Posted on 09/22/2009 12:17:16 PM PDT by Ben Mugged
The gloves are off. Julius Genachowski, Chairman of the FCC, announced new guidelines to formalize the concept of net neutrality. Within hours, opponents of net neutrality published statements and op ed articles expressing objections, and a handful of elected U.S. representatives filed an amendment intended to prevent the FCC from taking action.
The speed of the political response is stunning. Granted, it had been leaked at least a few days earlier that Genachowski would address net neutrality in his speech to the Brookings Institute on Monday. And, Genachowski's views on Net Neutrality are not a secret. So, opponents had a couple days to prepare.
There are two sides to the issue, so let's look at the motivation behind the opposition. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said in a statement that "these new regulatory mandates and restrictions could stifle investment incentives."
The primary concern about formalizing net neutrality seems to revolve around the incentive for providers like Comcast or AT&T to invest in expanding the infrastructure and developing innovative new technologies.
David L. Cohen, executive vice president of broadband for Comcast, wrote a blog post expressing Comcast's tentative support for the FCC initiative, but providing some caveats for why Comcast doesn't feel formalized Net Neutrality is necessary.
(Excerpt) Read more at pcworld.com ...
Net neutrality, government run internet, and think of the possibilities of that.
Chavez has taken control of all TV in Venezuela.....AND....passed a law today which mandates teaching that Socialism is best ...in all schools, whether they be public or private.
All Marxists act the same.
“There are two sides to the issue”
I hate this false cliché. There could be a million sides to any given issue. Just because two sides gain popularity and frame the argument does not mean they are alone.
You are correct.
Please don’t make this a partisan issue.
The issue of net neutrality has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican.
The issue of giving the government active power stifling the Internet vs. preventing corporate stifling of the internet should be the only contention unless you’re a paid telco industry lobbyist or a big government type.
The FCC is WAY OUT OF LINE.
If they’re allowed to do this, look for the FCC pushing pushing other envelopes.
Yep.
So do I. It also supposes that the 'issue' itself is valid, and that one of these sides is the 'correct' solution. The entire 'health care argument' is built on such a false premise and its fallacious resolution.
The mere existence of the FCC is unconstitutional since Article 1 Section 8 does not expressly grant Congress the power to regulate communications.
Personally, I believe in net neutrality, but am concerned about how it is implemented as I observe others are here.
This is extremely dangerous, and the FCC should be allowed nowhere near the Internet. Ostensibly, their purpose is to force the providers to provide equal time to all users (some of them currently restrict big downloaders because it bogs down the lines). However, this act gives the companies no incentive at all to expand their capacity and essentially takes away the consumer’s ability to complain about slow, up-and-down Internet service. If the company is forced to carry the big downloaders, it obviously no longer has to care about the fact that its lines won’t be able to support most of the users propertly, because the whole issue is out of its hands.
But most of all, regardless of the pretext, this is simply a way for the FCC and hence the federal government to take over the one area that still provides us with some freedom. This cannot happen.
Like most liberal initiatives and their deceptive names, Net Neutrality is not about neutrality of the net. It’s allowing govt to get a foot in the door, with the real clampdown and regulation of the internet to come later.
The FCC was literally originally intended to regulate the distribution of phone lines. We can see what that developed into...
You are buying into a false premise. Who said the net has to be "neutral" ? No one person owns the internet. Fragments of the internet are owned by groups and individuals who have the right to exercise their freedom. If you don't like something on the web, don't go there.
>> Net Neutrality
More like Net Neutered.
Cutting the balls off America one sector at a time.
Personally, I think you have no idea what net neutrality refers to. Do us all a favor and read a little before you open your mouth.
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.