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 11:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
You have to understand that there are really two different sides to the whole political situation. You have the SOCIAL side, and then you have the financial/fiscal side. The reason why both major parties are screwed up is that you have these two things joined at the hip, rather than keeping them apart.

Most people on the Democratic side HATE and I do mean hate how the Republican ticket is all about conservative social values combined with conservative fiscal policies. If a single Republican candidate stepped forward who really was a SOCIAL moderate with a conservative fiscal outlook, that candidate would win a national election EASILY. On the flip side, you have idiots like Pelosi on the Democratic side who are so far in the other direction that many rational Democrats can't stand her and want her out of office.

You are also blind to the reality of life if you think that outlawing abortion would in any way improve the quality of life, keep the poor from having sex(to avoid having more children they can't feed), or anything like that. This is the simple reality of life in the real world, and while you may not agree with abortion, and may feel it is wrong, do you think that it would change things in a positive way for PEOPLE?

The people who go with more liberal social policies(not getting into economic policy) feel that just because you don't like something, or feel comfortable with it around them also can accept that FREEDOM means that others should have the same freedoms that they themselves have. Gay rights can be supported by many people because if a heterosexual couple has the right to get married, then why shouldn't a homosexual couple have that same right? That does not mean that religions would be forced to accept it, but the GOVERNMENT should afford the same rights to everyone, no matter if their sexual preference makes you uncomfortable or not. You can get married, and they should be able to as well. And, that is a social policy, having zero impact on the fiscal side of things.

So, keep the debate in it's proper place. Support for the PEOPLE in the military does not mean that foolish spending should be accepted. That is a fiscal issue, and if you can do the same thing for less money without a loss of quality, there is nothing wrong with that. People in the USA need to tell government that if something costs $10,000 in the private sector, contractors charging $100,000 for the same thing should NOT be tolerated! Why is the military paying so much for supplies when the same supplies should be so much cheaper? Why can't the government and military just make their own equipment if they are being overcharged by the private sector?

If you want to really get Republicans back into a better position, wake up and focus on the issues, instead of letting your "morality" drive people away from the conservative fiscal policies that would help solve the problems in this country.


RE: What a Shock!
By knutjb on 8/12/2010 3:59:12 AM , Rating: 2
Close but off on a few details:
quote:
Gay rights can be supported by many people because if a heterosexual couple has the right to get married, then why shouldn't a homosexual couple have that same right?
quote:
If you want to really get Republicans back into a better position, wake up and focus on the issues, instead of letting your "morality" drive people away from the conservative fiscal policies that would help solve the problems in this country.
FYI Ted Olsen, GW Bush's first Solicitor General, is the one who successfully argued against California's Prop 8. He is very conservative.
quote:
Why can't the government and military just make their own equipment if they are being overcharged by the private sector?
Many times the bureaucracy created by politicians contributes to this by layering massive amounts of paperwork requiring unreasonable efforts to fill it out in order to just bid on a project. Contractual obligations, remember politicians who write the rule the DoD operates under, allow for many of those loop holes along with some reasonable product safety concerns.

Also, please tell me why the DoD is the ONLY Gov Dept working to cut their budget? Unfortunately some Congressman will do what ever they can to thwart those cuts because it's in their district.

I do know of some serious lapses of bureaucratic judgment that cost silly amounts of money. Unfortunately they had more to do with the system forced by politicians of both parties than many would like you to think. I know, I spent over twenty years in it.
quote:
Republican candidate stepped forward who really was a SOCIAL moderate with a conservative fiscal outlook, that candidate would win a national election EASILY.
So why is it that ONLY Republicans have to change their values but never the Democrats? Just wondering... McCain IS a social moderate who is far more fiscally sensible than who's in office now. Historically Repubs do better in elections and governance when they are real conservatives rather than Dem lite.


RE: What a Shock!
By Reclaimer77 on 8/12/2010 9:38:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He is very conservative.


Not anymore.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














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