FCC Lays Out Potential New Rules For The Open Internet; No Discrimination And Transparency Are Key
- As expected, the FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski laid out the agency's plans this morning for new rules that will prevent telecom companies from discriminating what kind of traffic or applications run over wired or wireless networks.
In a lengthy speech at The Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy organization based in DC, Genachowski detailed two new potential rules with the goal of "preserving the openness and freedom of the Internet." The rules would join four principles that were adopted back in 2005. The fifth principle is about "non-discrimination," meaning that networks can't discriminate against particular internet content or applications. The sixth principle is about "transparency," meaning that providers will have to be open about their network management practices. The agency has set up the site, www.openinternet.gov, to discuss these issues. A full transcript of the chairman's speech can be found here.
The Chairman kicked off the speech with a number of very sentimental childhood moments that made what otherwise could be a policy debate resonate better with consumers. But otherwise, the controversial "net neutrality" issue stretches way back and pits internet providers, like Comcast (NSDQ: CMCSA), AT&T (NYSE: T), and more recently wireless providers, like Sprint (NYSE: S) and T-Mobile, against internet companies, like Google (NSDQ: GOOG) and Skype, which want unrestricted access to consumers. Meanwhile, the network providers wince at the cost of supporting unrestricted access, especially as people consume richer content at unparalleled rates.
Genachowski said he will ask the other commissioners to support the principles and issue a "proposed rulemaking," which will provide more details and explanation. The goal is to develop a national broadband plan by Feb. 17, 2010, as requested by Congress. Genachowski: "This is not about government regulation of the Internet. It's about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet. We will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity, and entrepreneurial activity."
In his speech, Genachowski did a good job of outlining the reasons why there is a lot at stake. "We've already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet's historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications (phone calls delivered over data networks) and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen at least one service provider deny users access to political content."
Currently, the FCC is investigating why the Google Voice application was not allowed on Apple's iPhone, which runs on the AT&T network. In responses to the FCC, Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) denied that it rejected the application and said it was still reviewing it, while Google claims that Apple rejected. Initial speculation pegged AT&T as the culprit, but it denies and Apple confirms, that it played a role in the decision. A federal appeals court is also reviewing the FCC's citation last year of Comcast for throttling certain high-bandwidth video connections. Comcast and others have argued that the FCC didn't have legal standing to issue the punishment, the WSJ reports.
In particular, wireless operators say some restrictions are necessary because bandwidth-hogging apps can degrade the quality of service for others. Genachowski was clear in saying that all roads to the internet must be regulated, but provided this caveat: "how the principles apply may differ depending on the access platform or technology. The rulemaking process will enable the Commission to analyze fully the implications of the principles for mobile network architectures and practices—and how, as a practical matter, they can be fairly and appropriately implemented."
The new principles expand upon the four rules already in place, which can be summarized as preventing network operators from blocking access to lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.
Related Stories
Tricia Duryee Sep 21, 2009 12:44 PM ET
Photo: AP Photo/Harry Hamburg
You must have Power to Stop Discrimination
Sunday, 20th September 2009
Academic Politics © Jose Antonio Sánchez Reyes | Dreamstime.com This is a piece on gender inequity and sexual discrimination (not sexual harassment, which is a different and emotionally more devastating thing). I'm writing this at this time not because of any one thing that's happened, but because of a culmination of things. Sometimes it just seems like a topic is in the air, building momentum, and this topic has finally found a voice in me. This post had three different triggers. The first was a bad moment I had last semester, when I found out a student in my Physics for Engineers class was making sexually harassing comments on a regular basis. The second trigger came from confronting numbers and statists on women in physics and astronomy for a pair of talks at Dragon*Con. And the third trigger was this little gem posted by Rebecca Watson on Twitter under the heading "Sexual Assault Prevention Tips (A must-read! Pls RT and save someone from being raped)" Sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and rape all share one rather awful thing in common: They occur when one person or group is able to act in a hurtful way to another person or group without anyone stopping what's going on. This does not have to be men against women: I've seen barns filled with middle-aged women swarm on the lone equestrian male, doing everything from landing the friendly slap on the ass, to cat calling him in his riding attire. It also doesn't have to be purposely hurtful: I've watched as male grad students, at the beginning of the semester and before social groups have formed, thoughtlessly walk around asking all the other men if they want to head out [for lunch / to go to the gym /to get a drink] while they left the women behind. Sometimes people in power don't even realize what's going on as they do it – the sexual discrimination that happened to women at MIT is an example of this: Over years women weren't given the same job advantages as men, and it was entirely without thought. When the problem was pointed out, measures were taken to fix the problem. (This study is mentioned in the forthcoming National Academies report, "Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty." ) And here is where I'm going to ask all of you to listen to me really closely: Anytime anyone with the power to help is aware of any form of discrimination and they do nothing to fix it, they are just as much to blame as the perpetrators. Throughout my adult life I have over and over had some well-meaning man watch me get frustrated in some work situation or academic situation, and they've said with the intention of comforting me: "It's not you, he's an [expletive] to all women." Okay, nice try. I appreciate the attempt, but… Could you maybe offer a girl a little help? I want to be clear: If you are in a position of power, and you see a problem, telling the victim they are being victimized is not a solution. Finding a way to stop the perpetrator is the only a solution. This is not a matter of men against women. This can be in either direction with gender. It can be racial. It can be religious in nature. And in academia it can even take the form of Large Prestigious University Researchers discriminating against small college researchers. Let me return to those 3 triggers above as talking points. Trigger 1: Male student making sexually harassing comments – I have never been so angry in my life, and as the professor of the class I grabbed my syllabus, found the line that says, "Loud and disruptive students are not welcome. If you disturb your classmates, you will be kicked out!" and made it clear that I would wield that line of my syllabus if even one word of sexually loaded speech was uttered, and that the student – any student with harassing language – would not only be kicked out of my class for the rest of the semester and fail, but I'd report them to the dean of students. Then I moved back onto discussing physics. The students behaved (all the way through the end of the semester in fact!), but at the end of class a tough as nails, takes no shit from anyone, women came up and commended me for what I had done, but then she said it's all kind of useless as long as there are professors making sexually explicit jokes in single gender dominated classes. All I could do was say, I'm sorry, I can't help you, that prof has tenure and I'm just someone living grant to grant. All I can say is you need to report it on your evaluations or go to a chair or dean." Every university has its 1 or more faculty member who say the wrong things, crossing the wrong lines, sometimes just to get a laugh. But as long as that 1 (or more) person exists, the problem exists. And here, I have to be very careful what I say because I know this is a dangerous post to write. The people I work with now I may have to work with for the rest of my life – academia is a very small culture, and with our very limited resources, emotions run high and grudges are held for decades. But I want to say this nonetheless: We as a field need a better way for addressing these problems so junior faculty like me don't have to tell students – "I'm sorry, I can't help you" because I'm too afraid for my own job. I have known about problems at every institution I've been at and I haven't felt comfortable reporting them because I know that if I reported every problem a student reports to me it would put my situation in jeopardy. We need a better way to report problems. Right now, a student must report the problem to a person in power (all men in my areas of expertise – I don't count as someone with power. If they report it to me, I can report it to the chair or dean, but then have to produce the student), and if it is another student victimizing them, they may have to confront that student face-to-face in the university judicial system. If it is a faculty member, it is likely half the university will know who reported what very rapidly (never trust an academic with a secret). We're all told everything is in confidence, but we've also all had that one gossipy tenured senior person (often from another department) let us in on the past 10 years of sexual misdeeds. This means the accuser – the victim – will face extensive scrutiny and the potential of becoming the bunt of lunch time laughter (a form of additional harassment) while they wait and hope for the academic judicial system to help them out. We need a better way to handle problems and keep people safe. I don't know what the solution is. I wish I did. I just know we need something better. Trigger 2: The depressing numbers – Let's face it, the situation is bleak. Go read the two reports I summarize here. These numbers tell me one simple thing: A lot of women are leaving science for a lot of undocumented reasons. People only go into things like physics and astronomy for 1 reason: Love. They love the field or they love the challenge. They weren't seeking fame or fortune. Like the impoverished poet, they self-selected to bleed themselves into their work. Both men and women with into physics/astronomy out of love, but women have preferentially left behind the field or challenge for undocumented reasons. I know I personally left the field once out of frustration, and one element of that frustration was knowing I'd never be part of the old boys club (which I then learned also existed in other fields). Trigger 3: The one certain way to prevent rape is to get rid of the rapers – The topic of this post isn't rape, but the idea still applies. In the case of gender discrimination by men on women, I as a woman can do all I want to try and avoid harassment, but at the end of the day, I can be as cautious and uncontroversial as I want (or don't want), but the choice to be discriminated against based on my gender isn't a choice I get to make – it is a decision made by others. The only thing that can stop men from harassing women is for men to step forward and say enough is enough. (The same is true if you reverse the genders, or change this to a case of religious, race, or other discrimination.) Always – it must be other members of the group in power who step forward and stand up for the people being victimized. This was true during the civil rights movement, for instance. And here is the challenge I want to put out there: If you are a man and ever feel the need to pull a woman aside and say "It's not you, it's because you're a woman," I want you to act on that need, and then I want you to report to the proper authorities what is going on. Be an advocate. Stand up for someone who may not be able to stand up for themselves. You have the power to change things. And if anyone ever tells you, "It's not you, they are like that to all [women / minorities / Christians / Jews / gays / etc]," look at that person and tell them, "If I fight this, I could lose my job and be labeled a trouble maker. If you report this, they'll listen. Will you help? Will you report what you've witnessed to the appropriate authorities and prevent this from happening again? Will you help me?" And here is my challenge to bloggers who are better satirists than I am: Can you take the piece from Feminally that Rebecca twittered and rewrite it as a "How to prevent discrimination" ? I will gladly post any really good versions here as a featured story. Be safe. Be good. And if you have power, help someone without it. Report: Discrimination Complaints against Government Slightly Up
Astronomy
People
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released its Annual Report on the Federal Work Force for Fiscal Year 2008, which shows small increases in discrimination complaint filings against federal agencies and an average complaint processing time government-wide.
The report informs and advises the president and Congress on the state of equal employment opportunity throughout the federal government each year. Data in the report, available online at www.eeoc.gov/federal/fsp2008/index.html, are presented both in individual agency profiles and in government-wide aggregate form.
According to the report, 16,752 complaints alleging employment discrimination were filed against the federal government in FY 2008--up 2.4 percent from the prior year. EEO complaints were filed against agencies on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability, and reprisal. Pre-complaint counseling and alternative dispute resolution programs addressed many employee concerns before they resulted in formal EEO complaints. Of the 38,898 instances of counseling in FY 2008, more than half did not result in a formal complaint being filed.
Agencies completed a total of 11,157 EEO complaint investigations in FY 2008 with an average processing time of 180 days, an increase of four days from FY 2007. Of the 7,538 cases closed on the merits, 2.5 percent resulted in findings of unlawful discrimination. In addition, the parties entered into settlements in 3,249 complaints, or 19.5 percent of the total complaint closures. Agencies paid out a total of more than $50 million in monetary benefits to complainants (including appellate decisions).
"Federal agencies must step up their efforts to improve complaint processing time, while also focusing on quality results," said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. "The Commission continues to assist agencies in creating model EEO programs and implementing best practices to promote an inclusive, discrimination-free federal workplace."
The federal government is the nation's largest employer with nearly 2.7 million employees across the country and around the world in FY 2008. EEOC notes that over the past decade, there have been subtle changes in the composition of the federal work force, one of the most diverse in the nation. Overall, the participation rates of women, Hispanic or Latinos, and Asians have slightly increased; however, the number of people with targeted disabilities continues to decline and remains below 1 percent of the total work force.
Women break glass ceiling but office discrimination continues
By Lorna Duckworth Social Affairs Correspondent
Thursday, 20 September 2001
sponsored links:
The number of women securing jobs as senior managers and directors has risen sharply in the past decade, according to research released today.
The number of women securing jobs as senior managers and directors has risen sharply in the past decade, according to research released today.
Many women executives are now the main breadwinner at home, the report for the Institute of Management said. But while the "old boy's network" is in decline, nearly half of all women still encounter serious discrimination at work. Women now hold 25 per cent of all management jobs, compared with only 9 per cent at the start of the 1990s. Women fill 10 per cent of boardroom posts, which is five times more than a decade ago.
The rise of women means that 41 per cent of female executives living with a partner, now bring home the main salary, and a further 33 per cent are joint breadwinners.
But one-third of women believe their organisation pays female managers less than men and 47 per cent of women managers think their company discriminates against women in promoting staff.
Up to 35 per cent of women believe their career paths have been obstructed by an "old boy's network", although this has dropped from 42 per cent in 1992 and most women now think the hindrance is in decline.
That is partly thanks to the high-profile examples of successful women who have broken through the executive glass ceiling. Women such as Ffion Hague, whose six-figure salary as a headhunter at Leonard Hull International easily outstrips her husband's from the Tory back benches. Or Katherine Garrett-Cox, aged 33, who was recently promoted to chief investment officer at Aberdeen Asset Management, where she oversees a £29bn portfolio.
Out of the survey of 1,509 women managers, some 26 per cent cited a female manager as an inspiration, compared with 16 per cent a decade ago, and more than half of women now aspire to a board-level position. Mary Chapman, director general of the institute, welcomed the unprecedented numbers of female executives. But she added: "Many women still perceive unacceptable levels of discrimination in pay and promotion.
"Organisations need to tackle these issues head on with transparent reward and promotion procedures, based on ability and achievement," she said.
While nine out of 10 women now work full time, they are still juggling a host of commitments. Nearly half of female managers have children and most women still take the main responsibility for running the home.
The problems of combining work and home mean that 27 per cent of the respondents said that family commitments posed a career barrier – a big rise from 17 per cent a decade ago.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario