The Wall Street Journal reports that the Federal Communication Commission plans to try regulating the Internet again using older rules that were written for phone networks to stop broadband service providers from blocking access to different types of data. But the real reason to use older language is probably to avoid another rebuke in the courts when service providers try to challenge the new regulations.
Chairman Julius Genachowski suffered a setback in early April, when a U.S. appeals court ruled that the FCC overstepped its authority in citing Comcast for slowing some Internet traffic on its network. In that unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the FCC exceeded its authority when it sanctioned Comcast in 2008 for preventing some subscribers from using file-sharing services to download large files.
This is certainly positive news for proponents of Net Neutrality, who were concerned (based on media reports) that Genachowski was giving up on it. It will be interesting to see how companies like Comcast, AT&T and more respond to this news, though I suspect a series of lawsuits will follow soon after these regulations are made official.
Update: CNBC reports that the FCC will make it official sometime tomorrow morning.
Comments
Re: WSJ Report: FCC Plans Net Neutrality Do-Over
I'd like to remind any opponents of regulation of the internet that when Maryland deregulated electric companies, prices immediately shot up 72% and reliability went down alot. My power went out today in fact.
As far as I'm concerned, government regulation is a good thing.
http://www.randomosity.net/
Re: WSJ Report: FCC Plans Net Neutrality Do-Over
An FCC regulation created behind closed doors is not proper public debate.
If you truly want an honest and transparent system in place that you can give your input on to make sure that everyone is actually treated equally you should not support any Net Neutrality regulation from the FCC and instead ask that it be a legitimate law passed through Congress via the proper channels.
I am suspicious of any group that will support a regulation created behind closed doors, and enforced with little warning or recourse.
GameDrunk - Celebrating our two greatest passions.
Re: WSJ Report: FCC Plans Net Neutrality Do-Over
Apparently, Vald, Neneeko and Zip haven't informed you of the GP mantra:
"Unless it's done by a Republican, any sneeky, closed door action by the government to control you life is a good thing."
---
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Re: WSJ Report: FCC Plans Net Neutrality Do-Over
ISPs are waaaayyyy out of hand lately and do need to be reigned in. However I too am skeptical about reclassification. Not that I think it wont work, but I fear the ISPs are going to be babies about it and intentionally screw things up just to make the FCC plan fail.
Re: WSJ Report: FCC Plans Net Neutrality Do-Over
While I'm in favor of net neutrality, this isn't the right way to do it. They need to stop looking for loopholes and try to make a law fair and square.
Re: WSJ Report: FCC Plans Net Neutrality Do-Over
The point I was trying to make.
---
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Re: WSJ Report: FCC Plans Net Neutrality Do-Over
Watch republicans come out agaisnt Net Neutrality and watch people call it another oen of Obama's plots.
Re: WSJ Report: FCC Plans Net Neutrality Do-Over
I say it's just a power grab by a government organization that won't abide by it's own boundaries, so they're trying to find out how they can get away with it anyway.
---
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Re: WSJ Report: FCC Plans Net Neutrality Do-Over
Come on, Jedi. Do you really believe that this country would be better off if the ISP's were allowed to bottleneck and suffocate websites that don't necessarily want to pay the exhorbitant fees that larger corporations would be willing to pay for faster connections and more bandwith?
If the ISP's get all of the power they want to limit and regulate our bandwith, you can say goodbye to most local forums and any sites that aren't sponsored by major corporate money, say goodbye to internet gaming, unless you want to pay the ridiculously expensive price for non-limited bandwith, say goodbye to any downloads, even if you purchased them legitimately, say goodbye to steam, etc..
The internet should have ALWAYS been classified as a public service, just like phones. The more regulatory power keeping the ISP's at bay, the better, if you ask me. Don't necessarily take the service over, but make the ISP's play fair, so they can't brush the little guy under the rug in order to collect more money from the big money corporations.
Re: WSJ Report: FCC Plans Net Neutrality Do-Over
That's not what I'm saying at all. However, just as what you suggest is one extreme to point towards the need for net neutrality, another to point away from the need is that your ability to game will be considered no more important than your grandmother's e-mail.
You'd be pissed if your connection was cut to allow someone to send an e-mail, right? The polar opposite of what you suggest - which doesn't even happen without net neutrality in the first place - is what I just suggested.
Plus, as the SEC has proven time and time again, government regulation isn't going to magically solve the problem. Someday, you'll realize that.
---
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Re: WSJ Report: FCC Plans Net Neutrality Do-Over
With the way technology is advancing, I don't think running out of bandwith will be too much of an issue. It may be because I'm young, but I can't remember a time where landline phones were constantly cut off because there wasn't enough room in the network..
Now, I will admit that if there's a time where EVERYBODY is online simultaneously, like to monitor some national disater or something, there might be a problem, but I highly doubt that, even with government regulation, we will ever be in a situation where I'm going to get kicked off of WoW because someone wanted to send an E-mail.
Re: WSJ Report: FCC Plans Net Neutrality Do-Over
I'm not talking a lack of bandwidth. I'm talking about the fact that, with net neutrality, even if you pay for a 50 gig connection and use it all the time, you are no more important a customer than someone who uses a 512 meg connection for sending email. That means that when traffic is prioritized, you no longer get priority, which you do now because you pay for that priority. That means that you can get kicked because grandma sent an email, even without bandwidth issues.
And you'd have nobody to blame but yourself because you thought the government knew better than you.
---
With the first link, the chain is forged.