Factbox: Impact of U.S. Internet rules
(Reuters) - The Federal Communications Commission adopted Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against traffic on their networks.
The rules, expected to come into effect early next year, will also allow high-speed Internet providers to charge customers according to their level of usage and would give wireless carriers additional network management freedoms.
Because the FCC tried to strike a balance between competing interests, the effects can cut more than one way and it may be some time before the full impact is apparent, even if the rules survive any court challenge.
Following are the likely impacts on various companies, consumers and the FCC based on reports from analysts and industry insiders.
INTERNET PROVIDERS
* Cable companies like Comcast Corp, Time Warner Cable, Cablevision Systems Corp and big landline providers like AT&T Inc and Verizon Communications Inc are banned from blocking or discriminating against lawful Internet content.
* The rules will not stand in the way of usage-based pricing, allowing cable and other fixed line companies that also serve as high-speed Internet providers to increase rates for subscribers that do bandwidth-heavy tasks.
* Cable subscribers considering dropping their TV service to watch television and movies online may think twice if new pricing schemes push up the cost of streaming content.
* Cable companies are better off than when the FCC was considering reclassifying broadband under the stricter regulatory regime of existing phone rules.
WIRELESS CARRIERS
* Verizon Wireless (joint venture of Verizon Communications and Vodafone Group Plc), AT&T, Sprint Nextel Corp, T-Mobile (U.S. unit of Deutsche Telekom AG) and others would be granted added flexibility under the rules, acknowledging tighter bandwidth-constraints.
* They would be subject to a looser version of the no-blocking policy -- banning only the blocking of websites and competing voice and video services.
* Mobile broadband could still discriminate against bandwidth-heavy content.
* CTIA, the trade association for the wireless industry, continues to say the rules are unnecessary, but commended the FCC for recognizing the need to regulate mobile broadband differently from landline services.
CONTENT PROVIDERS
* Google Inc, Microsoft Corp, Amazon.com, Facebook, Netflix Inc and other content providers could lose some of the edge they were building over cable companies if downloading content becomes more expensive under usage-based pricing.
* On the other hand, Internet providers cannot block their services.
* Mobile broadband is not subject to as many network management restrictions as wireline services, creating fewer protections for mobile applications.
INTERNET USERS/CONSUMERS
* Public interest groups Free Press, Public Knowledge and Media Access Project all complained that the rules would give Internet providers too much power over Internet users.
* This is particularly worrisome, they said, for the poor and minorities who use their cell phones as a primary tool to access the Internet.
* But some industry analysts say the rules will prevent network congestion and allow companies to make sufficient money to invest in upgrading their networks.
* FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said consumers would not see significant changes as the rules are intended to preserve the current openness of the Internet.
FCC
* Adopting the rules will complete a time-consuming rule-making that has been hanging over the agency's head but many experts expect court challenges.
* But the rules have drawn critical attention from Republican lawmakers who will control the U.S. House of Representatives come January.
* Representative Greg Walden, the incoming chair of the House subcommittee on communications and technology, said he plans to look into every legislative option to reverse the rules and will hold a series of hearings early next year.
(Compiled by Jasmin Melvin; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
Industries of online applications have developed to hog bandwidth and if the consumers like myself are being charged more for less I will just shut them off too. I now have an Internet connection and an old-fashioned land line telephone. I haven’t had cable in years because they were very fond of claiming one price for a basic package with options and when they got to know my viewing preferences – would tend to turn those free options into pay options. One never actually signs a contract that covers content. Cable was a great come-ons and lacked any discernible consumer protections or guarantees. One of the most idiotic calls I got from the local provider – they actually asked me what channels I was receiving? Even back in the days of the earliest forms of closed circuit TV were starting to appear back in the mid 60’s, providers on that service knew what the customers were receiving.
I don’t own a cell phone because I don’t need one. I work out of my home.
This is a government that is owned by the corporate heavy weights and the only thing they have to do when dealing with Federal regulators is figure out the most palatable lie that will let it do precisely what it wants to do anyway. That’s what marketing firms are good at, aren’t they?
The Internet is essentially a luxury item and many of us will no longer be able to afford luxuries. I can live without it, even if I might miss some of it. So much of it is junk. But it does seem to take some adjustment of one’s emotional life and entertainment habits. It’s amazing how addictive it all is.
Those with the incomes can pay through the nose. Depending on whether the economy actually ever improves, more and more of their potential market may just curl up and die and shut them off. Rather like health insurance, the number of people capable of affording Internet service will grow smaller and the costs of the whole industry will have to be covered by the incomes of fewer subscribers.
But the vultures – Mr. Gates as generous as you are – know they have the school systems locked up and are pushing a new generation of users from their earliest years into a world where the thought that they might have been able to live without their services will be like trying to think how it might be to live without oxygen or eyesight. And it is a pity. There are so many good books and venues for education, the school systems will either have to negotiate special deals for themselves – and you can be sure there will be bulk discounts for the biggest users to totally confound the argument – or the school systems of the country will be facing rising bills. Those like myself, who may actually remember how to default to earlier forms of entertainment and information, will be irrelevant.
As a low-income consumer, I know that people like me will matter less and less to those at the top. A nationalized Internet service – or even a basic utility type government supported Internet service might be a very good thing. The higher priced services would go on trying to capture what market is left to them.
But there is no way to avoid the fact that the internet will become a new “gilded costume” for the countries upper ranks- even if they have to rip the material for it off the backs of those so briefly exposed to its charms.
Follow Reuters