Eighty Advocacy Groups Come Out Against Net Neutrality Proposal

December 11, 2010 -

Nearly 80 net neutrality advocacy groups have thrown salt in the FCC's game this week. The groups wrote a letter to the FCC saying that the open Internet principles announced last week fall short of creating "real net neutrality" rules. Several interest groups, businesses, and civil rights groups signed the letter to the FCC, saying net neutrality rules should ban paid prioritization of online content (note the ECA is one of those eighty groups that signed on to the letter). They also said that Wireless carriers were given too much power to govern themselves, though some might argue that they need to considering the network congestion that space currently faces.

"This is a make-or-break issue, and the signatories on this letter are unequivocal in their demand that fatal flaws with Chairman Genachowski's draft proposal be fixed immediately," Sascha Meinrath, director of New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative, told Reuters on Friday.

The groups highlighted some of the areas of the FCC chairman's new proposals that they considered "shortfalls." One of the biggest complaints was against the flexibility granted to wireless carriers.

"This incomplete protection would destroy innovation in the mobile apps and content space, permanently enshrining Verizon and AT&T as the gatekeepers for all new uses of the wireless Web," the letter said.

Wireless carriers want to prioritize Internet traffic on congested networks without worrying about FCC rules. Many have said that they already do this to allow handsets to make and receive phone calls.

Steve Largent, chief executive of CTIA, said that the proposal was "acceptable" though he said he'd like to see no regulation on wireless carriers. He added that any changes to the current proposal as it relates to wireless carriers could result in litigation.

The group letter also called for a ban on paid prioritization.

"This unacceptable loophole threatens to swallow the entire rule," the letter said of the ambiguity surrounding the proposal's ban on "unjust and unreasonable" discrimination.

Democratic FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn, have also raised red flags about paid prioritization.

The Commissioners will vote on the new proposals on December 21. Republican Commissioners will vote against the proposal.

Source: Reuters

 


 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Poll: Is it censorship when a private retailer decides not to sell a particular video game?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
WonderkarpFudge, for some reason sometimes when I access Gamepolitics on my phone, it shoots me over too my app store. I think its the Ads05/28/2015 - 9:58am
WonderkarpI'm not perpetually offended. I'm an regular viewer of South Park. I have a problem with people saying gamergaters are school shooters. That and lets be honest. I dont like MechaRash05/28/2015 - 9:55am
Ivresse@MechaCrash: I'd like to refer you to the words of Stephen Fry: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGA3QGHW8AARsax.jpg05/28/2015 - 9:43am
Wonderkarpalright Fudge05/28/2015 - 9:27am
MechaCrashWhat good is being one of the perpetually offended if you don't make sure everybody sees just how offended you are?05/28/2015 - 9:02am
james_fudgeYou two can reasonably slug it out in the article in question if you want :)05/28/2015 - 8:59am
MechaCrashI wasn't expecting you to drag it into the shoutbox, either. Just when I think I have you pegged, you prove me only MOSTLY right.05/28/2015 - 8:55am
MechaCrashWhat argument? You made a joke in bad taste. I made a response joke in similar bad taste. And you are going berserk with...okay, not the flavor of HOW DARE YOU I was expecting (I thought you'd No True Scotsman, instead you dodged it entirely).05/28/2015 - 8:52am
Wonderkarpfyi, thats a self made "REDACTED" to make Mr Fudges life a little easier.05/28/2015 - 8:50am
Wonderkarphow is calling somebody out for being a [REDACTED] throwing a Tantrum? Is it cause you cant dispute my argument?05/28/2015 - 8:46am
MechaCrash"Grow a thicker skin," says the person throwing a tantrum that's filling the shoutbox.05/28/2015 - 8:40am
Wonderkarpbeen a bombing had Sarkeesian spoke, because there would be an increase police presence and nobody is THAT STUPID to make a threat like that and follow through. This isnt the movies05/28/2015 - 8:35am
WonderkarpIts what you make of them. GamerGate in DC had a bomb threat. Police were there, but GG continued to enjoy themselves and have a good time. Bomb Threats in general, you give them to the police and continue your business. I guarantee there wouldnt have05/28/2015 - 8:34am
MechaCrashhttp://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58521856-78/sarkeesian-usu-video-feminist.html.csp Remember the talk Sarkeesian had to cancel because of death threats? Yeah. That's the thing I'm talking about.05/28/2015 - 8:30am
WonderkarpI'm not defending Bomb Threats. They are idiotic and have no place in society, but as somebody who lived through several bomb threats I can tell you they are weak05/28/2015 - 8:29am
WonderkarpSchool Shootings on the other hand are violent events that end the lives of children and come without proper warning due to mental illness and gun laws.05/28/2015 - 8:28am
Wonderkarpcause Bomb Threats are what you make of them. No successful bombing in the US has had a threat posted about it beforehand. Boston Marathon? Okahoma City? You either handle it with caution or dont handle it at all. most of the time ar done as stupid pranks05/28/2015 - 8:27am
Infophile@MechaCrash: One difference is that there's actual evidence linking GGers (or their ideological allies) to bomb threats, and no link to school shootings. For instance, we hate Jack Thompson here, but let's not accuse him of eg. committing grand theft auto05/28/2015 - 8:26am
james_fudgeGo to your corners and let the cutman do his work.05/28/2015 - 8:21am
MechaCrashHm, yes, "lol aGGs make bomb threats" is vastly different from "lol gaters threaten school shootings." Yes, I see the error of my ways! ...wait, no I don't, I see that you're still a hypocrite who can dish it out but not take it.05/28/2015 - 8:21am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician