Robert M. McDowell - Hands off the Internet. Despite this defeat, the FCC might still try to regulate the Internet under century-old rules made for railroads and Ma Bell phone monopolies. This mistaken effort would hinder recent successes in deploying broadband throughout the country. While the U.S. economy has shrunk substantially over the past two years, the Internet sector has flourished. Increasingly, our commerce and culture ride on the rails of high-speed, or "broadband," Internet access.
But this success was not inevitable. The Clinton administration set today's "hands-off" policy when the Internet was privatized in the mid-1990s. It worked. Mobile broadband was virtually unheard of in 2002. Not only have investment and innovation been dynamic in core telecom areas, but cutting-edge economic activity has exploded. The Web's free and open marketplace is thriving -- and evolving faster than any government or company can measure. Yet some seek government regulation of this constructively chaotic part of our economy. The future of the internet: A virtual counter-revolution.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Review our cookies information for more details A virtual counter-revolution THE first internet boom, a decade and a half ago, resembled a religious movement. You have reached your article limit Register to continue reading or subscribe for unlimited access Registration is free, and takes only a moment Once you've registered, you can read six articles from The Economist print edition for free each week. Log in to continue reading. Douglas Rushkoff The Next Net. The moment the "net neutrality" debate began was the moment the net neutrality debate was lost. For once the fate of a network - its fairness, its rule set, its capacity for social or economic reformation - is in the hands of policymakers and the corporations funding them - that network loses its power to effect change.
The mere fact that lawmakers and lobbyists now control the future of the net should be enough to turn us elsewhere. Of course the Internet was never truly free, bottom-up, decentralized, or chaotic. Yes, it may have been designed with many nodes and redundancies for it to withstand a nuclear attack, but it has always been absolutely controlled by central authorities. From its Domain Name Servers to its IP addresses, the Internet depends on highly centralized mechanisms to send our packets from one place to another. I'm not trying to be a downer here, or knock the possibilities for networking. That's right. It is not rocket science. So let's get on it. Related Posts: What the new FCC open Internet rules could mean for net neutrality. The Federal Communications Commission adopted new rules for regulating Internet access at a hearing today in Washington.
After FCC commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn said yesterday they will not stand in the way of Chairman Julius Genachowski’s modified order, it paved the way for a 3-2 vote to approve new rules of the road for the Internet. The tech policy reporters at Politico made the following assessment of the rules in their excellent Morning Tech newsletter this morning and got it about right. 1) Transparency for both wireline and wireless services, requiring disclosure to consumers, content and device providers, 2) Wireline providers are prohibited from blocking any lawful content, apps, services or devices; wireless providers, from blocking websites and competing telephony services, 3) Wireline providers are prohibited from unreasonably discriminating against any traffic (but no such rule for wireless).
“To be sure, there is more to be done,” Harris said. DA-10-1667A1. Save the Internet | Join the fight for Internet Freedom. Nn_fact_v_fiction_final. F.C.C. Vote Sets Precedent on Unfettered Web Usage. The Durable Internet: Preserving Network Neutrality without Regulation | Timothy B. Lee | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis. In recent years, self-styled “network neutrality” activists have pushed for legislation to prevent network owners from undermining the end-to end principle. Although the concern is understandable, such legislation would be premature. Physical ownership of internet infrastructure does not translate into a practical ability to control its use. Regulations are unnecessary because even in the absence of robust broadband competition, network owners are likely to find deviations from the end-to-end principle unprofitable. New regulations inevitably come with unintended consequences.
Indeed, today’s network neutrality debate is strikingly similar to the debate that produced the first modern regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. 05-151A1. Scribd. SXSW 2011: Al Franken warns of 'outright disaster' over net neutrality | Technology. Democratic senator Al Franken has has issued a rallying cry to "innovators and entrepreneurs" at SXSW to fight back against Comcast and other companies lobbying to pave the way for a two-speed internet. The principle of net neutrality, under which all content is delivered equally to internet users' homes, is "in big trouble", Franken warned in a passionate rallying cry at the conference on Monday.
Franken's address was always going to be a preach to the converted – SXSW is the spiritual home for small, independent media and technology firms – but he warned that unless the 200,000 attendees "use the internet to save the internet", then big telecoms firms will muscle through plans for a two-tier net. "The one thing that big corporations have that we don't is the ability to purchase favourable political outcomes," he said. "Big corporations like the telecoms firms have lots of lobbyists – and good ones too. He added: "Today SXSW is a hotbed of creative entrepreneurship and innovation. Network neutrality: A tangled web. Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is the first major overhaul of telecommunications law in almost 62 years. The goal of this new law is to let anyone enter any communications business -- to let any communications business compete in any market against any other. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has the potential to change the way we work, live and learn. It will affect telephone service -- local and long distance, cable programming and other video services, broadcast services and services provided to schools. The Federal Communications Commission has a tremendous role to play in creating fair rules for this new era of competition. At this Internet site, we will provide information about the FCC's role in implementing this new law, how you can get involved and how these changes might impact you.
This page will include information listing the proceedings the FCC will complete to open up local phone markets, increase competition in long distance and other steps.