Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


13

On Net Neutrality, Feds Go With Google, Against ISPs

Proposed new rules wouldn't allow bandwidth-hogging services to be blocked

Share

(Newser) – Consumers stand to benefit under a proposal, coming Monday, from the Federal Communications Commission that would mandate so-called net neutrality, forcing Internet service providers to treat all Web content equally and not restrict access to sites and services that take up more bandwidth. The Obama administration is siding with the likes of Google and Amazon, the Wall Street Journal reports—and against AT&T, Comcast and others.

Service providers wouldn’t be able to block services that could bog down networks—a prospect particularly troublesome for wireless carriers, which have limited bandwidth to begin with. Consumers could benefit from services currently unavailable—as with AT&T customers gaining access to Skype, the Internet-based phone service now blocked on AT&T’s cell network. A majority of FCC board members would have to support the plan—and three of the five are Democrats who back the net neutrality concept.

Google had urged the government the adopt net neutrality guidelines.
Google had urged the government the adopt net neutrality guidelines.   (Wikimedia Commons)
Will work for bandwidth.
Will work for bandwidth.   (Wikimedia Commons)
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski.   (Federal Communications Commission)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
13 comments
VIEWING:
 
dontlikeyou
Sep 18, 09 7:17 PM CDT
This sounds good on the surface. But, since Obama is involved, I have to wonder if there is some clause in there that allows Obama to turn of our private internet access. Oh, wait, Obama already proposed that in August of 2009. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-19
IN RESPONSE:
Bryanw55
Sep 18, 09 7:36 PM CDT
Wow, another wrong turn dontlikeyou. Can't you see a situation when this might be necessary in case of some weird cyberattack? Come back and digame when you can show some type of censorship not involving a response to catastrophic events.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Spydiggity
Sep 19, 09 3:13 AM CDT
"some weird cyber attack..." give me a break. that is exactly how we're all supposed to think. there's always some infinitely small chance something will happen, and because of that we're supposed to allow the federal government some ability to take complete control. and morons like you justify it...which is how they get away with it.
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
northeast
Sep 19, 09 8:16 AM CDT
Damn, I was just about to claim that I actually agree with Obama on something.
Vote up! Vote down!
-4
IN RESPONSE:
2-bits
Sep 19, 09 1:13 PM CDT
Are you guys crazy? This is a victory for the consumer. This is keeping the internet, THE REAL INTERNET, as it is. The companies against network neutrality might, for example, want to charge you more for visiting high traffic sites. All ya'll can do is think of conspiracy theories, apparently.
Vote up! Vote down!
+4
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.