Net Neutrality: How Open-Internet Activists Won Big

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
BY KEITH WAGSTAFF

After protests, millions of comments and support from President Obama, open-Internet activists scored a major victory on Thursday when the Federal Communications Commission approved net neutrality rules.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler called it a "red-letter day for Internet freedom" as the regulatory agency voted 3-2 to treat broadband providers as "common carriers" under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. That means that cable and Internet providers will be treated more like public utilities — think power and gas companies — than Internet firms like Google or Facebook.

"A year ago, nobody thought these Title II net neutrality rules were a remote possibility," Evan Greer, campaign director for Fight for the Future, an open Internet advocacy group, told NBC News. "I even sat across from an FCC commissioner who told me outright that it was never going to happen in this political environment."

It did happen. Opponents of the rules say it gives the FCC too much power, while net neutrality supporters claim it's necessary to stop broadband providers like Verizon and Comcast from favoring certain sources of Internet traffic, especially those that pay more for faster speeds. (Comcast is the parent company of NBCUniversal and NBC News.)

It's a wonky, technical debate that wasn't on most people's radar a few years ago. So how did that change?

How net neutrality gained steam

When "Last Week Tonight" with John Oliver aired on June 1, 2014, the prospects for net neutrality looked dim. Verizon had notched a major legal victory and the FCC was approving a plan to consider letting broadband providers charge Web companies for priority service or "fast lanes," as open-Internet advocates framed it.

The term "net neutrality" was coined back in 2003 by Columbia law professor Tim Wu. A year before, the FCC had classified broadband providers as "information services." The commission's logic was that the providers not only transmitted data — like a utility — but also processed data by providing email addresses and other Web services.

In 2010, the FCC passed net neutrality rules that weren't as broad as activists would have liked, but that still limited broadband providers' ability to block and favor certain kinds of traffic. The next year, Verizon sued the FCC, saying it didn't have to the authority to regulate information services like that. A federal appeals court agreed and ruled in favor of Verizon in January 2014.

That is when momentum began to seriously build for net neutrality. Before, it was mostly Internet activists who were raising a fuss.

"A lot of companies were afraid of speaking out," Marvin Ammori, a tech laywer who has represented companies like Google and Tumblr, told NBC News.

"They thought there would never be net neutrality," he said. "They thought there would be retaliation and they would never end up in the fast lane."

Lawmakers in Washington, he said, didn't want to push for net neutrality rules without the backing of Web companies. When the FCC considered allowing "fast lanes," many of those companies decided to openly advocate for net neutrality laws. Etsy, an online marketplace where crafters sell their wares, was one of them.

"That was something that really concerned us," Althea Erickson, Etsy's policy director, told NBC News about the FCC proposal. "It was a no-brainer for us to get involved."

Around the same time Etsy spoke out for net neutrality, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings urged politicians to take on the cause. Fight for the Future gained press attention for a protest called "Occupy the FCC" outside of the agency's headquarters.

Then came John Oliver's video, which went viral on YouTube. It currently has more than 8 million views. When the FCC opened its proposal up to public comment, more than 4 million people responded. In November, President Obama pushed Wheeler to adopt net neutrality rules, which increased pressure on the FCC to act. (Wheeler was appointed by Obama as FCC chairman in 2013.)

Activists stressed that they had been rallying people around the cause of net neutrality long before Oliver and Obama brought it to the broader public's attention.

"We knew this issue inside and out," Ammori said. "When people said 'John Oliver is wrong about X,' we could say 'no,' and tell them why."

Greer said a campaign organized by his group, Fight for the Future, was responsible for spurring 770,000 comments to the FCC in a single day. He hopes that the FCC's decision is seen not as the White House's work, but the result of grassroots activity.

"This was organized by activists, a ragtag group of young people hunched over their laptops, working all over the country," he said. "This is a victory that belongs to the people, not Netflix, not the FCC, not President Obama."

Not everyone agrees. Barry Keating, a finance professor at the University of Notre Dame, simply sees the financial interests of Web companies beating out those of broadband providers, creating a "price-fixing arrangement" that will stifle innovation.

"I think the reason that it's so popular at the grassroots level is because of the word 'neutrality,' which equates to the word 'equality' to some people," Keating told NBC News. "Everyone will be treated the same, but that just means everyone will be treated poorly."

Opponents of net neutrality still have hope. Congress could pass legislation undercutting the FCC vote and broadband companies can still file lawsuits.

For now, however, net neutrality advocates are feeling pretty good.

"Our job was to take a term like net neutrality, which a year ago was pretty obscure, and make it something that everyone in the country was talking about," Greer said. "This is a huge, unprecedented victory."
 

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,733
More govt. intervention and an FCC takeover. In the long run this will be bad.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
More govt. intervention and an FCC takeover. In the long run this will be bad.
The problem started when a bunch of local governments set up little exclusive territories for ISPs in the first place. The internet has to be regulated because a good percentage of the country has no choice or very little choice in who their ISP is. If we were dealing with a free market environment, any ISP who wanted to resort to extortion (threatening to slow Netflix etc to dial-up speeds) to make extra cash would go out of business when everyone switched to another provider. Also, if people had a choice, companies with the worst customer service in the USA (Comcast) would lose all of their subscribers.

Government intervention isn't necessary when the free market can make consumer needs, but when state and local government has limited the free market it's up to the feds to regulate it.

It would be better if they just overturned a lot of the little kickback-dependent deals that have held US internet service below the level of most of the civilized world, but hopefully this is a step in the direction of doing just that.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
Yeah, this wouldn't even be necessary if their was competition.

Take my shitty cable co. for example. Only broadband choice in the area. I used to have no problem with them, but now they have put at 250 GB soft cap on my service. Every 50 GB extra is another $10 per month. Everyone who streams HD porn or Netflix or youtube knows 250 GB isn't a lot.

Cable co knows they have you over the barrel with this. Can't say fuck you, I'll go somewhere else with no cap or a better cap because there is no one, just an ancient land line telephone service with shitty DSL.

Motherfuckers do this so you will still buy their goddamn TV channel bundles that no one fucking wants anymore.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Yeah, this wouldn't even be necessary if their was competition.

Take my shitty cable co. for example. Only broadband choice in the area. I used to have no problem with them, but now they have put at 250 GB soft cap on my service. Every 50 GB extra is another $10 per month. Everyone who streams HD porn or Netflix or youtube knows 250 GB isn't a lot.

Cable co knows they have you over the barrel with this. Can't say fuck you, I'll go somewhere else with no cap or a better cap because there is no one, just an ancient land line telephone service with shitty DSL.

Motherfuckers do this so you will still buy their goddamn TV channel bundles that no one fucking wants anymore.
Yeah, Texas doesn't have any of that nonsense. It's smaller markets like WV that really suffer.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,731
Wasn't this a win?

Why is anyone bitching?
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Wasn't this a win?

Why is anyone bitching?
Forts is bitching because the Republican party got lobbied heavily by Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon to protect their interests and screw consumers and that's enough to make him think Obama is making the internet Muslim.
 

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,733
Actually

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/

Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality?
Comment Now Follow Comments

If you watch the news, it seems just about everyone is in favor of “Net Neutrality” legislation. Despite being a tech-addicted entrepreneur, I am not. No, I am not a paid shill for the cable industry. I am no fan of Comcast or any other ISP I’ve ever had the “pleasure” of dealing with. I’m skeptical of large corporations generally and dislike the fact that in this debate I appear to be on their side. While I have no problem with net neutrality as a principle or concept, I have serious concerns about Net Neutrality as legislation or public policy. And since a false dichotomy is being perpetuated by the media in regards to this matter, I feel an obligation to put forth a third point of view. In taking this stand, I realize I may be the only techie, if I can aspire to that label, opposed to Net Neutrality and that I open myself to accusations of killing the dreams of young entrepreneurs, wrecking free speech, and destroying the Internet. Nevertheless, here are three reasons I’m against Net Neutrality legislation.

I Want More Competition

Proponents of Net Neutrality say the telecoms have too much power. I agree. Everyone seems to agree that monopolies are bad and competition is good, and just like you, I would like to see more competition. But if monopolies are bad, why should we trust the U.S. government, the largest, most powerful monopoly in the world? We’re talking about the same organization that spent an amount equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs to build a health care website that doesn’t work, the same organization that can’t keep the country’s bridges from falling down, and the same organization that spends 320 times what private industry spends to send a rocket into space. Think of an industry that has major problems. Public schools? Health care? How about higher education, student loans, housing, banking, physical infrastructure, immigration, the space program, the military, the police, or the post office? What do all these industries and/or organizations have in common? They are all heavily regulated or controlled by the government. On the other hand we see that where deregulation has occurred, innovation has bloomed, such as with telephony services. Do you think we’d all be walking around with smartphones today if the government still ran the phone system?

The U.S. government has shown time after time that it is ineffective at managing much of anything. This is by design. The Founders intentionally created a government that was slow, inefficient, and plagued by gridlock, because they knew the greatest danger to individual freedom came from a government that could move quickly–too quickly for the people to react in time to protect themselves. If we value our freedom, we need government to be slow. But if government is slow, we shouldn’t rely on it to provide us with products and services we want in a timely manner at a high level of quality. The telecoms may be bad, but everything that makes them bad is what the government is by definition. Can we put “bad” and “worse” together and end up with “better”?


I don’t like how much power the telecoms have. But the reason they’re big and powerful isn’t because there is a lack of government regulation, but because of it. Government regulations are written by large corporate interests which collude with officials in government. The image of government being full of people on a mission to protect the little guy from predatory corporate behemoths is an illusion fostered by politicians and corporate interests alike. Many, if not most, government regulations are the product of crony capitalism designed to prevent small entrepreneurs from becoming real threats to large corporations. If Net Neutrality comes to pass how can we trust it will not be written in a way that will make it harder for new companies to offer Internet services? If anything, we’re likely to end up even more beholden to the large telecoms than before. Of course at this point the politicians will tell us if they hadn’t stepped in that things would be even worse.


If the telecoms are forced to compete in a truly free market, Comcast and Time Warner won’t exist 10 years from now. They’ll be replaced by options that give us better service at a lower price. Some of these new options may depend on being able to take advantage of the very freedom to charge more for certain types of Internet traffic that Net Neutrality seeks to eliminate. If we want to break up the large telecoms through increased competition we need to eliminate regulations that act as barriers to entry in the space, rather than create more of them.

I Want More Privacy

Free speech cannot exist without privacy, and the U.S. government has been shown to be unworthy of guarding the privacy of its citizens. Only the latest revelation of many, Glenn Greenwald’s new book No Place To Hide reveals that the U.S. government tampers with Internet routers during the manufacturing process to aid it’s spying programs. Is this the organization we trust to take even more control of the Internet? Should we believe that under Net Neutrality the government will trust the telecoms to police themselves? The government will need to verify, at a technical level, whether the telecoms are treating data as they should. Don’t be surprised if that means the government says it needs to be able to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic. Once installed, can we trust this government, or any government, to use that access in a benign manner?

While privacy and freedom of speech may not be foremost on your mind today because you like who is running the government right now, remember that government control tends to swing back and forth. How will you feel about the government having increased control of the Internet when Republicans own the House and Senate and Jeb Bush is elected President, all at the same time?

I Want More Freedom

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. – James Madison, The Federalist No. 51

Many of us see the U.S. government as a benevolent and all-knowing parent with the best interests of you and me, its children, at heart. I see the U.S. government as a dangerous tyrant, influenced by large corporate interests, seeking to control everyone and everything. Perhaps these diverging perspectives on the nature of the U.S. government are what account for a majority of the debate between proponents and opponents of Net Neutrality. If I believed the U.S. government was omniscient, had only good intentions, and that those intentions would never change, I would be in favor of Net Neutrality and more. But it wasn’t all that long ago that FDR was locking up U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps and Woodrow Wilson was outlawing political dissent. More recently we’ve seen the U.S. government fight unjust wars, topple elected democracies, and otherwise interfere in world affairs. We’ve seen the same government execute its own citizens in violation of Fifth Amendment rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Simply put–I don’t trust the U.S. government. Nor do I trust any other government, even if “my team” wins the election. I see any increase in regulation, however well-intentioned, however beneficial to me today, as leading to less freedom for me and society in the long term. For this reason those who rose up against SOPA and PIPA a few years ago should be equally opposed to Net Neutrality.

What Instead?


Internet bandwidth is, at least currently, a finite resource and has to be allocated somehow. We can let politicians decide, or we can let you and me decide by leaving it up to the free market. If we choose politicians, we will see the Internet become another mismanaged public monopoly, subject to political whims and increased scrutiny from our friends at the NSA. If we leave it up to the free market we will, in time, receive more of what we want at a lower price. It may not be a perfect process, but it will be better than the alternative.

Free markets deal exceptionally well in the process of “creative destruction” economist Joseph Shumpeter championed as the mode by which society raises its standard of living. Although any progress is not without its impediments and free markets aren’t an instant panacea, even U2’s Bono embraced the fact entrepreneurial capitalism does more to eradicate poverty than foreign aid. Especially in the area of technology, government regulation has little, if any place. Governments cannot move fast enough to effectively regulate technology companies because by the time they move, the technology has changed and the debate is irrelevant. Does anyone remember the antitrust cases against Microsoft because of the Internet Explorer browser? The worse services provided by the large telecoms are, the more incentive there will be for entrepreneurs to create new technologies. Five years from now a new satellite technology may emerge that makes fiber obsolete, and we’ll all be getting wireless terabit downloads from space directly to our smartphones, anywhere in the world, for $5/month. Unrealistic? Just think what someone would have said in 1994 if you had tried to explain to them everything you can do today on an iPhone, and at what price.

Update 6 February, 2015: Today, it was revealed by FCC commissioner Ajit Pai that the proposed Net Neutrality plan the FCC is considering is 332 pages long. It will not be released to the public until after the FCC has voted. Pai claims this regulation will give “the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.”
 

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,733
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/11/13/net-neutrality-is-a-bad-idea-supported-by-poor-analogies/

Net Neutrality Is A Bad Idea Supported By Poor Analogies
Comment Now Follow Comments

President Barack Obama took the time this week to pressure the Federal Communication Commission (a technically independent government agency) to issue a set of net neutrality rules that he favors. Many others with a vested interest in equal internet access for all are also joining in the game of lobbying the FCC for their preferred solution. However, all the noise and poor analogies being used cannot make the proposed net neutrality rules a good idea. Rather, it is just another attempt at government control and enforced equality in a realm where that makes little sense.

Net neutrality seems like a simple concept: the company that links your computer/tablet/smartphone to the internet should not be able to discriminate among users and providers in the level of connectivity service provided. That is, we should all be able to send and receive the same number of bits of data per second.

This is a bad idea for the same reason that only having vanilla ice cream for sale is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different. Forcing a one-size-fits-all solution on the Internet stifles innovation by blocking some companies from turning new ideas or business models into successful products.

President Obama was quoted in his statement as saying that “We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.” Yet, oddly enough, President Obama is happy to pick winners and losers in the marketplace for energy services and ideas where he is working hard to make offshore drilling, coal, and shale oil losers while attempting to turn solar, wind, and other renewables into winners. He has similarly interfered in the auto market, both by spending billions to avoid Chrysler and GM from becoming losers and by forcing auto manufacturers to meet gas mileage standards which eliminate many possible car choices from the marketplace.


The last thing we should want is President Obama or a government agency picking winners and losers on the Internet. And enforcing net neutrality is picking winners and losers even if it looks like it is just “leveling the playing field.” He may think it is not, but it completely blocks certain business models and stops any possible innovation that might emerge if given the option of seeking differential access to bandwidth.

The key point that President Obama has missed along with all the rabid supporters of net neutrality is that ISPs and the companies that control the Internet backbone infrastructure that knits everything together do not have the power to pick winners and losers either. Consumers decide what products and services are successful because we adopt them. If an ISP blocks Netflix NFLX -1.68% because of the bandwidth it requires, consumers who want Netflix will take their business elsewhere. If enough people do so, the ISP will have to change policies or go out of business.

As the former chief economist for the FCC, Thomas Hazlett, pointed out this week in Time, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter TWTR -2.69%, LinkedIn LNKD -1.31% (and many, many more success stories of innovation) all emerged without the benefit of net neutrality. In the time when the government might have been ensuring a level playing field for the Internet pipe into our homes, smartphones and mobile devices completely changed how most people connect to and use the Internet.

The problem with government regulation of the Internet is that by the time the government studies how it works and what is needed, technology has moved on. Who believes that the government can write a regulation that will still fit the bill in three years when none of us know what the dominant formats, companies, and technology will be that far in advance? Given that the FCC has been proposing net neutrality rules for a decade with little success, why would we expect a change anytime soon?

Also, we need to stop the poor analogies about net neutrality. Neil Irwin, in The New York Times, says it is like deciding whether Internet connections should be like electricity or cable television. His idea is that we all get the same electric service (net neutrality), but can pay for different levels of cable tv. Yet, in many places people pay for different electric service. In California (and other places), customers can get a lower rate if they agree to let the electric utility turn off their air conditioner during peak usage hours.
 

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,733
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/25/technology/net-neutrality-fcc/

On Thursday, the FCC approved new rules that -- depending on which side you believe -- either ensure a fair Internet or smother it with unnecessary regulation.
The FCC's vote allows it to assert extra authority over the Internet to establish net neutrality. It's like equal opportunity for Internet speeds and access to websites. No unfair fast/slow lanes. No blocking of legal services on your phone, computer or tablet.

But hold off on celebrating or gasping in despair.
In reality, the world won't look any different on Friday -- or anytime soon. The biggest hopes and fears about regulators won't materialize. Netflix won't suddenly stream any faster for you. AT&T (T, Tech30) and Comcast (CMCSA) won't abruptly stop laying down high-speed fiber cables and investing in their networks as retaliation. And Netflix can still cut deals with broadband companies for faster access to a network.
Instead, the FCC rules won't be official until maybe summertime, and major telecom companies will challenge them in court. A long fight will follow that might stretch all the way until the next presidential administration.
And if a Republican wins the 2016 presidential election, then this could all fizzle away, and we're back at square one: a country without strong net neutrality rules.
Experts on both sides of this heated debate see this as a long fight that started long ago and isn't ending anytime soon.
Still, it's worth a quick recap over the two vastly different versions of this debate.
The pro-FCC regulation side demands strong net neutrality rules. AOL (AOL, Tech30), Facebook (FB, Tech30), Netflix (NFLX, Tech30), Twitter (TWTR, Tech30), Vimeo and every other major Internet company is on this list.
They create the content you read and watch online, and they don't want to face discrimination by network owners who can threaten to charge higher fees or slow them down.
To them, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's proposed rules sound promising. For example, Verizon can't block Google Wallet on your smartphone, like it did in 2011. Your phone carrier can't block tethering apps, which turn your phone into an Internet hotspot for your laptop or tablet. AT&T can't block video chatting apps like FaceTime or Google Hangouts. And Comcast can't slow down file-sharing websites, like it did to BitTorrent a few years ago.
The anti-FCC regulation side doesn't want additional rules, because the situations cited above were already resolved with the existing rules. AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable (TWC), Verizon (VZ, Tech30) and other Internet service providers are on this side.
They own the networks and fear price controls. Fearing a bad business environment, AT&T has threatened to pause investment in its infrastructure.
Their big gripe with the FCC is that the agency will regulate Internet providers by scooping them up under Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications Act, a specific set of regulations that apply to phone companies. Telecoms say the rules don't match the services they provide. They don't trust the FCC's promise that it will apply only a tiny fraction of those rules.
So, for now, forget all this talk about the freedom of the Internet. This is going to be a long, boring fight about whether the FCC has the authority to regulate the Internet the way it wants to.
As Robert M. McDowell, a former FCC commissioner turned telecom lawyer in Washington, D.C. notes: "The Internet has thrived in the absence of net neutrality rules, thank you very much."
Republicans in Congress tried and failed to block the FCC from voting on the new regulations. But Congress itself is largely to blame for the new regulations. The only reason the FCC is getting creative with the rules is because the old ones don't work well with our new world of Internet-enabled mobile devices and data-heavy video streaming websites.
Congress could, theoretically, step in and establish rules about Internet fairness. Even the anti-regulation folks are for that.
But given the poisonous atmosphere on Capitol Hill "it's not a practical alternative" right now, said Former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, a net neutrality supporter now with the populist advocacy group Common Cause.
 

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,733
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mark-davis/2015/02/27/obama-net-neutrality-underhanded-power-grab-is-bad-for-the-internet

Sneaky, Stealthy and Serpentine
The Obama administration forced the FCC's hand on the awful new net neutrality rules.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler waits for a hearing at the FCC Dec. 11, 2014, in Washington, D.C.
Just following orders

By Mark W. Davis Feb. 27, 2015 | 5:45 p.m. EST + More
Imagine you’re the citizen of a medieval town in which you find the local rules to be troublesome. So you say to yourself, “Someone really needs to do something … Wait a minute! I’ve got an idea! I’ll open the gates and let in the Mongols. That’ll really shake things up.”

Yes, good idea. That will show the powers that be. Keep saying that to yourself as the archers on their warhorses rush across the drawbridge.

This, in effect, is what telecom and social media firms supporting net neutrality have done to themselves by securing a Federal Communications Commission vote to regulate the Internet service providers that irritate them. What they have really done is opened the town gates and let in the Mongols. It won’t be too long before every general counsel of every firm connected to the Internet finds himself or herself turned into a human pincushion by complaints and regulatory investigations. And it won’t be long before CEOs of tech and social media companies find themselves spending more money on lobbyists, lawyers and public affairs firms than they spend on research, expansion and innovation.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on President Obama]

Consumers will suffer the most from this power shift. Expect higher broadband prices, reductions in broadband speeds, reduced broadband deployment, less innovation and fewer offerings from fewer competitors.

In case you missed it, the argument over net neutrality is about whether Internet service providers – the companies that bring broadband to your home or mobile device – should be allowed to create fast lanes for proprietary content like games and movies that hog a lot of bandwidth. Supporters of net neutrality say that this could lead to a Balkanization of the Internet. Supporters of the existing rules say that this has not yet happened, consumers would not stand for it, and Internet service providers need to attract the billions of dollars of investment required to broaden and upgrade their networks.

Reasonable people can disagree about that argument. In order to enact these net neutrality rules, however, the FCC did something unreasonable. It took the unprecedented step of declaring these broadband providers to be subject to Title II regulation – the rules invented to govern the Ma Bell monopoly of 80 years ago. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler promises to regulate them lightly. Native Americans can tell you all about such promises from Washington. By turning the Internet into a utility, subject to myriad common carrier rules, there will no end to the gaming, lawyering, suing and politicking that is sure to spread between companies of all sorts.

[GALLERY: Editorial Cartoons on the Democratic Party]

The damage to the legal order, as well as the Internet, is almost as serious. These include the following:

The compromise of regulatory independence: Late last year, President Barack Obama made a statement on net neutrality that amounted to public orders to the FCC to get with the program. While a compliant Wheeler reversed himself on Title II, investigative journalists at The Wall Street Journal reported that the White House ran “an unusual, secretive effort” to force the FCC’s action. Just as Obama used executive actions in an unprecedented fashion on immigration, so too has he now set a precedent by bullying an independent regulatory body into following political orders.
Secretiveness: The FCC rule is the regulatory version of Obamacare – the FCC had to vote for it to find out what’s in it. The 317-page document that will govern this new regime was not released for public comment before the vote (and won’t be released for weeks now). Wheeler refused an invitation to discuss his new regulatory regime before Congress. Obama, who pledged unprecedented transparency, has been sneaky, stealthy and serpentine about the details of his power grab.
Unintended consequences: Wheeler promises regulatory forbearance and a “light touch” – for now. In his dissenting statement, Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai says that the FCC’s move gives it “the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.” It allows the government to determine whether rates are lawful, which ultimately gives it the power to set rates. It will allow the government to slap the “universal service fee” that you now pay on your phone bill onto your broadband bill.
[OPINION: A Net Loss for America]

The FCC plan will apply Title II regulations on small broadband providers that even Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp. will find onerous. No doubt, many will go out of business, reducing competition and service.

The bipartisan consensus reached between President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress allowed the unplanned order of our Internet to blossom and thrive. That Internet is gone. And we have the executives and lobbyists of shortsighted companies to blame. By looking for an advantage here or a carve-out there, they have ended a marvel of spontaneous organization.

Lenin said that “capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Make that digital rope.
 

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,733
It isn't all sunshine a roses like your thinking. It's government regulation and control and we've all seen what good that does. Verizon is already talking about selling their FIOS network which means one less company expanding and improving the internet capability. It gives the govt. the ability to pick and chose the winners in the internet game like they have done in the energy game by the president basically killing the coal industry. This allows them to tax the internet as well beyond what they can touch now because now it is a telecom just like the phone companies. Do you honestly think that won't happen at some point?
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
It isn't all sunshine a roses like your thinking. It's government regulation and control and we've all seen what good that does. Verizon is already talking about selling their FIOS network which means one less company expanding and improving the internet capability. It gives the govt. the ability to pick and chose the winners in the internet game like they have done in the energy game by the president basically killing the coal industry. This allows them to tax the internet as well beyond what they can touch now because now it is a telecom just like the phone companies. Do you honestly think that won't happen at some point?
Do you honestly think that propping up local monopolies and letting them continually lower speeds and regress to dialup capability because they don't want to upgrade or maintain their systems is going to make it better either?

Some federal regulation, like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, is pro capitalism and pro competition. It's necessary to keep segments of the economy (in this case the vital tech sector) from stagnating as lack of competition leads to monopolies becoming as lazy and unproductive as government agencies.

The tech sector is vital to the US economies and IT companies have already been caught colluding to fix wages for programmers. Let them function without competitors and they will collude to push prices up and speeds down until we have the worst and most expensive internet in the first world.
 

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,733
I see benefits to it in the long run and I see potential pitfalls. But,, I don't like that it was agreed upon by 3 of 5 bureaucrats with no one being able to see all the 300+ pages before 3 of the 5 of them passed it. I don't like that it was another "law" implemented without us seeing it or legislators agreeing upon it. I know that isn't always great either, but it's again better than 3 people deciding law for what is basically an entire industry. And, yes, to Jigg's accusation regarding me. Obama has been pushing this thing for a few years now and even doing so in a manner that suggests he may have tried to influence the folk that voted on this. If he's that strongly for it, I have doubts and suspicions because it's him. I do not trust the man or his motivations. The fact that 2 of the 3 were against it should at least give you all pause that there's something not good in it.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
I see benefits to it in the long run and I see potential pitfalls. But,, I don't like that it was agreed upon by 3 of 5 bureaucrats with no one being able to see all the 300+ pages before 3 of the 5 of them passed it. I don't like that it was another "law" implemented without us seeing it or legislators agreeing upon it. I know that isn't always great either, but it's again better than 3 people deciding law for what is basically an entire industry. And, yes, to Jigg's accusation regarding me. Obama has been pushing this thing for a few years now and even doing so in a manner that suggests he may have tried to influence the folk that voted on this. If he's that strongly for it, I have doubts and suspicions because it's him. I do not trust the man or his motivations. The fact that 2 of the 3 were against it should at least give you all pause that there's something not good in it.
I don't like laws being handed out by agencies rather than congress either. I agree with you that it is an illegitimate expropriation of legislative power by bureaucrats. Unfortunately, that's the system that's been settled on by a lazy congress.
 

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,733
I don't like laws being handed out by agencies rather than congress either. I agree with you that it is an illegitimate expropriation of legislative power by bureaucrats. Unfortunately, that's the system that's been settled on by a lazy congress.
And to mention another point to show it was Democratic led, the 3 that voted for it were Democrats, 2 against, not. They've tried twice before to get this pushed through and both time it was declared illegal. This time they reclassified ISPs as utilities to try and get it done. Congress may not have acted because there wasn't a need. So Obama had it done by fiat through a federal agency. I know some here are all about Obama getting his way, but aren't we tired of him going around the Congress or the Constitution to get it done? Maybe for him and his folk the third time is a charm, I hope not. I am the person of no BTW! :towel
 

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,733
http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/26/fcc-votes-innovation-net-neutrality-debate-now-moves-courts-congress/

FCC Votes Against Innovation: Net Neutrality Debate Now Moves to Courts and Congress
James Gattuso / @Jamesgattuso / Michael Sargent / February 26, 2015

Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to place massive “net neutrality” restrictions on America’s Internet providers, in the process redefining them as public utilities.

If the decision stands, it would be a significant blow for the Internet and for its users. The issue is far from settled, however: the FCC’s rules will almost certainly be subject to review in the courts, where their fate is uncertain. Moreover, Congress—the constitutionally-charged body for lawmaking—may also have its say.

Under the new rules, wireless Internet service providers will also be treated as public utilities, facing thousands of regulations.

Network-neutrality regulation—roughly defined as government-imposed rules that force Internet service providers to treat every bit of content on their networks exactly the same way, limiting not just premium service offerings, but also discounts to consumers (such as T-Mobile’s plan to waive data fees for users of certain music services)—has been contentiously debated for over a decade now. Twice during this time, the FCC has tried to impose such rules—in 2005 and again in 2010—and twice it has been rebuffed by the courts, which found the agency lacked authority to act.

Hoping that the third time is the charm, the FCC, led by Chairman Tom Wheeler, proposed yet another set of rules last May. Initially, Wheeler intended to more or less re-adopt the 2010 rules, with minor changes intended to address the problems identified in court.

However, President Barack Obama upped the ante in November urging the FCC to turn Internet access providers into public utilities subject to comprehensive regulation of their activities with potential consequences far beyond net neutrality itself. Today, the three Democratic members of the FCC submitted to Obama’s urging and reclassified wireline Internet service as common carrier service, under Title II of the Communications Act, making them public utilities.

Under the new rules, wireless Internet service providers will also be treated as public utilities, facing thousands of regulations, despite the robust competition and unique technical constraints in wireless markets.

Devised for the static world of monopoly landline telephone service, public utility regulation will be devastating to today’s innovative and competitive Internet. Not only will the imposition of net neutrality rules themselves hurt consumers, but other restrictions triggered by public utility status—as well as billions in possible new taxes—will be similarly costly.

With the FCC’s vote, the battle over how (and whether) the Internet will be regulated by Washington moves to two new but familiar venues. The first is Congress, where members will want to—and arguably have a duty to—have a say. Congress’s options, however, are limited, given the likelihood of a White House veto of any bill that overturns the FCC. There are approaches worth exploring, however, such as attaching a reversal to other must-pass legislation such as an appropriations bill.

Opponents who want to keep the Internet dynamic and free of regulation may have a better chance of success in the courts. The unusually political nature of the decision, and the fact that it reverses previous FCC findings that Internet access is not a public utility, will raise serious questions as the propriety of the FCC’s action today. For wireless Internet service, there are additional hurdles for the FCC—including a specific provision in the Communications Act actually barring the agency from treating wireless data service as a public utility.

Today’s vote is clearly not the end of this long-running debate.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
And to mention another point to show it was Democratic led, the 3 that voted for it were Democrats, 2 against, not. They've tried twice before to get this pushed through and both time it was declared illegal. This time they reclassified ISPs as utilities to try and get it done. Congress may not have acted because there wasn't a need. So Obama had it done by fiat through a federal agency. I know some here are all about Obama getting his way, but aren't we tired of him going around the Congress or the Constitution to get it done? Maybe for him and his folk the third time is a charm, I hope not. I am the person of no BTW! :towel
If congress hadn't wanted these federal agencies to be part of the executive branch, they shouldn't have created them in the first place.
 
Top Bottom