Critics argue that Mark Zuckerberg's Internet.org initiative isn't a charity, but rather a method of control. Zuckerberg can turn that around and prove his global connectivity project is truly good, but only by allowing the places he's connecting to eventually make his service irrelevant.
Tom Wheeler, Chairman of the FCC, expressed confidence late in the week after the first lawsuit against the agency's new, stronger Net Neutrality-mirroring Open Internet policy was filed.
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to adopt a strong legal foundation for new Open Internet regulations, which mirror the principals of Net Neutrality.
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has voted on new "Open Internet" policies, and politicians from the Legislative and Executive Branches have mixed reactions to the decision.
On Thursday morning, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission voted on a new Open Internet policy, grounded by strong federal authority that treats Internet service providers similarly to utilities. Adoption of the new rules -- which prevent ISPs from blocking or slowing any lawful Internet traffic or charging companies like Netflix for faster delivery -- is considered a victory for Net Neutrality advocates.
In a February 24th opinion piece, Jose Marquez, the President and CEO of Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association (LISTA), opined that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler's proposed Open Internet rules that would prevent blocking, throttling, and paid fast lanes online would, inexplicably, harm Latinos. The FCC is set to vote on these rules on February 26th.
Today Tom Wheeler, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, put to rest any doubt that the agency charged with regulating the infrastructure of the Internet plans to do so based on the strongest legal foundation available. It's victory for Net Neutrality advocates, to the chagrin of Internet service providers.
About one month from now on February 26, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on new Open Internet rules that govern Internet Service Providers. But what looks like the moment of truth for Net Neutrality debate may be just the beginning of more quarrelling between ISPs and the FCC.
It seems Tom Wheeler can't catch a break: His latest attempt to charm both sides of the contentious Net Neutrality debate has seemingly pleased no one.
On Wednesday, Netflix, Digg, Reddit, Tumblr, and many others took part in an online protest reminiscent of the 2011 anti-SOPA action to protest against the Federal Communications Commission's planned new Open Internet policy and the "fast lanes" proposal associated with it. Meanwhile, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler hinted this week at expanding Net Neutrality-type protections to wireless broadband.
The Sunlight Foundation released a study on the FCC Open Internet comments this week. What did they find? An overwhelming majority of the public is in favor of Net Neutrality, unsurprisingly.
The U.S. Federal Communication Commission decided it would continue to accept comments on its Open Internet rules until September 15, which gives the public a little more time to submit their opinion on whether or not the new proposed framework does enough to protect a free and open Internet.
The public response to the Federal Communications Commission's open comment period for its controversial reformulation of its formerly Net Neutrality-friendly Open Internet rules has been huge -- the highest ever for an FCC policy procedure. Now one analysis of the comments shows the vast majority were pro-Net Neutrality. And there were so few unique "anti" comments, they don't even register on the analysis' infographic.
Late last week, the Federal Communications Commission announced it was going to do a series of roundtable discussions about the Open Internet. It would be hosted in the FCC's Washington D.C. offices and streamed on the Internet. Now Senator Patrick Leahy is telling the FCC that's not enough.
The FCC Net Neutrality debate has caused division between minority and Latino advocacy organizations, sparking a war of words between two, in particular.
