4 ms·
"MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet. FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability
by joelhaus 16y ago
"MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards
for the open Internet.
FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time
give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet
through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the
same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing
regulations on the Internet itself."
The last sentence seems to be exactly what net neutrality advocates have been endorsing; a regulated internet that prevents ISP's from favoring certain content providers. Why would Google tout this as a benefit? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but this sounds like a reversal. Please clarify what they mean if I'm wrong.
- jemfinch 16y agoWhat even net neutrality advocates want to avoid is the FCC becoming the "objectionable content police." The FCC should be able to enforce net neutrality, but not create new regulations regarding content. The EFF discussed this in their recent post on the matter.
- joelhaus 16y agoThanks, hadn't read the EFF discussion, but I was not aware that content censorship was even at issue in the net neutrality debate. Given that this is an official statement from a major stakeholder and given the technical/legal/societal implications, I would have hoped for more precise language. I can still see this sentence being used to justify tying the hands of the FCC when new issues arise due to technological advancements; the whole Comcast judgment brought into question the scope of their regulatory authority & this proposal seems to significantly restrict what could potentially be required to ensure NN. IMO the issue is too important for this type of ambiguity and proposed restrictions on the FCC should be fully aired & vetted.