Opinion: Wireless Net Neutrality Will Be Contested

January 3, 2011 -

Fierce Wireless offers a dire prediction for the FCC's net neutrality rules enacted in December: continued opposition. How this opposition will evolve from talking points to actual action remains unknown, but there will be plenty of sword rattling in 2011, says the site dedicated to the wireless industry.

Here is how they lay the prediction out to readers:

"Of course, the rules aren't agreeable to most lobbyists. On the telecom side, entities like Verizon Wireless (NYSE:VZ) and CTIA argue the FCC has no need to regulate Internet traffic, considering the heated competition in the market without such oversight. On the other side stand a range of Internet and public interest entities, which worry that the FCC didn't go far enough to ensure equal and fair treatment of Web surfers' bits and bytes. Thus, We expect the FCC will face significant opposition to its new rules from a range of players. Specifically, we expect those on the telecom side to attempt to tie the FCC's rules up in court by calling into question the agency's authority to implement net neutrality. Indeed, the FCC's two Republican commissioners voted against the rules, partly due to their belief that the agency does not have the authority to impose net neutrality regulations."

We know that there is already vocal opposition to the new net neutrality regulations. What we do not know is who will be the first to take the FCC back to court. Will it be from stakeholders, advocacy groups, or will politicians take the agency to ask in very public hearings this year? We do not know, but we are following this closely and will detail every drumbeat and rallying cry for and against net neutrality, as it becomes known.

Source: Fierce Wireless


Comments

Re: Opinion: Wireless Net Neutrality Will Be Contested

This is essentially the same story I've heard over and over again about the new rules passed by the FCC. The verdict is that they suck and they don't do enough to protect the public from ISPs that want to manipulate their access in order to stop competitors from providing equal or better services that they offer aside from internet access. The internet competes with TV, Phone, Radio, Mail, and so on.

It's about keeping them from messing with your Skype so you can't use it as effectively as their VoIP service. It's about them keeping your connection slow enough so that you can't download or stream you favorite shows conveniently instead of buying their expensive cable packages that are full of stuff you don't want to pay for just to get to the stuff you do. It's also about wanting to degrade you access to your favorite web sites and search engines in favor of their own. Of course, they also want to keep you from sharing commercial works too.

They want the public to continue to think that the internet is just the world wide web when it's far more than that. Wireless or not, the issues apply equally and the rules should as well.

-Greevar

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
IronPatriotYes, it's pretty sad that even after GG has been exposed as a fraud designed to harass Sarkeesian, they still want to attack her. Do facts even matter anymore?08/04/2015 - 2:30am
Andrew EisenDammit. For context's sake, I watched that one Chris Ray Gun video Matt linked to and now my recommends are chockful of anti-Sarkeesian crap from the usual suspects. ARGH!08/04/2015 - 2:27am
Andrew EisenIP - Now you just essentially asked Matt the same question twice in a row. Seriously, once is enough.08/04/2015 - 2:11am
IronPatriotMattsworkname, do you have any actual evidence for your "complete bollocks" claim? Or are you making up more "facts08/04/2015 - 2:11am
IronPatriotMattswork, prove your claim that the article is "based on complete bollocks"08/04/2015 - 2:08am
Andrew EisenIP - Stop asking me the same question over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. It's super annoying. Especially when I've already addressed it.08/04/2015 - 2:07am
Andrew EisenMatt - How? Set aside half an hour. It's not hard if you know your history. It's just time consuming.08/04/2015 - 2:06am
IronPatriotAndrew, so you agree about the lying fraudulent nature of gamergate's origins? So supporting gamergate when it is clearly a fraud deserves to be called what it is, right?08/04/2015 - 2:06am
Andrew EisenFrom an ethics standpoint, there's nothing wrong with that article or posting news on subjects that are of interest.08/04/2015 - 2:05am
MattsworknameAndrew: the toughest thing about Gamergate is that it lacked any form of directed leadership or oganizaotion, How do you really explain something so amourphous that it leterally took months and moths to gain any real shape?08/04/2015 - 2:05am
Andrew EisenIP - A metric crap ton of history and context. GamerGate isn't hard to explain, it just takes a while.08/04/2015 - 2:01am
MattsworknameAnd ip wonders why gamergate went after sites like ARS and kotaku08/04/2015 - 2:00am
MattsworknameWow, its like ARS posted an intentially controversial article based on complete bollocks to get clicks, Imagine that?08/04/2015 - 1:58am
Mattsworknamehttp://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/arstechnica.com08/04/2015 - 1:58am
MattsworknameWait, wrong link, damn copy function08/04/2015 - 1:57am
IronPatriotAndrew, the logs show the harassing nature of gamergate's creation and the facts show the fraudulent nature of gamergate's ethics claims. What is left to make it hard to explain Gamergate?08/04/2015 - 1:57am
Mattsworknamedont belive me? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhYQBPFub5M08/04/2015 - 1:57am
MattsworknameAlso, ARS? That webpage that was suffering signigant traffic decrease before the gamergate event and thatt suddenly saw a huge jump. almost like they posted it intentionally to get clicks?08/04/2015 - 1:57am
Andrew EisenTrust me, I'm well versed with GamerGate's history. I was there.08/04/2015 - 1:56am
MattsworknameIP: so, 4 chan, thats your proof, a completely anonomus group without leaders or any confirmed connctions to any of the events that followed is the best you can come up with? And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.08/04/2015 - 1:56am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician