January 2011

The network neutrality debate is primarily about means, not ends. Both sides agree that the Internet should be open, which means, roughly, “the way it is now.”

Opponents of network neutrality think that the best way to preserve this model of success is to leave it alone. There is no need for government regulation, with its attendant cost, unintended consequences, and possible dampening effect on network investment, because there is no evidence of any systematic failure of the existing marketplace to deter “abuse.”

Network neutrality proponents, on the other hand, see a convergence of factors that makes future discrimination practically certain. Their thinking, as set out in the Commission’s net neutrality order, boils down to this: broadband providers have an ability and incentive they didn't have before to block or impede selected traffic on their networks. Deep packet inspection (DPI) technology has advanced and is increasingly used for network management. Simultaneously, Internet telephone and cable services – VoIP and Internet video – are growing fast, delivered side-by-side with cable and phone companies’ own offerings and on their own network. As a result, broadband providers are in a position to, and have every incentive to, favor their own, affiliated, or pay-for-priority content, to the detriment of consumer choice and continued innovation. The few samples of discriminatory behavior already documented reinforce this prediction. Finally, the free market won't help, because in many places there is little choice of broadband Internet providers.

Given these circumstances, the FCC concludes, it need not wait for substantial, pervasive, and difficult-to-reverse problems to arise before it acts.

On December 30, 2010, the Federal Communications Commission adopted an order amending its rules to reclaim high-cost universal service support surrendered by a competitive eligible telecommunications carrier (CETC) when it relinquishes ETC status in a particular state.

The Order amends the interim CETC cap rule so that a state’s interim cap amount will be reduced if a CETC serving that state relinquishes its ETC designation, rather than redistributing the excess funding to other CETCs in the state. The Order said providing the excess support to other CETCs in a state would not necessarily result in future deployment of expanded voice service, much less broadband service. The FCC said reducing the pool of support in a state could enable excess funds from the legacy high-cost program to be used more effectively to advance universal service broadband initiatives, as recommended by the National Broadband Plan.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said, "I continue to support the use of competitive eligible telecommunications carrier (CETC) support surrendered by Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel to meet our national broadband goals. However, I am concerned that our action today does not adequately take into account what may be ongoing issues in the states where CETCs relinquish their ETC status. At this time, the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada is investigating whether post-merger Verizon Wireless properly followed the state ETC designation process before reporting line counts for state and federal high-cost support. This investigation has not concluded. I would be seriously concerned if this Order is used to bless any activity that is currently under state review."

Usually around this time of year, pundits guess what we'll be seeing in the year ahead. On the computer security front, we're hearing that 2011 will be the year of mobile malware, that criminals will take to the cloud, and that social network security is destined to become a bigger and bigger problem.But if the past is any guide, nobody will see the top 2011 security stories coming. A look at the top news stories of 2010 shows that the incidents that really captured the public's attention were the ones that nobody predicted.

1) Google was hacked, perhaps by China. 2) A worm targets critical industrial systems in Iran. 3) Russia busted hackers, but 4) the hackers got off with a slap on the wrist. 5) Anonymous gets taken seriously.