Image via Wikipedia
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted 5-0 on Thursday to begin proceedings on formulating new Internet regulations. The pretense for FCC involvement revolves around a concern for providing some kind of so-called ‘net neutrality rules’ to even the playing field for different ISP providers.
However, some are concerned that this is like opening the china shop for a bull to play in and that this could end up bringing on some kind of a ‘fairness doctrine’ for the Internet that ends up regulating content. Robert McDowell, a Republican member of the FCC has warned that ‘net neutrality rules’ might end up forcing bloggers:
"to give equal time or equal space on their website to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas" determine their content.
Others hold that ‘net neutrality does exactly the opposite and preserves neutrality of content and access for all points of views without obstruction. According to Art Brodsky, the communications director at pro-net neutrality group Public Knowledge:
"Net Neutrality is the opposite of the fairness doctrine. While that now-repealed rule (Fairness Doctrine)required some balance in views, Net Neutrality takes away the ability of any entity, government or company, to control speech."
Response: So which is it? Is ‘Net Neutrality’ the savior of Internet content or a pretext for government to control it?
At this point I think it could go either way so folks should be concerned but probably not over react since no specific program or new set of rules have even been devised as of yet. The red flags should go up and the process should be closely watched for sure.
I do have some concerns about how the Obama Administration would implement any ‘Net Neutrality’ program since Obama’s ‘Information and Regulatory’ Czar- Cass Sunstein- is already on record favoring some kind of ‘Fairness Doctrine’ for Internet content. So there are real reasons to be concerned here particularly if Sunstein is somehow involved in the process. *Top
