The FCC is trying to write rules that enforce six principles it says ISPs must uphold to preserve what the commission calls the "open Internet." These rules would tell ISPs to:Posted on 10/26/2009 11:23:06 AM PDT by ShadowAce
The FCC has approved a notice of proposed rule making on the subject of net neutrality, and here are a few questions and answers to help shine a light on what that means.
(See "FCC takes first step toward net neutrality rules")
What exactly did the FCC do?
The FCC agreed to consider what regulations, if any, to impose on ISPs about the applications and services that they allow, ban or rate limit. The process calls for formally proposing rules and holding public hearings on them. A vote about the rules themselves will take place sometime next year.
What is net neutrality anyway?
It is the common name for creating and preserving what the FCC calls the "open Internet".
The FCC is trying to write rules that enforce six principles it says ISPs must uphold to preserve what the commission calls the "open Internet." These rules would tell ISPs to:
Who wants it?
A majority of the FCC, Google and other Internet-based companies, consumer advocacy groups and Internet luminaries such as Vinton Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee. They fear that without rules, ISPs will impose tiered service levels, making the top-level services so expensive as to rule out their use by innovators trying to start Internet-based businesses. They are also concerned that selectively banning certain applications such as VoIP will reduce consumer choice about how to make voice calls.
(Excerpt) Read more at pcworld.com ...
BTTT
This is the kind of regulation I was looking for, generalized and light-handed, restricted to the essence of net neutrality.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I think that applies here as well.
Why am I skeptical of a government plan for something so benign sounding as “net neutrality”? Is it as harmless as it sounds?
The problem with government regulation is that once they get a little regulation they always, always, always tack more on later.
Bump for a later look.
The problem is that it is regulation by the government. By establishing regulations unopposed then it has in fact established that the government has the authority to regulate, that, up to now, has not be established by legislation.
Even though these regulations appear to be generalized and lite handed for now, that can, and will, also change very quickly. Had they (FCC) come out with specific and heavy handed, they would have been a revolt to prevent implementation.
The underlying issue is the whole concept of “net neutrality” and who establishes what is neutral. This is a precursor the the ‘Fairness Doctrine” and who says what is fair on talk radio. I do not want the govt that intrusive into my communication and sources of information.
That is a true statement.
‘Net neutrality’ means ‘keeping the internet the way it is’ - in other words, you pay your ISP like usual, and you can access any site on the internet that you please. I don’t understand why it’s mostly Dems who are supporting this (given that it was Libertarians who popularised it), although it may be that Republicans tend not to have tech laws high on their priority list, and this law appeals to younger, tech-savvy voters who happen to be primarily Democrat.
If there was a ‘non-neutral’ internet, you could pay only for the types of sites you wanted to access, much like cable: You might have a basic package with Google and wikipedia and news and nonprofit sites, then there might be additional ‘sports’ packages, or ‘porn’ packages, or ‘kids/educational’ packages that you could purchase. While this might seem like a good idea at first, there are two major problems: It would make it harder and more expensive for people to create new websites and get traffic to them, and also if your internet service company had a liberal slant, do you think FR or other sites they might disagree with would come in any of your ‘packages’? Or do you think they’d make you pay top dollar for ‘unlimited’ access to sites they disagree with? Lack of net neutrality would, among other things, allow ISP’s to essentially blacklist any website they felt like.
I would prefer an industry solution much the same way new tech standards are set, like WiFi, Bluetooth, USB, etc.
The concept of fairness doctrine is opposite to net neutrality. Each negates the other.
“The concept of fairness doctrine is opposite to net neutrality. Each negates the other.”
So you are basing your accptance of government regulation on communications on the title of the bill and not on it’s actual impact?
It’s ok to regulate the internet because they called it net nuetrality? Would the ‘Fairness’ doctrine be ok if they called it the radio neutrality and save the children doctrine?
This isn't a regulation of the Internet, it's a regulation of the end-user ISPs, which are already regulated, and have been given billions in money, tax breaks and other allowances from the taxpayers on promises not delivered.
If the way it is, is OK, why can’t this regulation, at the very least, wait until genuine problems crop up? It seems that general public pressure is doing a pretty good job of curbing the potential abuses. ISPs that would make you pay a premium to get FR or to use your Magic Jack would be quickly shamed out of it in the current paradigm.
The general idea with almost any law prohibiting something is that if the law is put in place before a problem arises, you can nicely prosecute the entire case in court. However, if you wait until a problem comes up, there’s going to be a huge legal battle that with ISP’s will probably be dragged all the way up to the supreme court, and the law prohibiting it will only be changed afterwards.
Now, let’s say a drawn-out legal battle occurs. Then, net neutrality would become a hot-button political issue. But where do you learn about net neutrality? The ISP’s would control the majority of the information available on the topic, and given last election year, we see that what’s on the internet matters a lot to the average voter. It’s about protecting free speech, only the threat of censorship most likely isn’t coming from the government (although it’s not inconceivable that someday it might).
And I know lots of people here are naturally suspicious of anything Obama does, but net neutrality is a concept that’s existed long before anyone had the foggiest idea who he was. In other words, it wasn’t his idea, he’s just jumping on a bandwagon.
And there is a point that needs to be made in these threads. The number of people here whose entire sum of knowledge on the subject consists of "Obama is for it" and that they saw someone say 'net neutrality' in the same paragraph as 'Fairness Doctrine' is disheartening to me. Press them on the issue and they fall back on "All government regulation is always evil".
sigh.
The regulations are in response to problems that have already cropped up.
Yep. If the guvmint in general or Obama in particular said "Don't spit on soldiers", they would immediately run to the nearest Army base looking for a soldier to spit on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.