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.

 

Net neutrality supporters file lawsuit against net neutrality rules

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Net neutrality supporters file lawsuit against net neutrality rules


arstechnica.com

When the Federal Communications Commission last week issued its final network neutrality rules and said they would go into effect at the end of November, lawsuits against the policy could finally begin. Verizon and Metro PCS, both wireless carriers, had already made clear their intention to sue and were widely expected to be the first to do so. Instead, they were beaten to court by the activist group Free Press—one of the strongest supporters of network neutrality.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
arstechnica.com
www.freepress.net




posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
It is a strange thing, when the regulations are deemed too weak by one group, and too strong by another; with both sides suing for redress.


The group particularly objects to the way in which wireless companies are exempted from most of the meaningful anti-discrimination policies in the rules. While wireless operators can't block Internet sites outright, and can't simply ban apps that compete with their own services, they can do just about anything else; wired operators can't.

Free Press complains about the “decision to adopt one set of rules for broadband access via mobile platforms and a different set of rules for broadband access via fixed platforms." The distinction, it says, is “arbitrary and capricious” and it violates the law.


We already know what the media giants think. But I have to say, treating wireless mediums differently smacks of some kind of politically expedient compromise meant to hamstring one group while empowering another.

At times like this I wonder what the political appointees, industry insiders, and elected officials have in their investments portfolios.

From the complaint filed:


Free Press seeks review on the grounds that this decision violates the Communications Act of 1934, or other statutes, and is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law. Free Press requests that this Court hold unlawful and set aside, vacate or enjoin such aspects of the Open Internet Order as necessary, remand the petition to the FCC for further proceedings, and order any such other relief as the Court may find proper.



arstechnica.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 29-9-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Can someone please explain the whole net neutrality act and what it means for all of us. I've never really understood the concept, granted i've never really looked into it before.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
This is what you get when both sides of the coin are (somewhat) controlled/influenced by the same group of people
The truth remains, we will never have true net-neutrality, as long as the status of the REAL world remains ##SNIPPED##
Thanks for the post, SnF for you.


IT--
edit on 29-9-2011 by edog11 because: (no reason given)

edit on Thu Sep 29 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitch303
Can someone please explain the whole net neutrality act and what it means for all of us. I've never really understood the concept, granted i've never really looked into it before.


Sure.

"Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers or governments on consumers' access to networks that participate in the internet. Specifically, network neutrality would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, types of equipment that may be attached, and modes of communication."
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

In plainer language:
What it means for "us" is... no government official can order an internet site unsuitable for whatever reason, and thereby force an internet service provider to make that site/page inaccessible for all customers. Its a form of censorship and is already active in some countries due to political, sexual, terrorist and financial reasons. One country (I think Australia) placed some sites on a pedophile site black list, yet it contains no sick stuff. I think most right-thinking adults know what to do when stumbling across content like that although I must admit in all my years of internetting, I have NEVER come across a pedophile site, by accident or by design.

Hope it helps

edit on 29/9/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: Added plain english explanation



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join