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!'"

5 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Would those rules be complex? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 0, Troll

    Indeed. Like:
    Initial: All Connections Are Equal.
    Later: But Some Connections Are More Equal Than Others.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  2. Re:Would those rules be complex? by aaribaud · · Score: 1, Troll

    So that would be an "equalize by IP address" rule. But not all IPs consume the same amount of data; so that would be "weighted equalize by IP address", or it would favor small traffic IPs -- not neutral.

    But then, the weight for an IP would be provided by an IP... Honest IPs would send out their real needs (if they ever can determine that, actually) and dishonest IPs would send out exaggerated needs to be sure to get what they actually need, thus causing the honest ones to starve.

    Doesn't seem neutral to me.

  3. Net favoritism by LaissezFaire · · Score: 0, Troll

    Any bets how long it'll be until "net neutrality" will force some content or providers to be given preferential treatment? My guess is less than a year after implementation until some group will be found to be under-supported and will be prioritized over everyone else.

  4. Re:Projecting again, kid by postbigbang · · Score: 0, Troll

    ISO indeed.

    You're making this too difficult, and apparently full of drama for yourself. It would seem that one of your themes is disconnection from reality. May I suggest looking in a mirror to find it.

    Your epithets just distract from your inability to mount a defensive argument. You're a facade, playing people.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  5. Fairness Doctrine 2.0 by Fezzick · · Score: 0, Troll
    What's really scary is that an unelected bureaucrat is stating whether you like it or not, the FCC will implement net neutrality. A sweeping change over one of the most influential technologies that impacts almost every American... yet no one gets to vote for it. Net Neutrality has morphed from what it once was when people started talking about it (a means to prevent ISPs from throttling/blocking content in order to create a tiered service model) to a means for bringing the Fairness Doctrine 2.0 to the Internet.

    Slashdotters talk about the technical merits of the proposals, but the politicians and bureaucrats are talking about something entirely different.

    http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2010/11/20/tech-at-night-red-alert/

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1993/10/em368-why-the-fairness-doctrine-is-anything-but-fair