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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
ZippyDSMleeShout box sttasahhppppp!!05/22/2015 - 10:47am
Andrew EisenOh, here it is. I thought it was gone. Yeah, I'm experiencing the same issue. Sent a note to tech.05/22/2015 - 10:43am
E. Zachary KnightAnyone else have the shout box pushed down to the bottom of the site?05/22/2015 - 10:38am
MattsworknameAndrew and EZK help me pull back a bit , still working on it05/22/2015 - 7:06am
ConsterI think IP is the only person here who doesn't think IP needs to dial it back several levels.05/22/2015 - 6:14am
Mattsworknamehttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/22/fec-backs-off-flirtation-with-regulating-internet/05/22/2015 - 1:34am
MattsworknameWell, on another subject, Saw this, and while I know it's fox news, thuoght I should share it05/22/2015 - 1:34am
MechaCrashYeah, even I think IP needs to dial it back.05/22/2015 - 12:35am
Mattsworknamesays05/21/2015 - 11:17pm
MattsworknameRE doc, everyone has a tendancy to let emotion get ahead of them, especially in an annoymous forum like the web. We have have those moments. Ip however has nothing but those moments. it's why I stopped responding to him, regardless of what he thinks or05/21/2015 - 11:17pm
DocMelonheadNo offense, but I see your behaviors in the comment sections uncalled for.05/21/2015 - 8:51pm
DocMelonheadHell, I could use both Goth_Skunk and IronPatriot as an example of such behavior between the two.05/21/2015 - 8:43pm
Andrew EisenMock? Ridicule? No, we're talking about serious threats and abuse, not people being cheeky or mean. Big difference.05/21/2015 - 8:42pm
DocMelonheadIn fact I see both mocks and ridicule between both the GamerGate Supporters and GamerGate Critics.05/21/2015 - 8:41pm
DocMelonheadAs for the Harassment, well, this is the internet; people will mock and ridicule whoever they want, whenever they want, at all times.05/21/2015 - 8:40pm
Mattsworknamegoth I think all media news outlets have that disclaimer05/21/2015 - 8:39pm
Andrew EisenThat's an... interesting way to interpret that.05/21/2015 - 8:36pm
Goth_SkunkAnd re BBC vs Rockstar: Ahh. I missed that. Woops!05/21/2015 - 8:33pm
Goth_SkunkAE: The entire disclaimer is a valid reason why I don't take it seriously. Particularly the part where they say "the information contained herein may not be necessarily accurate or current." Because fact-checking, like math, is haaaaaaaaard!05/21/2015 - 8:32pm
MattsworknameI take all media reporting with huge skepticism. the Mary sue Included. that said, there not as bad Jezebel.05/21/2015 - 8:27pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician