The biggest story in the technology policy realm for the last few months has been the FCC’s commitment to network neutrality. Following a few transgressions from ISPs, the push to codify non-discrimination rules for the Internet intensified as consumer advocacy groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge stepped up their lobbying efforts. They faced a concerted opposition from ISPs, but with the election of Obama and the installment of FCC Chair Julius Genachowski, net neutrality advocates have finally found the official support they desired.

In a major speech last month, Genachowski outlined his vision for a open Internet by establishing two new FCC principles. The first “four freedoms” (adopted by Kevin Martin’s FCC) required that Internet users be able to (1) access and send any lawful content, (2) run or use any lawful applications, (3) connect or use and lawful devices, and (4) benefit from unrestricted competition amongst content, applications and devices.

Genachowski has added two new principles:

1. Except for reasonable network management, ISPs cannot discriminate amongst content and applications, and
2. ISPs must be transparent about their network management practices.

Importantly, the new FCC chief has also proposed extending these principles to wireless broadband as he sees it as an extension of wireline service. The big question, though, is whether or not regulation is needed to enforce this. Nearly everyone agrees that net neutrality is important, but as Tim Lee pointed out in his paper on the subject, it isn’t clear that regulation (with all its potential downsides) is needed to preserve the open Internet; perhaps strong advocacy is enough.

I think the fight for net neutrality is an important parallel for the ICT4D world where corporate interests may align to the detriment of development efforts. As mentioned below, despite the current fervor over the role that mobile phones can play in development, dependency on this specific technology has serious downsides. Just as there is a strong need for consumer advocacy on network neutrality, there is important work to be done championing socially responsible models for using mobile phones for development.

This is one of the motivations for Steve Song’s new Fair Mobile project. In the starting blog post, he explains that the uncompetitive mobile markets and the closed nature of the networks makes innovation far more difficult:

If we were able to drive down the barriers to mobile voice and SMS use through reduced cost and more Open Access style networks, individual and small-business innovation in the delivery of novel voice and data services would very likely blossom on the continent.

This is important work – telcoms are notoriously slow to innovate and given the potential to use mobiles for all sorts of development work, these barriers have real-world consequences.

In his paper that proposed a wireless network neutrality for the USA, Tim Wu listed dozens of features that carriers had “blocked, crippled, modified, or made difficult to use” – call timers, WiFi, Bluetooth, GPS, SMS, Internet browsers, email, and SIM card mobility. The iPhone has certainly pioneered a new way forward by allowing the development of applications for the phone (though, obviously, their specific model is filled with shortcomings). But where the typical phone is capable of nothing more than voice and SMS, innovation is still wildly constricted. Even more, as Steve points out, the high price of mobile phone use in the developing world is another barrier.

As a starting point, Steve is proposing an index of the cost of typical mobile use in the developing world. In time, he wants to expand the project to emphasize the extraordinary profits telcos receive and the opportunity cost of their walled gardens.

One of the reasons I think this is so exciting and important is that the developing world typically lacks the strong consumer advocacy groups that operate elsewhere. Similar to the net neutrality effort, Fair Mobile is seeking to advocate openness, but, as is appropriate for a development focused project, it is layering on price as a factor – think of it as the 7th FCC principle (one that African regulatory bodies are slowly waking up to, like in South Africa where the telcos are fighting hard to keep charging extraordinary amounts).

In the States, the effort to ensure an open platform for innovation has been largely successful; in the developing world, much still needs to be done.