The Internet is not black and white, and it is most certainly not sacred. We seem to have merely added more complexity to its already nuanced nature.
The battle continues. The history of media reform tells us that if we ignore core systemic problems like the power of monopolies and the lack of structural diversity, important protections like net neutrality can be short-lived.
While it is great that Net Neutrality principles, which means that they can't screw with your Internet service, may be put into effect, it belies the more pervasive problems -- you may not be able to afford (or want to pay for) that service or get that service or have a choice about who offers you that service.
On February 26th, 2015, Verizon put out a press release claiming that the FCC's Net Neutrality decision was a "throwback that imposes 1930's rules on the Internet". And they put out an additional release in the language of a telegraph to reinforce this view point.
Who should make decisions affecting the health and safety of our communities? Who governs? Conservative Republicans in Texas are split on the question.
The city, of all our geopolitical institutions, needs to reinvent itself for this new global age. The FCC decision gives them the incentive.
Escape to the Rockies in our latest latest Week to Week news quiz. Here are some random but real hints: That was Martin Landau; big ISPs aren't happy...
Once the entire Open Internet (Net Neutrality) rules are put out (we have only an outline as of this writing), you can expect a lawyers' banquet, a feeding frenzy where they will file and file and file.
Leave it to Washington, D.C., to hand Americans what is probably the greatest consumer victory from that town in a decade and then fail to show them the actual rules. There's no question that the FCC made history. The issue is how big of a win is it.
While there are some reasons for optimism, a looming renewed threat comes from those who failed to get SOPA legislation passed three years ago.
This is what democracy looks like. That's not something I thought I'd ever say about the bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission. After years of cronyism, corruption and cowardice, Thursday's vote for strong Net Neutrality rules at the FCC is unexpected if not unprecedented.
These claims that the administration strong-armed the FCC in its rulemaking are offensive to the millions of Americans who have helped shape the FCC's order by participating in the rulemaking process.
This week's FCC action should bring a long-delayed victory for net neutrality. It's an important victory, without which the online world that we've come to take for granted would risk being auctioned off to the highest bidder. But this victory might never have happened without an unlikely political coalition a decade ago.
It's no secret I consider income inequality the greatest challenge of our time. And whether you're my age or my teenage son Dante's, it's clear: the Internet has become fundamental to solving it.
Verizon has told the FCC, the public, or anyone else who will listen, that imposing 'utility-style regulations', sometimes referred to as 'Title II", on broadband providers -- will harm investment.
On February 26, the FCC will do something that few have ever accused the government of doing. It will recognize reality and act appropriately. That, in a nutshell, is the debate over net neutrality. Just as plain telephone service connected people and was regulated, now it's data services. Calls or video are all just megabits. Telephone companies couldn't discriminate in their traffic then, neither should they or cable companies be able to play favorites or manipulate customers now. That basic, regulated fairness is what allowed the Internet to develop, a point some current opponents seem to miss, whether blinded by ideology or money. But if you listen to the anguished cri de coeur from the loyal defenders of the big telecom companies, you would think the FCC's action was a government coup d'interconnecter -- a takeover of The Internet.