After ruling that the cable companies don’t have to let competitors use their lines — thus killing the competitive market for wire-based broadband — the FCC issued a four-part statement about “Net Neutrality”:

1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;

2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;

3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network;

4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

Michael Maranda at the Digital Divide Network likes the way they sound. But he’s only cautiously optimistic, as the phrase goes. Susan Crawford is less so, in part because she read Footnote One that says our open access to content is “Subject, of course, to the … quality of service terms” of the providers. Also, she points out that these four statements are not rules and are not enforceable. “More faith-based policymaking,” she concludes. “We’ll need more than principles for the open internet to survive.” [Tags: fcc SusanCrawford MichaelMaranda]

David Isenberg weighs in, contrasting the current and former FCC chiefs’ idea of our Net rights. Bottom line: “I’m scared.” Ulp.

Categories: Uncategorized dw