Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Future of Net Neutrality may be Looking Up

posted by Blackmoore on Friday January 09 2015, @01:42AM   Printer-friendly
from the i-fcc-what-you-did-there dept.

rts008 writes:

In the recent news, it seems Net Neutrality may not be quite as doomed as earlier news.

The Federal Communications Commission’s proposal for open-Internet rules will align with a blueprint President Barack Obama offered last year for strong regulation to guarantee Web traffic is treated equally, the head of the agency said.

From the article:http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20150107-fcc-head-plans-to-heed-obama-blueprint-to-ban-web-fast-lanes.ece
“We’re both pulling in the same direction,” FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said Wednesday at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. “We’re going to propose rules that say no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization.”

I guess we will see how this actually turns out after the vote on Feb. 26.

Also noted on Ars Technica - Title II for Internet providers is all but confirmed by FCC chairman

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Future of Net Neutrality may be Looking Up | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 30 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 09 2015, @02:09PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 09 2015, @02:09PM (#133189)

    The D has had nearly 8 years to do the exact same thing. Yet they putzed around on it. They could have introduced it last year. They apparently had it ready...

    This is *meant* to be a dead bill but look the GOP look bad. Nothing to see here ....

    Thank you for looking up what Title II means. Because frankly I have seen tons of rhetoric on both sides. I basically want someone to lay these snakes straight and tell me what it actually means. For four of the biggies it really means nothing in how they operate. They already operate under title II when it suits them.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by goody on Friday January 09 2015, @02:59PM

    by goody (2135) on Friday January 09 2015, @02:59PM (#133198)

    I should stress I'm absolutely 100% for net neutrality. Title II just isn't the right way to accomplish it. This is a time where the law of unintended consequences comes into play. I'm politically progressive, but this is one issue where I'll say neither side of the aisle has a clue. Both want to wreck the Internet with their solutions or do-nothing approaches.

    • (Score: 2) by fnj on Saturday January 10 2015, @02:30PM

      by fnj (1654) on Saturday January 10 2015, @02:30PM (#133437)

      Do you have no specifics whatsoever about why it's not the right way? What unintended consequences are you afraid of?