FCC to move to preserve Net neutrality

[onehandle]

Source: Wall Street Journal

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski has opted to try to re-regulate the Internet in an effort to preserve so-called Net neutrality, a senior FCC official said Wednesday.

The commission will now seek to regulate Internet lines by selectively using rules originally written for traditional phone networks, in order to prevent service providers from hindering traffic and blocking access to certain Web sites.

The FCC official said Genachowski will outline a "third way," which would apply only a "small handful" of rules under Title II of the Communications Act to the Internet. This is intended "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 official added.

Genachowski is expected to make a related announcement Thursday.

Read more: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fcc-reportedly-to-move-to-preserve-net-neutrality-2010-05-05?siteid=rss&rss=1

---

Thank God. Go FCC!

[Demeter]

1. So, Why Does This Message Get Through, While War Protest Doesn't?

nor the war crimes trials we are owed, nor the Too Big To Fails going down, nor single payer, nor.....

Why this one? What was the decision based on?

The riots in Greece, the inventiveness of geeks subverting the web, some vestigial trace of the Bill of Rights, or ominous polling results?

Inquiring minds want to know. If the right to petition the government still exists, what is the winning strategy (other than waving large checks)? Who is the gatekeeper, what is the price?

[HALO141]

22. "...what is the winning strategy (other than waving large checks)?..."

"what is the winning strategy (other than waving large checks)? Who is the gatekeeper, what is the price?"

1. Cash is preferred.
2. The current administration, whoever that may be.
3. Everything you've got.

[howaboutme]

2. Net Neutrality - Good or Bad?

I do not trust either the media or government to give us the straight poop. Misinformation is embedded in their DNA.

So I'm still not sure if I support "net neutrality" or is that terminology just another Bush "clear skies initiative" that sounds good to the masses while in truth it represents the opposite and pro-corporate anti-environment beliefs and it is intended to keep the "New Media" in the same consolidated few hands that control our existing media.

I'm open to opinions on this and I wish to be educated.

[activa8tr]

3. Read and understand.........if you do not trust, investigate, and stop posting

silly posts that state "I'm still not sure if I support "net neutrality""

Move on over to the corporate blurring initiatives.

[howaboutme]

5. So educate us

instead of humiliating. There has become so much widespread corporate and media disinformation on the internet that I no longer trust sources. I suggested that if anyone knows the specifics and advantages then educate us.

My original priority is for a totally unlimited and unbiased access gateway for both the users and those that host their information. My first concern is not about more profits for ATT or VZ but unimpeded access for users and host accounts.

Yet the message has become blurred.

[Q3JR4]

7. If you don't trust sources then why trust us?

DU is mearly another source.

The best way to do it is to look at pro-consumer websites and see what they have to say, and look at pro-corporate websites and see what they have to say. After you do that you can decide which side you want to come down on.

Q3JR4.

[bananas]

9. C;mon - he's asking for information

and as pointed out in the EFF article below, things aren't always as simple as they seem.

[bananas]

8. EFF is a good source - and they say this may be a trojan horse

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/net-neutrality-fcc-trojan-horse-redux

May 3rd, 2010
Net Neutrality: FCC Trojan Horse Redux
Commentary by Fred von Lohmann

The Washington Post reports that FCC Chairman Genachowski is considering basing the FCC's proposed net neutrality rules on precisely the legal foundation discredited in a recent court ruling:

Specifically, he is exploring a legal push under the current legal framework for broadband, which is under Title I, that would make possible the FCC’s push for a new net neutrality rule and reforms under a national broadband plan, the sources said. That could include a legal push in courts where it would assert that the FCC has the mandate from Congress to deploy broadband to all Americans in a timely manner.

This is a bad idea, no matter what your views of the wisdom of the FCC's proposed net neutrality regulations.

While we're big fans of net neutrality, we worry that the FCC may want to build its net neutrality regulations on a rotten legal foundation—"Title I ancillary authority"— which is both discredited and unbounded. As we've said before, if “ancillary jurisdiction” is enough for net neutrality regulations (something we might like) today, the FCC could just as easily invoke it tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the Commission dreams up (including things we won’t like, like decency rules and copyright filtering). That's why we cheered the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in early April 2010 that reined in the FCC's authority to punish Comcast for interfering with its subscribers' use of BitTorrent. While we were at the forefront of uncovering and condemning Comcast's behavior, we don't think that the FCC has—or should have—broad powers to regulate the Internet for any reason that strikes the Commissioners' fancy.

But now, apparently urged on by lobbyists from the biggest phone companies, FCC Chairman Genachowski appears poised to march down that road again, potentially turning the net neutrality proceeding and the National Broadband Plan into a Trojan Horse for unrestrained FCC authority to regulate the Internet.

<snip>

[crikkett]

19. I'll bite. I trust the Electronic Frontier Foundation as a good source

for pro-consumer information.

http://eff.org
What their website lacks is a definition of terms that's easy to find. You have to already understand the concept of net neutrality to understand the news they post.

So another good starting place to learn the definitions of basic terms, is Wikipedia.

A more thorough definition of network neutrality and its importance to consumers is at this page on the Internet Society's website. The ISOC is another pro-consumer organization.
http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/usercentricity/openinternetworking.shtml


You likely got the responses you did could be because your question was worded as if you're already prejudiced against any source we'd offer, and the language you used was not friendly.
Good luck
:hi:

[howaboutme]

20. Thanks

Sorry I didn't mean to come across that way. Thanks for the info.

The media has been corporatized, consolidated and is generally controlled and my bet is they would like to keep it that way. But that means buttoning down the internet. They have been trying to muddy the waters on this issue to their own benefit. The media always works to their interests, not ours, which is why we don't here much from them against the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. That will mean big profits for them and more corporate leverage.

[bananas]

6. Net neutrality is very important

Here's some info: http://www.timwu.org/network_neutrality.html

[howaboutme]

10. Thanks for the link

I've been in the Net Neutrality camp for years and also a Common Cause supporter. But recently I've been seeing mixed opinions where the big media interests are supporting net neutrality. It made me doubt my original beliefs. The media are experts at manipulating opinions and this may all be their agenda.

[harry_pothead]

4. Go FCC.

Who would have thought 5 years ago that I would ever be uttering the words "Go FCC." Obama has turned the FCC around.

We all remember Bush's FCC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NDPT0Ph5rA

[Zorra]

11. Thank God for Democrats! The party has problems, but the difference between having

a Democratic controlled legislature and WH vs. a republican controlled government is huge.

[sakabatou]

12. Well, this is one of the few good things from the FCC lately.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

13. FCC plans to slap Net neutrality regs on broadband

Source: CNET News

Net neutrality regulations are likely to be slapped on broadband providers after all.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski plans to announce details of the plan on Thursday, a senior agency official said. The purpose is to circumvent a recent federal appeals court ruling saying the FCC had no legal authority to punish Comcast for throttling some BitTorrent transfers.

Stung by the recent unanimous ruling, Genachowski will outline a "third way" to implement Net neutrality regulations, the official said in a statement.

"The chairman will seek to restore the status quo as it existed prior to the court decision in order 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 official said.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20004284-94.html

[FreakinDJ]

14. I knew I liked her

[boppers]

15. And the spammers cheered.

After all, they've kept our phone lines free of annoying sales crap, because, well, the phone lines are Neutral!

[JoeyT]

16. Are you saying we should

give cable and phone companies the right to decide what we can and can't look at because it might make life a bit more difficult for spammers?
I'm pretty sure I've just misread what you said.

[boppers]

17. I'm saying what every ISP owner knows, and has been doing for the last 10 years.

ISP's have a limited array of tools to keep their lines from being overloaded with crap, one of them is to blackhole, or re-prioritize, annoyance and non-user traffic. This pisses spammers off, and they've been suing for years, trying to get legal cover to cram your browser and email box.

If you open the existing floodgates, and require delivery of *all* of that traffic, we go back ten years to where a basic broadband connection costs $2,000 a month, and *every* spam, every port-scan, every robot, every mis-addressed packet gets through. Servicing that level of crap (that nobody wants in the first place), is something very few want to pay for... most people don't want 95 spam emails for every five valid emails they get (and yes, that's the actual ratio before ISP filtering).

As it currently stands, anybody *can* buy that level of unfiltered access. Anybody. Like I said, it's not cheap.

Expect every internet connection cost (unless you were already paying for actual, unfiltered, broadband, if you have cable, you *WEREN'T*) to go up, or for ISP companies to start offering reduced cost (read: current level of service pricing) network links that come with firewalling, spam protection, and mal-ware protection...

Unless, of course, the FCC decides that such a thing would be unfair, because they're not "neutral", in which case, everybody's costs will dramatically go up, while their service levels go down.

Unintended side-effects are a biotch.

[Enthusiast]

18. I pray this is true. nt

[SpartanDem]

21. K&R

[Uncle Joe]

23. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, onehandle.