Opinion: Wireless Net Neutrality Will Be Contested

January 3, 2011 -

Fierce Wireless offers a dire prediction for the FCC's net neutrality rules enacted in December: continued opposition. How this opposition will evolve from talking points to actual action remains unknown, but there will be plenty of sword rattling in 2011, says the site dedicated to the wireless industry.

Here is how they lay the prediction out to readers:

"Of course, the rules aren't agreeable to most lobbyists. On the telecom side, entities like Verizon Wireless (NYSE:VZ) and CTIA argue the FCC has no need to regulate Internet traffic, considering the heated competition in the market without such oversight. On the other side stand a range of Internet and public interest entities, which worry that the FCC didn't go far enough to ensure equal and fair treatment of Web surfers' bits and bytes. Thus, We expect the FCC will face significant opposition to its new rules from a range of players. Specifically, we expect those on the telecom side to attempt to tie the FCC's rules up in court by calling into question the agency's authority to implement net neutrality. Indeed, the FCC's two Republican commissioners voted against the rules, partly due to their belief that the agency does not have the authority to impose net neutrality regulations."

We know that there is already vocal opposition to the new net neutrality regulations. What we do not know is who will be the first to take the FCC back to court. Will it be from stakeholders, advocacy groups, or will politicians take the agency to ask in very public hearings this year? We do not know, but we are following this closely and will detail every drumbeat and rallying cry for and against net neutrality, as it becomes known.

Source: Fierce Wireless


Comments

Re: Opinion: Wireless Net Neutrality Will Be Contested

This is essentially the same story I've heard over and over again about the new rules passed by the FCC. The verdict is that they suck and they don't do enough to protect the public from ISPs that want to manipulate their access in order to stop competitors from providing equal or better services that they offer aside from internet access. The internet competes with TV, Phone, Radio, Mail, and so on.

It's about keeping them from messing with your Skype so you can't use it as effectively as their VoIP service. It's about them keeping your connection slow enough so that you can't download or stream you favorite shows conveniently instead of buying their expensive cable packages that are full of stuff you don't want to pay for just to get to the stuff you do. It's also about wanting to degrade you access to your favorite web sites and search engines in favor of their own. Of course, they also want to keep you from sharing commercial works too.

They want the public to continue to think that the internet is just the world wide web when it's far more than that. Wireless or not, the issues apply equally and the rules should as well.

-Greevar

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteNumber 3: Night Dive was brought to the attention of the public by a massive game recovery, and yet most of their released catalogue consists of games that other people did the hard work of getting re-released.04/17/2014 - 8:46pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 2: If Humongous Entertainment wanted their stuff on Steam, why didn't they talk to their parent company, which does have a number of games published on Steam?04/17/2014 - 8:45pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 1: When Night Dive spent the better part of a year teasing the return of true classics, having their big content dump be edutainment is kind of a kick in the stomach.04/17/2014 - 8:44pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician