FCC launches Open Internet website
p2pnet news view | P2P | Politics:- With news that the Federal Communications Commission proposed stricter rules to, “ensure that Internet providers don’t block or slow traffic over their networks,” as the San Francisco Chronicle sums it up, the FCC has launched a website it says is specifically designed to encourage thoughts and ideas on an open internet.
OpenInternet.gov is currently in Beta, “and will continue to adapt to best facilitate input and participation in the commission proceedings as this discussion evolves,” says the site, going on »»»
This conversation will be fair, open, and deliberate; and we want to ensure that the opportunity to participate is open to everyone.
Your input is valued at every stage in the process. The FCC has not yet begun an official proceeding on open Internet. Accordingly, comments and posts made on this site at this time may not be included in the Commission’s official record of its proceedings.
In a Washington speech, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski outlined plans to codify and expand “open Internet” guidelines first endorsed by the FCC in 2005, says the Chronicle, going on:
“The Obama appointee said that instances of carriers obstructing online telephone services, intentionally degrading peer-to-peer file sharing and preventing access to political content threaten to stifle technical advances and compromise the free flow of information.
“We have an obligation to ensure that the Internet is an enduring engine for U.S. economic growth, and a foundation for democracy in the 21st century,” the story has Genachowski declaring.
But Mobile providers argue US proposals to ensure that all traffic on the internet is treated equally, “should not be applied to wireless traffic,” says the BBC, continuing, “Providers claim a two-tiered system is essential for the future vitality of the net.
“Mobile operators said any regulation would damage innovation.”
But the Chronicle story has Ryan Radia, information policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, saying, “intense wireless competition is already fostering innovation,” also noting the market, “has provided consumers with choices between open platforms’.
“This is not about government regulation of the Internet,” Genachowski say in the story.
“It’s about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet.”
Stay tuned.
San Francisco Chronicle – FCC chairman pushes ‘open Internet’ guidelines, September 22, 2009
BBC – ‘Open internet’ rules criticised, September 22, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 am
And the CRTC is still in bed with Bell, Rogers and other monopolies.
Time for a change.
http://www.dissolvethecrtc.ca/
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Signed and emailed the link out. Let’s hope we can get even more signatures on that.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
That’s why I worry that the all-you-can-surf model for internet access is not sustainable. It’s akin to all restaurants being all-you-can-eat. Clearly, for light eaters it’s not a very good deal. But for heavy eaters, it’s great. Now imagine if those restaurants had no choice about whether or not they serve caviar and foie gras. Then it would be an even worse deal for light eaters who don’t have expensive tastes. In order to accommodate the FCC’s desire that internet providers not discriminate among content or applications, before long usage-based fees will probably be necessary.
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/09/will_net_neutrality_lead_to_usage-based_internet_fees.php
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:05 pm
This curious “Restaurant Analogy” has been done to death, and always fails to strike any realistic comparison with internet usage. Face it, food is a finite, exhaustible commodity, while bandwidth simply IS NOT.
If you’re going to even attempt to use this parallel (though I really wish people would just give it up), at least put each of the elements in their proper perspective, and include all the parameters…
1) Does the “restaurant” TAKE THE MONEY UPFRONT, or make you sign a CONTRACT, before you can eat?
2) Does the “restaurant” ADVERTISE an “all you can eat” experience, and does it DELIVER that?
3) Does the “restaurant” keep up with the demands of its customers by ensuring it always has the stock, or does it always claim not have enough to go around, and “insist” on making numerous “concessions” to the “menu”, while refusing to refund or discount the customers’ payments?
4) Does the “restaurant” CONTINUE to advertise a “menu” it can’t deliver, while also CONTINUING to take in new clientele and accepting that money?
NOTE: In this analogy, the FCC proposal is comparable to “supply and demand” ordinances that are ALREADY part of standard Business Law in both the US and Canada. You can’t draw a parallel to a “compulsory menu” – that’s using some unwarranted form of “reverse logic”. They’re not proposing to tell providers what types of SERVICES they can or can’t offer. They’re proposing that whatever the providers intend to offer and take the money for, they better not be dictating HOW THE CUSTOMER USES IT.
If a restaurant actually did business even similar to the way the providers have, that restaurant would be cited on numerous violations of standard business practice!
September 24th, 2009 at 10:33 am
I agree, the restaurant analogy is ill suited at best. It seems akin to the content is like a physical product analogy. If wireless providers don’t want to provide access to the entire internet, they should not be allowed to call it ‘internet access.’