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

RE: What a Shock!
By theArchMichael on 8/10/2010 7:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your truly foolish if you think that Govt interference in a private sector will lower prices.


Yeah government doesn't have any business interfering with the private sector and their infrastructure, its not like the government had a hand in funding the development AND expansion of telco and broadband technologies...</sarcasm>

The people should own this infrastructure that they ending paying for any way in the form of tax breaks, grants and bailout funds. Something as integral as ubiquitous as access to global communication shouldn't be in the hands of the few and powerful. In that case the free market begs that they engage in collusive extortion.

The free market isn't the best option for every situation... look at the interstate Highway system. I know some Republicans that live/work in DC, NY, Phillie, but I know a LOTTTT more that live/are from rural areas. They are so small government/no taxes until you ask them whether they would want to drive 200 miles on a dirt road when they go home to see family on the weekend...

Good ideals don't alwasys translate to good ideas, we can't just have a one size fits all approach to how we manage our communal resources. I believe in the free market... but for this...


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














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