Damning Praise for Genachowski's Plan
By Tim Karr, December 2, 2010
For those keeping score, the phone and cable companies seem generally pleased with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s Net Neutrality proposal.
If any questions remain about with whom the chairman has sided in the debate, read on:
We would like to commend Chairman Genachowski, and everyone at the Commission, who have worked tirelessly to craft what we believe to be a fair resolution to these complex and controversial policy issues. We also want to thank the many Members of Congress who, on a bipartisan basis, urged the Commission to take a less regulatory path in order to ensure that the Internet continues its vibrant growth and development.
We believe Chairman Genachowski’s proposal, as described this morning, strikes a workable balance between the needs of the marketplace and the certainty that carefully-crafted and limited rules can provide to ensure that Internet freedom and openness are preserved.
Based on our understandings, this measure would avoid onerous Title II regulation; would be narrowly drawn along the lines of a compromise we have endorsed previously; would reject limits on our ability to properly manage our network and efficiently utilize our wireless spectrum; would recognize the capabilities and limitations of different broadband technologies; would ensure specialized services are protected against intrusive regulation; and would provide for a case-by-case resolution of complaints that also encourages non-governmental dispute settlement.
Verizon appreciates the efforts of Chairman Genachowski to seek a consensus on the contentious issue of net neutrality… [W]e urge the commissioners to recognize the limitations of the current statute and the rapidly changing conditions in the marketplace and make any rules it adopts interim, rather than permanent. Specifically, the commission should consider the framework of the Waxman proposal, including its sunset provision.
.
While the phone and cable industry is happy with Genachowski's plan, we're not.
Genachowski is calling his plan Net Neutrality. But it’s a fake. Remember, this is the same chairman who had promised to deliver on Obama’s campaign pledge to create lasting and enforceable Net Neutrality protections.
After a year of dithering, the chairman appears to have caved almost completely to special corporate interests. The good news is that we still have time to stop Genachowski’s betrayal and fix his toothless rule before it goes to a vote on December 21.
Accept no substitutes: Take Action to Demand Real Net Neutrality.
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Free Press does not support or oppose any candidate for public office. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media and universal access to communications.
Tim Karr
Timothy Karr oversees all Free Press and Free Press Action Fund campaigns and online outreach efforts, including SavetheInternet.com and Free Press' work on public broadcasting, propaganda and journalism.
Read Tim's full bio »
Comments
Please secure my information
My apologies for changing the subject. I wanted to sign your petition. But the fact that you don't offer a secure connection with https while I am giving you my personal information, gave me pause.
Please offer a secure connection with https for your petition on Net Neutrality.
I found your page when I was
I found your page when I was reading about net neutrality. The video on the front page seems to be a lot fear mongering. To this point AT&T, Verizon, Etc, have done nothing restrict the freedom on the internet. The FCC, however, has repeatedly tried to restrict my listening options by fining Howard Stern.
The fact of the matter is we don't know how the internet will evolve as we go forward, but if I have to error, I'm going to error on the side of the people who bring me new an innovative products/services not the one's who are worried about what entertainers say. Its pretty obvious which side is interested in freedom.
The funny part is that Howard
The funny part is that Howard didn't actually do anything wrong. The FCC's definition of "profanity" would never stand up to a challenge in court. Howard's bosses fired him, paid the FCC their fine, and went on with their business. It amounts to basic extortion. If any of the companies he worked for wanted to go through the expense to fight the FCC (likely more than the fine, BTW), Howard might've set a precedent that profanity is to be allowed on radio. But very few of the stations he worked for (WNBC) actually would have had the dough to do it.
Now can you see why some of
Now can you see why some of us out here have been opposing the FCC (or Congressionally) enforced Net Neutrality?
I saw this -- or something like it -- coming a mile away. The carriers are going to fight back....and the results are not going to be something any of us will like.
Let the market sort it out. Get the FCC out of it.
Yeah let the wonderful
Yeah let the wonderful company's that own everything and are only driven by profits and their bottom line have a free for all...which they pretty much already have, that will be a lot better for everyone right??
Yes. I'd rather have
Yes. I'd rather have competent people driven by profit moving the ball, rather than incompetent people driven by self-righteousness.
hi
Thanks for the constructive feedback :) regarding the Overworld limitations and linearity, I only felt it limited in the sense that you aren't truely able to 'explore' fully in the way that could in other Zelda games - remember the underground caverns you could once find? - and quite frankly I miss that and it is basically linear in the sense that your destination is already chosen, yes you are still exploring and in a wonderful new way but this Overworld 'Transport' also highlights the limitations of what Nintendo can do with a 3D Zelda game on the DS but what they 'have' achieved is still impressive and I do acknowledge that fully.
Why Are We Surprised?
I'm not at all sure why we should be surprised by any government agent siding with big business. I imagine that the debate in his office would have been centered around how to make a "fair" set of laws for the businesses involved and not a perspective of balance between fairness for individuals vs big business. You would be hard pressed to find any instance of a lawmaker that had the public's best interest in mind, other than of course the age old argument of what's good for big business is good for the public.
Dont trust Regulation
We need to remember that even though the government and academic institutions started the internet, businesses have paid for the vast infrastructure that supports it. If you modify the profit motive be prepared to have to pay taxes or fees for future structure support. Businesses effectively give us this service in exchange for exposure to advertising and use. If we mandate structure to support options that are not currently economically effective we will pay for the access of others. Are you prepared to do so with, say a large increase in your ISP fees? If we trust the FCC to regulate the internet why not mandate that dissenting views must be covered in the media at the expense of the media companies. Ultimately it becomes hard to discern control from loss of freedom.
Trust regulation less than competition
When ARPAnet morphed to the internet, it was initially academic institutions that supported the structure. A large part of the later growth of the internet is due to businesses buying infrastructure to support advertising and commercial development. Now that the system is so pervasive we tend to forget that if the profit motive is overridden in the supposed interest of "equal access" the system will not grow in the US as quickly and we will lag the rest of the globe. Wireless links require spectrum which is a limited resource. The only way that the developments like pervasive optical links will occur is if someone can make some money from it. Is it more important to view video clips on your phone than for police to have communication? Regulation tends to damp development. How about having the FCC regulate all free speech? After all, not everyone has the same access to media outlets... Be careful what you ask for.