Slashdot Mirror


FCC To Make Move On Net Neutrality

GrApHiX42 writes "The FCC will announce on Thursday it plans to pursue a 'third way' forward in the fight for tough net neutrality rules, opening a new front in an ongoing legal battle that could come to define the commission under Chairman Julius Genachowski. A senior FCC official said Wednesday that the chairman 'will seek to restore the status quo as it existed' before a federal court ruled it lacked the authority to regulate broadband providers and set rules that mandate open Internet. The goal is to 'fulfill the previously stated agenda of extending broadband to all Americans, protecting consumers, ensuring fair competition, and preserving a free and open Internet,' the FCC official said."

10 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. We need net neutrality to prevent censorship by onionman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Without net neutrality regulation, I fear that providers will have far too much power to censor content. In my area, there is only one choice for broadband: Comcast. My provider has already demonstrated a willingness to censor based on protocol and re-direct DNS lookup failures to their own search engine. I don't trust them at all to act in the best interest of the consumer when sites like Hulu and iTunes start directly competing against cable TV offerings for content.

  2. Re:More government encroachment by selven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Like having the government take over the parts of the industry that are inherently monopolistic (ie. wires; the barrier to entry for that essentially amounts to putting your own set of wires around the entire country) and having them rent out those wires to ISPs, who would then become competitive?

    It's really the only way to have a free market in internet service at this point.

  3. Common carrier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why don't they just make ISPs common carriers. A common carrier has to take anyone's traffic without favor or discrimination (as long as the customer can pay). The concept has served us very well for things like telephones and railways. I find it hard to understand why it doesn't automatically apply to ISPs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

    1. Re:Common carrier by T+Murphy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Telephones and railways have gone through antitrust cases. ISPs have not. My guess is we need a full-fledged monopoly to form before things get better.

  4. Re:More government encroachment by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just what we need, a government takeover of another entire industry.

    What's up with people saying this? Look around, especially to wall street and the gulf of mexico. I see industry messing up on the exact same scale or bigger than the government messes up.

    I'm not saying "Some companies have messed up so lets give it all over to the government," I'm just saying "Government takes over an industry" isn't as scary to me as it once was.

  5. Re:More government encroachment by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just what we need, the government to regulate safety standards on off-shore oil rigs. Just what we need, the government to regulate the largest banks. Just what we need, the government to regulate environmental rules and protect wetlands.

    You're fucking A-right.

    Just what we need, for Comcast to turn the Internet into the Disney/TimeWarner Channel.

    When the federal government was building the Internet, were you saying, "Just what we need, a fast open data network that anyone can connect to".

    If you had waited for AT&T to build the Internet, you'd still be waiting. And I guarantee, that whatever they had built wouldn't have allowed for political blogs and bittorrent trackers and news aggregators and open source HTML standards. No YouTube. No Slashdot. And no teabaggers (well, I guess there would be some good points).

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  6. Re:in other words by pudge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Um. No, the judges correctly noted that it was the FCC that was saying "fuck the law," by making up their own laws.

    Do you really want federal judges who are going to allow federal agencies to do whatever they want, even when the law says they can't? That's scary stuff.

  7. And furthermore... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, we don't have to guess at what the broadband carriers would have built had they been entrusted to create the Internet, because they already have done it.

    It's called "cable television".

    Those of you who are old enough can remember that when the internet was still Darpanet, the big telcos and media companies were telling us how "cable television" was going to revolutionize communications. It was going to be small-d democratic, with tons of opportunities for local programming and public access.

    And what did we get? Spike. And fucking infomercials out the ass. And some very expensive programs (with commercials no less) and lots of reruns. For this, they were given the right to public lands and the right to gouge customers. And we got "pay television" where you have to pay to watch the baseball game you used to watch for free. And monopolies. Don't forget monopolies.

    The "free market" and "competition" had their shot at the internet, and they gave you cable fucking television.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. Re:Just make them common carrier by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just make ISPs common carriers like the phone companies. Then the FCC can enforce the rules it wants.

    Not "common carriers" but rather just "telecommunications services" rather than "information services."

    Ironically, it was the FCC itself that recategorized ISPs as "information services" and thus opened the door for all of this bullshit in the first place. You would think that since the trouble started with the FCC, they could just change their minds and put things back the way they were so that IP was treated the same as Voice and all the neutrality rules would then apply again.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  9. Re:More government encroachment by jmorris42 · · Score: 5, Informative

    > AT&T put in all the miles of fiber we now have back in the 40's?

    Ok, you asked for it. So sit right down and lemme tell ya a tale.

    Back in the 90's there were first stirrings of the sort of reform I am talking about. They didn't split em but they did force the telcos to allow competition of a sort. Remember the CLECs? There was a lot wrong in how that scheme was setup, with the incumbent carrier retaining an unhealthy advantage but it was a start and it scared the piss out of the telcos. So they got their pet congressman (Rep Billy Tauzin R-LA in fact but R-BellSouth in reality) to knife the CLECs. This set off a chain reaction that led killed off the CLECs, and most small ISPs because they had become CLECs to get access to low enough rates to stay in the game; that in turn killed the equipment makers that depended on them, i.e. Lucent, Nortel, et al. The contagion spread until it became known as the .bomb.

    Perhaps you read about that back in 2000 if you were the sort to read business pages. The rest of the country found out in 2001 after the Presidential race was over with, a major market meltdown didn't fit the media's narrative of that race you see; the story of the Clinton economic miracle that we could keep going if we elected Algore.

    While the threat was solved for now, the telcos were determined a shift in their political fortunes wouldn't see a rebirth of competition. So while they had the power they used it. They bought themselves a law that would exempt any new fiber investment from being subject to being opened to competition. They told us that without that promise we would all be stuck on dialup and become uncompetitive in the world economy. And so Congress gave them what they wanted and then some, heck they even threw direct cash at em! And they are slowly rolling out fiber.... and rolling up the copper as they go. So they just refreshed the monopoly. Who cares what it cost, that gets passed to the end customer anyway.

    Note that the government is just as liable for the Kaboom! as the telcos. So giving any of them more power is a bad idea.

    --
    Democrat delenda est