After FCC Chairman, and former telco lobbyist, unleashed a bit of a sh%$ storm when he basically proposed ending net neutrality and relying on the kindness of the FCC in the future.<\/p>\n
So the FCC punted today<\/a>:<\/p>\n Federal regulators appear to share one view about so-called net neutrality: It is a good thing.<\/span> So basically, they proposed a tiered internet with protections that depend on whether or not you get a Bush appointed judge, in which case, you are f%$#ed, and also<\/b> proposed returning ISPs to the status of telecommunications services, (Title II) which would regulate them as utilities.<\/p>\n I think that the intention here is to hope that the controversy will die down over the next few months months, and then they can go with the telcos and cable companies with less public push-back.<\/p>\n The Electronic Frontier Foundation takes a rather similar view of these developments<\/a>:<\/p>\n There\u2019s good news: the nationwide outcry against the Federal Communications Commission\u2019s troublesome proposal for new Open Internet rules is clearly having an impact. At a public meeting this morning, commissioners were factoring in questions that\u2014according to previous accounts\u2014weren\u2019t on the table only days ago. The bad news: the FCC still is considering a set of rules that will allow Internet providers to discriminate how we access websites with only vague and uncertain limits, endangering network neutrality and threatening the vibrant growth of the Internet.<\/span> The good folks at the EFF also provide a tool, Dear FCC<\/a>, to help people make their feelings known during the public comment period.<\/p>\n
<\/span> But defining net neutrality? That is where things get messy.<\/span>
<\/span> On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to open for public debate new rules meant to guarantee an open Internet. Before the plan becomes final, though, the chairman of the commission, Tom Wheeler, will need to convince his colleagues and an array of powerful lobbying groups that the plan follows the principle of net neutrality, the idea that all content running through the Internet\u2019s pipes is treated equally.<\/span>
<\/span> While the rules are meant to prevent Internet providers from knowingly slowing data, they would allow content providers to pay for a guaranteed fast lane of service. Some opponents of the plan, those considered net neutrality purists, argue that allowing some content to be sent along a fast lane would essentially discriminate against other content.<\/span>
<\/span> \u2026\u2026\u2026<\/span>
<\/span> The proposal also requests public comments on whether and by how much the commission should tighten regulation of Internet service providers. For example, the commission asks whether it should reclassify high-speed Internet service as a utilitylike application, subject to stricter regulatory controls than now apply, and if it should ban certain practices that might impede consumers from getting equal access to all legal online content through their chosen Internet service provider.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/span> We\u2019re still waiting for the full proposal. But according to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler\u2019s statements at the open meeting, the FCC didn’t take pay-to-play “fast lanes” off the table. Paid \u201cfast lane\u201d access fees threaten the engine of innovation that has allowed hackers, startup companies, and kids in their college dorm rooms to make the Internet that we know and love today. We want the Internet to continue to thrive as a platform for innovation and expression; vague rules that bless “pay to play,” with ill-defined limits, are not compatible with our vision of an open Internet.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n