrality purely for its own interest, for those of consumers, or both?
arstechnica.com |
