Weekly email of our best stuff
Hello and welcome to contact us page at eProfits
How can we help you today?
After the big fuzz that came with the FCC CEO's Tom Wheeler proposal to the Court about Net Neutrality, everyone st...
After the big fuzz that came with the FCC CEO's Tom Wheeler proposal to the Court about Net Neutrality, everyone started arguing about the real idea behind his intentions. Faced with having to give an explanation, he decided to give a response on the official FCC blog.
“I am a strong believer in the importance of an Open Internet. As President Obama has explained, preserving an Open Internet is vital not just to the free flow of information, but also to promoting innovation and economic productivity. That is why I have made the preservation of the Open Internet a priority for the FCC.”
He argues that his latest comments about the proposal were misinterpreted, and emphasizes the importance of understanding two things: “First, this is not a final decision by the Commission but rather a formal request for input on a proposal as well as a set of related questions. Second, as the Notice makes clear, all options for protecting and promoting an Open Internet are on the table.”
Furthermore, he debates about the longevity of the problem because the idea about Net Neutrality has been discussed for a decade and until now, there are no visible results, so further delay will only worsen the problem. He believes that this proposal will finally end the uncertainty about Net Neutrality. In addition to the unnecessary delays, he urges about the importance of leaving the market unprotected for a few more years: “If the proposal before us now turns out to be insufficient or if we observe anyone taking advantage of the rule, I won’t hesitate to use Title II. However, unlike with Title II, we can use the court’s roadmap to implement Open Internet regulation now rather than endure additional years of litigation and delay.”
When questioned about the most debated and controversial changes in the service that the Internet provider can make, he responded, “At the heart of the proposed NPRM is the assurance that it won’t be possible for an Internet provider to degrade the service available to all. Let me re-emphasize that: the Internet will remain like it is today, an open pathway. If a broadband provider (ISP) acts in a manner that keeps users from effectively taking advantage of that pathway then it should be a violation of the Open Internet rules.”
Additionally, he explains the idea of what “commercially reasonable“ means to him. Among all other explanations, he states: “Providing exclusive, prioritized service to an affiliate is not commercially reasonable. For instance, a broadband provider that also owns a sports network should not be able to give a commercial advantage to that network over another competitive sports network wishing to reach viewers over the Internet.”
But as a reassurance he claims that the Internet will remain an open pathway that everyone can use. “In summary, the simple fact is that the court has provided a legal roadmap for how we can protect Net Neutrality and do so expeditiously. The recommendation on which we seek comment would result in timely and meaningful Open Internet rules. We have been talking about Net Neutrality for a decade; it is time to put something in place – and to do it with dispatch”
However, we will have to wait until May 15th for the final results.