Millions of signatures on petitions are ignored, and what many consider a fake version of Net Neutrality is introduced as a pasted on smile just never seemed to leave Julius Genachowski’s face, on this morning’s live coverage of the FCC meeting .
Other speakers stood behind the podium explaining their vote at this FCC meeting on Neutrality. This vote determined an unclear outcome of the Net Neutrality and whether the FCC should have internet involvement.
Streaming video is on one side of the page, and comments scrolling like the people’s ticker tape are on the opposite side.
Genachowski takes a patronizing step forward by saying that the freedom of the internet is unprotected. I’m wondering if this means “Now we can have a big brother who will watch over us? Would that be the FCC?”
He continues to the next part of his speech, as if the two sides of the debate are equal in importance, and he still can’t get that smirk off his face. He’s presenting the different aspects with compare and contrast: One side says government should stay out. Others say we need rules.
In the millisecond world, timing is so important to production. Anyone who can’t afford the higher tiers, or the faster channels, will lose productivity. In turn, this translates to lower earnings.
Genachowski uses eloquent phrases such as broadband ecosystem. It’s a sort of transitional phrase, not unlike an oily lubricant.
Again he keeps equalizing that which isn’t equal. He tells of those who have a favorite philosophy of Ronald Reagan’s – If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Other businesses say we need sensible FCC rules.
Lack of rules of the road is hampering innovation, says Genachowski. He relates that Tech CEOs want common baseline rules that will insure innovation.
Massive investment in broadband will lead us to a better economy. Better economy for who I’m wondering aloud?
FCC empowers and protects, but shouldn’t be overly invested, he goes on. New business models to give investment incentive. . . Faster networking helps the corporate investments.
The crux of the order is about the FCC act that has rules designed to preserve internet freedom. . . Transparency in choosing networks in a non prescriptive way is a benefit, says Mr. Genachowski, still with that same smile that seems to say “I home free, now.”
Consumers are free to go, or say what they want. Consumers should be on a level playing field. “Unreasonable discrimination” will not be allowed.
Another question to myself – Wouldn’t this be honestly qualified by the fact that you’d have to have enough money for a law suit in the case of discrimination?
Here’s another oxymoron: No fast lanes for companies or other prioritization. They shouldn’t skew by prioritization. Yet tier pricing is supported.
Highlights of the new FCC rulings:
Networks may have offerings of different values.
Prohibitive blocking of Websites isn’t allowed.
A radio frequency spectrum can be auctioned to the highest bidder, and Comcast and NBC are discussing a merger.
From the ticker tape parade of scrolling comments:
A person named Collin suggests that we little folks need protection from the “large and powerful organizations.”
Intermittently another commentary comes filing into the scrolling line of contributions saying “blah, blah, blah.”
Another reaction expresses that one thing the ruling does is guarantee litigation and uncertainty.
More cynical remarks are leaning toward the radical uttering that Julius is considering his future with a huge salary from AT&T or Comcast.
A very nicely put remark declares that “less funded” individuals and organizations need protection from the powerful organizations who can afford to buy power and influence.
A message from a Net Neutrality Organization states that this is just the beginning, and we haven’t lost the battle yet. This particular Net Neutrality Organization carried two million signatures to Washington DC. There are several such organizations around the globe.
Hopefully, there will be more clarification on the outcome of the fate of Net Neutrality, and the statements that came out of the FCC meeting, and what the actual significance really is.