Joho the Blog
|
|
|
« BlogHer discussion guidelines and speaker types || Back to Blog | Me on marketing and PR at the FastCompany blog » August 07, 2005
After ruling that the cable companies don't have to let competitors use their lines — thus killing the competitive market for wire-based broadband — the FCC issued a four-part statement about "Net Neutrality":
Michael Maranda at the Digital Divide Network likes the way they sound. But he's only cautiously optimistic, as the phrase goes. Susan Crawford is less so, in part because she read Footnote One that says our open access to content is "Subject, of course, to the ... quality of service terms" of the providers. Also, she points out that these four statements are not rules and are not enforceable. "More faith-based policymaking," she concludes. "We'll need more than principles for the open internet to survive." [Tags: fcc SusanCrawford MichaelMaranda] David Isenberg weighs in, contrasting the current and former FCC chiefs' idea of our Net rights. Bottom line: "I'm scared." Ulp. Posted
by D. Weinberger at August 7, 2005 11:29 AM
TrackBackListed below are links to weblogs that reference FCC's Net Neutrality principles:
» David Isenberg on the FCC's "Four Internet Freedoms" from Smart Mobs Tracked on August 8, 2005 02:37 PM |
Comments
'lawful Internet content of their choice'
="Non-copyright infringing content"
'subject to the needs of law enforcement'
="Required to use DRM/DMCA/Palladium etc."
MUST... GET... GENIE BACK IN BOTTLE! Gnnnhhh!
Posted by: Crosbie Fitch | August 7, 2005 01:30 PM
Ringtone search engine powered by google?
Have you seen this...... www.ringbits.com?
Mike
Posted by: Mike Jones | August 10, 2005 08:00 PM
Does anyone else get the heebie jeebies when people are continually referred to as "consumers"? It seems to me that this is a practice that allows organisations to distance themselves from the realisation that what they are advocating actually effects people's LIVES rather than just their bank balances (or, more likely, credit limits)
Posted by: Lorne Gerlach | August 11, 2005 11:08 PM
If there is any comfort, it is the predictability that the ruling party's words are meaningless theater and the opposite of actual policy.
Powell struggled with this, naively believing in pure principles. But Martin clearly is in step with the program. He doesn't grant consumer freedoms, only entitlements. And even to the concept of entitlements he spews qualifications based on the overriding claims of content owners, law enforcement and goverment, and network providers. In summary consumers have no rights and take a back seat to virtually everyone else. Now that's the Republican party we've come to know.
I am scared too. This is not small government conservatism, but uncompetitive elitism. As Isenberg has shown and been proved correct in the Rise of the Stupid Network and the Internet, it's bad economics and technical policy. It's especially bad for innovation and small industries like P2P.
See http://www.p2p-weblog.com/50226711/fcc_back_in_the_republican_flock.php
Posted by: Marc Freedman, RazorPop | August 11, 2005 11:19 PM
Doc Searls is particularly annoyed by the term "consumers." And Jerry Michalski has said that consumers eat messages and crap cash, as a way of arguing against the term.
Posted by: David Weinberger | August 12, 2005 08:53 AM