Public Comments on FCC’s Third Way Mostly Partisan

July 19, 2010 -

If the FCC was looking for some consensus building dialogue from the public comment phase of its proposed "third way" to net neutrality, it will be sadly disappointed. The public comments show that, depending on what side of the issue they are on, stakeholders refuse to budge in inch from their stated positions.

AT&T calls the "third way" to net neutrality the "wrong way," with the sentiment echoed by broadband and telecoms companies like AT&T Time Warner Cable and Qwest offering similar negative comments. Wireless carrier trade group CTIA calls the third way proposal a "radical change," "unnecessary," and heavy regulation under a different name. Communication companies continue to say that net neutrality rules will lead to a decrease in investment, which in turn will jeopardize implementing the Administration's ambitious National Broadband Plan.

Meanwhile on the other side of the issue Google says that the opposite will happen if the "third way" is implemented; "Google says that it will "promote legal certainty and regulatory predictability to spur investment."

The Open Internet Coalition (it represents the positions of eBay, PayPal, Facebook, Amazon, and others) agrees with reclassifying broadband under Title II because consumers don't subscribe to ISPs to get "information" - rather they subscribe for speed and pricing. The American Civil Liberties Union agrees, adding that it thinks the "government should create strong, clear policies that will prevent speech-restrictive abuses by companies that are fundamentally profit-seeking rather than civic-minded."

The American Library Association mostly agrees with the ACLU, but says that Title II classification should only apply to networks "available to the general public" and not private networks.

Other public comments on the "third way" are ridiculous, self-serving and having nothing much to do with net neutrality; the Motion Picture Association of America says that "whatever" the FCC decides, its new rules should not undermine "the willingness of broadband providers to take the measures necessary to address the online theft of creative works." The Consumer Electronics Association says that, while " the Title II question is important," the agency needs to focus more attention on getting additional spectrum licenses to the wireless industry.

At the end of the day, the same voices are saying the same things. The Motion Picture Association of America's comments, on the other hand, are like Rain Man talking about "Wapner" and "Kmart." 

Source: Ars Technica


Comments

Re: Public Comments on FCC’s Third Way Mostly Partisan

Why does there have to be only one way?

I think we would be much better served by a set of rules for ISP's and a set of rules for content providers and a third set of rules for individual users using connections provided by ISP's.

The big concundrum here seems to be that one set of rules that one group likes messes things up for a different group. That makes sense since from each of these groups perspective they want/need something different out of proposed net neutrality rules. So I say again, why create just one set of rules?

If we are going down this path, it needs to be done correctly.

Re: Public Comments on FCC’s Third Way Mostly Partisan

The irony is, this was done correctly at one point (or at least better) but then things got messed up via a run of deregulation.

This proposal would essentially bring ISPs back under (most) of the same rules that cover phone companies... and last time I checked telephones have done VERY well since regulation.

The irony of all this is, if the phone companies can be used as an example, this type of regulation ends up resulting in more absolute profits for the carriers, but less feeling of control over customers.   ISPs in a way are trying to trade real profits for percieved control... or more accurately, money for pissing rights.

Re: Public Comments on FCC’s Third Way Mostly Partisan

Wasn't it the Bush administration that pushed all that deregulation crap?

Re: Public Comments on FCC’s Third Way Mostly Partisan

The FCC is not looking to create rules that effect content providers or internet consumers. They are seeking to make rules that effect only the ISPs. They are seeking to make a set of rules that tell all ISPs to treat all the content from content creators the same. They are creating a set of rules that tell all ISPs to allow all their customers to do whatever they want on the internet without interference.

The FCC has no jurisdiction over content creators or customers.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: Public Comments on FCC’s Third Way Mostly Partisan

I agree and understand exactly what you mean but the net effect is that ISP are trasitively applying net un-neutrality back on us consumers under the pressure of the MPAA/RIAA. It is this MPAA/RIAA pressure we consumers are wanting the ISP's to remain neutral on when the content owners and consumers get in a fight. And thats how it should be. The court battle should only be between the content owner and the consumer in court. The ISP, their connection sold to us, should not be in contention unless modified by the ruling in a court case.

Re: Public Comments on FCC’s Third Way Mostly Partisan

Right now, when you put your page on the web anyone can see it (but you'll have to pay to raise your location on some search engines). I believe that ISPs want content providers to pay just to have the website accessesable at all (which means paying each ISP and not just the one that's hosting your domain). That way the ISPs can squeeze more cash out of it's traffic. The result will be that sites that can't afford to pay will not receive any traffic.

At least that's what I've been told.

Re: Public Comments on FCC’s Third Way Mostly Partisan

You're right.  That's what you've been told.

