FCC pursues net neutrality

[bascule]

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/blogs/bizfeed/172290/fcc_to_take_a_stand_on_net_neutrality.html

 

The FCC is formalizing rules which effectively force ISPs to be common carriers, forbidding them from filtering and restricting particular types of traffic.

 

While I think ISPs should have the right to apply quality-of-service rules to certain types of traffic, I think net neutrality is necessary because a misapplication of those policies could limit free speech. Imagine if there were deliverability issues with email coming from candidates of a particular party, for example.

 

To me it's largely an issue of free speech, or more generally, the free exchange of information.

[JillSwift]

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/blogs/bizfeed/172290/fcc_to_take_a_stand_on_net_neutrality.html

 

The FCC is formalizing rules which effectively force ISPs to be common carriers, forbidding them from filtering and restricting particular types of traffic.

Yay!

 

While I think ISPs should have the right to apply quality-of-service rules to certain types of traffic, I think net neutrality is necessary because a misapplication of those policies could limit free speech. Imagine if there were deliverability issues with email coming from candidates of a particular party, for example.

I agree. QOS can insure availability of resources, and when applied that way is a necessity. Applied in just about any other way, it gives power to those unchecked.

 

To me it's largely an issue of free speech, or more generally, the free exchange of information.

I can see your free speech view - and to it I add the idea that net neutrality maintains the Internet's overall value to humanity. Without free, broad dissemination of ideas and the free discussion thereof, societal inertia goes unchallenged.

[Pangloss]

I agree. Not that my agreement makes for a very interesting discussion, I suppose, but I might as well weigh in.

 

By the way, the "Similar Threads" listed at the bottom of this page is particularly useful here, providing a good review of our previous discussions on this subject. This issue has been on society's back burner for a long while, and several folks, most notably bascule (thanks!), have been helpfully bringing events to our attention. It's interesting (though perhaps not surprising) how SFN threads often run alongside events over time. (One of this forums best features, IMO.)

[padren]

Another nice thing is it puts ISPs in the position of having the duty of making the net accessible, not clean in the eyes of some subjective yet loud demographic.

 

As the internet becomes the predominant means of accessing information (eclipsing TV, etc) it could be pretty deleterious if groups tried to push boycotts around to get ISPs to "do their job" and block anti-American content.

 

The idea seems bizarre to me, but a lot of bizarre things have gained traction that I'd never believe.

[padren]

It was only a matter of time before Republicans had to oppose it:

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/59757-amendment-would-block-fcc-regulation-of-net-neutrality

 

 

With all the loud angry automatic opposition I really wish Obama would just give a speech already urging everyone to not jump off cliffs.