FCC To Propose Net Neutrality Rules 110
wiredog writes "From The Washington Post comes news that the FCC is preparing to propose net neutrality rules on Monday. Quoting: '[FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski] will discuss the rules Monday during a keynote speech at The Brookings Institute. He isn't expected to drill into many details, but the proposal will specifically be for an additional guideline on how operators like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast can control what goes on their networks. That additional guideline would prevent the operators from discriminating, or act as gatekeepers, of Web content and services. ... The agency is expected to review what traffic management is reasonable and what practices are discriminatory. The guidelines are known as "principals" at the agency, which some public interest groups have sought to codify so that they would clearly be enforceable.'"
Re:Backdoor for fairness doctrine (Score:1, Interesting)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
yeah..those wacky republicans...
Reasonable... (Score:3, Interesting)
From the summary:
prevent the operators from discriminating, or act as gatekeepers, of Web content and services.
Re:Backdoor for fairness doctrine (Score:3, Interesting)
never about silencing opposition.
That's ALL it was about. Specifically talk radio. Far-left-wing talk shows simply couldn't turn a profit on radio (and were thus dumped) so they figured they could legislate themselves onto the radio waves.
Gov't regulating the internet? (Score:1, Interesting)
Do we really want the government regulating the internet? What's next? Requiring ISPs to filter offensive material, track users, etc? This is a bad direction.
There's a hint of persecution complex... (Score:5, Interesting)
... and whiny martyrdom among certain conservatives that sometimes make me wish that Democrats were in fact exactly as dirty-handed, ruthless, and out to get the GOP would-be victims seem to think it was.
So, yeah. The Fairness Doctrine meant that you could be "harrassed" to provide alternate points of view if you dedicated a broadcast outlet to partisan purposes.
Here's some interesting questions:
If the article of faith on the right that The Media(TM) is a veritable fifth column of liberal political support is true, why wouldn't this state of affairs benefit conservatives *far* more than it would liberals?
For the obviously very few and utterly beleaguered bastions of conservative broadcasting, why would it be "silencing" them media outlet to require them to broadcast expressions of other views? Do conservatives consider themselves silenced when they are encounter opposing views? Is freedom of speech for conservatives the right to avoid this?
Far-left-wing talk shows simply couldn't turn a profit on radio (and were thus dumped) so they figured they could legislate themselves onto the radio waves.
Yeah. Apparently the prospective audience was less interested in transparent polemics and more interested in reality than their conservative counterparts.