Replies

For those still convinved that this is such a great idea:
Before the FCC has even gaveled the meeting to order, special, politically-driven carve-outs are reportedly being negotiated behind closed doors...

Uh huh...but wait, it gets better!

Recently there have been many issues seen on the Google owned YouTube, where videos opposing the Obama administration’s agendas have seen the number of views being locked at a certain number in an effort to keep these videos from reaching a featured status...Democratic FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been pushing to exempt online companies such as Google .. from the network neutrality regulations he wants in place to preserve the Internet’s openness.

All content is equal, but some content is more equal than others.

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)

Recently there have been many issues seen on the Google owned YouTube, where videos opposing the Obama administration’s agendas have seen the number of views being locked at a certain number in an effort to keep these videos from reaching a featured status...

Democratic FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been pushing to exempt online companies such as Google .. from the network neutrality regulations he wants in place to preserve the Internet’s openness.

Ok, so what we have here is two facts, granting for the sake of discussion the veracity of the first statement. Putting them in proximity to one another doesn't prove a connection between them. Net Neutrality wouldn't stop Google from continuing to limit views of certain videos on servers it owns, so this looks like purposeful mis-information on net neutrality.

It would however stop your ISP from purposefully slowing YouTube content, of any ideological stripe, to your system unless Google paid them on top of what you pay for your connection every month. Same with content from Netflix, ESPN, hell, even Microsoft.

It seems not many on FR are tuned in to this, and some are for it based on the activism by some consumer groups in years past.

I read the current NPRM at FCC and it is largely what was originally proposed (measures to prevent bandwidth shaping based on a content provider's relationship with a service provider, for example). But, this NPRM includes a lot of language dealing with the unrelated issue of enhanced government law enforcement access, plus language mandating as yet unpublished policies in support of undefined objectives (e.g. “social benefit”, whatever that is).

It bothers me that FCC is involved with the issues of content and marketing of private wireline networks at all. There is a federal commission that perhaps has some authority to deal with the interstate commerce issues that arise from the operation of these private networks, but it is not the FCC.