An emerging Federal Communications Commission plan to give the agency more authority to regulate traffic on broadband Internet networks is shaping up as the classic Washington compromise. No one loves the idea, and everyone is sure it will wind up in court.
[…]
The broadband providers are concerned because the plan would expand the agency’s ability to regulate them by classifying the providers under the part of telecommunications law, Title II, that covers common carriers, or public utilities. They would prefer to keep broadband as a more lightly regulated information service.

The plan being developed by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler would treat broadband as two distinct services, the retail service, where consumers pay providers for Internet access, and the back end, where the providers pick up content for distribution. The FCC would then classify the back-end service as a telecommunications service, giving the agency the ability to police any deals between content companies and broadband providers.

Instead of a ban on deals with content companies, the FCC’s plan would put the onus on the broadband providers to prove the deals aren’t harmful to competition or consumers. That drew fire from some of the most vocal net-neutrality activists as well as Web companies that have called for the FCC to ban all such deals.

In the New York Times article on this had an interesting phrase: “The retail portion, the transaction that sends data through the Internet service provider to the consumer and which allows the consumer to access any legal content on the Internet, would receive a lighter regulatory touch.”

Who is going to determine that, I wonder?



  1. NewFormatSux says:

    So how does any agency just give itself more authority? Is this like bobbo demanding you post more often?

  2. Tim says:

    *legal content*

    I got mad when Comcast throttled BT traffic… So, I snuck out in the dark of dawn and shoehorned in a giant prism on a trunkline off 231 — now, I just sniff out other people’s downloads and store them. That, and SkyGrabber… lots of military drone spam on that one though…

  3. LibertyLover says:

    You would think that if they couldn’t agree on something, they would just leave it the fuck alone. 90% of our problems today are the result of compromise. “You give me that, and I’ll give you this” when both sides know that what they’re giving away is painted with bad ju-ju.

    Instead of a ban on deals with content companies, the FCC’s plan would put the onus on the broadband providers to prove the deals aren’t harmful to competition or consumers.

    And what kind of BS is that? Sounds awfully close the asset forfeiture laws – guilty because some bureaucrat said so until proven innocent.

    • Tim says:

      *asset forfeiture laws*

      These are not so much ‘because some bureaucrat said so’ as it is the twisting of the law into it’s true intent — The *deodand*, the ‘accursed object.’

      They say that property has no rights so that they may fuck it at will in front of you, wife, and kids. I happen to believe that the internet is and extention of my body and the reason that gov won’t leave it alone is because they are illegitimate imposters composed of mostly hard-core greedy, criminal, and very frightfull minds.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 19492 access attempts in the last 7 days.