In today's net neutrality action by the Federal Communications Commission there's good news and bad news. The good news is that, thanks to Commissioners Copps and Clyburn -- not to mention a nationwide network of net neutrality activists -- the proposal approved today is better than the original circulated by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. For instance, the FCC has now stated that it does not condone discriminatory behavior by wireless companies like Verizon and AT&T -- an important piece that was missing from the first draft.
The bad news is that, while it's no longer worse than nothing, the rule approved today is not nearly strong enough to protect consumers or preserve the free and open Internet. And with so much at stake, I cannot support it.
I'm still very concerned that it includes almost nothing to protect net neutrality for mobile broadband service -- often the only choice for broadband if you live in rural or otherwise underserved areas. And I'm particularly disappointed that the FCC isn't specifically banning paid prioritization -- the creation of an Internet "fast lane" for corporations that can afford to pay for it.
But here's the important thing to remember: This fight's not over. The FCC must vigorously enforce these new regulations -- and it must follow through on addressing wireless discrimination going forward.
So what now for advocates of true net neutrality? First, we need to work together to make sure the FCC keeps the promises it made this week -- just as our movement was instrumental in improving these regulations from the first draft, we'll be critical in ensuring that the regulations are enforced vigorously.
And I'm going to keep working with net neutrality advocates around the country to see if there are legislative or administrative steps that can be taken to strengthen these protections.
But, for today, know that the work we're doing to save the Internet is making a difference. Today, the FCC took a small step forward -- too small by my estimation, but forward nonetheless.
www.w3.org/Consortium/
"The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international community where Member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to develop Web standards. Led by Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee and CEO Jeffrey Jaffe, W3C's mission is to lead the Web to its full potential".
The World Wide Web Consortium OWNS the technology that the most popular part of the Internet employs and therefore, has the power to limit abuses by requiring ISPs to adhere to the principles that the W3C was created to uphold. (Tim Berners-Lee and the W3C.org allow the use of the protocols without charge but technically, they retain the right to impose standards consonant with the spirit that motivates their own work).
Franken is on that list, as are Congressmen Dennis Kucinich, Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison and Senator Bernie Sanders. (There may well be others).
Which are the most electable?
• EFF tests agree with AP: Comcast is forging packets to interfere with user traffic
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/eff-tests-agree-ap-comcast-forging-packets-to-interfere
"Comcast forging TCP RST packets which cause connections to drop (a technique also used by Internet censorship systems in China)."
• "Comcast blocks some Internet traffic - Tests confirm data discrimination by number 2 U.S. service provider"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21376597/ns/technology_and_science-internet/
I'm a pragmatist who believes in free markets, but that's a pure philosophy and I'm not naive enough to think they always work in a greedy world.
ISPs are vastly different from car dealerships or grocers (where consumers have market choices). With ISPs, many major markets have only one highspeed ISP choice: a de facto monopoly.
I don't like monopolies. When an ISP monopoly abuses a community's access to content and infrastructure: that's exactly when I want the FCC to step in.
GOP unanimously disagrees. That's fine. Doesn't sway me.
Let the FCC keep tinkering it will happen.
There is simply no justification to change what works, now.
Representative government was created to balance the power of the ultra-elite, so that we could approach fair treatment from the gov't and equality under the law. Its failures happen when it is corrupted by that elite, not when it defends an essential public good like online free speech.
Are we more free if corporations can censor us?? If you would stop sneering long enough to think a sec, you might begin to make sense.
Libertarians fascinate me as they have the ability to read and absorb an Ayn Rand novel, yet possess the analytical reasoning skills of a typical four year old when it comes to differentiating between the theoretical from the actual.
The concept of the "free market" is a good one. The actuality is that those who can afford to buy politicians to game the system in favor of their particular business, do so. As a result, in reality, the "free market" is as real as the Tooth Fairy.
Not all regulation is bad. One would think the economic meltdown of 2008 would have made that fact blatantly obvious. Taking leave of one's basic common sense can't be justified because Ayn Rand had a way with words.
Mike using PC but watching TV--:-)
The bad news is government will allow, if not abet, the imposition of impediments to the evolution of the system. The good news is that these are likely to be temporary. Firstly because of the massive resources of human intellect embodied by the device, ranged against those who would neuter it. Secondly, infantile antics only serve to advertise the ineptitude of such individuals. And resisting the feared implications, also negates the obvious advantages.
“I'm still very concerned that it includes almost nothing to protect net neutrality for mobile broadband service”
Standby, for Google-Sat. Or WebStar, if you will. Ten. Nine. Eight…
“Today, the FCC took a small step forward”
Meanwhile, the interweb hung a right (of access), and accelerated away straight past it.
“at Risk”
I understand that the government is secretly approaching hackers. Then asking them if they want a job, using their skills to interfere with the interweb for political ends. I may be naïve. But aren’t hackers who they are, because of a healthy helping of disrespect for authority? I suspect then, that those who do accept the offer, will use the opportunity to wreak havoc from the inside. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen coop.
These legislative successes, the holidays and 2 whole weeks aren't enough for me to forget anyway - the 2 years of republiCAN'T obstructionism perpetrated upon OUR country.
As Bill Maher would say: 'NEW RULES'
*** A 51 VOTE FILIBUSTER CLOTURE ***
*** NO 'SECRET HOLDS' ANYMORE ***