4 ms·

I may be wrong (I am not American and don't follow everything that goes over there). But I thought that the FCC was trying to push for some reform, and the reas

by nanairo 16y ago

I may be wrong (I am not American and don't follow everything that goes over there). But I thought that the FCC was trying to push for some reform, and the reason why they got stuck was because of the massive backlash by the carriers (and others). Can anyone confirm one way or the other? Thank you.

maqr 16y ago
As an American, my observation is that the FCC always sells out to the highest bidder or the loudest complainer. That's why all of our cell providers have a different band allocated to them, and why AT&T got the best GSM band while T-Mo gets worst. It's also why we can't show boobies or say 'vulgar' words on over-the-air television. Removing vulgarity creates the illusion that public interests are being protected. In my opinion, auctioning off radio frequencies and selectively enforcing regulations shows a more accurate picture. In this particular case, I don't think the public cares much about net neutrality, while the corporations are clear in what they want. I see no reason why the FCC wouldn't side with the corporations instead of the indecisive (and not yet inconvenienced) public.
btilly 16y ago
The problem is that the FCC tried to just dictate net neutrality, carriers took it to court, and the court said that the FCC had overstepped its authority. So the FCC wants to get the authority to impose whatever rules it wants, but doesn't have it yet. The Google-Verizon deal could preempt legislative efforts to give the FCC that broad authority, and instead prompt efforts to get something like this deal either embedded in legislation or agreed to voluntarily by the major players. See http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/07/business/la-fi-fcc-comcast7-2010apr07 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/07/business/la-fi-fcc-c... for confirmation of the FCC's position.

4 ms·

I may be wrong (I am not American and don't follow everything that goes over there). But I thought that the FCC was trying to push for some reform, and the reas

by nanairo 16y ago

maqr 16y ago
As an American, my observation is that the FCC always sells out to the highest bidder or the loudest complainer. That's why all of our cell providers have a different band allocated to them, and why AT&T got the best GSM band while T-Mo gets worst. It's also why we can't show boobies or say 'vulgar' words on over-the-air television. Removing vulgarity creates the illusion that public interests are being protected. In my opinion, auctioning off radio frequencies and selectively enforcing regulations shows a more accurate picture. In this particular case, I don't think the public cares much about net neutrality, while the corporations are clear in what they want. I see no reason why the FCC wouldn't side with the corporations instead of the indecisive (and not yet inconvenienced) public.
btilly 16y ago
The problem is that the FCC tried to just dictate net neutrality, carriers took it to court, and the court said that the FCC had overstepped its authority. So the FCC wants to get the authority to impose whatever rules it wants, but doesn't have it yet. The Google-Verizon deal could preempt legislative efforts to give the FCC that broad authority, and instead prompt efforts to get something like this deal either embedded in legislation or agreed to voluntarily by the major players. See http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/07/business/la-fi-fcc-comcast7-2010apr07 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/07/business/la-fi-fcc-c... for confirmation of the FCC's position.