AMERICAblog – Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner Cable and wireless carriers ‘win’ in Net Neutrality update
Oh hooray for having a Democratic majority at the FCC. Is it really always necessary to fold to corporate interests instead of providing the regulation that consumers need? Let’s just call them Republican-Lite Another name might be “hardly a chance they’re getting my vote in 2012.”
by Mike Masnick from the openness-is-a-matter-of-degree dept on Tuesday, December 21st, 2010 @ 2:13PM
We’ve already talked about how the FCC was going to approve heavily watered down (and written in conjunction with AT&T) “net neutrality” rules today — which it did. However, one aspect of all this that is particularly ridiculous is the fact that the FCC voted on rules which it has not released, and which it claims may be adjusted before they are released. Considering that these rules are supposed to be about internet openness it seems pretty ironic that the rules are secret. Jeff Jarvis noted this irony in asking if he needed to file a Freedom of Information Act request just to find out what was voted on. He followed it up by filing just such a request that seeks not just the ru les, but also details of correspondences and meeting notes leading up to the creation of the rules. We’ll see what the FCC comes back with.
They do this because they can get away with it. Comcast has plenty of friends in Congress on both sides of the aisle and they’re not shy with handing out money. The reality is that the service they provide is slow and very expensive compared to other parts of the world, so they have lots of cash to work with. (As I’ve mentioned in the past, even “socialist” France has multiple fiber optic options for around €35. This includes 100MB service, plus calls to well over 60 countries around the world plus TV channels. Other European and Asian countries have even better deals.)
From Media Matters:
November 22, 2010 11:46 pm ET
Glenn Beck again claimed that proposed net neutrality rules are “basically a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet” and would allow the government to “control what you see on the Internet.” In fact, net neutrality prohibits Internet service providers from controlling access to Internet content, and — contrary to Beck’s suggestion — would not require Fox to change its content.
Sunday 31 October 2010
“Every man is our brother, and every man’s burden is our own. Where poverty exists, all are poorer. Where hate flourishes, all are corrupted. Where injustice reigns, all are unequal.”
– Whitney Moore Young Jr.
Is net neutrality just a matter of the marketplace, or is it also a matter of ethics – a civil rights issue? And if the latter, how should broadband optimally serve the nation?
It’s a question the Digital Divide Institute (DDI) asks on its website, where it addresses what it calls the five domains of innovation – public policy, finance, technology, management and ethics – the cornerstones of DDI’s Meaningful Broadband initiative.
From Broadband Reports:
Net Neutrality Bill Limits FCC Power
Mirrors Goorizon proposal by keeping rules away from wireless…
03:37PM Tuesday Sep 28 2010 by Karl Bode
As we mentioned the other day, any real chance of tough net neutrality rules seems to have died a lobbyist-fueled death, while Congress is now pushing a bill that would limit the FCC’s authority at the behest of major carriers. The Tech Daily Dose has obtained a copy of a bill being circulated in Congress that would prohibit the FCC from its plan to partially reclassify ISPs as common carriers. The bill is similar to the recent Verizon Google proposal in that it would largely keep wireless networks free of any neutrality rules applied to wireline networks. The draft bill appears to be a mirror image of ideas major ISPs have already agreed to in private negotiations — including a sunset clause and vague loophole language allowing “reasonable network management.”
Trying To Make Everyone Happy, FCC Boss Makes Nobody Happy
Genachowski admits glacial pace on neutrality…
08:31AM Tuesday Sep 28 2010 by Karl Bode
Last week we noted how network neutrality was dead — or at least any chance of us seeing tough rules protecting consumers from neutrality abuses. That’s courtesy of millions in lobbying by AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other carriers — but it’s also thanks to an FCC boss that we pegged early on as someone very interested in telling everyone what they wanted to hear, while being completely unwilling to make tough stands.
Uncle Sam Wants Easier Internet Wiretapping
Bill would require all devices and services be wiretap ready
08:27AM Monday Sep 27 2010 by Karl Bode
Despite unprecedented recent changes in telecommunications surveillance, and AT&T and Verizon’s involvement in wholesale shuffling of data directly to the NSA — the U.S. government says their Internet surveillance abilities are “going dark,” and according to the New York Times, Uncle Sam wants to make it easier to wiretap the Internet. A new bill being cooked up for release next year would force all devices and services (from Skype to Facebook) to be ready to respond to a wiretap order — and would mandate redesign if required. One anonymous official tells the Times a case was recently impacted “because smugglers used peer-to-peer software” to communicate — forcing the agents to use traditional bugs.
From Boing Boing:
In this deep, engrossing Engadget interview, law professor Tim Wu talks about Net Neutrality and why it matters, and why Google has been willing to abandon its commitment to an open network in a deal with Verizon. Tim coined the term Net Neutrality and has a new book coming out in November, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, which I just read for review; not surprisingly, it’s one of the best analyses of network policy and the history of telecommunications and media I’ve ever read.