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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MattsworknameWilson: how? Im still waiting for my upgrade notice07/29/2015 - 3:44am
Matthew WilsonI updated to a clean instill of windows 10.07/29/2015 - 2:36am
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
DanJAlexander's editorial was and continues to be grossly misrepresented by her opponents. And if you don't like a site, you stop reading it - same as not watching a tv show. They get your first click, but not your second.07/28/2015 - 11:40pm
TechnogeekYes, because actively trying to convince advertisers to influence the editorial content of media is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially for a movement that's ostensibly about journalistic ethics.07/28/2015 - 11:02pm
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
MattsworknameBut, when you look at online media, it's completely different, with far more options, but far few ways to address issues that the consumers may have. In tv, you don't like what they show, you don't watch. But in order to see if you like something online07/28/2015 - 9:12pm
MattsworknameIn tv, and radio, ratings are how it works. your ratings determine how well you do and how much money you an charge.07/28/2015 - 9:02pm
Mattsworknameexpect to do so without someone wanting to hold you to task for it07/28/2015 - 9:00pm
MattsworknameMecha: I don't think anyone was asking for Editoral changes, what they wanted was to show those media groups that if they were gonna bash there own audiance, the audiance was not gonna take it sitting down. you can write what you want, but you can't07/28/2015 - 8:56pm
MattsworknameAndrew, Im asking as a practical question, Have gamers, as a group, ever asked for a game, or other item, to be banned. Im trying to see if theres any cases anyone else remembers cause I cant find or remember any.07/28/2015 - 8:55pm
Andrew EisenAs mentioned, Gamasutra isn't a gaming site, it's a game industry site. I don't feel it's changed its focus at all. Also, I don't get the sense that the majority of the people who took issue with that one opinion piece were regular readers anyway.07/28/2015 - 8:43pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician