Waiting for Waxman and Net Neutrality

September 28, 2010 -

While we do not know what the language of House Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman's (D-CA) net neutrality bill will contain, a leaked draft obtained by Tech Dose Daily gives us the cliff notes.

Waxman hopes to push the bill through the lame-duck session after the November mid-term elections, according to Tech Dose Daily. 

Onto what Tech Dose Daily says is the heart of the Waxman proposal on net neutrality:

- The FCC would not be allowed to reclassify broadband under Title II of the Communications Act.

- Broadband providers would be prohibited from blocking "lawful Internet traffic." This apparently does not apply to wireless providers.

- Wireless providers would be prohibited from blocking "lawful websites." The language leaves open the possibility to block applications and peer-to-peer activity.

- The draft bill charges the FCC to deliver a report to the House and Senate commerce committees detailing authority needed by the commission to implement the national broadband plan and consumer Internet protection use. The deadline would be Dec. 31, 2011.

- The draft includes a sunset provision - the bill would expire at the end of the 2012 calendar year.

Tech Dose Daily also reports that Waxman's bill would deal with enforcement on a "case-by-case basis." Broadband providers who violate the law could face a maximum penalty of $2 million by the FCC, who would be in charge of enforcement.

Of course, this is a draft document at the moment. I hope that we will see the real thing later this week.

Source: Ars Technica


Comments

Re: Waiting for Waxman and Net Neutrality

Hey, it's Mr. Yunioshi!

Re: Waiting for Waxman and Net Neutrality

Not too bad, but just letting the FCC do it's thing would be more immediate and prudent rather than tying their hands till the end of 2012 because you hope the issue will go away by then.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenNot liking Gamasutra is fine. The audience is primarily industry folk and it's not a game-focused site so it's probably not targeting you anyway.07/28/2015 - 7:57pm
E. Zachary KnightMAtt, So, an online petition asking Target to stop selling GTAV is "bullying and threatening" but a petition and boycott of Intel to force them to stop advertising on Gamasutra is justified?07/28/2015 - 7:56pm
Andrew EisenTrue or not, what it came across as a bunch of people lashing out at a publication over an opinion piece.07/28/2015 - 7:56pm
MattsworknameTo be honest, I've never liked them, but mostly cause rather then being a game focused site, they felt to political for my taste07/28/2015 - 7:56pm
Andrew EisenAnd in the case of Gamasutra?07/28/2015 - 7:54pm
Mattsworknameour concerns about them were well founded.07/28/2015 - 7:50pm
MattsworknameDepends on who you ask, accountable fto it's audiance, accountablie for lies and half truths, accountible for disengenous statements, everyone had there own reasons for going after them. Although in the case of gawker, recent events seem to indicate that07/28/2015 - 7:50pm
Andrew EisenAccountable for... what, exactly?07/28/2015 - 7:48pm
MattsworknameI think the intent was to force some kind of accountabilty on them. Granted As I said ,i wasn't exactly big on the ideas of attacking advertisers but it's a common and well used tactic. Sadly, theres not many other ways of holding media sites acountable07/28/2015 - 7:47pm
MechaTama31With the goal of...? Getting those media outlets to fire or silence the "scum"? That's shitty.07/28/2015 - 7:44pm
Mattsworknamewarned about the scum there assoicating with. Looking at you GAWKER media07/28/2015 - 7:37pm
MattsworknameI think the only reason it was the first action was alot of people felt it was the only option that might have an actual impact. and to be honest, i don't see how they were exactly wrong. Plus, as recent events showed, soem times adverisers need to be07/28/2015 - 7:37pm
MattsworknameTo be honest, I was always kinda on edge about that, while I did not like that those news outlets had acted in the way theey did, i didn't like that we thought boycotting and advertiser attacks were the only recourse07/28/2015 - 7:36pm
MechaTama31And after AE questioned that same analogy, I described it as extreme hyperbole.07/28/2015 - 7:36pm
E. Zachary KnightMecha, The "bullying and threatening" thing is from an earlier shout by Matt. I asked you tht question because you compared the petition to someone threatening to shoot your child.07/28/2015 - 7:35pm
Andrew EisenBy the way, if anyone can see into alternate timelines, I've got $20 that says Target would have ignored the petition had it been presented at the game's launch instead of over a year later.07/28/2015 - 7:34pm
MechaTama31Write a "Gamers are Alive" article. Make a video highlighting positive things about games. Counter your opponent, don't try to silence them.07/28/2015 - 7:33pm
MechaTama31EZK: Who exactly are you quoting with "bullying and threatening"? But yes, I think attacking someone's livelihood because you disagree with their opinion is underhanded and damaging to discourse.07/28/2015 - 7:30pm
E. Zachary KnightOh no. A successful online petition could embolden people to do... what exactly? Do another online petition?07/28/2015 - 7:30pm
Andrew EisenToo bad the counter petition wasn't as popular. But again, yeah, it sucks. For the reasons I've stated over and over now.07/28/2015 - 7:29pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician