“On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for internet freedom."
The Federal Communications Commission has officially dipped its toes into the net neutrality swamp, and taken a limited step towards open access. But this is mostly being viewed as a move towards attempted regulation, and even a lame jurisdiction grab. And court challenges are almost certainly ahead, especially in the wake of a major legal brush-back by Comcast.
So what are the resolutions, as flimsy as they are? The Democratic-led agency is generally requiring open access to all legal sites, for both wireline and wired access providers. And, the FCC is also requiring transparency as it relates to traffic management from ISPs and access providers.
So, that means no overt blocking of legitimate sites, apps, or related services, though wireless providers are being given some exceptions on telephony. And, activities like network management and packet inspection should be “reasonable," though wireless providers are only being held to blocking and transparency guidelines.
Theoretically, this is good news for the music community, especially up-and-coming artists that need open access. Indeed, open access is something that groups like A2IM have been stumping for, but dissenters like McDowell raise a good point: what's wrong with the current system, anyway? As in, when's the last time you couldn't access your favorite artist because of some ISP favoritism or block? “Nothing is broken with the current system," McDowell flatly pointed out, though advocates of total internet freedom are pushing for more oversight.
Meanwhile, this means nothing until it's codified into law, and ISPs are likely to fight this—hard. So everything's status quo for now, and that may not be so bad.
The Federal Communications Commission has officially dipped its toes into the net neutrality swamp, and taken a limited step towards open access. But this is mostly being viewed as a move towards attempted regulation, and even a lame jurisdiction grab. And court challenges are almost certainly ahead, especially in the wake of a major legal brush-back by Comcast.
So what are the resolutions, as flimsy as they are? The Democratic-led agency is generally requiring open access to all legal sites, for both wireline and wired access providers. And, the FCC is also requiring transparency as it relates to traffic management from ISPs and access providers.
So, that means no overt blocking of legitimate sites, apps, or related services, though wireless providers are being given some exceptions on telephony. And, activities like network management and packet inspection should be “reasonable," though wireless providers are only being held to blocking and transparency guidelines.
Theoretically, this is good news for the music community, especially up-and-coming artists that need open access. Indeed, open access is something that groups like A2IM have been stumping for, but dissenters like McDowell raise a good point: what's wrong with the current system, anyway? As in, when's the last time you couldn't access your favorite artist because of some ISP favoritism or block? “Nothing is broken with the current system," McDowell flatly pointed out, though advocates of total internet freedom are pushing for more oversight.
Meanwhile, this means nothing until it's codified into law, and ISPs are likely to fight this—hard. So everything's status quo for now, and that may not be so bad.
