Click here to follow the Knight Center of Digital Excellence on Twitter.
According to a Pew Research Center Internet & American Life Project study, "The Mobile Difference," nearly 40 percent Americans have positive and improving attitudes about their mobile communication devices, thereby further immersing themselves into a more robust digital lifestyle.
Read more
We'll find answers to as many of
your questions as possible and
publish answers in a future issue.
Ask Us
How will broadband affect burgeoning controversies over health care? The answers to this question and more came courtesy of a Broadband Cenus-hosted, hour-long panel discussion. View a video of the discussion.
View Now
President Obama on Innovation and Sustainable Growth. President Barack Obama has new plans to strengthen the economy that will all favor people with hi-tech educations.
View Now
Elevate Miami, a comprehensive Digital Inclusion program launched by the city of Miami, aims to serve youth, low-income families, minorities, seniors and residents facing barriers to digital inclusion.
View Now
The Knight Center of Digital Excellence held its first Stimulus Webcast Session for Knight communities and program directors July 23. Watch it online now.
View Now
By pushing hard on broadband, lawmakers hope to close the "digital divide" that has long separated rural America. In doing so, they hope to give rural consumers access to the same sorts of high-speed services and opportunities - think telemedicine, distance-learning and Web-based commerce - that city dwellers have enjoyed for years.
View Now
|
Posts Tagged ‘Net Neutrality’
Thursday, October 29th, 2009
The Federal Communications Commission’s unanimous vote Oct. 22 to begin developing an open Internet policy served a major victory for those, such as the Knight Center of Digital Excellence, who support the idea that the Internet should be fast, open and accessible to all Americans.
However, as we covered in our net neutrality blog series, which took an in-depth look at each of the FCC’s proposed six net neutrality principles, there are numerous organizations and individuals that are putting some heavy commercial and political pressure on the issue, the FCC and each other.
Major broadband providers feel strongly that the billions of dollars they’ve poured into their networks should provide them the exclusive right to operate those networks however they want. That includes offering premium services over their lines to differentiate themselves from competitors – and earn a healthy return on their investments in the process.
Many Republican congressmen have spoken out against the proposed net neutrality principles as well, expressing the opinion that the regulations would likely discourage broadband providers from expanding and upgrading their systems, thereby stifling innovation and hurting the job market.
Sen. John McCain is one prominent politician who holds that view, which is the main reason he introduced the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 the same morning as the FCC vote, which would block the agency from regulating the Internet.
Other congressmen have come forward to say they feel the FCC doesn’t have the legal right to enforce net neutrality rules. Even FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who introduced the proposal, feels there is a legal gray area with regards to enacting and enforcing Internet regulation. He said in a previous interview that his agency is faced with a “dangerous combination of an uncertain legal framework with ongoing as well as emerging challenges to a free and open Internet.”
What’s clear is that while the issue might have been voted on, the debate is far from over. Keep in mind the vote doesn’t put any principle in place as law; it simply states the FCC will start the process for creating regulation to keep the Internet open and use the six principles as a foundation.
Regardless, the vote is a step in the right direction in ensuring all Americans will have access to an Internet that’s fast, open and innovative.
Tags: broadband, Broadband Expansion, digital, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, high-speed, infrastructure, innovation, Internet, Internet Freedom Act of 2009, John McCain, Julius Genachowski, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, Net Neutrality, network, Republican party
Posted in Digital news, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, broadband | 2 Comments »
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009
The final piece in a four-part series on the Federal Communication Commission’s six net neutrality principles:
During a recent webcast from the Brookings Institute, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski explained six principles of net neutrality and proposed making them official rules. Let’s take a closer look at proposed rules five and six, which focus on devices and competition.
No. 5: Broadband providers can’t block or demote lawful traffic, or privilege their own content over that of their competitors.
The FCC’s fifth rule touches on a number of examples we’ve discussed in previous parts of this series, such as AT&T’s classifying real-time gaming as an “aspirational [broadband] service,” and Verizon Wireless being taken to task for blocking text messages from a political organization.
A scenario the Knight Center of Digital Excellence proposed in a previous blog is that if the FCC’s net neutrality rules are not enacted: A service provider could favor information from Microsoft over Google by purposely slowing Goggle’s content delivery to create a competitive disadvantage.
Since Genachowski’s webcast, a more critical eye has been turned to service providers that had been trying to find ways to better position themselves for a future Internet stranglehold. Verizon was recently taken to task for its numerous handset exclusivity deals, for example. (It has since responded by publicly stating it would work to reduce these type of deals.)
No. 6: Broadband providers must be transparent about their services.
Both the fifth and sixth principles have recently been added to a list the FCC has been touting for quite some time, but have caused the heaviest debate between various providers. The sixth principle, in particular, has been a major sticking point.
Major broadband providers feel strongly that the billions of dollars they’ve poured into their networks should provide them the exclusive right to operate those networks however they want. That includes offering premium services over their lines to differentiate themselves from competitors – and earn a healthy return on their investments in the process.
If all providers are forced to be transparent about their services (as well as follow other rules that limit handset exclusivity, for example), it becomes increasingly difficult to establish a competitive advantage and handicap smaller providers from having equal access to consumers. It could also lead to consumers having complete freedom to choose what device they want to use and what service that device will use to connect. No one, for example, will be forced to choose AT&T as a provider because he or she simply wants an iPhone.
Those are great scenarios for consumers, aren’t they? Imagine: Instead of providers trying to ignore or hide new types of innovative programming, they’ll simply have to develop the infrastructure to support it, right?
Not necessarily. Both broadband providers opposing Genachowski’s proposal and Republicans that sit on the FCC and in Congress have expressed the opinion that network neutrality regulations would likely discourage broadband providers from expanding and upgrading their systems.
How do you view that statement? Are major providers trying to make the point that falling profit margins would simply lead to a lack of research and development dollars? Or is it a threat to essentially hold innovation hostage until they get what they want?
No matter how you view it – or any of the examples we’ve provided throughout this series – the fact remains that there are a lot of complicated issues to sort through – even well after the five-member FCC votes on Genachowski’s net neutrality proposal Thursday, Oct. 22.
For his part, Genachowski commented in a recent interview that as long as cable and telecommunications networks are delivering “high-speed, affordable broadband to all consumers in a given area,” marketplace limitations should be sufficient. However, if they “fall short” in any area or attribute, he said the FCC will propose “alternative and creative solutions” as part of its plan.
Further reading:
• Part one
• Part two
• Part three
Tags: AT&T, bandwidth, Brookings Institution, competition, Congress, digital, economy, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, Google, high-speed, infrastructure, innovation, Internet, iPhone, Julius Genachowski, KCoDE, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, Microsoft, Net Neutrality, network, Republican party, Verizon
Posted in Knight Center of Digital Excellence, broadband | No Comments »
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009
Ever since Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski’s Sept. 21 net neutrality webcast at the Brookings Institute, an intense debate on the subject has raged between a number of industry executives, policy makers and other concerned parties.
What everyone seems to agree on, however, is the impression the FCC made by publicly stating its stance. Stephen Collins, head of global regulatory affairs for Skype, one of the loudest voices for net neutrality from within the high-tech industry, said, “This puts the FCC at the forefront of global Internet policy. It was a bold statement that could have ripple effects across the globe.”
It’s difficult to imagine what the exact effect would be across the globe if the U.S. were to implement and enforce a robust net neutrality policy. Other nations have different needs, different broadband infrastructures and considerably diverse government models.
A few nations, such as Norway and Japan, have net neutrality rules in place similar to those proposed by Genachowski. Others have dismissed such policies, including several European nations and emerging nations, because telecommunications companies are either controlled by or closely connected to the government. The government plays an even larger role in nations such as China, Iran and Ethiopia, where content and connection speeds are so heavily censored and restricted that there may as well be no Internet service at all.
However, a large number don’t even have a need to consider policies at all because consumers already enjoy both a greater level of competition and more bandwidth than in the U.S.
Those are important categories to consider – competition and infrastructure. When you strip down many of the arguments made for or against FCC-proposed net neutrality rules, those seem to be two concerns that are most prevalent in the overall debate. Read the Knight Center of Digital Excellence’s four-part series on the FCC’s six net neutrality rules for specific examples on how the relative lack of broadband competition and low levels of available bandwidth in our nation are pitting major industry players against each other.
Looking at nations that considered competition and infrastructure issues from the onset adds an interesting facet to the net neutrality debate: Is it a short-term solution to answer for a lack of long-term planning?
Net neutrality is important, and rules governing it should apply to the Internet no matter where or how it’s accessed to ensure American consumers have fast, open and accessible service. At the same time, we hope they don’t detract attention from big-picture problems – the need for more robust competition in broadband markets and the building of higher speed, best-effort infrastructure.
Tags: bandwidth, broadband, Broadband Expansion, Brookings Institution, China, competition, digital, Ethiopia, Europe, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, high-speed, infrastructure, Internet, Iran, Japan, Julius Genachowski, Net Neutrality, network, Norway, Skype, Stephen Collins
Posted in broadband | No Comments »
Wednesday, October 14th, 2009
The third in a four-part series on the Federal Communication Commission’s six net neutrality principles:
During a recent webcast from the Brookings Institute, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski explained six principles of net neutrality and proposed making them official rules. Let’s take a closer look at proposed rules three and four, which focus on devices and competition.
