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.
The history in Internet innovation is the story of outsiders building a better mouse trap -- kids, dropouts, and non-Americans, given a neutral platform to prove their ideas. It was neutral because it was built that way.
Long story short, this is about saving the Net for regular people, versus providing privileges for companies that spend lots of money lobbying in Washington and misinforming the American public.
Net Neutrality itself doesn't solve America's communications problems and we hope that the FCC decides to actually investigate our claims that a) Verizon failed to disclose that the networks are already Title II.
Net neutrality is often defined as a consumer issue, invoking the threat of big phone and cable companies interfering with customers streaming Netflix, or blocking legal downloads of music because of so-called bandwidth concerns. But it's also a democracy issue.
We write not to add to the onslaught of commentary on the merits of the rules--which are not yet public--but rather to address the legitimacy of the FCC's decision-making process. To cut to the chase: there's no evidence of a process foul in this case.