8
   

Obama on Net Nutrality

 
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 01:58 pm
Here's a link to the FCC's site for the National Broadband Plan:

http://www.broadband.gov/

and a link to the actual plan itself, including an executive summary and the detailed plan:

http://www.broadband.gov/plan/
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 02:01 pm
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:
"I am concerned ... that the Commission may now attempt to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, subjecting it to traditional public utility-type regulation," Lenard said in a statement. "In my opinion, this would be a grave mistake that would undermine the goals of the recently released national broadband plan.

Actually, that would be a productive and legally straightforward approach. It's how the US had regulated dialup until 1997, and how Europe is regulating broadband today. This would create a much more competitive marketplace than we now have.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 02:04 pm
@Butrflynet,
How embarrassing

Quote:
I am pleased that the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit emphasizes the limits of the Commission’s authority to regulate the Internet. The D.C. Circuit’s strong words today remind us that as an independent agency, we must always be constrained by the statute. We stray from it at our peril.
Translation, thank you daddy for spanking me!

Quote:
With regard to the substantive policy at issue in this case"net neutrality"I would oppose calls to use the court’s decision as a pretext to reclassify broadband Internet access services under monopolyera Title II regulation.
didn't the court just dismiss your say in the matter? Shut up.

Quote:
The FCC is firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans. It will rest these policies -- all of which will be designed to foster innovation and investment while protecting and empowering consumers -- on a solid legal foundation.
the accounts i see say that you were stripped of your regulatory authority, so explain to me why I should care what you think

Quote:
. But the Court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end.”
thanks for pointing that out, but considering that courts dont make policy, nor do they talk about possible methods which are not before the court, why are you pointing out the obvious?

OH, you needed some BS to fill space....got it.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 02:11 pm
@Thomas,
According to that PC World article I linked to above, here's how Canada is doing it.

Quote:
In Canada traffic management has been allowed since October 2009 by the federal telecom regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, but only under certain conditions. First, the policies must be neutral and cannot be "unjustly discriminatory nor unduly preferential," a standard set in federal law for all telecommunications. Second, traffic management policies have to be made clear to consumers and wholesale buyers of access. In addition, the regulator has to approve traffic management policies that are more restrictive on a service provider's wholesale purchasers than to its retail customers. Third, the slowing of time-sensitive data (such as live video or VoIP [voice over Internet Protocol] traffic) cannot be done without regulator approval. Generally, the commission said traffic management policies must be "designed to address a defined need, and nothing more."

So far no ISP (Internet service provider) has challenged the commission's ruling.

The Canadian rules apply only to wireline service. The commission is expected to decide this year whether it has the authority to regulate over mobile wireless data services, and, if it does, whether it will apply the same policy to wireless.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 02:31 pm
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:
According to that PC World article I linked to above, here's how Canada is doing it.

Yes. It's better than what the US is doing, but I'm not enthusiastic. We know the government can create competitive markets through common-carrier regulations. Once you have competitive markets, any abuse of monopoly power is thwarted by not having monopolies in the first place. So why allow the formation of monopolies and then regulate them? Why put consumers at the mercy of political appointees interpreting vague terms such as "unjustly", "unduly", and "defined"? Canada's regulations merely split the difference between the Right Thing (TM) and what Bush would have done. From this perspective, I guess the smart bet is that Obama will copy it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So I just joined Facebook.... - Discussion by DrewDad
YouTube Is Doomed - Discussion by Shapeless
Internet disinformation overload - Discussion by rosborne979
Participatory Democracy Online - Discussion by wandeljw
OpenDNS and net neutrality - Question by Butrflynet
Internet Explorer 8? - Question by Pitter
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2019 at 05:11:57