Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

McCain Intros Bill to Block Net Neutrality Rules

suraj.sun (1348507) writes | about 5 years ago

Republicans 6

suraj.sun (1348507) writes "McCain Intros Bill to Block FCC's Net Neutrality Rules

U.S. Senator John McCain has introduced legislation that would block the U.S. Federal Communications Commission from creating new net neutrality rules, on the same day that the FCC took the first step toward doing so.

McCain on Thursday introduced the Internet Freedom Act, which would keep the FCC from enacting rules prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Internet content and applications. Net neutrality rules would create "onerous federal regulation," McCain said in a written statement.

The FCC on Thursday voted to begin a rulemaking process to formalize net neutrality rules. The rules, as proposed, would allow Web users to run the legal applications and access the legal Web sites of their choice. Providers could use "reasonable" network management to reduce congestion and maintain quality of service, but the rules would require them to be transparent with consumers about their efforts.

The new rules would formalize a set of net neutrality principles in place at the FCC since 2005.

Reuters :"

Link to Original Source

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'm grateful he didn't win the election! (1)

angelbunny (1501333) | about 5 years ago | (#29843883)

First gang rape and now this?

Every time there is anything remotely important it seems like all he does is sale out for big business.

We need less greed in politics!

Hard to enforce what defies definition (1)

itpr15061 (844859) | about 5 years ago | (#29845465)

My biggest problem with Net Neutrality is that everyone has a different idea of what it is. I'm curious to see what the FCC proposes, but any way you slice it I think there are some elephants in the room.

* How do you enforce it? This would be extremely technical and tedious to audit, which would probably mean companies self-report - and we know how accurate that is.
* The government has a horrible track record with implementation and enforcement, in particular when it comes to technology.
* Technology moves faster than government can keep up. Even if it went splendidly well, the legislation would need quick and regular updates, two words that don't pair with "government"

I don't disagree with the spirit of Net Neutrality, I just think that leaving things as-is would be better than getting the government in the middle of it.

Re:Hard to enforce what defies definition (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 5 years ago | (#29846373)

From Wikipedia

In 2005, the FCC issued its Broadband Policy Statement (also known as the Internet Policy Statement), which lists four principles of open internet[13], "To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to:"

        * access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
        * run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
        * connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
        * competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

These points are often summarized as "any lawful content, any lawful application, any lawful device, any provider". President Barack Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 called for an investment of 7.2 billion dollars in broadband infrastructure and included an openness stipulation. During the FCC's hearing, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association urged the FCC to adopt the four criteria laid out in its 2005 Internet Policy Statement as the requisite openness.

In 2008, when the FCC auctioned off the 700 MHz block of wireless spectrum in anticipation of the DTV transition, Google promised to enter a bid of $4.6 billion if the FCC required the spectrum operator to adhere to four conditions[14]:

        * Open applications: Consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;
        * Open devices: Consumers should be able to utilize a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
        * Open services: Third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms;
        * Open networks: Third parties (like internet service providers) should be able to interconnect at any technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee's wireless network.

These conditions are broadly similar to the FCC's Internet Policy Statement (FCC's applications and content are combined into a single bullet, while an extra bullet adding a requirement for wholesale access for third party providers was included). The FCC adopted only 2 of these four criteria for the auction, viz., open devices and open applications.[15]

In September 2009, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed to add two additional rules on top of its 2005 policy statement, viz., the nondiscrimination principle that ISPs must not discriminate against any content or applications, and the transparency principle, which requires that ISPs disclose all their policies to customers. He also argued that wireless should be subject to the same network neutrality as wireline providers.[16]

In October 2009, the FCC took the next step by approving a notice of proposed rulemaking on the subject of net neutrality. [17]

Re:Hard to enforce what defies definition (1)

itpr15061 (844859) | about 5 years ago | (#29849215)

Thanks for the quote - I'm aware of this and read it before my original post. It was also summarized in the article. But the policy statement isn't the legislation and there are lot of details they'll have to decide on.

Simply looking at the first point, "access to lawful internet content of their choice," would this go so far as to provide Internet access to rural areas? Access can have a broad meaning. I've heard at least one other person say that their interpretation meant not only access on the 'net, but access to the 'net. The other three points are similar, and don't offer any detail about how it would work.

This is why I say that it defies definition. Maybe I used a poor choice of words and should have said something along the lines of "hard to enforce what has a vague definition"

Re:Hard to enforce what defies definition (1)

angelbunny (1501333) | about 5 years ago | (#29851317)

I agree. The gov does have a horrendous track record with enforcing this type of stuff.

We have a speeding ticket tax across the country that is enforced quite well in most areas. I don't understand why the gov can't take a page from that book when it comes to businesses breaking the law or specific regulations

Newflash: McCain cognitively "special" (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 5 years ago | (#29849063)

This is the guy who picked *Palin* as a running mate. Do we need further evidence of mental incompetence?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?