backtop


Print 21 comment(s) - last by vortmax2.. on Sep 3 at 10:00 AM

No proposals expected until after November

The FCC has been working hard to hammer out a set of rules by which the internet will operate moving into the future. At stake is exactly how ISPs will be allowed to manage the traffic on their networks. Many consumer advocacy firms want ISPs to treat all traffic the same way while major carriers like AT&T and Verizon say they have to be able to regulate traffic as they see fit.

With elections coming in November, the FCC is delaying setting any rules or guidelines for internet traffic in stone reports 
Reuters. The FCC has been asking for comments by the public and major ISPs, internet businesses, and wireless carriers on how they think traffic on the web should be handled. Predictably, the rule making is slow going with companies at odds with how they think things should be handled online.

The FCC has hosted many talks with companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Google but so far no set plans have come from those meetings.  FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has delayed making a decision on how or if the internet will be regulated and is seeking an additional 55-day period of public comment. Reuters quotes Genachowski stating, "We have made progress over the last year -- but we still have work to do."

Analysts don't expect the FCC to make any proposals for regulation in its September 23 meeting nor are any drafts expected at the October meeting of the FCC. Analyst Rebecca Arbogast from Nicolaus Stifel said, "The chairman could cite progress in the industry talks as grounds for delaying circulating a draft order, and postpone a decision until after the election."

Genachowski will have to deal with the proposal from Google and Verizon to allow neutrality to be used on the wired web but to allow wireless carriers to control their traffic. The draft also suggested a dual tier plan where sites like Google could pay carriers for faster access.

The FCC wasn't onboard with the draft of the Google/Verizon pact and continues to seek input while AT&T has voiced its support for the framework.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Loss of opportunity
By rcc on 9/2/2010 12:38:59 PM , Rating: 3
Yup, I'm sure it would be a loss of opportunity for someone if they actually kept politics out of something like this. Like any of the politicians knows anything but buzz words about the topic.




RE: Loss of opportunity
By bhieb on 9/2/2010 1:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
That's an odd statement. Why would you want to keep politics out of such a HUGE public policy? Politics, as flawed as they are, are the people's voice. As screwed up as our system is our Politicians represent our only voice, keeping them out of such a MAJOR policy would be nuts. Doing so would mean some suits at the FCC just get to decide regardless of what the public wants (read what public wants = politics).

Don't get me wrong our current state of Politics is sad indeed, but having none whatsoever involved seems shortsighted at best.


RE: Loss of opportunity
By rcc on 9/2/2010 2:35:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
(read what public wants = politics).


I'd have to disagree friend. Politics = what the vocal minority wants. And what the majority deserves for not paying attention to what's going on.

Just as a bit of related trivia, did you know that for a good part of the late 1800s voter turnout in the US was over 90%? We haven't seen north of 60% in the last 40+ years, usually closer to 50%.

Sad.


RE: Loss of opportunity
By RivuxGamma on 9/2/2010 3:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Politics = what the vocal minority wants


Politics = what the vocal minority and special interest groups wants

Fixed it. ish.


RE: Loss of opportunity
By rcc on 9/2/2010 6:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, well, SIGs fall into the vocal minority class anyway.

: )


RE: Loss of opportunity
By foolsgambit11 on 9/2/2010 9:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
We're taught that one vote for each person is the only logical and fair way to decide things, but is that really the case? If you have 51 people who don't really care too much about an issue, but if pressed would pick A, and 49 who passionately prefer B, is it really most fair to force everyone to go with A, or should the opinions of the second group matter more because of their depth of feeling on the issue?

If you really are going to do what 'The People' want, you should not only measure what they want, but also how much they want it. And the use of time or money is the best proxy I know of to determine intensity of feeling on a political subject. In that sense, a simple casting of votes, one for each person, doesn't really capture the will of the people. Of course, these proxies we use to measure depth of feeling in our democratic republic aren't perfect either, but I'd say all in all I'd rather have a system (like ours) that reacts to both total people on each side of an issue and depth of feeling.


RE: Loss of opportunity
By mindless1 on 9/3/2010 9:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yes it is really the case because those who don't really care are allowed to opt-out of voting.

The larger problem is the people who feel passionately (an emotion) without having first waited to attain enough information to make a logical, rather than emotional, decision.

Passion is an illogical folly, not something that people who make decisions that impact others, should strive for.


RE: Loss of opportunity
By bhieb on 9/3/2010 9:16:20 AM , Rating: 2
I would have to agree, it is the vocal minority and voter turn out is abysmal. However that is not really "politics" fault, rather an unmotivated lazy public that does not want to get involved.

My only objection to your original post was the "leave politics out", essentially that equates to anarchy to abandon our governing bodies and just let the FCC choose what they think is correct.


RE: Loss of opportunity
By sleepeeg3 on 9/2/2010 3:37:18 PM , Rating: 2
The suits at the FCC already get to decide regardless of what the public wants. Their heads are appointed, rubber stamped by the Senate and the rest employed.

The only real links they have back to any elected officials are the Obama administration, which unfortunately gets to continue to drive us into the gutter for another 2 years.

I imagine the incumbents don't want to piss off the public anymore than they already have by passing more costly government regulation.


RE: Loss of opportunity
By Quinton McLeod on 9/2/2010 11:32:07 PM , Rating: 3
Last I checked, _less_ regulation caused the global economic crisis. So, if anything is costly, it would be less regulation.


RE: Loss of opportunity
By Reclaimer77 on 9/2/2010 4:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Politics, as flawed as they are, are the people's voice.


Really?

Your naivete knows no bounds.


RE: Loss of opportunity
By bhieb on 9/3/2010 9:11:13 AM , Rating: 3
So what is our voice if not through our elected officials? Last time a checked it was not random people off the streets that sat in congress, but people chosen by the us.

As I said it certainly has flaws, but like it or not it is our system, and is our voice. Is it broken, sure, but it exits as it does because of the vocal majority (as rcc said). If your not the vocal majority, then sit there and complain or get up get active and fight to become that majority.


Relationship?
By vortmax2 on 9/2/2010 12:44:56 PM , Rating: 4
Anyone care to speculate on how net neutrality and the November elections are related? Hmmmm...




RE: Relationship?
By Jeffk464 on 9/2/2010 4:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
Easy, politicians assume voters have a short memory, unfortunately they are correct. They don't want it to be know that they are siding with the big telecoms to screw over their customers, aka voters. Is it a coincidence that the same companies make large contributions to said politicians? They will push it through right after the election and we will forget about it before the following election cycle.


RE: Relationship?
By Jeffk464 on 9/2/2010 4:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
Government by the corporations for the corporations.


RE: Relationship?
By chagrinnin on 9/2/2010 6:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
Along with an attached "cost of living" raise of $50,000+. I'm already tryin' to forget about it.


RE: Relationship?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/2/2010 7:16:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
They don't want it to be know that they are siding with the big telecoms


I rather them side with big-teleco than the freaking FCC. Come on, think about it.


RE: Relationship?
By RugMuch on 9/2/2010 4:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
Wait are we getting a new president? Otherwise what elections and who cares.

Not like presi votes matters.


RE: Relationship?
By bodar on 9/2/2010 7:38:05 PM , Rating: 2
Sweet merciful crap, do they teach anything in school anymore???


RE: Relationship?
By gorehound on 9/2/2010 4:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
does this post surprise you ?
if it does then you must not be aware of what goes on in washington DC


RE: Relationship?
By vortmax2 on 9/3/2010 10:00:51 AM , Rating: 2
Not a surprise at all...just a bit of sarcasm.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki