FCC Adopts Open Net Rules

Postby Wizard CaT » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:31 pm

FAWN JOHNSON wrote:WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday approved a much-anticipated open Internet proposal despite concerns of commission Republicans and big cable and phone companies that the rules aren't necessary.

Supporters of the proposal, including Internet giants like Google Inc., say the rules are needed to ensure entrepreneurs' Web products aren't hampered by providers that supply the on-ramps to the Internet.

The proposed FCC rules would prevent Internet companies such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc. from selectively blocking or slowing certain Web content and would require providers to disclose how they manage their networks.

The FCC now will seek public comment, with the goal of finalizing the proposal sometime next year. The rules almost certainly will be challenged in court.

AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast worry that the new rules apply only to service providers like them and not Internet firms like Google and Amazon.com Inc.

Advocates like Google say broader rules would amount to unprecedented regulation of the now free Internet.

The rules are tailored toward ISPs. They say Internet access providers can't deprive users of competition "among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers."

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said the draft rules are designed to protect consumers' right to access lawful content, applications, and services. "Government should not be in the business of running or regulating the Internet," he said.

The rules seek comment on the pros and cons of broader rules. "We need to recognize that the gatekeepers of today may not be the gatekeepers of tomorrow," said FCC Commissioner Michael Copps.

The proposal would impose new regulations on wireless companies including Sprint Nextel Corp. and T-Mobile USA, a unit of Deutsche Telekom AG, firms to date haven't been subjected to the same kind of open Internet scrutiny as companies that provide hard-wired cable or DSL-type Internet connections.

Wireless companies are particularly concerned that the rules will make it more difficult for them to manage the limited bandwidth they have to offer mobile Internet services. The rules acknowledge the unique problems facing cellphone and mobile Internet companies, asking how regulators should evaluate their network management.

Mr. Genachowski has championed a top priority for the wireless industry - access to more airwaves, underscoring the expanding need sparked by the growing use of iPhones and BlackBerrys.

Still, the "net neutrality" rules for wireless companies come with some sting.

They likely will bring an end to exclusive deals between manufacturers and cellphone companies, like the agreement Apple Inc. has with AT&T to be the sole carrier for Apple's popular iPhone.

Write to Fawn Johnson at fawn.johnson@dowjones.com


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... EThirdNews
~Only in silence the word, only in dark the light, only in dying life: bright the hawk's flight on the empty sky.~ The Creation of Éa
Damn you Clemson University, you deleted the 'sploding Kay that Etherwings uploaded eons ago!
User avatar
Wizard CaT
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Earth

Re: FCC Adopts Open Net Rules

Postby draque » Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:29 am

After the United Kingdom decision that was essentially the exact opposite of this, I'm especially glad to see that there's intelligent legislation on this subject here in the US.
User avatar
draque
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:57 am
Location: <=CLEVER-LOCATION=>

Re: FCC Adopts Open Net Rules

Postby Sinosaur » Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:42 pm

That's a nice change from earlier on when everyone was suggesting that it was inevitable that rules to the opposite would be passed in the US. In fact I think very specifically people on this forum were among those chanting that the ISPs would utilize lobbying to such an extent that it was unthinkable that they would fail.
User avatar
Sinosaur
100 Post Little Master

  Offline
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:41 pm

Re: FCC Adopts Open Net Rules

Postby Ashes » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:18 pm

That was before the Big O took office and piston-punched lobbyists in the face! Now we have Hope™!
#_@

Seriously though, we* were all at least a bit more pessimistic during the Bush era. If things had kept going the way they were, then the future would be gloomy for Net Neutrality. And that's what people tend to base their predictions. "If things keep going the way they are." Humans** aren't so great at seeing the curves in the road ahead.

And it's not like this is actually law yet.

*Yes, all of us. Even Japan. Just compare the Bush-era Metal Wolf Chaos to the Obama-era My Girlfriend Is President.

**Although a lot of us figured it was the Democrat's turn in 2008.
User avatar
Ashes
Melon Class

  Offline
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 11:09 am

Re: FCC Adopts Open Net Rules

Postby Sinosaur » Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:54 pm

I don't think it's fair to compare h-games to action games, they tend to have very different ideas about how things work. And maybe people would be better at seeing the curves if they weren't too busy looking at all the bumper stickers on the car in front of them and yelling about how stupid they all are.
User avatar
Sinosaur
100 Post Little Master

  Offline
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:41 pm

Re: FCC Adopts Open Net Rules

Postby Coda » Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:56 pm

At the risk of stretching the metaphor too far, a study did show that making the curves safer didn't make a significant difference on the accident rate; if people that someone else has/is going to take care of the hard part, they don't pay as much attention.
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: FCC Adopts Open Net Rules

Postby strange_person » Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:03 am

Coda wrote:At the risk of stretching the metaphor too far, a study did show that making the curves safer didn't make a significant difference on the accident rate; if people that someone else has/is going to take care of the hard part, they don't pay as much attention.

It's a well-known phenomenon. People devote as much attention to safety as is necessary to achieve the rate of accidents they consider acceptable, and no more.
Hello!

Praise be to Athè, and Hob, Her living vessel.
2<3
For I have crescent pies to bake
And smiles to throw before I wake
User avatar
strange_person
2000 Post Medal Of Wow!

  Offline
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:09 pm

Re: FCC Adopts Open Net Rules

Postby Coda » Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:21 pm

strange_person wrote:It's a well-known phenomenon. People devote as much attention to safety as is necessary to make them believe they have achieved the rate of accidents they consider acceptable, and no more.


Fixed. ;)
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: FCC Adopts Open Net Rules

Postby strange_person » Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:16 pm

Distinction between belief and reality is irrelevant when belief is tested emperically.
Hello!

Praise be to Athè, and Hob, Her living vessel.
2<3
For I have crescent pies to bake
And smiles to throw before I wake
User avatar
strange_person
2000 Post Medal Of Wow!

  Offline
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:09 pm

Re: FCC Adopts Open Net Rules

Postby Coda » Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

strange_person wrote:Distinction between belief and reality is irrelevant when belief is tested emperically.


Actually it's quite relevant; remember, it's standard human reasoning to believe "it'll never happen to me."
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: FCC Adopts Open Net Rules

Postby strange_person » Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:40 pm

Coda wrote:
strange_person wrote:Distinction between belief and reality is irrelevant when belief is tested emperically.


Actually it's quite relevant; remember, it's standard human reasoning to believe "it'll never happen to me."
Until it does happen to you, or someone close to you, and you exercise additional caution thereafter. Classic Bayesian adjustment.
Hello!

Praise be to Athè, and Hob, Her living vessel.
2<3
For I have crescent pies to bake
And smiles to throw before I wake
User avatar
strange_person
2000 Post Medal Of Wow!

  Offline
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:09 pm


Return to The Political Arena

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron