When it comes to net neutrality, either the FCC thinks we’re idiots, or it just doesn’t care

[villager]

With its latest plan to twist the concept of network neutrality into something that appears to be the opposite of neutral, the Federal Communications Commission has revealed that it believes the public can’t understand the issues — or that it is so in thrall of the companies it regulates that it doesn’t care what ordinary people think.

The FCC’s plans for implementing network neutrality came to light Wednesday in a Wall Street Journal article. The plans took the hallmark of network neutrality — the notion that ISP shouldn’t discriminate between the traffic flowing over their networks — and turned it on its head. Under the proposed framework for so-called net neutrality, the FCC does away with the concept of non discrimination and instead offers up a new standard designed to prohibit “commercially unreasonable” practices.

<snip>

It’s important to note that the FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler came out a few hours after the Journal article (and others) appeared to respond that the media has his policy plans “flat out wrong.” The statement, offered below, neglects to address the crucial aspect of his proposed change: the idea that there’s room for any commercial practices in delivering a customer’s network packets.

Here’s Wheeler’s statement:

“There are reports that the FCC is gutting the Open Internet rule. They are flat out wrong. Tomorrow we will circulate to the Commission a new Open Internet proposal that will restore the concepts of net neutrality consistent with the court’s ruling in January. There is no ‘turnaround in policy.’ The same rules will apply to all Internet content. As with the original Open Internet rules, and consistent with the court’s decision, behavior that harms consumers or competition will not be permitted.”

Whether or not you think this is a good idea, inserting any sort of commercial relationship into delivering last mile web content –outside of what the end-consumer pays the ISP — is not network neutrality. So let’s stop calling it that.

<snip>

https://gigaom.com/2014/04/24/when-it-comes-to-net-neutrality-either-the-fcc-thinks-were-idiots-or-it-just-doesnt-care/

[Jackpine Radical]

1. It's all down the InterTubes now.

The Net was nice while it lasted.

Everyone on DU has just been added to the No Post List.

[villager]

2. It was the last area of media they needed to "reign in." "Hope" this was the "change" you expected!

n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. The change we hoped for is not the change we see. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

3. or, the FCC has been completely bought out by google

http://gizmodo.com/5605310/google-just-killed-net-neutrality
http://www.wired.com/2013/07/google-neutrality/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/18/corporations-google-should-not-sell-customer-data
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transforming-power-and-politicsgoogle-once-disdainful-of-lobbying-now-a-master-of-washington-influence/2014/04/12/51648b92-b4d3-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html

[leftyohiolib]

4. it's both and it's b/c they know we'll do nothing but grumble about it

we moved from radio to the interner once the right-wing poisoned it now they want to poison the inet as well

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. You misunderstand something. Our interests are not the purpose of government.

You and I are resources to be exploited and the government is here to help facilitate that resource extraction.

Very little of what government has done in the last 40 years can be remotely explained as in a public interest. It's always about a business interest.

[villager]

7. Viewing us as "resource extraction" for the 1%ers is well put

And clearly, no matter who of the "two" parties is allowed to assume the Presidency, that extraction continues apace...

[JoePhilly]

8. Strange the article doesn't mention this court ruling at all ...

... http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/01/net_neutrality_d_c_circuit_court_ruling_the_battle_s_been_lost_but_we_can.html

[villager]

9. The Slate article just makes it clearer how staggeringly the FCC has failed us

...in its "Now we can win the war" theorem.

The mistake that article made was in imagining government was working on behalf of "people," rather than "owners."

[JoePhilly]

11. The article you posted pretends there was no court ruling.

Instead, it misleadingly frames the story as if THIS is the first and only attempt to develop such rules.

I'd suggest the article you posted didn't make any mistake at all.

The goal was to mischaricterize events, and mislead people who won't know that they are being mislead ... and we can see that's been quite effective as we see in this thread.

All of these folks who are "very upset" about Net Neutrality (given how they've responded to your OP), and yet apparently not one of them is aware of the court ruling in January.

Tells you how concerned they, and apparently the author of the article you posted, actually are.

[villager]

12. Again, the article *you* posted shows just how staggeringly the FCC has failed us with

.. the proposed rules.

Your furious backpedaling and apologies notwithstanding.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same.

The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. Marie Beyle (Stendahl)

[Scuba]

13. They think we're powerless, and perhaps they're right ...

[Enthusiast]

14. Full speed ahead to the 18th Century!

[woo me with science]

15. Yep. They think we're idiots.

They do care to serve their corporate Masters.

[Orsino]

17. It's not an "or" question. n/t