No. 3: As long as they don’t damage the network, consumers can connect any legal devices of their choosing.
If you follow the wide-ranging discussion on devices, you’ll find there’s a lot of overlap. The third principle would seem to relate only to third-party devices like Sling Media’s Slingbox (a TV and video streaming device that is blocked on some 3G networks), but many industry executives involved in the net neutrality debate are also chiming in on what devices are used to connect directly to broadband networks.
We’ve seen the obvious example at work – a cell phone. But when considering the phrase “any legal device of their choosing,” the FCC’s third principle includes any non-phone device that contain Wi-Fi modules, such as Apple’s iPod Touch, Microsoft’s ZuneHD and Blu-Ray players that offer integrated Netflix streaming. Internet radio devices, web-connected home security systems and cameras with integrated wireless connectivity should be considered as well.
With all these devices in play, the net neutrality issue quickly becomes handset exclusivity – a practice where wireless carriers make exclusive deals with device manufacturers. Two examples at work currently include Google’s partnership with Verizon Wireless and Apple’s partnership with AT&T.
Both the FCC and Congress have spent some time looking into wireless handset exclusivity arrangements, especially as it plays into the FCC’s fourth net neutrality principle:
No. 4: Consumers have a right to competition.
The FCC’s fourth principle would ensure customers have the right to competition across the Internet spectrum, not simply in terms of choosing a service provider.
Net neutrality advocates claim there is a necessity to regulate the infrastructure and prohibit private enterprise from implementing methods to alter or promote one entity over another.
A worst-case scenario would be if a service provider would favor information from Microsoft over Google by purposely slowing Goggle’s content delivery to create a competitive disadvantage. Another would be a wireless carrier making enough exclusive deals with equipment manufacturers to effective eliminate smaller competitors and force consumers to choose between device or service.
An Internet stranglehold by a handful of organizations could also limit across-the-board innovation. Consider AT&T’s public statement that real-time gaming is an “aspirational service” and not a core broadband application. It’s an interesting statement, considering a Harvard Business School study on the video game industry demonstrated that innovative devices, ubiquitous broadband access, improved games and increased reach led to U.S. sales of software, hardware and accessories reaching $18.9 billion in 2007, an almost 40 percent growth over 2006. The Nintendo DS, a handheld broadband gaming device, was the top-selling gaming device in 2007 with 8.5 million units sold.
Could this statement be pushback from an infrastructure that can’t support gaming and is trying to undermine not only a competitor, but also an entire platform of innovation that millions of Americans take advantage of on a daily basis?
The rise of various, multi-tasking devices that can provide broadband access and other services has various industry leaders looking for ways to best position themselves as the market begins to take a more concrete shape. The FCC’s net neutrality principles as they relate to devices and competition (and how it eventually chooses to enforce them) will play a major role in that process.
Further reading:
• Part one
• Part two
• Part four
Tags: 3G, Apple, AT&T, Blu-Ray, broadband, Broadband Expansion, Brookings Institution, competition, Congress, digital, economy, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, Google, Harvard Business School, infrastructure, innovation, Internet, Internet radio, iPod, Julius Genachowski, Microsoft, Net Neutrality, Netflix, network, Nintendo DS, security system, Sling Media, Slingbox, Verizon, video games, Wi-Fi, ZuneHD
Posted in Digital news, broadband, national broadband plan | No Comments »
Monday, October 12th, 2009
The second in a four-part series on the Federal Communication Commission’s six net neutrality principles:
During a recent webcast from the Brookings Institute, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski explained six principles of net neutrality and proposed making them official rules. Let’s take a closer look at the first two, which focus on Web content and applications.
No. 1: Consumers are entitled to access whatever legal content they like.
Once considered a “future-proof” application, the Internet has significantly evolved over the past few years, giving users access to content previously found solely on store shelves or through other outlets. In some instances, service providers have restricted access to this kind of content. For example, AT&T censored a Pearl Jam concert in 2007. A month later, Verizon Wireless was taken to task for blocking text messages from the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. (Both companies have since apologized for the censorship.)
Those are just two examples, however. There have been other public incidents that have drawn the ire of organizations such as the Open Internet Coalition, which represents consumers, grassroots organizations and businesses working to keep the Internet fast, open and accessible to all Americans.
So what would happen to the Internet landscape if it weren’t fast, open and accessible? If Internet service providers were allowed to choose among content, businesses would have the ability to slow down or even block their competitors’ Web content. A cable company whose leaders disapprove of a particular political or social cause could block sites supporting that cause.
The FCC’s first principle of net neutrality would ensure those scenarios never happen.
