FCC moving forward on net neutrality rulemaking process (govt control of Internet)

The Hill ^ | 10/22/2009 | Kim Hart

[markomalley]

The Federal Communications Commission today opened a proceeding to consider net neutrality rules, the culmination of contentious lobbying by the telecom industry and an intense exchange of letters from members of Congress.

With a 3-2 vote along party lines, the five-member panel began the process to move forward with open-Internet regulations announced last month by the agency's chairman, Juilus Genachowski. His proposal would formally codify the FCC's current four principles intended to prevent Internet service providers from giving preferential treatment to certain content and services and therefore deciding which applications consumers have access to. He also proposed two additional principles, one to ensure providers do not discriminate between applications and another to require Internet companies to disclose their network management practices to consumers.

[markomalley]

The Internet version of the "fairness doctrine"

[Biggirl]

Something that will not survived a court challenge.

[Buckeye McFrog]

WWWLD?

[dalebert]

there goes the last of our freedom

[Biggirl]

Please translate “WWWLD”,THANKS!

[maine-iac7]

ping

[wastedyears]

I know this will pass.

[newfreep]

Just like ahmanutjob’s Iran

[SlowBoat407]

This post under review by the Net Neutrality Board to ensure appropriateness of content.

[Scythian]

there goes the last of our freedom

Your statement above is in conflict with FCC 2309.1.3 please restate or be fined ...

[CodeToad]

The Internet is a private communication medium. What authority does the federal government have in its content? If they try to apply interstate trade, hell, they could say that about anything and everything.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Democrats are the opposite of freedom.

[east1234]

They are communists. They need to be permanently removed from power.

[Gritty]

Something that will not survived a court challenge.

Wishful thinking.

We said the same thing about the McCain/Feingold Censorship, er, Campaign Finance Law.

[Blogger]

now you’re catching on

[NonValueAdded]

intended to prevent Internet service providers from giving preferential treatment to certain content and services and therefore deciding which applications consumers have access to.

Seems counter-intuitive. Some traffic is time-sensitive (critical?) such as streaming video while other traffic is low priority and small delays degrades the service not one whit (spam comes to mind). By denying ISP's the ability to optimize for time-critical app traffic, the one-size-fits-all treatment would in fact "deny" via poor quality access to any packet delivery sensitive app.

So much for video teleconferencing helping to "green the planet" saving all those business travel carbon credits. Ah! The gubermint is in the business of selling those credits.

[Biggirl]

That is why I have said it will not survive a court challenge.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

If they try to apply interstate trade, hell, they could say that about anything and everything.

They do. And will.

[P-Marlowe]

Something that will not survived a court challenge.

Like campaign finance laws.

[Jeff Head]

OBAMA IS A MARXIST IDEOLOGUE

[mysterio]

Never thought I'd see posters here defending the MSM's efforts to shut out sites like FR and similar startups sites by getting preferential treatment through bandwidth.

Wake up, folks. The current net is a neutral net. Net neutrality keeps the net the way it is. Without neutrality, there's a good chance sites like this will be crawling slow as a snail, if you're allowed to access it at all.

[Canedawg]

I'm adding a view of the White Hut here to keep this thread fair and balanced.

[Semper911]

So the Great Firewall of China will now be extended into North America. God help us.

[steve-b]

Some traffic is time-sensitive (critical?) such as content sold by the government-monopoly ISP while other traffic is low priority such as content sold by free-market competitors to the government-monopoly ISP.

Fixed it for you.

[ClayinVA]

calm down folks, this is just putting the Internet back to the way it was before all of the Big Money people got into it. This is a stopping of the walled garden type Internet like AOL that AT&T and the cable companies want to do. Please go look at the Techy sites about this and relax.

[The Duke]

One wonders exactly what layer of the OSI model they are proposing to regulate(?)

Why do I believe our "leaders" could not begin to answer this simple question?

[fightinbluhen51]

What Would Wise Latina Do?

[unkus]

ping

[fightinbluhen51]

Hell, they do that now with Food, Guns, ANYTHING! What the hell is the difference!

[ClayinVA]

it is more like restraint of trade by AT&T, Comcast and TWC. They are trying to block Google, Youtube and Vonage by having caps with additional charge, but their own services are free.

[ClayinVA]

Comcast is the big offender here with the Bitttorent blocking that they did last year.

[Qwackertoo]

I’m betting even the KOS Kiddies in their pajamas won’t like this. LOL

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

After this malarkey passes we'll only have our choice of two types of sites for political discussion. Far left or hard left. Moderate Dems will also be shut out.

[bamahead]

Folks...'Neutrality' is as Orwellian as it gets. This is 100% about Government regulation of traffic across the internet, as opposed to providers themselves. Read the language. This is the Government, stepping in to 'fix' something that isn't 'broke' to begin with.

Amazingly, I see posters here actually applauding this. Well, abdicate your Liberty at your own risk



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)

[fightinbluhen51]

YUP!

“’We face the dangerous combination of an uncertain legal framework
with ongoing as well as emerging challenges to a free and open
Internet,” Genachowski said. ‘Given the potentially huge consequences
of having the open Internet dimi...nished through inaction, the time is
now to move forward with consideration of fair and reasonable rules of
the road, rules that would be enforceable and implemented on a
case-by-case basis.

‘The draft rules are not perfect or set in
stone, he said, but they serve as the basis for the beginning of the
process. He also announced the development of a Technical Advisory
Process, “so that the difficult engineering questions we face are fully
informed by a broad range of engineers based on sound engineering
principles and not on politics.’”

So, a case by case basis on what can and can’t be regulated and trust a bureaucrat to do what is “right or wrong?” Honestly, when the hell is enough a enough. Remember, these are unelected political hacks that get to decide how we live our lives!

[NoObamaFightForConservatives]

Related thread

Blackburn: Net neutrality is “fairness doctrine for the Internet”.

http://thehill.com/hillicon-valley/605-technology/63875-blackburn-net-neutrality-is-qfairness-doctrine-for-the-internetq

[kevinm13]

The CRTC (regulator of communications including telephone, cable and now internet) in Canada, ruled today that internet providers could “dial back” internet speeds at will. It will happen here too if we don’t stop it.

[bamahead]

You are sadly, sadly mistaken. Please go read:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33718

[NoObamaFightForConservatives]

Somebody has to stop this insane Obama train of disaster.

[paulycy]

Amazingly, I see posters here actually applauding this. Well, abdicate your Liberty at your own risk

I'm not actually disputing you here but I personally have never been more confused by an issue in terms of what is right and wrong and I have been involved in the high tech biz in one way or another since the mid 1980s.

I honestly don't know what to think because each side of this argument has very definite advantages. I'm inclined to favor net neutrality myself but I see your point too.

I admit that I cannot make a decision yet on this (I hate it when that happens...)

[hyperconservative]

Good read.
And thanks, also for the ping.

[unkus]

I wonder what they’re saying at DU

[bamahead]

Please read the article in the next ping. Should shed more light on why this is a very bad idea.

[Qwackertoo]

I’m not going over there to find out. LOL I’ve been once, that was the weekend after Sarah Palin was announced as VP selection and I’ll NEVER venture over to the dark side again.

[yorkie]

bttt

[paulycy]

I will read this this evening. Thank you for all the articles you make available.

[manc]

so when the GOP takes over will the left be wanting this still?

course not it would be like the MA agenda where they make a rule then change it to suit them again.

The left might as well just go public and say they’re commies now.
They like a mass commie killer, he gives them inspiration, they try to silence companies and tell the media to shut up.

Chavez and castro would be so proud

[stylecouncilor]

Fire up the shortwave radio!!

[skipper18]

threads like this, or rather the responses, are absolute embarrasments to freerepublic.

net neutrality means the net stays THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW!

net neutrality means service providers cant make this site so slow to load that it never does for most people ... IF THE SERVICE PROVIDER DECIDES YOU CAN ACCESS FR AT ALL!

you are crazy people. you slit your own throats thinking this hurts obama’s feelings? no, i assure you it dosent.

[LachlanMinnesota]

Can someone explain what this law or regulation means in layman’s terms, so that an idiot like me understands?