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

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Big PermI got to around 30 in tera before giving up. I liked my sorc, but I need better motivation to grind07/31/2015 - 9:14pm
Andrew EisenAh TERA. I made a video about TERA censorship. One of my more popular ones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO26h9etTbw07/31/2015 - 8:52pm
Goth_SkunkI've been playing TERA all day. Just took a break to barbecue some chicken. :3 And Andrew: I'm using Cabal to suggest a group of people secretly united in some private views or interests within a community.07/31/2015 - 8:50pm
Andrew EisenI'd love to but I'm at work. But once I get home... I'm going to work out for a while. But after THAT... I'm going to shower. Then eat. Then prep tomorrow's meals. And THEN play video games! YEAH!!!07/31/2015 - 8:38pm
Big Permlol, ya'll are still going back and forth? Take a break and play some video games07/31/2015 - 8:37pm
Andrew EisenGoth - Are you using "cabal" to describe a group of writers or to suggest they all worked together in secret to publish those articles?07/31/2015 - 8:30pm
Andrew EisenMatt - That doesn't disprove the general premise of the various articles as that's not what they're about. Unless, again, he's talking about a different batch of articles.07/31/2015 - 8:28pm
Goth_SkunkThe difference between one voice being offensive and a cabal being offensive.07/31/2015 - 8:22pm
MechaCrashFunny how "you're offended, so what" flips into "we're offended, retract everything and apologize."07/31/2015 - 8:18pm
MattsworknameIts not the only argument he points out ,its just one of them07/31/2015 - 8:06pm
Mattsworknameidea that Gamers as the articel puts it, the "White male sterotype are dead, essentially was compltely false07/31/2015 - 8:03pm
MattsworknameThe video actually shows that the shaw study actually disproves the Premise of the artices by showing that the "Gamer" dentity, has no actual meaning to thsoe who use it other then "I play games", its not connected to race, gender, or orientation. So the07/31/2015 - 8:01pm
Andrew EisenWith the exception of a brief mention in Golding's Tumbr post. Even so, he's talking about gamer identity, not desire for diversity in gaming.07/31/2015 - 7:50pm
Andrew EisenI'm not calling his examination of the Shaw study into question. I haven't read the study nor seen his video. All I'm saying is that it has nothing to do with the Gamers Are Dead articles I've been referencing for the last year.07/31/2015 - 7:49pm
MattsworknameSome times sargon just goes off on tangents but in this case he was pretty direct and went through teh research in detail, did the whole first video about the shaw study itself07/31/2015 - 7:45pm
Andrew EisenWell, unless it's disingenuous twaddle but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.07/31/2015 - 7:42pm
Andrew EisenGotta be. The argument you describe makes no sense otherwise.07/31/2015 - 7:40pm
MattsworknameThat is a possibility, they looked like offical articles but its possible they are different from the articles you mentoin07/31/2015 - 7:28pm
Andrew EisenNot unless he's referring to a completely different set of Gamers Are Dead articles.07/31/2015 - 7:19pm
MattsworknameIT is possibel the articles aren't readily visable or no longer show up on the sites diretly, as over time they might have been shuffled around to get them outta teh spot lights07/31/2015 - 7:18pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician