Verizon Communications Inc. Chairman Ivan Seidenberg on Wednesday had some harsh words for the Federal Communications Commission a day ahead of its planned vote on open Internet rules, adding to what has become a fever pitch of public debate over the proposal.
Given the level of sturm and drang over the FCC’s proposed net-neutrality rules over the past week, it might be a little hard to believe the FCC hasn’t even released its proposal yet. The earliest anyone outside of the agency will see the FCC’s 50-ish page proposal is Thursday.
AT&T’s top lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, sent a letter to all of the telecom giant’s 300,000 employees on Sunday, urging them to express their concerns over a net neutrality proposal under consideration by the Federal Communications Commission.
In the long fight over open Internet, or net neutrality, rules on Internet providers, we’re still essentially in pre-game.
You’d never know it from the flurry of lobbying across the country last week.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is proposing that the agency apply tougher open-Internet rules broadly, raising concerns of cable and phone companies and some lawmakers that the government could try to control efforts to offer products such as digital cable or premium business services.
Internet-service providers may be worried about the Federal Communications Commission’s net-neutrality guidelines, but the analysts who cover them?
Not so much. In recent days, more than one has referred to the proposed rules as “a solution in search of a problem.”
The junior Senator from Minnesota, Al Franken, asked a decidedly unfunny question Wednesday afternoon when it was his turn to quiz Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor.
Franken turned to the contentious issue of net neutrality, or rules that would require cable and phone companies to treat legal Internet traffic equally and would prevent the creation of a two-tiered system that would allow speedier deliver of premium services.
It’s sometimes quite amusing to watch how various economic ecosystems grow, where multiple companies have symbiotic relationships, and then start to freak out when they think that other companies in the ecosystem are somehow earning “too much.” That, of course, is at the heart of many recent battles we’ve seen.
If there’s any one thing that stands to determine the future of news brands, it is the current debate in Washington over net neutrality legislation. Why is net neutrality so important?
It is the building block of the abundance-based economy on the Internet.
The digital Disneyland of the future–where we freely work and play online–may be at risk. Why? Because, some argue, broadband carriers can’t support it. The Internet’s “free ride” culture has led to more people downloading gigabytes of data at practically no cost.
If you thought that federal regulators were upset at Comcast’s throttling of BitTorrent, wait until they start scrutinizing what wireless providers are doing.
Service providers argue that if net neutrality is not enforced, they will have sufficient incentives to build special high-quality channels that will take the Internet to the next level of its evolution.
Comcast Corp. rightfully received a smackdown from the Federal Communications Commission last week for not telling customers that it was blocking some of them from using peer-to-peer services to download videos and other content off the Internet.
The Federal Communications Commission’s order last Friday in the Comcast-BitTorrent dispute should help ensure that today’s broadband networks remain open platforms to the Internet. But more broadly, the recent attention on Comcast–and on Time Warner’s recently launched trial of “consumption-based billing”–raises the question: what is a reasonable approach for broadband networks to manage their Internet [...]
Americans today spend almost as much on bandwidth–the capacity to move information–as we do on energy. Just as the industrial revolution depended on oil and other energy sources, the information revolution is fueled by bandwidth. If we aren’t careful, we’re going to repeat the history of the oil industry by creating a bandwidth cartel.
This is a section of the All Things Digital Web site featuring posts from around the Web, from other Dow Jones properties and also original pieces we solicit. The section is now explicitly labeled that it comes "from other Web sites."
We are fully aware of the controversies around how linking and aggregating is done on the Web and we, in no way, are attempting to "scrape" original content created by others. Instead, regarding third-party posts, we are trying to point readers of this site to other posts from around the Web that we admire and are trying to do so in the quickest manner possible.
The Internet is full of terrific content that is not ours and we want to help our readers find it by making editorial suggestions--Look, Mom, no algorithm!--of posts we think are worth their time.
That is why we have made even more changes to Voices to ensure we do this in the most transparent and timely way. While we don't expect that everyone will agree with our policies, we have made changes that reflect our intent in pointing to content outside our site.
So here is exactly what we do: Read more »
Because the site is wholly owned by Dow Jones, publisher of The Wall Street Journal, we aim to adhere to the journalistic standards of the best of the mainstream media. But, because it is run autonomously as a small online startup, we aim to exhibit the fresh thinking and nimbleness of the best of the new media. We want to be first, and sassy, but also well sourced and accurate. We will offer lots of opinion and analysis, but plenty of fact as well.
D is unlike any other executive conference. Since its debut in 2003, D has brought to life the energy and excitement of the digital revolution in an unscripted, upfront and unparalleled way. Read more »
Don't miss a post! Sign up for our Daily Email and get AllThingsD.com delivered each day.
Get columns, blogs and video from D and All Things Digital on your iPhone. Download now »
