Net Neutrality: What Does The FCC Vote Really Mean?
Scola does mine four important points, however, from the 3-2 vote.
First, and perhaps most importantly, no one really knows exactly what was approved. The document that FCC approved was reported to be 90 pages long but has yet to be public.
Second, the key issue of how broadband will be regulated remains very “fuzzy.” And unfortunately so as the mushrooming proliferation of smartphones makes this crucial for the coming years.
Third, FCC chair Julian Genachowski seemed genuinely irked that there were so many loud and contending factions in this debate. And, writes Scola, he also seemed to take “genuine satisfaction” in angering all these factions – both to his right and left.
Fourth, it looks like there is no longer a debate about whether or not their will be corporate influence over the net, but rather just how much:
Genachowski has taken hits for kowtowing to the big telecom providers throughout this whole process. And, for sure, some of the provisions in this proposal do seem designed to be responsive to industry worries that don't seem to have actually been justified in the record. But looking at this whole debate, it starts to look much bigger than Genachowski, and much like we've reached the point to where any sort of meaningful incursion onto the corporate right to influence and even dominate the Internet would seem like a downright radical act of political bravery. That's a reality of the U.S. communications landscape, circa 2010. That we're debating just how powerful a say telecom company's should have over how the Internet works is a sign of how the Internet has, as a medium, shifted since its earlier days.