Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Commissioner Blasts Verizon On Net Neutrality

Posted by samzenpus on from the brutal-honesty dept.

destinyland writes "FCC chairman Julius Genachowski says that net neutrality rules 'will happen,' promising the FCC 'will make sure that we get the rules right... to make sure that what we do maximizes innovation and investment across the ecosystem.' But the same week, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps announced that the public should not stand for deals 'that exchange Internet freedom for bloated profits,' mocking the tiered-data plans of the 'Verizon-Google gaggle' and accusing them of wanting 'gated communities for the affluent.' Speaking at a New Mexico hearing, the commissioner warned the audience against proposals that would 'vastly diminish' the Internet's importance, blasting 'special interests and gatekeepers and toll-booth collectors who will short-circuit what this great new technology can do for our country.' (The text of his speech is available as a PDF file at FCC.gov.) He concludes by acknowledging that 'you can't blame companies for seeking to protect their own interests. But you can blame policy-makers if we let them get away with it!'"

11 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. Oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tsk America. How on earth did this guy slip through the net? Isn't the name a bloody clue this is a pinko who will undermine your countries economy... oh wait... to late.

    On a more serious note, novel way to resign. I wonder how many policy-makers choked on their breakfast or had to have it explained to them that some people think that it is not their job to protect the interests of companies at the expense of everything else.

    Brave guy, but somehow I feel any praise I write is like writing a eulogy.

    1. Re:Oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is this modded troll? It's completely accurate. Net Neutrality will never happen in the US for two reasons:

      1. The Republicans are against any regulation of companies at all, so they'll never support it.

      2. The Democrats want to censor the Internet in the name of reducing piracy/protecting children from "cyber bullying." Anything called "Net Neutrality" that comes from a D will actually be a way to censor "unpopular" thought from the 'net (read: anything remotely conservative), along with massive fines for anyone caught "pirating" data.

      As long as either of those parties are involved, net neutrality will never happen.

    2. Re:Oh boy by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Democrats want to censor the Internet in the name of reducing piracy

      I'm pretty sure the Republicans are right there with them on that one.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    3. Re:Oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, those Democrats sure do want to discourage people from having conservative thoughts. That's why they have a 24 hour media machine that scares the bejesus out of people, claiming that sinister conservatives are destroying the fabric of America, building a knee-jerk association in peoples' heads between "conservative" and "anti-American traitor," selectively editing out-of-context video footage to make people from groups that liberals don't like look bad...

      No, wait, those are the OTHER guys. I know Slashdot has been getting somewhat more paranoid and wingnutty, but seriously. Have you LOOKED at the Democrats, who couldn't even "suppress the conservative thought" inside their own damn caucus for two years? Breathe, come back from conspiracytown, and join us back in the real world.

    4. Re:Oh boy by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>pinko who will undermine your countries economy...

      The local internet, by definition, is not a free market. It's a monopoly just like the phone and electric monopolies and needs to be regulated the same way. IMHO rather discuss net neutrality, the FCC should just impose the same Common carrier rules the phone company must follow, where they are required to handle all calls equally regardless of content.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  2. Would those rules be complex? by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I fail to see where does the complexity of those rules lay. It seems that the only need for complexity starts exactly where net neutrality ends.

  3. I'll believe it when I see it... by SeaFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Policymakers are great about talking up justice for everyone and saying no to special interests until thy actually have to put pen to paper. The FCC can make all the noise they want, but until this Net Neutrality is actually on the books and being enforced call me skeptical at best.

  4. Can't blame them? by julioody · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Surely you can blame then when, in the course of protecting their interests, they bribe and corrupt a system designed to protect the interests of the majority, in order to create blockades that add no value whatsoever to a product that got paid for with tax money.

  5. Easy peasy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    unhindered: when you get a packet, move it on when you can.

    when you ask for 300GB/sec it won't be in one packet, so you ask for a packet and get a packet back. Over a 100GB/sec pipe, you can't ask for 300GB/sec so no hindrance in effect

    Keep going? On what?

    Net Neutrality is WHAT YOU HAD ALREADY. These laws, unlike most (because, probably, they don't serve commercial interests but the american people) had a sunset clause and the clause ended recently.

    You know, all those companies and innovation and money and increased revenue you had in the 70's to 2000? Under Net Neutrality.

    But COMPLAINTS about Net Neutrality? Now THERE'S a money-to-lawyers scheme...

  6. Re:Projecting again, kid by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, he's not stupid. Rather he has indeed defined in unambiguous terms how to do this.

    Layers 2&3 of the ISO/OSI stack (International Standards Organization, a body the US contributes to and uses for referential standards) refer to the transport and routing of information. Service neutrality is easily defined. It doesn't exist today on many US ISPs. Between deep packet inspection and service throttling, we lost net neutrality (if we indeed ever really had it) a few years ago.

    Every word doesn't have to be defined clearly. Please stop drinking so much coffee before you hit 'submit'. Your anger and argumentative posture do nothing to quell the biases, especially the network biases under consideration here. Name calling and intimidation is characteristic of the insecure.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  7. Please Read The Fucking Article by openfrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Should there not be words of support on Slashdot for such a clear and unambiguous stand from the FCC Commissioner and the FCC Chairman? This is exactly what we need to begin turning the tide.

    Look at the discussion below: sidetracked in a shouting match and out of topic all the way down (at least at the time I write this...).

    Please!