Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Hausfeld LLP Files Class Action Over Guitar Prices | Main | Long Wait Ends for Sentencing Commission Nominee »

October 22, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e20120a6144656970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference FCC Proposes Rules of the Road for the Internet:

Comments

Margaret

RE: "It is timely and fitting to set out the new rule making."

No, it's not.

RE: "What's more, its fitting and necessary that communications companies become boiler rooms of collaborative innovation."

No, it isn't. And furthermore "collaborative innovation" is academic jargon for "doing something together that would be better left to doing something in competition." What it really means is "no free market" which in fact is the *best* way to achieve innovation, not through forced "collabortion" [sic] by the State.

RE: "In some ways that takes disruptive transformation from tight control to acceptance of a shared role."

Well . . . the "disruptive transformation" [more code speak] actually moves from the free market *to* "tight control" by the State. And "shared role" is yet more code for "less free market competition and more State intervention and collectivism."

RE: "Furthermore, what is necessary is what society compels to fulfill its needs within cognizance of human rights."

Uh . . . it's "necessary" for society to "compel" corporations to "fulfill its needs"?

How about we allow the free market to "fulfill our needs"?

Bob Syputa

As a private citizen, I think Meridith Baker is relying on vested interest cliches.

The FCC has fundamental right to regulate free and open access that stems from the monopoly grant to use spectrum in the public interest.

Pursuant to that, the evolution of wireless technology has become inseparable to unified communications that must work in harmony with all IP communications.

Furthermore, all broadband communications media is rapidly innovating and unleashing productivity as part of ICT Cloud environments.

Moreover, market pressures are complimentary to a revision of the FCC basic rules:

AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile concede in several areas including open VoIP because the battle for cash flows is driven by consumer preference for open applications and content.

Other analysts have suggested that, therefore, the market is sufficient to ensure enterprise in the public interest. That may well be what emerges but if redundant enforcement will not be cumbersome or even necessary.

It is timely and fitting to set out the new rule making. What's more, its fitting and necessary that communications companies become boiler rooms of collaborative innovation. In some ways that takes disruptive transformation from tight control to acceptance of a shared role.

Furthermore, what is necessary is what society compels to fulfill its needs within cognizance of human rights.

-Robert Syputa
Maravedis
cloud4g
green4g

Calvin Witcher

Sounds like the Telco's have been investing in squeezing control and access, thus a promotion in openess would indeed mean a disruption their "investment". Perhaps the Telco's might want to focus investments in an open internet versus a closed/fee-based internet.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements