Posted on 02/18/2009 11:07:17 AM PST by ebiskit
The House Democrats' $825 billion legislation released on Thursday was supposedly intended to "stimulate" the economy. Backers claimed that speedy approval was vital because the nation is in "a crisis not seen since the Great Depression" and "the economy is shutting down."
That's the rhetoric. But in reality, Democrats are using the 258-page legislation to sneak Net neutrality rules in through the back door.
The so-called stimulus package hands out billions of dollars in grants for broadband and wireless development, primarily in what are called "unserved" and "underserved" areas. The U.S. Department of Commerce is charged with writing checks-with-many-zeros-on-them to eligible recipients, including telecommunications companies, local and state governments, and even construction companies and other businesses that might be interested.
The catch is that the federal largesse comes with Net neutrality strings attached. The Commerce Department must ensure that the recipients "adhere to" the Federal Communications Commission's 2005 broadband policy statement (PDF)--which the FCC said at the time was advisory and "not enforceable," and has become the subject of a lawsuit before a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.
One interpretation of the "adhere to" requirement is that a company like AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast that takes "stimulus" dollars to deploy broadband in, say, Nebraska must abide by these rules nationwide. (It's rather like the state of Nebraska demanding that a broadband provider filter out porn nationwide in exchange for a lucrative government contract.)
In addition, recipients must operate broadband and high-speed wireless networks on an "open access basis." The FCC, soon to be under Democratic control, is charged with deciding what that means. Congress didn't see fit to include a definition.
The Bush administration has taken a dim view of Internet regulations in the form of Net neutrality rules, warning last year that they could "inefficiently skew investment, delay innovation, and diminish consumer welfare, and there is reason to believe that the kinds of broad marketplace restrictions proposed in the name of 'neutrality' would do just that, with respect to the Internet." A report from the Federal Trade Commission reached the same conclusion in 2007.
In addition, a recent study from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that the absence of Net neutrality laws or similar federally mandated regulations has spurred telecommunications companies to invest heavily in infrastructure, and changing the rules "would have a devastating effect on the U.S. economy, investment, and innovation."
Now, perhaps extensive Net neutrality regulations are wise. But enough people seem to have honest, deep-seated reservations about them to justify a sincere discussion of costs and benefits--rather than having the requirements stealthily injected into what supposed to be an emergency save-the-economy bill scheduled for a floor vote within a week or so.
Net neutrality requirements can, of course, always be imposed retroactively on broadband "stimulus" recipients. As recently as one day ago, a Democratic Senate aide was saying the topic would be addressed in the Judiciary Committee in the near future; there seems little reason to rush to lard up this particular legislation.
But it always seems to happen. Last fall's TARP bailout bill included IRS snooping. A port security bill included Internet gambling restrictions; the Real ID Act was glued onto a military spending and tsunami relief bill; a library filtering law was attached to a destined-to-be-enacted bill funding Congress itself.
It's enough to make you want to force our elected representatives to actually read the bills they pass.
Seven of the links in this article are broken; Google’s been doing this more and more lately.
Ahhhhhh. You DO have a way of cutting to the heart of the matter, Petronski...
Your comment exemplifies what Thomas Sowell refers to when he talks about thinking past stage one.
It is also the reason Phyllis Schlafly is such a powerful intellect. She has made her bones asking those kinds of questions.
“I really don’t understand who would be opposed to Net Neutrality.”
I recently spent two weeks in Vietnam. I stayed at a decent hotel which had seemingly full service cable, incl. CNN, BBC, MSNBC, Bloomberg and other channels but not Fox. Following that, an American I met in a bar said he had the same package at his house but it also included Fox. I.e., VN’s “Net Neutrality” program eliminated one program - the conservative one. That’s what you can expect from this U.S. Administration and its minions.
“..this is the opposite of the Fairness Doctrine. Net Neutrality means the internet provider CANNOT filter what goes over the net. If you want a free and open internet, YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF NET NEUTRALITY.”
—
The Messiah just rammed $787 Billion down our throats on the basis of “trust me” and now, you want us to just trust him on his law professor’s interpretation of the Net Neutrality provisions? I don’t think so.
“Are we as citizens obligated to obey laws that were put into bills without our knowledge; especially when they were done so purposely?”
Ever hear of a gay boy by the name of Bawney Fwank?
“you want us to just trust him on his law professor’s interpretation. . . “
Amen. . .
“Seven of the links in this article are broken; Google’s been doing this more and more lately.”
Links work at the original article. I copied the html with a side menu. Something may have gone awry. Nevertheless, I would not put it past google.
The check is in the mail!
This is not the least of the things that they snuck in as an “Emergency”
Obama pushed more socialist agendas down our throats than any of us are fully aware of yet.
In less than two months he has set this Country back 200+ years!
He is nothing but a usurper and traitor to the Constitution of the United States
hey, loony toons. You are completely mixed up on what Net Neutrality means. You have it 180 degrees backwards. Its the OPPONENTS of net neutrality who what the right to filter and control what content you see. Its the Telecom companies that are fighting net neutrality because they want to be able to jam commercials at you.
As far as the stimulus package, a democratically elected government passed it and if we don’t like it, we have to elect different people. There was nothing sneaky about it though.
“There was nothing sneaky about it though.”
Other than a complete lack of debate on one of numerous highly contentious issues that had no business being in a so-called stimulus bill. . . Nah. . . there was nothing at all “sneaky” about it.
The trillion dollar price tag was only a legislative false-flag/red-herring.
There is even an anti 2nd Amendment provision hidden deep in the fine print.
“...Who defines “lawful Internet content” and/or “legal devices?”...”
. . . looks like the Dems got that market cornered for a spell; all based on a slick ad campaign, an empty-suited “magic negro” and the Fabian inspired Cloward-Piven Strategy.
There is nothing at all devious about false-flag political strategies. . . /s
thaDeetz
You are not impressing me. I have been coming to FR for a long time, but you are going to have to come up with coherent sensible arguments against this government. There is no shortage of such arguments, but this paranoia is NOT going to win elections, and what you are spouting is paranoia. You are trying to scare people about vague shadows in the dark, when what people ought to be concerned with is the obvious stuff happening in broad daylight.
I will say it again: Net Neutrality is the Libertarian position on the internet. If you favor freedom of speech, and see the internet as a part of the public sphere where speech should be free, you support Net Neutrality. Opponents of Net Neutrality are corporations with a specific self interest in gaining control over how content is allowed to pass over the web. “Legal device” means an FCC approved Modem. “Legal content” means No Kiddie Porn, as before.
I really fear for the future of my Republican Party if this is the sort of paranoid lunacy that is going to pass for political debate under this government.
The intent was not to impress, only to convey my deep concern over numerous Neo-Soc pols calling for the suppression of online disssent/free speech by some Orwellian bureaucratic committee.
This legislation sets up the framework for just that, as evidenced by the clear lack of a definition for this administration’s take on Net Neutrality. The lack of a concrete legal definition allows for open season on political content.
It is my thoughtful consideration of Obama’s penchant for clearing the field of political opposition, along with my research on the Fabian Society and the Cloward-Piven Strategy, that led me to my so-called spouts of paranoia.
Not to mention the Rep. Kanjorski(D) video. Have you seen it?
Rep. Kanjorski: $550 Billion Disappeared in “Electronic Run On the Banks” ( Sept 15,2008)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2187175/posts
In your valued estimation, what “obvious stuff happening in broad daylight” should I be concerned over then?
Acorn’s proven voter fraud?
Maxine Waters calling for energy company socialization?
What color are your spectacles?
Up is down, left is right, black is white and cats are sleeping with dogs. My crazy is just a state of your mind. BOO!!!
Calling your debate opponents ‘crazy’ is long standing tactic of the Alinsky-left and will only earn you derision befitting a troll.
thaDeetz
I keep hearing that (for the last few years), and, indeed, prices have come down a LITTLE. I am sure hoping you are right!
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.