This report was carried on Drudge today, December 20, 2010.
Tomorrow morning theFederal Communications Commission (FCC)will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government’s reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.
Robert McDowell reports the “threat”.
But just what is “Net Neutrality”?
Here is what WiseGeek has to say about Net Neutrality:
Net neutrality refers to the non-discriminatory nature of essential Internet components such as servers, ISPs and transmission lines. In the eyes of an idealized Internet, all users have the right to send and receive packets of information equally. The principle of net neutrality makes this possible.
Tomorrow the FCC will vote to impose rules that will apply to providers. According to the Washington Post, the rules will:
The rules would prevent Internet service providers from blocking Web sites and applications on Internet lines feeding into American homes. Those carriers — such as Comcast and AT&T could not deliberately slow down one Web site over another. The rules frown on the practice of charging Web sites for better or faster delivery, but observers say that practice is not strictly prohibited in the order.
It sounds good, doesn’t it? The whole idea, however, is very political and the ramifications are difficult to comprehend. Few people seem to understand the full consequences of what the vote tomorrow will actually do.
The Double-Edged Dangers of Net Neutrality Implementation is helpful in understanding what is going on. It seems to me that we already have net neutrality and I agree with this statement:
From a conservative, libertarian perspective, as far as any regulation or neutrality of the internet is concerned, it would seem that all is well enough left alone.
It always bothers me when a government agency does something near a holiday and at a time when the general public is not likely to be paying attention.