Slashdot Mirror


FCC Backs Net Neutrality, Chairman's Full Speech Posted

ArmyofGnomes writes "FCC chairman Julius Genachowski delivered Monday on President Obama's promise to back 'net neutrality' — but he went much further than merely seeking to expand rules that prohibit ISPs from filtering or blocking net traffic by proposing that they cover all broadband connections, including data connections for smartphones. Genachowski stated: 'I understand the Internet is a dynamic network and that technology continues to grow and evolve. I recognize that if we were to create unduly detailed rules that attempted to address every possible assault on openness, such rules would become outdated quickly. But the fact that the Internet is evolving rapidly does not mean we can, or should, abandon the underlying values fostered by an open network, or the important goal of setting rules of the road to protect the free and open Internet. ... In view of these challenges and opportunities, and because it is vital that the Internet continue to be an engine of innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement, I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet.'"

3 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Server vs. client by ArhcAngel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm curious how services like ESPN 360 will be affected being that they are the content provider and not the ISP. They are still blocking content to you unless you are on the "right" ISP.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  2. Hulu outside the USA without proxies? by MrMista_B · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I live in Canada.

    Does this mean, if this passes, that I'll be able to watch services such as Hulu, which are otherwise blocked to ISP's outside the USA?

  3. Re:It's almost like... by Boronx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's actually been huge stretches of time (postwar period, for one) where a lot of thought about policy was actually directed at making policy beneficial for the country and it's citizens. It's only since the '80s that this went by the wayside, and even then it took 20 years to completely die, when we elected an administration that didn't care at all about policy. As John D'Iulio, a Bush insider and student of prior administrations put it:

    "In eight months, I heard many, many staff discussions, but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions. There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues. There were, truth be told, only a couple of people in the West Wing who worried at all about policy substance and analysis, and they were even more overworked than the stereotypical, nonstop, 20-hour-a-day White House staff. Every modern presidency moves on the fly, but, on social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking..."

    Don't be pushing any false equivalence between this admin and the last or any previous. With any luck, the last 8 years, a low point in thoughtful policy since before FDR, will remain the low point and things will start getting better again.