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 wempa on 8/11/2010 1:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is exactly like internet service. My internet was down 2 weeks. I wanted to switch from comcast. Why didn't I? No options that were as fast. I only have 2 choice. Sounds like a monopoly to me.


Yes it is. And who exactly GAVE the cable companies these monopolies ? Your friendly local government.

quote:
Postal Service. You really want to pay $11 to mail you letter. That is what Fedex charges for the same letter with same delivery time as USPS. Are we running this service at the cost we should?


There are a load of problems with these statements. First of all, it costs more than $1 to get guaranteed next day delivery with the USPS. It costs $13 to overnight a letter. Sure, you can send a letter for 44 cents, but it will usually take a few days to get to its destination. Secondly, the USPS rates for normal mail are cheap because (1) just about every town has at least 1 post office and (2) they have such a high volume of mail, which greatly increases the efficiency. Any private company operating on such a big scale and with such a high volume could most likely offer similar rates.

quote:
Without laws they could slow down streaming video like Netflix or any other streaming site to make it so only low def videos are playable on their internet service and then make there website and videos play faster so that only their videos play in HD.


Sure, prevent them from doing that. So, they implemented data caps instead. With such a cap in place, people can't get their movies and TV from their internet connections and must pay for the overpriced cable TV instead. Mission accomplished.

quote:
Normally people would get another service when their not happy with the one they hav but there aren't usually more than a few options in most areas unless your willing to a way slower service.


Again, who do you have to thank for giving them this monopoly ? Your local government. Wouldn't it make more sense to remove the monopoly and allow multiple companies to offer cable/internet/phone service within a town. Then, see what happens if 1 company starts to pull something like this.


RE: What a Shock!
By knutjb on 8/12/2010 3:22:13 AM , Rating: 2
It's annoying that so many complain about their service without knowing how it got there. All they want is government to fix it, even though government created the problem in the first place.

They don't understand that many providers like what they have, a monopoly or very limited competition. They don't want fewer rules because they would have real competition that only limited regulation can provide. For those who think all conservatives want is no-regulation are guzzling the far left Kool-Aid. Zero regulation leads to chaos but over-regulation is even worse.

Over-regulation is what you find at the bottom of your bill in the form of numerous little taxes that nickle and dime your pocket without adding value to your service. Those taxes do keep some bureaucrat gainfully employed with a killer retirement and great medical plan...


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation














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