The US Federal Communications Commission, which has the power to set the rules for internet use in the US, issued a ruling which administered the latest kick to the hornets' nest.
In an admirably succinct summary, my
Guardian colleague Charles Arthur puts it thus: the FCC "seems to have done the right thing – defending neutrality – for fixed-line broadband, but fumbled it on mobile". This is because the proposed rules "seem to allow mobile carriers to decide that they can introduce pay-per-service charges, so that Skype or YouTube or Facebook might be charged to get their content on to the networks; alternatively (or perhaps additionally), users who wanted those services might find themselves being charged extra. That, obviously, means that those services are not being treated in a 'neutral' way. Which means that you don't have net neutrality."
Or, to put in another way, the FCC seems to have endorsed net neutrality for the past (fixed-line internet connections) while abandoning it for the future.
Does this matter? Yes, because while most people still get their internet connections via fixed-line broadband, the likelihood is that in 10 years' time a majority will access the net via wireless connections. And if the FCC ruling stands, the wireless sphere will be anything but neutral. It will be dominated by the carriers – the telcos – who see no merit in neutrality.
Source: The Observer
Innlegg
