[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: Corporate entanglement of the web,The FCC's net neutrality rule is a weak compromise that will not stop industry control of content delivery at consumers' expense I wasn't surprised to learn, on 21 December, that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had passed its rule governing net neutrality 3-2 along party lines. The topic has been a source of partisan wrangling for years. Advocates of net neutrality argue users should control content viewed and applications used – that a level playing-field promotes democratic participation and free speech. Broadband providers and telephone companies, though, want freedom to boost profits by deciding which content gets to whom first and fastest. Both sides argue theirs is the course encouraging economic innovation. My take: the new rule is another example of the Democrats' "half a loaf" thinking, and falls short of pledges by President Obama and his administration to protect the internet against phone and cable gatekeepers. The order's text wasn't available immediately, only FCC news releases and statements by its members – chair Julius Genachowski, joined by Democrats Mignon Clyburn and Michael Copps voting to approve, but objecting in part, and Republicans Meredith Attwell Baker and Robert McDowell, who voted nay. Based on those, the rule: • leaves wireless networks unregulated, anointing Verizon, AT&T et al as gatekeepers to the rapidly expanding world of mobile internet access; • fails to explicitly prohibit internet service providers from turning the "information highway" into a toll road favouring corporate partners, while detouring the rest of us onto the cyber-equivalent of a pothole-ridden dirt road; • continues to ground its rationale in legal arguments rejected by the DC Federal Court of Appeals on 6 April, by defining the internet as an information service, rather than reclassifying broadband and wireless as a public utility under the Communications Act. (As an information service, the court allowed broadband provider Comcast to block or slow specific sites and charge video sites like YouTube to deliver their content faster to users. The suit came after Comcast attracted attention in 2008 for secretly using a program called Sandvine to hamper peer-to-peer file-sharing applications. Republicans hate the measure. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) criticised the FCC for taking "what could be a first step in controlling how Americans use the internet by establishing federal regulations on its use". He promised to "push back against new rules and regulations" once Republicans take the majority in the House of Representatives in January. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the commerce committee's ranking member, called the vote an "unprecedented power grab by the [FCC's] unelected members" and promised a resolution condemning the rule. She had offered an amendment to block the agency from using any omnibus budget funds to implement net neutrality. Last September, Republicans had already beaten back House energy and commerce committee chairman Henry Waxman (Democrat, California) net neutrality bill. Public interest groups also are up in arms. Free Press calls it a squandered opportunity. Public Knowledge says it falls short. The Media Access Project finds it riddled with loopholes. The Centre for Media Justice criticises its minimal protections. While some Democrats in Congress are supportive, Senator Al Franken (Minnesota) warns: "If corporations are allowed to prioritise content on the internet, or they are allowed to block applications you access on your iPhone, there is nothing to prevent those same corporations from censoring political speech." I had expected a weak rule after Genachowski held closed door meetings with industry lobbyists who opposed net neutrality, as well as with the industry's Open Internet Coalition, but locked out public-interest and consumer groups. And as Greg Sargeant noted in the Washington Post: "The problem is … that Dems … don't think they're capable of winning a protracted political standoff, even on an issue where the public is on their side, once Republicans start going on the attack … As a result, they tend to telegraph weakness at the outset … that they'll essentially give Republicans what they want as long as they can figure out a way to call it a compromise." According to Bloomberg, AT&T, in its attempts to influence policy, met more frequently with the commission in recent days than did any other provider. Verizon, on the other hand, wanted the FCC out of the picture. Industry sources told the Hill that, given Congressional gridlock, Verizon's call for legislation suggests the company might not want any resolution at all. These approaches seemed borne out when AT&T praised the FCC for ending its "hamstrung [status preventing] needed action on … real problems", while Verizon called for "statutory underpinnings". Democratic commission member Michael Copps, a strong consumer advocate, issued a statement prior to voting, saying he'd battled since his 2001 appointment "to make sure the internet doesn't travel down the same road of special-interest consolidation and gatekeeper control that other media and telecommunications industries – radio, television, film and cable – have travelled". While this was not the proposal he would have crafted, the rule "could represent an important milestone … [i]f vigilantly and vigorously implemented by the commission — and if upheld by the courts". Those, Mr Copps, are pretty big ifs.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, *The Parties Are Not The Same* (#0)
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the commerce committee's ranking member, called the vote an "unprecedented power grab by the [FCC's] unelected members" and promised a resolution condemning the rule. She had offered an amendment to block the agency from using any omnibus budget funds to implement net neutrality. Last September, Republicans had already beaten back House energy and commerce committee chairman Henry Waxman (Democrat, California) net neutrality bill. -----------------------------------------------------------
Orwell spins. Today the Title of an Imperial Edicat tells all. Think the Opposite of the Bill's Title and you have the reason: See Food Safety Bill for details. 8D
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|