The Jeff Pulver Blog: FCC Enforces "Net Freedom"

« Drop by Bay 101 on Saturday @ 11 AM to watch the World Poker Tour "Shooting Star" Tournament | Main | pulver.com's Wi-Fi VoIP Summit @ CTIA »

March 03, 2005

FCC Enforces "Net Freedom"

At Fall 2004 VON, Chairman Powell signaled that the FCC would not tolerate activity designed to interfere with a consumer's "Net Freedom" and ability to control her own communications and Internet experience. Today, in a Consent Decree issued by the Enforcement Bureau, the Commission, in fact, seems to have demonstrated a meaningful commitment to Net Freedom. I suspect carriers and others that might control a user's access to the Internet will now think twice before blocking ports needed for VoIP and other IP-based applications, or otherwise interfering with the user's Internet experience.

Last month, I blogged my wish list for Chairman Powell's Swan Song and Legacy. In that blog, I asked that the Chairman to tie up a few loose ends in order to send the IP-based communications industry out into the world with the tools and rules (or absence of rules, if you will) necessary to make the industry self-sustaining. First and foremost, I asked the Chairman to give meaning to the concept of "Net Freedom" that he enunciated at Fall VON. Today, I think he has taken an essential step towards giving meaning to "Net Freedom" and empowering consumers to control their own communications experience.

Chairman Powell has pointed to IP, the Internet and broadband as the impetus for much of his deregulatory policy. He has also pointed to the ability of the simple net neutrality principles as the vehicle to allow for further deregulation. I, however, have questioned whether it is fair to point to net freedom as the enabler of deregulation, then deregulate and never implement the net neutrality principles. That would be an unfair bait and switch on consumers and IP innovators. The deregulated world without meaningful net freedoms is a world in which consumers will be subjected to the unilateral judgment of unregulated monopolists.

Chairman Powell has done much to move the communications industry to a less regulated model, while simultaneously attempting to ensure a sustainable competitive marketplace, an environment that encourages innovation and entrepreneurship, and a regulatory structure that provides for parity across platforms and encourages deployment of more robust, IP-capable, broadband networks. This is an insanely delicate tight-rope walk. I think Chairman Powell has masterfully negotiated the course, but it was essential for him to solidify his vision and the path before he stepped down.

Michael Powell has demonstrated, during his tenure at the FCC, that he understands the needs of communications innovators and entrepreneurs. He has tried to create a regulatory environment that will simultaneously promote innovations and competition for new communications applications and services and allow for broadband deployment and network upgrades to support new technology and services. We hope that his successor will share his wisdom and vision to further enable America to lead the way in revolutionizing the way people communicate.

With Chairman Powell's announced departure from the FCC, this Consent Decree serves as the next piece needed and the Swan Song we were hoping might issue from the FCC before Chairman Powell steps down.

See also: Chairman Powell's Statement on the Consent Decree.

Share this post:

Posted by jeff on March 3, 2005 04:30 PM | Permalink

Additional resources: Watch PrimeTime TV Shows | Watch the Jeff Pulver Show | Jeff's Qik Videos

Comments

http://google.com

Posted by: carli at September 22, 2006 04:16 AM

Posted by: google at April 19, 2006 02:43 PM

"Fine" is not a precise legal term in this case, but I think it fits the bill as well as "consent decree."

The more interesting question to me is whether this isn't "sleeves off the vest" enforcement.

The FCC relied on its "201(b)" authority, which many argue only applies to telecos n their provision of telecommunications services. Under such a construction, 201(b) would not apply to “information services.”

Over the last several years, the FCC has been working to classify broadband connections (e.g., cable modem and DSL) as “information services,” not “telecommunications services.” This is what Brand X is all about.

To the extent broadband connections are “information services,” the FCC would have little or no ability to take enforcement action similar to that taken against Madison River.

Mike

Posted by: Mike Hazzard at March 7, 2005 10:07 AM

Is it really a fine? As stated in the Consent Decree... read into it what you may think.

IV. AGREEMENT

4. To avoid the expenditure of additional resources that would be required to further litigate the issues raised in the Investigation, and in consideration for the termination of the Investigation in accordance with the terms of this Consent Decree, Madison River agrees to make a voluntary payment to the United States Treasury, without further protest or recourse to a trial de novo, in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00)

5. In order to resolve and terminate the Investigation, the Bureau requires, and Madison River agrees, that Madison River shall not block ports used for VoIP applications or otherwise prevent customers from using VoIP applications.

19. The Parties agree that the requirements of this Consent Decree shall expire on the earlier of thirty (30) months from the Effective Date, or the effective date of a federal statute or Commission rule or order declaring or clarifying that the conduct described in paragraph 5 above does or does not violate the Act or Commission rules.

Posted by: Frank Muto at March 5, 2005 12:14 PM

I guess it's a start, but is a $15k fine sufficient?

I imagine Vonage expended much more than that in (1) fielding customer complaints, (2) identifying the problem, (3) contacting Mid Rivers, and (4) following through with the FCC. Depending on the degree of the blocking, Vonage's business and reputation may have suffered harm as well.

Posted by: Mike Hazzard at March 4, 2005 10:15 AM

Hi Jeff,

your link on the consent decree should go to DA-05-543A2.pdf, which is the real document, A1 is only the cover letter.

regards
Richard

Posted by: Richard Stastny at March 4, 2005 04:22 AM

March 03, 2005

FCC Enforces "Net Freedom"

Comments

Post a comment