If the FCC's authority is curtailed, the service providers will have open season on the operation of the Internet and will pursue operations that most benefit them and not the customer.

You have read about the FCC and Net Neutrality. The FCC wants to have more control over broadband services, which will define the rules for broadband providers. The broadband providers are attempting to stop this action by, among other things, threatening to reduce their broadband investment, which they say will also cost jobs in the industry.

So why is Net Neutrality important? Net Neutrality and the FCC's Broadband plan are connected; broadband regulation affects Net Neutrality. The FCC Broadband Plan took into account over 100 comments made to the FCC concerning the future of broadband access and its control and regulation. It is a plan, not a ruling or legislation. The plan calls for a 10-year effort to expand broadband access to nearly everyone in the U.S.

To date, we have effectively been operating with the Net Neutrality philosophy. It wasn't until providers like Comcast started to impose restrictions on traffic flow that Net Neutrality really surfaced as an issue, and a concept that the carriers wanted to challenge. The FCC ruling against Comcast's practices was struck down by a Federal court, so the FCC is looking into other ways of increasing its broadband control in order to retain Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality benefits end users and content providers, but is opposed by the carriers that connect these two constituencies.

Net Neutrality will make managing the traffic more difficult for the providers. A major challenge to the FCC and Internet users is the service providers' insistence that they alone are the arbiters of how and when traffic is carried over their networks. Another problem is the application of Net Neutrality rules to wireless services.

The FCC could retain authority over broadband by reclassifying it, from an information service to a carrier service. However, the FCC is also considering adopting a "third way" alternative to such reclassification. This "third way" would be light control over the broadband providers without classifying them as a carrier, but still preserving Net Neutrality.

It is not clear what the FCC will be able to do, since Congress is preparing to weigh in on the issue and may prevent any solution.

Defining Broadband
The very definition of broadband could potentially be changing. The FCC definition of broadband can found at "What’s Broadband". The FCC definition for broadband is any Internet service that has a speed of at least 200 kbps in one direction, which rules out dialup connections and older wireless services. This definition may be changed in the future, however; the FCC is asking for comments, and many of the initial comments recommend raising the defined minimum broadband speed to at least 768 kbps.

Many in the industry believe that even 768 kbps is too slow a speed to define as broadband, because most experiences with video, music and picture files really need higher speeds. If the broadband speed definition is raised only to 768 kbps, then 2G wireless networks are still too slow and many 3G connections would probably not meet the broadband definition. The wireless networks of AT&T, Verizon and Sprint may not meet the broadband definition if the minimum broadband speed is raised.

Defining Net Neutrality
The FCC has been operating under four principles, which are necessary but not sufficient to curb the practices of the Internet service providers. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski summarized the four existing principles as:

Network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.

His new fifth and sixth principles are:

The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination--stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers’ homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The sixth principle is a transparency principle--stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices. Why does the FCC need to adopt this principle? The Internet evolved through open standards. It was conceived as a tool whose user manual would be free and available to all. But new network management practices and technologies challenge this original understanding.

Another point made by the FCC chairman is that the choice of access technology, i.e., wired vs. wireless, should not affect the six principles. This is especially important since so many wireless devices, smartphones and data cards are currently used for Internet access. The wireless carriers are opposed to this direction.

Court Decision on Broadband Regulation/Net Neutrality
On April 6, 2010, the FCC lost its case against Comcast. The ruling undermines the FCC's authority to regulate ISPs and therefore to retain broadband control and regulation. If the FCC is not in the picture, then who is in charge of broadband--the ISPs?

To review the court case: The U.S. of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a 3-0 decision, stated that the FCC did not have the authority to require Comcast to treat all ISP traffic equally. The court said that the FCC "failed to justify exercising jurisdiction" when the FCC ruled against Comcast, which had been blocking peer-to-peer sharing traffic from BitTorrent.

The court's focus was on broadband services. Broadband services are in a different category compared to telephone, wireless and cable transmission. Part of the court opinion stated "The Commission may exercise this 'ancillary' authority only if it demonstrates that its action...is reasonably ancillary to the...effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities." According to the court, the FCC did not meet that requirement.

This outcome will have a profound influence on the next actions of the FCC. Net Neutrality is at stake. It appears that the FCC would have to reclassify broadband service as a common carrier service in order to obtain the desired authority.