Eighty Advocacy Groups Come Out Against Net Neutrality Proposal

December 11, 2010 -

Nearly 80 net neutrality advocacy groups have thrown salt in the FCC's game this week. The groups wrote a letter to the FCC saying that the open Internet principles announced last week fall short of creating "real net neutrality" rules. Several interest groups, businesses, and civil rights groups signed the letter to the FCC, saying net neutrality rules should ban paid prioritization of online content (note the ECA is one of those eighty groups that signed on to the letter). They also said that Wireless carriers were given too much power to govern themselves, though some might argue that they need to considering the network congestion that space currently faces.

"This is a make-or-break issue, and the signatories on this letter are unequivocal in their demand that fatal flaws with Chairman Genachowski's draft proposal be fixed immediately," Sascha Meinrath, director of New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative, told Reuters on Friday.

The groups highlighted some of the areas of the FCC chairman's new proposals that they considered "shortfalls." One of the biggest complaints was against the flexibility granted to wireless carriers.

"This incomplete protection would destroy innovation in the mobile apps and content space, permanently enshrining Verizon and AT&T as the gatekeepers for all new uses of the wireless Web," the letter said.

Wireless carriers want to prioritize Internet traffic on congested networks without worrying about FCC rules. Many have said that they already do this to allow handsets to make and receive phone calls.

Steve Largent, chief executive of CTIA, said that the proposal was "acceptable" though he said he'd like to see no regulation on wireless carriers. He added that any changes to the current proposal as it relates to wireless carriers could result in litigation.

The group letter also called for a ban on paid prioritization.

"This unacceptable loophole threatens to swallow the entire rule," the letter said of the ambiguity surrounding the proposal's ban on "unjust and unreasonable" discrimination.

Democratic FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn, have also raised red flags about paid prioritization.

The Commissioners will vote on the new proposals on December 21. Republican Commissioners will vote against the proposal.

Source: Reuters

 


 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/chicago-netflix-customers-your-bill-is-about-to-up-9-percent/ Chicago wants to become the new Detroit so be it.07/01/2015 - 4:58pm
InfophileAnd also, she said "anyone," but she also said "probably." This means there's a subset for whom the "you shouldn't write it" doesn't apply.07/01/2015 - 4:47pm
InfophileGoing back a bit: "As I believe there is no justification, there is no reason for me to continue reading." - One reason to read might be to find out if you're wrong about there being no justification for it.07/01/2015 - 4:45pm
Andrew EisenRead it here: http://www.zenofdesign.com/getting-diversity-to-speak/07/01/2015 - 4:42pm
Andrew EisenFormer Bioware dev, Damion Schubert, offers an interesting thought on diversity in the industry. Not only is it important to have, it's important to make sure they feel comfortable offering their perspective.07/01/2015 - 4:40pm
Andrew EisenHeh, I did consider it!07/01/2015 - 4:37pm
Craig R.Aww, video gamer players wasn't an option for the poll?07/01/2015 - 4:33pm
KaylaKazeI think the problem here is certain people don't know what "shouldn't" means, even after it's been explained to them half a dozen times.07/01/2015 - 4:19pm
Andrew EisenWhat if creators heard our feedback, agreed with it and then... oh god... made a better show? The HORROR!!!07/01/2015 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenI mean, next thing you know they'll make a YouTube video. A YOUTUBE VIDEO!!!07/01/2015 - 4:07pm
Andrew EisenHow DARE anyone write an opinion suggesting that people who suck at something might consider a better way to accomplish the same thing or improve so they suck less. The NERVE!07/01/2015 - 4:06pm
Goth_SkunkYes, but we complain about it amongst ourselves, we shake our heads, we sigh, shrug our shoulders and say 'oh well, what can you do?' We don't write articles for Wired and say 'Anyone can write about X, but should they? Probably not.'07/01/2015 - 3:57pm
Andrew EisenMy favorite is: "Zoom and enhance!"07/01/2015 - 3:55pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, you must not hang out with many technology experts. We complain about bad portrayals of tech all the time.07/01/2015 - 3:52pm
Andrew EisenPeople should be free to write about anything their little hearts desire. Even if they suck at it. Maybe not the most advisable thing to do, depending on their personal goals. But that's why you listen and learn and improve! Or try to, anyway.07/01/2015 - 3:50pm
Andrew EisenAnd you're straying from the path a bit but the sentiment in and of itself I agree with.07/01/2015 - 3:47pm
Goth_SkunkBut, as in the example I provided with call tracing and cell phone triangulation, the audience lets it slide, even the subject matter experts.07/01/2015 - 3:47pm
Andrew EisenGreat! Maybe you'd change your mind if you read her reasons for suggesting such a thing, maybe not. But at least now you're opining what she actually said!07/01/2015 - 3:46pm
Goth_SkunkFor the sake of entertainment, people write about things they shouldn't write about all the time. If they stopped, most things fiction would cease to exist.07/01/2015 - 3:46pm
Goth_SkunkAnd I think that's a despicable thing to suggest, worse than someone who sucks at writing a rape scene doing so. By all means, if the rape scene was poorly written, criticize it after the fact.07/01/2015 - 3:45pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician