Internet is becoming a major tool of communication channel in contemporary society, but little regulation exists to protect users of the media from potential abuse by network providers.
The F.C.C. was attempting to increase the reach of broadband Internet to all corners of the country and to promote more competition among internet providers through its broadband plan. This month, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia announced that the Federal Communications Commission “didn’t have the authority to regulate the Internet — and specifically, could not force the cable giant Comcast to stop blocking peer-to-peer sites.” (New York Times page A22, April 19, 2010).
F.C.C. Chairman Julius Genachowski said an appeal to the court decision is not on the commission’s agenda, but it is considering other options. Now, the F.C.C. may have to rely on Congress to give the F.C.C. specific authority to regulate broadband access—or, to ignore the court decision altogether.
There is, however, other ways in which F.C.C. could try to convince the court that it is a legitimate regulator for the industry. New York Times editor wrote:
“Fortunately, the commission has the tools to fix this problem. It can reverse the Bush administration’s predictably antiregulatory decision to define broadband Internet access as an information service, like Google or Amazon, over which it has little regulatory power. Instead, it can define broadband as a communications service, like a phone company, over which the commission has indisputable authority.” (New York Times page A22, April 19, 2010).
Many internet users around the United States may have already noticed that only a small number of broadband access providers (in many areas, there is only one provider) are available, making the F.C.C.’s role to step in as a regulatory authority seem furthermore pressing.
To read the entire editorial, please click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment