It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
After five years of contentious debate that polarized the tech-policy world, FCC chief Julius Genachowski made good on President Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to strengthen rules governing the nation’s ISPs. The measure, which passed 3-2 along party lines, did not go as far as supporters would have liked, but the FCC faced steep resistance from Republicans and the powerful telecom lobbying machine.
The FCC’s order is a milestone in the multiyear battle over so-called “net neutrality,” which is the principle that broadband service providers shouldn’t be able to interfere or block web traffic, or favor their own services at the expense of smaller rivals. Without net neutrality — which ensures that everyone has open access to the internet — revolutionary web startups like Google, Facebook and Twitter may never have gotten off the ground, proponents argue.The three new rules, which will go into effect early next year, force ISPs to be transparent about how they handle network congestion, prohibit them from blocking traffic such as Skype on wired networks, and outlaw “unreasonable” discrimination on those networks, meaning they can’t put a competing online video service in the slow lane to benefit their own video services.
........The need for the new rules largely stemmed from Comcast’s court challenge to the FCC, after the regulatory agency ordered Comcast to never again block peer-to-peer file sharing. In April, a federal judge ruled that the FCC’s legal basis for the order was inadequate, essentially neutering the agency’s ability to regulate internet access providers.
Originally posted by ThinkingCap
I am a caveman when it comes to the interweb, but I have grown pretty fond of this mechanism. What I read was a bit over my head, could you summarize why this is cutting off our freedom of speech?
Originally posted by delicatessen
OP, did you read your own excerpts? i did. it says these regulations are there to keep ISPs from f*cking with web traffic. there`s nothing about free speech in it. at least from what i read in the OP.
Originally posted by delicatessen
reply to post by SaturnFX
this is from the OP:
"The three new rules, which will go into effect early next year, force ISPs to be transparent about how they handle network congestion, prohibit them from blocking traffic such as Skype on wired networks, and outlaw “unreasonable” discrimination on those networks, meaning they can’t put a competing online video service in the slow lane to benefit their own video services."
i dont know how this is giving big ISPs too much power. is there something else to it?
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Here is the ultimate deal
there was a choice to be made...should how we browse be dictated by corporations, or by government
at least with government, they have constitutional rules (freedom of speech, expression, etc)..with corporations, the only thing they care about is bottom line without regard to the peoples choice...
in this instance, I side with government..because we can fire the government for screwing up...we can't fire corporations.
Originally posted by TortoiseKweek
Use ATS search function, It works!
All you do is plug in the first 2 words "Net Neutrality" and you will find posts....
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Originally posted by delicatessen
reply to post by SaturnFX
this is from the OP:
"The three new rules, which will go into effect early next year, force ISPs to be transparent about how they handle network congestion, prohibit them from blocking traffic such as Skype on wired networks, and outlaw “unreasonable” discrimination on those networks, meaning they can’t put a competing online video service in the slow lane to benefit their own video services."
i dont know how this is giving big ISPs too much power. is there something else to it?
define unreasonable.
Its better than nothing, don't get me wrong. but they should have taken out the "unreasonable" word and simply say...no discrimination.