Skip to comments.
FCC to Overhaul Regulation of Internet Lines
The Wall Street Journal ^
| May 5, 2010
| Amy Schatz
Posted on 05/05/2010 2:04:02 PM PDT by abb
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski has decided to reregulate Internet lines to protect net neutrality, siding with consumer groups and Internet companies worried that Internet providers have too much power.
On Wednesday, Mr. Genachowski's staff began briefing the FCC's commissioners on how they will propose to regulate Internet lines under rules that were written for traditional phone networks. Some of those rules won't be applied to Internet networks, FCC officials say, but others will be used to enforce net neutrality, or regulations that require Internet providers to treat traffic equally and not slow or block websites.
Phone and cable companies opposed the FCC reclassifying regulation of Internet lines under Title 2 of the Communications Act, which was written for traditional phone networks and includes provisions such as rate regulations.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bigbrother; censorship; dbm; fcc; internet; lping; netneutrality; papersplease; powergrab
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-103 next last
To: coaltrain
It means that companies that used their own capital to build network infrastructure will not be allowed to decide for themselves what is the most effective and profitable use for their investment. The government will tell them what they can do. Can you say precursor to nationalization?
21
posted on
05/05/2010 2:25:00 PM PDT
by
FourPeas
(God Bless America)
To: RandallFlagg
I-have-no-idea-what-this-means-bookmark. My best guess is it will mean new taxes.
22
posted on
05/05/2010 2:25:25 PM PDT
by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
To: abb; RandallFlagg
I-have-no-idea-what-this-means-bookmark.FCC = Federal Communications Commission. That's really all you need to know.
And, just for clarification, FCC really means Federal Control Commission!!!!!
23
posted on
05/05/2010 2:25:47 PM PDT
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Papa of two new Army Brats! Congrats to my Soldier son and his wife.)
To: abb
24
posted on
05/05/2010 2:26:22 PM PDT
by
abb
("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
To: coaltrain
Soooo, Government’s (Obama’s) attempting to run yet another group of businesses into bankruptcy.
Got it. Thanks.
25
posted on
05/05/2010 2:27:24 PM PDT
by
RandallFlagg
(30-year smoker, E-Cigs helped me quit, and O wants me back smoking again?)
To: TSgt
It also means that the people that own the wires have no say in who uses them, or how to price them. Meaning, there is no incentive to build infrastructure so they won’t.
26
posted on
05/05/2010 2:27:46 PM PDT
by
meyer
To: RandallFlagg
It is much more than that. It is an attempt to re-establish control of the flow of information that the Marxists lost when the internet came along.
Camel, nose, tent.
27
posted on
05/05/2010 2:28:55 PM PDT
by
abb
("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
To: abb
Looks like the FCC is cruising for another Supreme Court smackdown...
28
posted on
05/05/2010 2:33:04 PM PDT
by
apillar
To: coaltrain
Congratulations, they just destroyed the Internet. Why would any company now invest in developing Internet Lines.
29
posted on
05/05/2010 2:34:55 PM PDT
by
dfwgator
To: apillar
I’m hoping the technology of the interweb thingy has surpassed the ability of mere laws to control it.
Sort of like it was back in 1521 when Pope Leo X told Martin Luther, “don’t you dare post that handbill on the church door!”
30
posted on
05/05/2010 2:35:46 PM PDT
by
abb
("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
To: meyer
It also means that the people that own the wires have no say in who uses them, or how to price them. Meaning, there is no incentive to build infrastructure so they wont.
Whoo Hoo! Porn at OC-192! (9.6 gigabits per second) for the same price as dial-up!
31
posted on
05/05/2010 2:37:51 PM PDT
by
TSgt
(We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
To: abb
When we said “Free Speech”, we didn’t mean for you. :)
32
posted on
05/05/2010 2:42:11 PM PDT
by
Tzimisce
(No thanks. We have enough government already. - The Tick)
To: abb
It is much more than that. It is an attempt to re-establish control of the flow of information that the Marxists lost when the internet came along. We have a winner this is exactly what it means!
33
posted on
05/05/2010 2:45:51 PM PDT
by
ColdOne
(:^))
To: abb
Rent seeking behavior.
Government is the problem. Liberty, not force.
34
posted on
05/05/2010 2:50:08 PM PDT
by
1010RD
(First Do No Harm)
To: abb
35
posted on
05/05/2010 2:50:48 PM PDT
by
abb
("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
To: abb
Broadband is not just a technology; it is a platform for social, economic, and educational opportunity. Man, that woke me up! Especially from Waxman. . .
To: TSgt
Whoo Hoo! Porn at OC-192! (9.6 gigabits per second) for the same price as dial-up!
In the interest of fairness, the administration wants the rest of us to have the same capabilities as the senior staff at the SEC. Better in fact...it's on demand...no more piling CDs in the closet...
37
posted on
05/05/2010 2:51:53 PM PDT
by
BikerJoe
To: coaltrain
The war on property continues.
38
posted on
05/05/2010 2:54:43 PM PDT
by
1010RD
(First Do No Harm)
To: 1010RD
You’ll want to see who’s on the board of directors of Free Press. See post 20. Robert McChesney, a pure Marxist if ever there was one. I’ve read his stuff.
He’s still sore about when radio was able to sell advertising back in the 20’s and was able to stay in private hands. He wanted radio networks to be “owned by the public” for the greater good.
Dangerous man!
39
posted on
05/05/2010 2:56:37 PM PDT
by
abb
("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
To: 1010RD
Government is the problem. Liberty, not force.
Taking the contrarian pov, fedgov does have a point. If you only have one broadband provider in your area, and they decide to filter some websites, like maybe this one, then what?
What happens when BOTH providers that run to your curb do it?
When the broadband folks went from being a pipe to being a "content provider", they went into competition with other content providers on the web and the trouble started....
40
posted on
05/05/2010 2:56:39 PM PDT
by
BikerJoe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-103 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson