Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler is circulating a proposal for new FCC rules on the issue of network neutrality, the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks equally. Unfortunately, early reports suggest those rules may do more harm than good.

The new rules were prompted by last January’s federal court ruling rejecting the bulk of the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order on the grounds that they exceeded the FCC’s authority, sending the FCC back to the drawing board.

According to reports, Chairman Wheeler’s new proposal embraces a “commercially reasonable” standard for network management. That standard could allow ISPs to charge companies for preferential treatment, such as charging web-based companies like Netflix or Amazon to reach consumers at faster speeds.

This kind of “pay to play” model would be profoundly dangerous for competition. New innovators often cannot afford to pay to reach consumers at the same speeds as well-established web companies. That means ISPs could effectively become gatekeepers to their subscribers.

The FCC issued a statement this morning that claims that the new network neutrality proposal will not allow ISPs to, “act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.” But we have no idea as to how “commercially reasonable” will actually be interpreted.

The devil will be in the details. While all we have now is a statement that a proposal for what the proposed rules might look like is being circulated in private within the FCC, the public should be poised to act. In an FCC rulemaking process, the commission issues what’s called a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). After the NPRM is issued, the public is invited to comment to the FCC about how their proposal will affect the interest of the public.

The FCC is required by law to respond to public comments, so it’s extremely important that we let the FCC know that rules that let ISPs pick and choose how certain companies reach consumers will not be tolerated.

The problem is that most people don’t know about this extremely opaque process, and so they don’t participate. Let’s change that. Stay tuned. We’ll let you know when it’s time to raise your voice and add your testimony during the FCC’s public comment window when the new proposed rules are announced.

source: EFF.org

Anyone who watched John Hodgman’s famous Daily Show rant knows what Net Neutrality means as an abstract idea. But what will it mean when it makes the transformation from idealistic principle into real-world regulations? 2010 will be the year we start to find out as the Federal Communications Commission begins a Net Neutrality rulemaking process.

But how far can the FCC be trusted? Historically the FCC has sometimes shown more concern for the demands of corporate lobbyists and “public decency” advocates than it has for individual civil liberties. Consider the FCC’s efforts to protect Americans from “dirty words” in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation or its much-criticized deregulation of the media industry or its narrowly-thwarted attempt to cripple video innovation with the Broadcast Flag.

With the FCC already promising exceptions from net neutrality for copyright-enforcement we fear that the FCC’s idea of an “Open Internet” could prove quite different from what many have been hoping for.

source: EFF’s Net Neutrality page.

Also see:

Broken Links

If any of the links above do not work, copy the URL and paste it into the form below to check the Wayback Machine for an archived version of that webpage.

Sharing is Caring

Support ClimateViewer

Donate on PayPal
Support ClimateViewer
Donate on GoFundMe

Reuse License

Creative Commons LicenseFCC vs Net Neutrality: The Death of the Free Internet by Jim Lee is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Based on a work at climateviewer.com/. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at climateviewer.com/terms.

You are free to:

  • • Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  • • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
  • • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • • NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
  • • ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

Comments


Artificial Clouds, Sounding Rockets and Satellites, Biological Warfare, Human Testing, and Weather Warfare fully referenced! ... Continue reading


What do these have in common? CONTROL. Find out the truth about the CLIMATE CHANGERS, national sovereignty, and one world government of a borderless world. ... Continue reading

ClimateViewer TV

PLEASE SUBSCRIBEJim Lee & ClimateViewer on YouTube

Jim Lee speaking at the US. EPA hearing on flight pollution
Geoengineering
Pollution
Privacy
Propaganda
HAARP
#CirrusCloudsMatter
Nuclear
Electrosmog