backtop


Print 45 comment(s) - last by theslug.. on Nov 20 at 2:51 PM


The FCC complains that Google and Verizon's net neutrality proposal doesn't give it enough authority.  (Source: South Park Studios/Comedy Central)
FCC says that the only way net neutrality will be had is by handing it more power

After a long history of debate, Google and Verizon finally came to a basic framework of proposed net neutrality policy.  The policy would look to regulate wired traffic, ensuring that "legal" traffic was not slowed and that ISPs would not be able to charge premiums for "speed lanes".

The Federal Communications Commission, which is currently in the process of crafting net neutrality legislation to bring before Congress, was surprisingly dismissive of the proposal in a brief public comment.

FCC Chairman Michael Copps remarks [PDF], "Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward.  That's one of its many problems. It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations."

The comment raises questions about exactly what kind of net neutrality "authority" the FCC is seeking over the nation's ISPs and internet wires.  After all, the Google/Verizon proposal called for mild FCC regulation and a fine architecture for those who don't comply, with fines of up to $2M USD.

It should be interesting to see exactly what the FCC has in mind instead.

The FCC taking input from Google, Verizon, AT&T, Microsoft, and others in the process of crafting its net neutrality legislation.  It is unclear when it will finish the draft of its legislation for Congress.



Comments     Threshold


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

But compromise is the answer
By Jaybus on 8/10/2010 5:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure we need an Internet czar. On the other hand, if left to the large ISPs, they would surely throttle all of their competition in any particular area, like say video on demand IPTV. Look what AT&T is doing with U-verse, which has a separated pipe using a different optical wavelength over the same fiber to implement a dedicated bandwidth for their own IPTV service. If you have U-verse, then no other IPTV provider could possibly compete, even if they don't start throttling other VOD services. It might be great if you are happy with their IPTV service, but it is the opposite of an open system.

Not sure what to think of a Google/Verizon agreement. I would rather see a Netflix/Verizon agreement. Something to keep the network providers from taking over completely the content providing services one by one using dedicated bandwidth and throttling to force out the competition.




RE: But compromise is the answer
By FITCamaro on 8/11/2010 8:24:17 AM , Rating: 3
Others could compete by doing the same thing AT&T did. Run fiber to neighborhoods. An area just has to allow it.

My parents neighborhood has U-Verse. Their street is the only street with problems and apparently AT&T knows about it but won't fix it. So they're stuck with either Bright House Cable or DirecTV.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki