Net Neutrality To Be the FCC’s Responsibility? Or Nobody’s Responsibility?

NET NEUTRALITY TO BE FCC'S RESPONSIBILITY? OR NOBODY'S RESPONSIBILITY?
[SOURCE: MediaGeek]
[Commentary] At a telecom industry conference on Tuesday, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said that he thinks the Commission already has the authority to address complaints regarding network neutrality. However Chairman Martin also expressed support for “tiering” broadband packages, allowing providers to charge more for richer content. Yet it doesn't seem clear to me whether Martin is just supporting the idea that a consumer would pay more to get a 10 megabit connection than for a 2 megabit connection, or if he actually supports the ability of AT&T to charge content providers in order to reach households via their Internet connections. He might even support the ability for an ISP to charge consumers a higher price to receive Internet content from providers that haven't struck a deal with that ISP. It’s simply not clear. There’s a crucial difference between these interpretations of “tiering” and because this word is being thrown around so much it’s often difficult to know who’s supporting what. For his part, Martin probably wouldn't mind having Congress give him vague guidelines, so that he isn't responsible for drawing the boundaries and can pass the buck when AT&T starts intruding in a year or two when the heat’s off. Then it'll all probably end up in court where Congress and the Commission can absolve themselves of responsibility altogether.
http://www.mediageek.net/?p=1370

* Battle over Internet fees unsettled
[SOURCE: MarketWatch, AUTHOR: Jeffry Bartash]
Big phone companies appear to have blunted efforts in Congress to enshrine controversial "Net neutrality" principles into law, at least for now, but the issue is unlikely to go away.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BBE056ECE%2D06A8%2D4B87%2D8671%2D20FE28C7934D%7D&dist=newsfinder&siteid=mktw&;=