tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post6249258262420996092..comments2023-07-27T04:31:05.930-07:00Comments on ortizfeliciano: Controversia sobre el internet: una decisión judicial y posibles implicaciones...Roberto Ortiz-Felicianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10712890752942849773noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-9388489222516428782010-04-10T20:04:43.766-07:002010-04-10T20:04:43.766-07:00A federal appeals court this week ruled that the F...A federal appeals court this week ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cannot require broadband service providers to treat all lawful Internet content equally. The decision rendered the FCC unable to enforce "network neutrality," the principle that Internet users have the right to use applications and access and transmit data of their choice free of discrimination by network providers. <br /><br />The ruling came in Comcast v. FCC, in which the nation's largest cable company challenged the FCC's authority to enforce net neutrality after Comcast was discovered to have been disrupting operation of the software program BitTorrent independently of any network congestion. Specifically, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that under Title I of the Communications Act, the FCC cannot stop Internet providers from giving preferential treatment to the Internet content or applications of their choice by, for example, allowing some content to reach customers speedily while slowing down or even blocking other data. <br /><br />In 2005, the FCC decided to regulate the Internet as an "information service" under Title I of the Communications Act, allowing broadband providers to pick and choose which services and information to transmit. That same year, the ACLU argued in the Brand X Supreme Court case that broadband providers should be regulated under Title II, which would protect against discrimination. While this week's ruling found that the FCC had exceeded its authority under Title I, the FCC can still choose to regulate network providers under Title II. <br /><br />http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/court-limits-fccs-ability-stop-broadband-providers-discriminating-against-internet-conteACLU Comments On Internet Freedom and Innovation at Riskhttp://www.aclupr.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-83171077861041119292010-04-07T05:52:44.592-07:002010-04-07T05:52:44.592-07:00Queeee???? Eso faltaba malditas multinacionales de...Queeee???? Eso faltaba malditas multinacionales de mierda... Gracias amigoMadeline Rivera Felicianonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-78911698188959861062010-04-06T23:33:21.738-07:002010-04-06T23:33:21.738-07:00Tuesday’s appeals court ruling against the Federal...Tuesday’s appeals court ruling against the Federal Communications Commission on the issue of net neutrality is complicated to most people, but to Steve Westly – a cleantech venture capitalist who formerly served as controller for the state of California and who helped take fledgling Web marketplace EBay Inc. public once upon a time – the issue is clear. The court’s ruling, which essentially gives Internet service providers like Comcast the right to slow or block service for some users, will strangle job growth, Westly said. He talked to VentureWire not long after the ruling.<br />Q: A lot of investors like you have been lobbying for net neutrality. Today’s ruling is a setback. Is there a next step for proponents of this initiative?<br />A: There will be a next step. Congress should advocate for this. Congress should give [FCC Chairman Julius] Genachowski the tools he needs to implement net neutrality. Silicon Valley is strongly lobbying for it. But it’s not just Silicon Valley that wants this. It’s really the mom-and-pop vendors all over the country that use the Internet to do business. The nation’s future job growth dependent on quick access to the Internet.<br />Q: Why should average people be concerned about net neutrality?<br />A: The punch line here is job growth. There are more people who need access to the Internet to do business than you would ever imagine. Genachowski understands where the job growth comes from. Is it the agriculture industry? Is it the smokestack industry? No, it’s the Internet industry. Every industry we know uses the Internet to sell their products. And this demands ‘big pipes.’<br />Q: So, if this ruling stands, what will it mean for small businesses in this country?<br />A: What certain companies like Comcast want to do is say, “Pay extra, or you get the slow pipe.” This is like saying, ‘You must commute to work, but you can’t take the freeway, you have to take the slow road. It will cost you $300 to take the freeway.” This would be a tragedy for our nation’s future, for Internet service providers to tell you that you can’t use the big lane that goes fast, but the little lane that goes slowly.<br />Q: Do you expect Congress to work to reverse this ruling?<br />A: I absolutely expect that to happen. This is something the President wants. It’s something the Democratically controlled Congress wants. People get that net neutrality means job growth, so the people want it. I think after November, we’ll see a fascinating vote - a gut-check vote for a lot of people. There will be a lot of entities weighing in heavily. But it will happen after the elections. This will be a top priority for next year. There will be a broad coalition.<br />Q: What other thoughts do you have on net neutrality?<br />A: Here is an anecdote. I am really proud that EBay, which I was a part of, now employes 18,000 people. What’s more impressive is that it enables three quarters of a million people to make a full-time living selling on EBay. It’s their livelihood. These people are uploading pictures and selling products every day. Forcing these people into the slow lane will stifle business, not just in Silicon Valley but all over the country.<br /><br />http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2010/04/06/why-net-neutrality-ruling-is-a-tragedy-for-small-businesses/Why Net Neutrality Ruling Is A ‘Tragedy’ For Small Businesseshttp://blogs.wsj.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-62883783523170958442010-04-06T21:37:40.830-07:002010-04-06T21:37:40.830-07:00Interesante Pachi tengo que leer las recomendacion...Interesante Pachi tengo que leer las recomendaciones...Edris Idrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-72457696995413309812010-04-06T21:36:48.234-07:002010-04-06T21:36:48.234-07:00Responderé por que he leído algo del tema. La Unió...Responderé por que he leído algo del tema. La Unión Europea ha criticado a los USA por el excesivo control que tiene sobre la Internet. De hacho han conversado entre ellos sobre la necesidad de su propio sistema.Miliciano Libertarionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-72838666293516788882010-04-06T21:09:32.068-07:002010-04-06T21:09:32.068-07:00Sí, de acuerdo contigo de que se trata del derecho...Sí, de acuerdo contigo de que se trata del derecho a la libre expresión, pero cómo se manifiesta y por qué vias se transmite es otra. Hay un interés público que regula el "cómo" que no necesariamente tiene que manifestarse inquisitorialmente, sino protegiendo esa misma expresión y el cómo se ejercita ese derecho. Es un tema muy complejo al que hay que dedicarle tiempo. Originalmente pensaba que la Internet era la utopía, pero poco a poco, leyendo a Lessing y a Benkler, el panorama se esclarece desde un punto de vista histórico (la historia de la radio, los orígenes de la Internet en Sylicon Valley, etc.). Tengo que leer todos esos links incluidos en tu mensaje.Aurea Maria Sotomayor Milettinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-88632683905731019322010-04-06T20:29:48.251-07:002010-04-06T20:29:48.251-07:00Es una interrogante muy interesante y amplia.., po...Es una interrogante muy interesante y amplia.., por un lado conferir poder regulatorio a un agencia sobre algo que por esencia es un derecho de expresión es crear un mecanismo de censura o inquisitorial, por otro lado las famosas fuerzas del mercado libre tienden (por ser proveedores con intereses particulares) a permitir que ocurran acciones igual de control de contenido mediante el bloqueo de opciones (como vemos que ocurre en China y desgraciadamente en Cuba) entonces eel asunto a resolver es muy complicado porque hay que promover el acceso libre (lease gratis) que tal vez sea la unica manera de garantizar que no existan controles o censuras, claro el problema espectacular es que las corporaciones suplidoras se ganan una demencia de dinero vendiendo aire o llamadas de telefono glorificadas y van a hacer lo que sea por tal que no le maten la gallinita de oro... es en terminos de historias paralelas como cuando con la llegada de la imprenta comercial se plantea la libertad de imprenta a lo que hubo una resistencia masiva de las clases gobernantes y la Iglesia Catolica...Roberto Ortiz-Felicianohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10712890752942849773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-1854656237848124082010-04-06T20:29:18.174-07:002010-04-06T20:29:18.174-07:00Gracias, Roberto. Esta información hay que leerla ...Gracias, Roberto. Esta información hay que leerla con detenimiento. Me parece que la pregunta se relaciona con cómo regular un servicio informativo de interés colectivo sin que sean los intereses económicos quienes dicten los principios de dichas normas y qué papel le toca al tribunal en esa regulación.Aurea Maria Sotomayor Milettinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-26386044360243248732010-04-06T19:58:45.505-07:002010-04-06T19:58:45.505-07:00EXCELENTE ESCRITO PACHI!!!EXCELENTE ESCRITO PACHI!!!Cesar Rosado Ramosnoreply@blogger.com