Here is a round up of opinion re the recent FCC decision gleaned from WongBlog. I would be surprised if you folks didn't have opinions about it .. . I think, by the way, that WB is by far the best of the newsgleaners.
Nick 1. Top story: Is the third time the charm for the FCC? Revised proposal would let Web firms pay for 'fast lane.' "The proposal from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler would mark a new phase in a struggle over fair Internet practices in which the agency has insisted on equal treatment of online traffic from large and small providers of video and other Web content....Wheeler is proposing to judge the handling of Web media by service providers...on a case-by-case basis, said the official....The FCC wants to know whether it should allow fee-for-access arrangements for the final connection to subscribers, the official said. The FCC has been seeking to replace a rule voided in January by a U.S. court that has come to be commonly known as 'net neutrality.'" Todd Shields in Bloomberg <http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/3873VC/2OVOFR/95OP9U/V1BIENY/KQ6644/ 1G/h> . The FCC is trying to carve a middle ground. "This latest plan is likely to be viewed as an effort to find a middle ground, as the FCC has been caught between its promise to keep the Internet open and broadband providers' desire to explore new business models in a fast-changing marketplace. It likely won't satisfy everyone, however." Gautham Nagesh in The Wall Street Journal <http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/3873VC/2OVOFR/95OP9U/V1BIENY/ORVVDY/ 1G/h> . And indeed, Internet advocates flipped out. "Open-Internet advocates are calling foul on new rules that would allow broadband companies to strike special deals for preferential treatment....Net-neutrality advocates argue that Internet startups might not be able to afford to pay for such special treatment, potentially stifling innovation on the Internet, which has spawned one of the greatest periods of technological development in U.S. history, generating hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth." Sam Gustin in Time Magazine <http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/3873VC/2OVOFR/95OP9U/V1BIENY/SP77QS/ 1G/h> . @binarybits <http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/3873VC/2OVOFR/95OP9U/V1BIENY/NJCCKI/ 1G/h> : I don't understand what this accomplishes. If you're allowing "fast lanes" why regulate at all? FCC will seek public comment before moving forward. Grant Gross in PC World <http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/3873VC/2OVOFR/95OP9U/V1BIENY/EXLL2M/ 1G/h> . How could the move affect consumers' Web experience? "The move could dramatically reshape the Web experiences of consumers, where videos for ESPN.com, Facebook or YouTube might be delivered more smoothly because of payments to broadband providers such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon. The streaming videos of a smaller competitor could be halted with buffering and low-quality images if those firms aren't able to pay ISPs access to faster Internet lanes into American homes." Cecilia Kang and Brian Fung in The Washington Post <http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/3873VC/2OVOFR/95OP9U/V1BIENY/XHXXF1/ 1G/h> . How the FCC is trying to get around its previous judicial headaches. "The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the first two of those rules in January, saying the commission didn't prove it had the legal authority to impose such restrictions on information services. The ruling specifically left room, however, for the commission to impose an anti-blocking rule if it allowed ISPs and websites the freedom to negotiate deals that prioritized some sites' traffic over others'. Wheeler appears to be taking up the court's suggestion." Jon Healey in the Los Angeles Times <http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/3873VC/2OVOFR/95OP9U/V1BIENY/5VSSB0/ 1G/h> . Other tech reads: Why Netflix wins if the Supreme Court sides with Aereo. Andrea Peterson in The Washington Post <http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/3873VC/2OVOFR/95OP9U/V1BIENY/GDHH7K/ 1G/h> . The Supreme Court's cluenessness on technology makes them better justices. Timothy B. Lee in Vox <http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/3873VC/2OVOFR/95OP9U/V1BIENY/30QQT0/ 1G/h> . WILHELM: Remember what Netflix said. "It's worth remembering Netflix's recent comments on what net neutrality should mean. The company indicated that the mere treating of all content the same once it makes it onto an ISP's network is 'weak' net neutrality. In Netflix's view, net neutrality should also extend to 'peering agreements,' forcing ISPs to accept all incoming traffic onto their networks without charging a fee. What the FCC apparently wants to put into place would therefore be something akin to 'very weak' net neutrality. Call the FCC's new plan the homeopathic version of net neutrality....ISPs will love the plan." Alex Wilhelm in TechCrunch <http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/3873VC/2OVOFR/95OP9U/V1BIENY/62JJGA/ 1G/h> . HOLLISTER: Why FCC chair's reassurances are off the mark. "The FCC's position is that it is merely trying to defend net neutrality by keeping internet service providers from blocking legal traffic outright, and keeping them from unreasonably discriminating against traffic they'd rather not serve...only this time in a way that will hold up in court....The problem...is that the FCC intends to say that it's okay to discriminate against traffic if content providers don't pay the ISPs a 'commercially reasonable' fee. While the FCC chairman says that 'behavior that harms consumers or competition will not be permitted,' any fee might risk harming both, even if it's tiny." Sean Hollister in The Verge <http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/3873VC/2OVOFR/95OP9U/V1BIENY/4C99H2/ 1G/h> . Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