No. 2: Consumers can run whatever legal applications – and use whatever legal services – they like, with some exemptions for law enforcement purposes.
This principle is essentially the same as the first, though it relates to applications.
An example of application “censorship” is Apple’s recent rejection of the iPhone application Google Voice, an Internet-based service that would permit users to make low-cost calls without using AT&T, which has an exclusive arrangement for the iPhone in this country. (Apple said it is still considering the application.)
Net neutrality should apply to the Internet no matter where or how it’s accessed. With the increase in the number of devices that have wireless Internet capabilities, the FCC needs to be vigilant from the beginning when deciding on how to ensure American consumers have fast, open and accessible service.
Further reading:
• Part one
• Part three
• Part four
Tags: Apple, AT&T, Broadband Expansion, digital, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, Google Voice, infrastructure, innovation, Internet, iPhone, Julius Genachowski, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, Net Neutrality, network, Open Internet Coalition, Pearl Jam, Verizon
Posted in Knight Center of Digital Excellence, broadband | No Comments »
Thursday, October 1st, 2009
With less than 150 days remaining before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to present a national broadband plan to Congress as required by the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act, Chairman Julius Genachowski opened up on a topic sure to play a major part in how that strategy is shaped – net neutrality.
Net neutrality would protect an open Internet on all wired and wireless networks, meaning data would be delivered at the same speed, regardless of provider, and no privilege would be given to any one kind of content.
But what exactly is net neutrality, in terms of how the FCC defines it? During a recent webcast from the Brookings Institute, Genachowski explained the following six principles of neutrality and proposed making them official rules:
No. 1: Consumers are entitled to access whatever legal content they like.
No. 2: Consumers can run whatever legal applications – and use whatever legal services – they like, with some exemptions for law enforcement purposes.
No. 3: As long as they don’t damage the network, consumers can connect any legal devices of their choosing.
No. 4: Consumers have a right to competition.
No. 5: Broadband providers can’t block or demote lawful traffic, or privilege their own content over that of their competitors.
No. 6: Broadband providers must be transparent about their services.
The first four aren’t new. Those who have been paying following the FCC’s stance on the issue know the agency has been using those for the past four years. The last two, however, have recently joined been added and are expected to cause quite a stir between various providers – some of whom have already begun taking very public shots at each other over certain applications and devices.
The Knight Center of Digital Excellence is going to take a closer, more in-depth look at each of the FCC’s principles over a series of three future blog postings. We’re a net neutrality advocate, particularly as the discussion relates to the sixth principle: Broadband providers must be transparent about their services. The impetus behind this principle is creating greater capability, speed and access for all citizens – a fundamental objective for us at the Knight Center.
Further reading:
• Part two
• Part three
• Part four
Tags: American Recovery & Reinvestment Act 2009, bandwidth, broadband, Broadband Expansion, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, high-speed, infrastructure, innovation, Internet, Julius Genachowski, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, Net Neutrality, wireless network
Posted in Knight Center of Digital Excellence, broadband | No Comments »
Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009
In a recent webcast from the Brookings Institution, Federal Communications Chairman Julius Genachowski opened up on Net Neutrality, proposing new rules that would protect an open Internet on all wired and wireless networks.
The FCC has disciplined home broadband providers for traffic censorship in the past, but has never laid down a set of solid rules until Genachowski’s speech. Specifically, Genachowski spoke on measures that would prohibit discrimination of content or applications by Internet service providers and would ensure network management practices are transparent. His speech also touched on regulating how wireless companies carry Internet traffic to cell phones – an industry first.
Genachowski’s remarks come at a time when both the FCC is becoming more proactive in seeking input for a national broadband plan, and other Net Neutrality issues being discussed at both the private industry and government level. For example, the federal government is currently investigating Apple’s process for approving iPhone applications and the video game industry is going on the offensive against pushback from an AT&T suggestion that real-time gaming is an “aspirational service” and not a core broadband application.
At the Knight Center of Digital Excellence, we support Genachowski’s thoughts on Net Neutrality as it ties in to our ideas on the subject of open network s. (For a more information, read Chief Technology Officer Mark T. Ansboury’s column, “The case for open broadband infrastructure.”) It’s in everyone’s interest to pay close attention to this issue. Net Neutrality can serve as a way for our nation to move our networks further faster.
Tags: Apple, AT&T, broadband, broadband applications, Broadband Expansion, Brookings Institution, digital, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, infrastructure, iPhone, Julius Genachowski, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, Mark Ansboury, national broadband plan, Net Neutrality, network, open Internet, video games, webcast, wireless Internet
Posted in Digital news, broadband, national broadband plan | No Comments »
|
|
