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 Targon on 8/11/2010 10:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with that argument is the SIZE of the USA compared to Holland. In the USA, the BIG problem is NOT net neutrality, but is the lack of broadband access in very remote/rural areas. Now, there is a BIG problem with the cost to get broadband into these remote areas combined with the whole concept of who ends up paying for it.

Do I want my taxes to go up by $100 per year just to make sure there is broadband Internet in a town of 50 people that is 100 miles from the nearest town? Should the entire country have to pay all of that money to make sure people who CHOOSE to live in the middle of nowhere get the same level of service available to those who live in a place with a high population density?

There is nowhere in Holland that you could go that is actually REMOTE, so it is far less expensive to wire the entire country, or provide cell phone service to the entire population.

So, do we really want to let the FCC start to call the shots? In reality, the only involvement the US Government has had with the Internet is getting colleges, universities, and military facilities connected. As a result, the only place the US Government should be able to regulate is the part it was involved in. So, let the FCC set policies for the government run backbone, and leave the private sector alone. If I paid $5 billion to deploy a fiber optic network with no government involvement, I sure as hell wouldn't feel the government has ANY right to set policy on what I personally put in place.

The FCC can't be bothered to regulate the airwaves(try telling them when radio stations are broadcasting off their assigned frequencies), so why should we let them touch ANYTHING else?


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














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