said by Lazlow :

I am glad they are at least looking at how others are/have done. As far as the censorship thing, do not throw out the baby with the bath water.

said by Lazlow :

If you mean ideas about censorship, they already have them. Just look at what New York did with newservers, which essentially spread nation wide.

If you mean in general, I strongly disagree. We need all the ideas we can get.

said by Rob :

Australia and their overzealous firewall - we might as well just consult with China on their broadband plan and setup.

Let me save you the trouble of reading the 185 numbered paragraphs, 310 footnotes, and three appendices, including separate statements from each of the five commissioners: there's nothing to see here, folks.

If the FCC has any authority to regulate broadband access, it comes from what Genachowski calls the agency's "ancillary jurisdiction." But Comcast has already challenged that jurisdiction, in a lawsuit pending in a federal court of appeals. If the FCC loses that case, the proposed rules may come to a quick demise. In arguing against ancillary jurisdiction, Comcast has found a surprising ally: the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The advocacy group--strong supporters of the principles of neutrality--believes that the commission has no authority to issue these rules without sweeping new authority from Congress. Regulating neutrality under ancillary jurisdiction, the EFF worries, is a cure far worse than the disease; a "power grab that would leave the Internet subject to the regulatory whims of the FCC long after Chairman Genachowski leaves his post."

EFF isn't the only surprising voice calling for caution. Microsoft and Yahoo, leading application providers, have both pulled out of a coalition formed to advance Net neutrality, with Microsoft issuing a statement last year that "Network neutrality is a policy avenue the company is no longer pursuing."

Even if the FCC has the power to issue new rules, there are enough exceptions to render them toothless. All the rules are subject to "reasonable network management" by broadband providers, a sensible limitation that is mentioned (though not yet defined) 66 times in the document. Harvard professor and open-network supporter Lawrence Lessig, who told the press that he was "thrilled" with the FCC proposal, has always believed that "broadband providers should be free...to price consumer access to the Internet differently--setting a higher price, for example, for faster or greater access."

Regulating ahead of a market failure makes little sense when, as everyone acknowledges, the underlying technology for access is evolving rapidly and models for making money in Internet provisioning are still in the early stages of development. The risk of non-neutral behavior is significant, but the cost of regulation and the potential for unintended consequences may be higher.

said by ZappaF

But that aside, this article deserves to be mocked, because it ends with the conclusion that the FCC could have solved all these concerns had it just done more to promote broadband over powerline!