SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
New FCC Proposal Still Leaves Net Neutrality MIA, says Rights Group
'This Frankenstein proposal is no treat for Internet users, and they shouldn't be tricked,' says Free Press head Craig Aaron
Oct 31, 2014
A new plan on broadband service reportedly being crafted by the Federal Communications Commission head has been criticized by open Internet advocates who say it still fails to deliver real net neutrality.
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday on FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's "hybrid approach," which is partly based on proposals from the Mozilla Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology.
From the Journal:
The plan now under consideration would separate broadband into two distinct services: a retail one, in which consumers would pay broadband providers for Internet access; and a back-end one, in which broadband providers serve as the conduit for websites to distribute content. The FCC would then classify the back-end service as a common carrier, giving the agency the ability to police any deals between content companies and broadband providers.
Free Press, an organization that advocates for media and digital rights, says the plan, while better than the proposal put forth in May, still fails to protect Internet users from so-called "fast lanes."
"This Frankenstein proposal is no treat for Internet users, and they shouldn't be tricked. No matter how you dress it up, any rules that don't clearly restore the agency's authority and prevent specialized fast lanes and paid prioritization aren't real net neutrality," stated Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron.
"Chairman Wheeler can't wave a wand, change the law, and pretend to break the Internet in two. But these schemes suggest just that: dividing the Internet to protect corporations sending information, but not the people receiving it," Aaron continued.
Free Press also warns that the proposal could face legal challenges.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A new plan on broadband service reportedly being crafted by the Federal Communications Commission head has been criticized by open Internet advocates who say it still fails to deliver real net neutrality.
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday on FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's "hybrid approach," which is partly based on proposals from the Mozilla Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology.
From the Journal:
The plan now under consideration would separate broadband into two distinct services: a retail one, in which consumers would pay broadband providers for Internet access; and a back-end one, in which broadband providers serve as the conduit for websites to distribute content. The FCC would then classify the back-end service as a common carrier, giving the agency the ability to police any deals between content companies and broadband providers.
Free Press, an organization that advocates for media and digital rights, says the plan, while better than the proposal put forth in May, still fails to protect Internet users from so-called "fast lanes."
"This Frankenstein proposal is no treat for Internet users, and they shouldn't be tricked. No matter how you dress it up, any rules that don't clearly restore the agency's authority and prevent specialized fast lanes and paid prioritization aren't real net neutrality," stated Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron.
"Chairman Wheeler can't wave a wand, change the law, and pretend to break the Internet in two. But these schemes suggest just that: dividing the Internet to protect corporations sending information, but not the people receiving it," Aaron continued.
Free Press also warns that the proposal could face legal challenges.
A new plan on broadband service reportedly being crafted by the Federal Communications Commission head has been criticized by open Internet advocates who say it still fails to deliver real net neutrality.
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday on FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's "hybrid approach," which is partly based on proposals from the Mozilla Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology.
From the Journal:
The plan now under consideration would separate broadband into two distinct services: a retail one, in which consumers would pay broadband providers for Internet access; and a back-end one, in which broadband providers serve as the conduit for websites to distribute content. The FCC would then classify the back-end service as a common carrier, giving the agency the ability to police any deals between content companies and broadband providers.
Free Press, an organization that advocates for media and digital rights, says the plan, while better than the proposal put forth in May, still fails to protect Internet users from so-called "fast lanes."
"This Frankenstein proposal is no treat for Internet users, and they shouldn't be tricked. No matter how you dress it up, any rules that don't clearly restore the agency's authority and prevent specialized fast lanes and paid prioritization aren't real net neutrality," stated Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron.
"Chairman Wheeler can't wave a wand, change the law, and pretend to break the Internet in two. But these schemes suggest just that: dividing the Internet to protect corporations sending information, but not the people receiving it," Aaron continued.
Free Press also warns that the proposal could face legal challenges.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.