Here's your net neutrality!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

EDITORIAL: Wave goodbye to Internet freedom - Washington Times

And with no legislative authority. For you nonbelievers, this is how we get

tyranny. Hell, just flat out take control. The first step was just a mirage

so we could argue about what was going on. I'm sure this will be the same

with some. No, there is not that much content control, yet. I'm sure that's

just a minor detail, though, in the 550 pages with notes attached.

Laugh if you wish, until you see your internet like China's.

[mikegideon]

Here are the perps.

FCC Commissioners: Additional Information

Note that they can't have more than 3 commisioners from any one party. I'm going to wait and see what comes from them. They don't have the power to just write a bunch of rules without checks and balances. In most cases (maybe all), that involves opening any rulemaking process for public comment.

I'm not hearing ANY hysteria about this in the industry... only from your typical "news" douchebags.

Edited December 4, 2010 by mikegideon

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's true, but there was a federal lawsuit that blocked the FCC from doing this kind of thing, earlier.

redState has had a column about this for probably a year now. even the Dems aren't happy with this.

It's doubtful you will hear any hysteria except when it's probably too late.

All I think it will end up causing is a real big showdown in the DC corral over which branch does what,

based on whose authority. It is the attitude and the trend of this administration that bothers me.

Wait until a gun issue finally comes up. I hope he does push one, now. I think the Lame Duck session,

being essentially dead because of the senate, is telling us how he intends to act, and it won't be like

Clinton did.

[mikegideon]

The last thing that ever came close to censorship from the FCC was when Michael Powell was chairman, and they put the zero tolerance, g rated BS hex on broadcasting. It was the FIRST thing the repubs did to get me pissed off.

[Glenn]

You won't see much control at first. Just like the banking regulations, the new food regulations, healthcare, etc, it's all about getting the framework for the new order in place. Once they make their move it will all be over.

Glenn

[leroy]

My guess is that the FCC is about to take a whooping after the first of the year. Lots of times in the past, the way the congress handled rogue bureaus in the executive branch was by having endless hearings, berating the top brass, and de-funding them in a loud, public way. They can do all that in the House now ---HEHEHE.

My guess is that the Tea Party and Libertarians are watching this one pretty closely. I think the fun is just about to begin. I'm sure some Republican polititians are for this malarkey too; but it's dangerous to be "for" this type regulation now. Sadly, for these bureaucrats and sorry polititians, there will be another election in 2012.

This should be fun to watch.

Leroy (...watching...)

[mikegideon]

OK... here's some buzz. Looks like they ARE going to backroom this thing. At that point, it will be up to Congress to fix what they break. I may wind up owing you some beers, Mark.

Ink Tank: FCC Playing With Fire

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I ain't going to say, but I will take a beer or two.

Besides, the FCC already let it out. It is supposed to be a regulation by

around 12/19. If the newly elected Congress doesn't do some serious

slapping back, wait until your internet access has to be approved and

scrutinized by some damned bureaucrat. That will be down the pipeline.

Fairness Doctrine was nothing compared to people like Julius and Mark

at the FCC running your internet.

[mikegideon]

I still don't think complete control is their goal, and not because they're good guys. They can only get away with so much before they get pushback from folks that are more powerful than them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They take their power by incrementalism. They've worked at it for a hundred years or more.

I doubt it matters much to these fools if it takes them another hundred, but I'd like to see

their toes get stumped on this and everything else they try.

If you look at the mortgage crisis and consider its root were back in 1978 during Carter's reign

of foolishness, and the Fed's policies causing bigger and bigger boom and bust cycles. They go

back how long? Almost a hundred years.

[leroy]

All:______________

Take a look at this from PC Magazine:

FCC Broadband Plan Prompts GOP, Industry Backlash

ARTICLE DATE: 06.18.10

By Chloe Albanesius

Thursday's broadband proceeding at the Federal Communications Commission has prompted another congressional challenge.

Shortly after the commission announced a public comment period on its "third way" to regulate broadband, Rep. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, said he would soon introduce a bill that would reform the FCC and guard against unnecessary taxation and regulation of the Internet and other media services.

DeMint's "Consumer Choice Act" is based on a bill he introduced in 2005, which would "reform the FCC into a market-based, antitrust-style framework, using an 'unfair competition' standard" similar to the model at the Federal Trade Commission. It would also require timelines for FCC regulatory decisions and put a five-year expiration date on any regulations, unless the FCC chooses to renew them.

DeMint accused the FCC taking the "first step of an Internet takeover and tax that will harm consumers."

The FCC voted Thursday to open a public comment period on the commission's role in broadband regulation.

The "third way" plan, proposed by Chairman Julius Genachowski in early May, would narrowly reclassify the transmission of data as a telecommunications service that the agency could directly regulate, balanced by a hands-off approach to other aspects.

The move came after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled in April that the FCC had no right to hand down a 2008 enforcement action against Comcast for the alleged blocking of peer-to-peer sites like BitTorrent.

The FCC argued that the Communications Act of 1934 provided the agency with ancillary authority to regulate broadband services; the court disagreed. In an effort to more clearly define the FCC's authority when it comes to broadband, Genachowski proposed this "third way" approach, which would re-classify broadband as a telecommunications service instead of an information service. The agency has asked for input on all approaches, not just its "third way."

On Friday, the House and Senate Energy and Commerce Committees announced that they would hold a series of staff-led stakeholder sessions about communications policies. The first of those meetings will be held on June 25 and will address broadband regulation and FCC authority. Subsequent meetings will touch on spectrum policy as well as broadband adoption and deployment.

DeMint, meanwhile, is not the first member of Congress to react to the FCC's broadband plans with legislation.

In the wake of the FCC's net neutrality proceeding, Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, introduced a bill that would prohibit the FCC from enacting rules that would regulate the Internet. Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee also introduced the Real Stimulus Act of 2009, which would prohibit the FCC from "needlessly imposing regulations on the Internet."

Neither bill made it out of committee.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican, also added an amendment to an Interior Appropriations bill in October that would ban the FCC from spending money to craft and implement regulatory changes. She reportedly backed off those plans, however, after Genachowski reached out, according to the Washington Post.

After the FCC's Thursday vote, Hutchison said in a statement that "the FCC has taken the step forward to create new burdensome regulations that threaten to stifle the growth of America's broadband services" and urged Congress to "move forward on a new path that preserves the openness of the Internet as a platform for innovation and economic growth without expanding the government's regulatory footprint."

More reaction to the FCC's plan from ISPs, meanwhile, trickled in after the vote.

David L. Cohen, executive vice president at Comcast, said he was pleased that the FCC's request for comment considers all options and seems to be narrowly tailored.

"While we remain concerned about unjustified regulation, we are encouraged that the careful balancing the chairman promised in his public statements since first announcing a 'Third Way' has led to a rational next step as all stakeholders continue to work together to keep the Internet ecosystem growing and open," Cohen said.

Verizon, however, did not mince words.

"Reclassifying high-speed broadband Internet service as a telecom service is a terrible idea," Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president for public affairs, policy and communications, said in a statement. "The negative consequences for online users and the Internet ecosystem would be severe and have ramifications for decades. It is difficult to understand why the FCC continues to consider this option."

Tauke urged the FCC to let Congress handle the issue, as did AT&T.

Jim Cicconi, AT&T's senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs, said the vote is "troubling and … unsettling."

"It will create investment uncertainty at a time when certainty is most needed. It will no doubt damage jobs in a period of far-too-high unemployment," Cicconi said. "It will also undermine the FCC's own goals for the National Broadband Plan. A better and more proper approach is for the FCC to defer the question of its legal authority to the US Congress."

Industry associations like the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CTIA, which represents the wireless industry, also expressed concern.

"We see little benefit to changing course and great danger in attempting to shoehorn modern broadband services into a Depression-era regulatory regime without serious collateral effects to investment, employment, and innovation," said NCTA president and CEO Kyle McSlarrow.

"Despite the fact the FCC has heard from more than half of the elected officials in Congress that this approach is wrong, the Commission has chosen to ignore this diverse and bi-partisan group of Senators and Representatives from around the country," CTIA president and CEO Steve Largent said. "Instead, the commission's action is a dangerous solution in search of a non-existent problem."

The plan won support from consumer groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge, which filed the initial complaint against Comcast. Christopher Libertelli, Skype's senior director of government and regulatory affairs, also issued support for "quick action by the FCC."

"Moving forward with a solid legal foundation is critical to promoting investment and consumer choice throughout the Internet ecosystem," he said.

Copyright © 2010 Ziff Davis Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Link here: FCC Broadband Plan Prompts GOP, Industry Backlash | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

I suspect the fireworks are just about to start. I seem to remember both the FCC and other "Bureaus" being slapped by congress when they tried these shennagians in times passed.

Leroy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Free Press and Public Knowledge. Now there's two groups I want on my side. A large dash of sarcasm added.

I've seen stuff on C/Net, Wired, EFF, and a lot more on this over the last year. The first ones to

talk loudest were the users like them. They know what will hurt their industry. Some end user that

thinks this action or a bill like it will give them something for nothing, is already an Obot liberal and

can't think too much, anyway.

[leroy]

I understand; but i believe this one will get lots of traction in the next congress. It will probably be an issue of "doing the right thing for the wrong reason". The politicos well know that everyone is watching them and waiting for them to start dismantling everything that Nobama has (...and wants to...) do. This will be a good place to start; because the internet doesn't need regulating, and they well know it.

Ray Charles (...if he was still down here upon the earth among us...) can see that this is a move to bring internet news media under government control under the guise of "making things fair". You, me, and others know that is 'baloney" and so do lots of other folks. I see this as a test for the polititians that survived the 2010 campaign. If they do the wrong thing, they will be out; and i like that. The political class should be mindful and even afraid of the voter. Let's keep watching and not loose heart, this one ought to be interesting.

Keep up the good work!

Leroy

[JayC]

Lets be clear, the FCC is not trying to make things fair... The soon to be proposed regulation is an attempt to set rules for government backed monopolies. It's a band-aide of the first order.. The real solution is to get rid of the monopolies and the government backing... but until that happens, some regulation of these government created monsters is needed...

Exactly how many broadband ISPs do you have access to? 2 at most? 1 government regulated and backed telephone company, and 1 government backed, and regulated cable company? The FCC isn't messing with a free market, they're settings rules to prevent these monopolies from abusing their status as monopolies... Nothing more...

Just because a couple of left leaning (ok lso far left they're upside down) groups are supporting this proposal doesn't make it wrong... there are PLENTY of groups on the right who also support this regulation, including many right leaning Christian groups...

Just last week Comcast got caught trying to play games with bandwidth for all of it's customers... Without regulation like this, they'll be allowed to abuse their monopoly/duopoly and it will end the Internet as we know it just as fast.

I understand; but i believe this one will get lots of traction in the next congress. It will probably be an issue of "doing the right thing for the wrong reason". The politicos well know that everyone is watching them and waiting for them to start dismantling everything that Nobama has (...and wants to...) do. This will be a good place to start; because the internet doesn't need regulating, and they well know it.

Ray Charles (...if he was still down here upon the earth among us...) can see that this is a move to bring internet news media under government control under the guise of "making things fair". You, me, and others know that is 'baloney" and so do lots of other folks. I see this as a test for the polititians that survived the 2010 campaign. If they do the wrong thing, they will be out; and i like that. The political class should be mindful and even afraid of the voter. Let's keep watching and not loose heart, this one ought to be interesting.

Keep up the good work!

Leroy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Which christian group are you mentioning? I thought they all left. There were quite a few groups

supporting "Net Neutrality" when they didn't understand what it was.

I doubt this has anything to do with monopolies. It has more to do with control over, eventually,

content. A federal court has already ruled that the FCC can't act like this without legislative authority.

This is coming from the Obama administration control playbook. They know they are breaking the

law. Obama is trying to emulate China or Venezuela. He wants the monopoly.

[mikegideon]

Which christian group are you mentioning? I thought they all left. There were quite a few groups

supporting "Net Neutrality" when they didn't understand what it was.

I doubt this has anything to do with monopolies. It has more to do with control over, eventually,

content. A federal court has already ruled that the FCC can't act like this without legislative authority.

This is coming from the Obama administration control playbook. They know they are breaking the

law. Obama is trying to emulate China or Venezuela. He wants the monopoly.

Christmas is almost here, and I almost forgot to order that aluminum hat I promised . The Commission doesn't give a rat's ass about controlling content. They know (and have for decades) that it would be their demise. There's a lot more to all of this than what's being dicussed here, or in the various trade pubs.

I'm not suggesting we trust the government, but we need to realize that the Internet is doing a lot more than moving porn and providing stolen music. More and more infrastructure uses pieces of the internet. For example, the new CAP emergency alerting system will use the internet. When it's all said and done, the FCC will be given the power to keep the vital stuff flowing.

[leroy]

Jay:___________

I dont believe for a moment that any regulation, no matter how winsome and alleged to be upright is appropriate for communication and opinion. The FCC is, in fact, a government regulatory agency. The emphasis is on "regulatory"--- without anything to regulate, there is no need for more "regulators". More than that, the net doesnt need "regulation". Regulation in the communications industry is a cash cow for the government and a chance to meddle in the affairs of "government regulated monopolies" by ultimately controlling content and service. We can quibble about whether we need "government regulated monopolies"; but that's a side issue . By the way, i worked for a "regulated monopoly"; the electric utility industry for thirty eight years. That gives a bit of insight into the "benefits" of regulation and the "calling in of favors" to regulators.

I will grant that we can quibble about the "benefits" of the "technical" portion of this regulation; but i believe that's a side issue too. An issue designed to drag folks off into the bushes with a "red herring" issue that some folks will applaud. I believe the real issue is the issue of "regulating content", "regulating speech", and demanding "equal time for opposing views" just like the FCC (...and many polititians...) would like to see with the radio and video broadcast industry. The "technical improvements" are simply a bone to be thrown to the foolish.

The "regulated monopoly" thing is a red herring in itself, but we are saddled with it. I see on no problem with both the telephone and cable industry being "regulated" thru the mechanism of the free market; but they wont be because the government already has their hooks into these industries thru the "regulated monopoly" doctrine for the "public good" (...which, by the way, i find laughable; it sounds like the old soviet "collective good" to me, and it benefits the government thru fees for regulation and largess to pass out to politicos who sit on government regulatory boards...). The only "public good" that i can see from this is that the politicos get a job and the government gets to collect fees.

The real looser in this deal is you and me, the average citizen.

The fact is, this whole move is 'red meat' move calculated to stir up Nobama's base with a move toward regulating speech. I predict that if left alone, the courts will do it in anyway; because the effect of some of the regulation will be to stifle political speech and thus nullify the First Amendment; my guess is that wont happen.

The real test for the "political class" is to oppose this idiotic move. I frmly believe that the folks in this country are watching those who survived the election of 2010 very closely. I do not believe that any politico's survival of the election of 2010 or the one coming up in 2012 is a validation of the continuation of "business as usual" in Washington. I believe that they will be voted out if they dont oppose increased regulation (...and that's what this is, along with the long term goal of regulating political speech, which some politicos on both sides of the aisle (...read that incumbents...) like...), they will be seen as part of the problem rather than a part of the solution and thrown out; and that's ok with me.

You may like the old ways of "regulating for the public good", i dont; and i think that lots of other folks dont like 'em either.

Leroy

Edited December 7, 2010 by leroy
spelling!!!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Christmas is almost here, and I almost forgot to order that aluminum hat I promised . The Commission doesn't give a rat's ass about controlling content. They know (and have for decades) that it would be their demise. There's a lot more to all of this than what's being dicussed here, or in the various trade pubs.

I'm not suggesting we trust the government, but we need to realize that the Internet is doing a lot more than moving porn and providing stolen music. More and more infrastructure uses pieces of the internet. For example, the new CAP emergency alerting system will use the internet. When it's all said and done, the FCC will be given the power to keep the vital stuff flowing.

That aluminum hat will go good with a beer. You will eat those words, Mike. They are on record:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/free-internet-a-civil-right-for-every-nappy-headed-child-fcc-commissioner-clyburn/

I realize Beck found this, but the content isn't his. It's a little lengthy,but

it makes a point. The commissioner wants "free internet" to be a civil right.

Laughable, but it couldn't happen unless a lot of other things happened first.

And don't forget Mark Lloyd, at the FCC, wants our internet to be like

Venezuela.

Hmm, what's this?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/power-grab-fcc-commissioner-calls-for-gov-run-%E2%80%9Cvalues-test%E2%80%9D-control-over-minority-characters-programming-scheduling-of-tv/

[mikegideon]

Sure. I'll bring beer with the hat. I think it will help

[JayC]

Ler5oy,

Have you READ the 2009 proposed regulation from the FCC? I have... and no where does it regulate content, speech, or require equal time for opposing views...

Here is a copy of the 2009 proposed regulation, which should be 99% the same as the soon to be announced regulation...

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2009/10/fcc-09-93a1.pdf

To save you the long boring read here are the highlights of the regulation:

1. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet.

2. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice.

3. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network.

4. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.

5. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.

6. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this part.

Wow, really looking like a communist proposal doesn't it?

To put this in terms you can understand...

A electric utility has announced that starting in 2011 they will only allow black and decker power tools to be used on their power grid from now on... And the government regulator saying, nope you can't do that, customers can use any device as long as it doesn't harm the power grid.

And before you say, no power company would ever do something like that... in this case telephone/cable companies have been caught violating everyone of the above rules the FCC is proposing, and in many cases lying to their customers about it at the same time.

I'm always against government regulation of free markets... and the best idea here is to break up these monopolies, and duopolies... Until that happens, basic rules preventing these monopolies from abusing that government granted position, is required.

When and if the FCC attempts to regulate content or impose the fairness doctrine on the Internet I'll be standing next to you screaming bloody murder... but in this case people have it all wrong... read the regulation, and see for yourself.

Jay:___________

I dont believe for a moment that any regulation, no matter how winsome and alleged to be upright is appropriate for communication and opinion. The FCC is, in fact, a government regulatory agency. The emphasis is on "regulatory"--- without anything to regulate, there is no need for more "regulators". More than that, the net doesnt need "regulation". Regulation in the communications industry is a cash cow for the government and a chance to meddle in the affairs of "government regulated monopolies" by ultimately controlling content and service. We can quibble about whether we need "government regulated monopolies"; but that's a side issue . By the way, i worked for a "regulated monopoly"; the electric utility industry for thirty eight years. That gives a bit of insight into the "benefits" of regulation and the "calling in of favors" to regulators.

I will grant that we can quibble about the "benefits" of the "technical" portion of this regulation; but i believe that's a side issue too. An issue designed to drag folks off into the bushes with a "red herring" issue that some folks will applaud. I believe the real issue is the issue of "regulating content", "regulating speech", and demanding "equal time for opposing views" just like the FCC (...and many polititians...) would like to see with the radio and video broadcast industry. The "technical improvements" are simply a bone to be thrown to the foolish.

The "regulated monopoly" thing is a red herring in itself, but we are saddled with it. I see on no problem with both the telephone and cable industry being "regulated" thru the mechanism of the free market; but they wont be because the government already has their hooks into these industries thru the "regulated monopoly" doctrine for the "public good" (...which, by the way, i find laughable; it sounds like the old soviet "collective good" to me, and it benefits the government thru fees for regulation and largess to pass out to politicos who sit on government regulatory boards...). The only "public good" that i can see from this is that the politicos get a job and the government gets to collect fees.

The real looser in this deal is you and me, the average citizen.

The fact is, this whole move is 'red meat' move calculated to stir up Nobama's base with a move toward regulating speech. I predict that if left alone, the courts will do it in anyway; because the effect of some of the regulation will be to stifle political speech and thus nullify the First Amendment; my guess is that wont happen.

The real test for the "political class" is to oppose this idiotic move. I frmly believe that the folks in this country are watching those who survived the election of 2010 very closely. I do not believe that any politico's survival of the election of 2010 or the one coming up in 2012 is a validation of the continuation of "business as usual" in Washington. I believe that they will be voted out if they dont oppose increased regulation (...and that's what this is, along with the long term goal of regulating political speech, which some politicos on both sides of the aisle (...read that incumbents...) like...), they will be seen as part of the problem rather than a part of the solution and thrown out; and that's ok with me.

You may like the old ways of "regulating for the public good", i dont; and i think that lots of other folks dont like 'em either.

Leroy

[leroy]

Jay:___________

I dont need to "...read the regulation for myself...". and, by the way, "...i can understand the terms real well myself..." I dont need your (..or anyone else's...) "summary assessment" of rules for complete comprehension of this malarkey. If you are against regulation; that means you are against regulation. We've got too many regulations now. No proposed regulation,"...no matter how winsome and and alleged to be upright..." suits me. If ya want regulation; vote for it. I aint goin to do that. I'm sure that the regulators will welcome you recommendation to accept the proposed new rules.

I wont give mine. Remember, there will be another election in 2012; that means that there may be a shake up in the FCC.

Leroy

Edited December 8, 2010 by leroy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I can think of several insects they need to put the Raid to.

That proposed 2009 reg is so full of loopholes it's worthless.

"Subject to".

[JayC]

Leroy,

If you don't bother to read the proposed regulation, how do you know the regulation is bad?

The tyranny of large corporations controlling information is just as bad if not worse than the tyranny of the government doing the same... at least in theory the courts will intervene with the government.

The threat of blocking this regulation is much greater to the free flow of information, than allowing it to go forward. Nobody is going to allow the cable and telephone companies to be dismantled... and until then they need to be caged...

Jay:___________

I dont need to "...read the regulation for myself...". and, by the way, "...i can understand the terms real well myself..." I dont need your (..or anyone else's...) "summary assessment" of rules for complete comprehension of this malarkey. If you are against regulation; that means you are against regulation. We've got too many regulations now. No proposed regulation,"...no matter how winsome and and alleged to be upright..." suits me. If ya want regulation; vote for it. I aint goin to do that. I'm sure that the regulators will welcome you recommendation to accept the proposed new rules.

I wont give mine. Remember, there will be another election in 2012; that means that there may be a shake up in the FCC.

Leroy

[JayC]

I can think of several insects they need to put the Raid to.

That proposed 2009 reg is so full of loopholes it's worthless.

"Subject to".

I agree completely... much to watered down... supposedly the 2010 will include wireless broadband providers (ie cellphone companies) which somehow got themselves a pass in the 2009 regulation... even though they are some of the worse offenders of a free and open Internet.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

But JayC, there's no such thing and there never will be a free and open internet. People

invest in companies that provide innovation and technology to make the internet what it

already is, and will continue to do this. If the government tries to regulate this, it will only

hurt performance and stifle competition.

'and all those chillins won't get their free internet', like that silly progressive FCC commissioner

says they will.

A federal judge has already said no to this stuff, and it will be a nonstarter.

This is all politics to shut down the right minded talk shows and to censor everything else!

Fairness Doctrine in a new wrapping just in time for Christmas.