Weekly email of our best stuff
Hello and welcome to contact us page at eProfits
How can we help you today?
As a response to the FCC's new proposal that was made public yesterday, Mr Wheeler, the Federal Communications Comm...
As a response to the FCC's new proposal that was made public yesterday, Mr Wheeler, the Federal Communications Commission's Chairman, came out with an official announcement. In FCC's blog post, he clarifies the statement he gave previously about net neutrality and the open Internet.
Consumers were furious about the new “commercially reasonable” rules that FCC released. Negative reactions were found on both sides – big companies that would have to pay Internet providers to offer faster access to consumers were not happy, but also more than 10,000 individuals on the web circulated disgruntled comments.
Wheeler tried to calm the storm last night by stating, “There has been a great deal of misinformation that has recently surfaced regarding the draft Open Internet Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that we will today circulate to the Commission."
"The Notice does not change the underlying goals of transparency, no blocking of lawful content, and no unreasonable discrimination among users established by the 2010 rule.” Wheeler's intention is to have enforceable Open Internet rules operating by the end of 2014.
"To be very direct, the proposal would establish that behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted." Does this mean not paying for the so called Internet “fast line”? Is this limiting the openness of Internet that wasn't supposed to be allowed previously?
The commission still has no answer. "We don't know," a spokesperson said today. "We want to have a broad public debate. We want to know how people are affected in their daily life. We want to know how businesses are being affected. We want to know if innovation is being affected."
Wheeler finishes with the three principles that explain what kind of protection the new rules are offering. The first one forces ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to transparently inform users and subscribers about the changes. The second one explains the impossibility for legal content to be blocked and the last one tries to make service providers stop acting “in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet.”