Note how NOBODY's been told they'd have to do that by an ISP.  This was a tactic made up by the FCC and net neutrality supporters to get people behind the idea of government regulation of the internet.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Should 'Hatred' have been removed from Steam Greenlight?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilson@phx you beat me to it. how do you screw up tetris?! my ubisoft this is just stupid. no one should ever preorder a ubisoft game again! ps people should never preorder any game regardles of dev.12/17/2014 - 6:28pm
PHX Corphttp://www.ign.com/videos/2014/12/17/what-the-heck-is-wrong-with-tetris-ps4 I give up on ubisoft12/17/2014 - 6:01pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://comicbook.com/blog/2014/08/16/exclusive-original-unaltered-cut-of-star-wars-trilogy-to-be-rele/ Yeah, this'll never happen.12/17/2014 - 5:03pm
NeenekoThey have and exercise control over which games are allowed on their privately controlled 'open forum'. Their endorsement is fairly minimal since it is only 'we do not reject this', but it is still an endorsement of sorts.12/17/2014 - 3:58pm
NeenekoHistorically there have been issues with libraries allowing some groups but not others. Perhaps 'endorsement' is too strong a word, but their editorial control IS a preapproval process, even if the standards are pretty minimal.12/17/2014 - 3:56pm
E. Zachary KnightLet's put this a different way. My local library allows any group to reserve and use multipurpose rooms. That does not mean that the Library endorses all events that take place in those rooms.12/17/2014 - 12:54pm
E. Zachary KnightValve's editorial control comes from removing problem games and accepting games to Steam. They make no claim over any games otherwise.12/17/2014 - 12:52pm
E. Zachary KnightNeeneko, It is not at all a form of endorsement. Grenlight is an open forum for game developers to pitch their game to Valve/Steam and Steam users. Does Valve have some editorial control? Yes, but not to the point that they preapprove games.12/17/2014 - 12:51pm
Neeneko@EZK - I disagree. Greenlight is built off Valve's brand. While not an explicit endorsement, it is a form of it, otherwise Greenlight would have no value over other platforms.12/17/2014 - 12:05pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.latino-review.com/news/exclusive-viola-davis-bags-amanda-waller-role-in-suicide-squad Latino Review says Viola Davis will be Amanda Waller. History of Latino Review says "wait for a REAL news site to confirm".12/17/2014 - 10:48am
PHX Corphttp://www.polygon.com/2014/12/17/7407869/assassins-creed-unity-glitch-broken-problems-xbox-one-patch -Facepalm- Screwup means Assassin's Creed Unity's patch is the 40GB full game on Xbox One12/17/2014 - 10:17am
PHX Corphttp://www.theverge.com/2014/12/16/7401769/the-mpaa-wants-to-strike-at-dns-records-piracy-sopa-leaked-documents Sony leaks reveal Hollywood is trying to break DNS, the backbone of the internet12/17/2014 - 10:05am
E. Zachary KnightA Game being on Greenlight is not an endorsement of said game by Valve, Steam or anyone related to Valve or Steam. Greenlight is a combined sales pitch to Steam and its users.12/17/2014 - 9:51am
E. Zachary KnightThe Life cycle of a Greenlight game: A game gets made->Developer puts it on Greenlight->Gamers vote for it->Valve decides it is worthy of a Steam release->Game is sold on Steam. While the game is merely on greenlight, it is not available for sale on Steam12/17/2014 - 9:50am
InfophileGreenlight games may in the future be sold through Steam. A game there may be "greenlit" and then sold on Steam proper, or it may not, and never actually be sold on steam. That quote refers to them selecting some games from Greenlight which they will sell12/17/2014 - 9:39am
MechaTama31"Today we’ve Greenlit another batch of 50 titles to advance through Steam Greenlight, and be offered worldwide distribution via Steam." Am I missing something here? Because it sounds like Greenlight games are sold through Steam.12/17/2014 - 9:00am
MechaTama31From the Greenlight page: "Browse through the entries here and rate up the games you want to see made available via Steam"12/17/2014 - 8:59am
MechaTama31Greenlight games aren't sold through Steam? Then what exactly *is* Greenlight?12/17/2014 - 8:58am
prh99I just wish if they are going to curate (as selective and rare as that is) for content, they'd do little for quality (like does this game actually function at all). Personally, I avoid GreenLight and Early Access like the plague because of lax standards.12/17/2014 - 1:34am
prh99EZK: My point wasn't that they are responsible for people's purchase decisions, but that their policies and criteria for approval needs some work. As far as refunds go, you know it's bad when EA has a better policy. EA, former worst company in America.12/17/2014 - 1:21am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician