“A media and Internet advocacy group sued the federal government Wednesday over its new rules covering Internet traffic, saying they don’t protect wireless traffic from interference by phone companies,” Peter Svensson reports for The Associated Press.
“The group Free Press filed its challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules in federal court in Boston,” Svensson reports. “The rules were adopted in December and take effect in two months. They prohibit Internet service providers from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services.”
Svensson reports, “They give greater leeway to cellphone companies to manage data traffic because wireless systems are more easily overwhelmed. But Free Press objects to that distinction. ‘There is no evidence in the record to justify this arbitrary distinction between wired and wireless Internet access,’ Free Press policy director Matt Wood said in a statement.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: The evidence, Matt, is likely contained in monetary form and certain transfers thereof, which, if everything’s been properly taken care of, you won’t find anywhere near the GD record.
The arbitrary distinction between wired and wireless Internet access is justified simply because that’s the way Verizon and Google want it, damn it, and maybe, just maybe, because Verizon and Google not only do a lot of lobbying in D.C., but they also make healthy campaign contributions.
Politicians, who in general really, really seem to enjoy campaign contributions, just so happen to be the ones who – drumroll, please – appoint and confirm FCC commissioners.
Get it yet, buddy? Sheesh, Matt, you guys really know how to gum up the works with your lawsuits, dontcha? What are you looking for, actual Net Neutrality? Good luck with that, m’kay?
BTW: It’s nice to see that the AP reporter Svensson properly refers to the FCC’s rules as “so-called ‘net neutrality.'”
Related articles:
FCC takes steps toward implementing ‘Net Neutrality’ rules – July 1, 2011
Al Franken: Big corporations are ‘hoping to destroy’ the Internet – March 16, 2011
Speaker Boehner rips FCC bid to regulate Internet; likens ‘shocking’ national debt to Sputnik threat – February 28, 2011
House passes amendment to block funds for FCC ‘Net Neutrality’ order – February 17, 2011
Rasmussen: Just 21% of likely U.S. voters want FCC to regulate Internet – December 28, 2010
FCC cites Android ‘openness’ as reason for neutered ‘Net Neutrality’ – December 22, 2010
U.S. FCC approves so-called ‘net-neutrality’ regulations – December 21, 2010
Tim Lee on ‘network neutrality’: Libertarian computer geeks should forge a third way – December 16, 2010
Google and Verizon propose ‘Net Neutrality’ rules, but exempt wireless’ – August 9, 2010
Big win for Comcast as US court rules against FCC on authority to impose ‘Net Neutrality’ – April 6, 2010
Google and Verizon said to be close to deal that may jeopardize ‘net neutrality’ – August 05, 2010
Big win for Comcast as US court rules against FCC on authority to impose ‘Net Neutrality’ – April 06, 2010
Did the FCC’s National Broadband Plan kill ‘Net Neutrality?’ – March 26, 2010
Steve Jobs: Google’s ‘Don’t be evil’ mantra is ‘bullshit’ – February 01, 2010
Will ‘Net Neutrality’ go wireless? Google and the telecommunications industry gird for battle – October 01, 2009
AT&T: Any new ‘net neutrality’ rules should apply to Google Voice, too – September 25, 2009
AT&T calls FCC neutrality plan a ‘Bait and Switch’ – September 22, 2009
Senate Republicans move to block FCC’s proposed ‘net neutrality’ rules – September 22, 2009
Opposing Net Neutrality – August 10, 2006
U.S. Senate committee rejects net neutrality proposal – June 29, 2006
House rejects H.R. 5252 Net neutrality amendment – June 09, 2006
Google posts call to action on ‘net neutrality’ – June 08, 2006
FCC Commissioner backs Net Neutrality – May 30, 2006
This is GREAT NEWS for those using the Internet via cell phones and will help support Net Neurality via broadband. Wait and see.
One correction: The FCC rules regarding cell phones and the Internet were ANTI-Net Neutrality. Odd wording in the article could confuse readers otherwise. And YES, these anti-Net Neutrality rules are entirely attributable to lobbying and campaign contribution bribery. This is part of how our Corporate Oligarchy works and our US government FAILs to serve voters. 😛
Yet, curiously, a large portion of the electorate votes against their own best interest, making completely emotional choices based on their straight diet of sound bites, rather than actually thinking and researching the issues. The so-called (see, I can work it in, too) “values voters” are a great case in point.
Yes, God forbid people actually have some values and vote for like-minded representation.
What the hell were the founding fathers thinking!
Alas, just any values won’t do. Our founding fathers (and mothers) were mostly thinking about survival.
Too true to be humorous. Have targeted euphemism, will get elected.
MDN take, unfortunately, is on the point. Especially evil are Google’s actions, since they are content provider and thus
bribedpersuaded both FCC and Verizon to make anti-Net-Neutrality rules so their advertisements were considered as priority content over wireless access.Yes, this is the same “Do No Evil” company, which released PR about net neutrality being in danger.
Maybe they should put the interwebby thingy in Switzerland.
Maybe checking out Free Press would be a good idea before posting all of these comments. Free Press is a socialist based group pushing for government control of the internet. They advocate having the FCC decide how much of what gets on the net and TV as well, If there is too much of the “right” side of the issues present they want DC to limit it. This id not having as free press but a group called Free PRess asking for control.
Not your friends.
So I did as you suggested and checked out:
http://www.freepress.net/
Their manifesto: “Free Press is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to reform the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and universal access to communications. Please join us.”
Among their current efforts:
– Prosecute Rupert Murdoch for his crimes against privacy.
– Opposition to the AT&T/T-Mobile merger.
– Support of real Net Neutrality (vs the FCC’s control).
– Prevention of Big Media; promotion of diversity in media ownership.
– Diversity of minority and women ownership in the broadcast industry.
So ‘CB White’, or whoever you are, WTF are you talking about?! ‘Not our friends’? Compared to what? Communist China? You sound like yet-another Neo-Con-Job/Corporate Oligarchy unfounded propaganda spewer. If so, get lost please.
McChesney founded the Free Press which is funded by George Soros.
Free Press is a well-known advocate of government intervention in the Internet. Then a new book, “The Manchurian President,” documents the founder of the Free Press, Robert W. McChesney, is an avowed Marxist who has recommended capitalism be dismantled.
So they do not want the Internet to be free as it is now they want it controlled. Do You?
@mdn take-
Bwahaa! Well done and thanks for the side of drippings of sarcasm that came with it!