Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 next last
To: stephenjohnbanker
My best guess is this will allow the fed to tax your ISP portion of the phone bill.

I pay more in tax and surcharge on my phone bill now than the tax on the fuel I use each month.

81 posted on 05/05/2010 9:26:53 PM PDT by justrepublican (Screaming like a "Vexatious requester" at a Wellstone memorial...........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: BikerJoe
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?

I think a better example might be something like voice over IP. If your broadband provider wants to sell you VoIP, it can't exploit its monopoly position to expand into that market by prioritizing its VoIP packets over those from potential competitors.

That said, fed will overreach, as usual.

82 posted on 05/05/2010 10:10:26 PM PDT by Darth Reardon (Im running for the US Senate for a simple reason, I want to win a Nobel Peace Prize - Rubio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: abb

The rule here is “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it”; just map “regulation” into “censorship” and that’s the gross of the matter. Yes, if regulation gets too nasty engineers will find technical ways to work around it. But that shouldn’t need to happen.


83 posted on 05/06/2010 12:09:19 AM PDT by Moose Burger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm
This is a ‘solution’ in search of a problem

If there's just one thing to know about this, that's it.

84 posted on 05/06/2010 12:12:09 AM PDT by Moose Burger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Moose Burger

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/prerevolution/section10.rhtml

To the Brink: The Boston Massacre and the Committees of Correspondence

The committees of correspondence provided this organization. The first large- scale attempt at close and continuous pan-colonial political cooperation over a large area, the committees linked all of the colonies as one political force. In Massachusetts the committees worked especially well. Linked to all of the interior communities, Samuel Adams was able to spread his message of political education, advancing the principles of colonial rights. The committees convinced local citizens that their rights were in danger and encouraged voting. The colony-wide committees provided a method through which colonial leaders could communicate, and established the framework of the colonies’ early attempts at independent government.


85 posted on 05/06/2010 4:38:30 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: abb

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/05/06/how-the-fcc-plans-to-regulate-internet-lines/
How the FCC Plans to Regulate Internet Lines

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/05/06/fcc-plans-hard-line-on-net-neutrality-will-carriers-cut-cap-ex/
FCC Plans Hard Line On Net Neutrality; Will Carriers Cut Cap Ex?

http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/05/strong-reactions-to-fcc-chiefs.php
Strong Reactions To FCC Chief’s Broadband Move


86 posted on 05/06/2010 4:47:07 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Only at FR could I learn that there was something called a “porn packet” !!

;)


87 posted on 05/06/2010 5:46:13 AM PDT by homegroan (Proud member of the Hoi Polloi......ILLIGITIMA NON CARBORUNDUM..... -that's 4U Dad!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm
Bullcrap. This is a ‘solution’ in search of a problem. Name for us what sites were slowed down and by whom, please. All of the morons advocating this are just losers who are willing to sell out everyone’s one true platform for freedom of speech because they think their damn torrents will download a couple minutes sooner. They should all be ashamed.

For me, this has nothing to do with torrents or porn sites, just ensuring that no censorship occurs or competition inhibited. That being said, I hereby apologize and acknowledge that I stand corrected. Some ISPs WERE thinking about somehow favoring access to their "portal" site and inhibiting access to other portal sites, but that obviously died a deserving death. Upon further research, most reports of "site blocking" seem to be either DNS screwups or security action due to suspicious activity originating from the site or web host.

Overall, I favor competition and just want multiple options for a cheap, open fat pipe to my home.

I also realize that most inhibitors to this are govt. (gotta guarantee only one provider to the community so they can recoup their costs, you know).
88 posted on 05/06/2010 5:55:08 AM PDT by BikerJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: abb

If we don’t have the government regulating how we communicate, it will just be communication chaos!

Only a liberal would want communication chaos!

You want anyone to just talk to anyone else about whatever is on their mind? That’s kookery!


89 posted on 05/06/2010 6:54:25 AM PDT by MichiganConservative (A government big enough to do unto the people you don't like will get to doing unto you soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BikerJoe
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?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe cable companies still get protectionist/monopolist contracts from local government.

Assuming that is the case, the solution is to abolish the exclusive contracts between local governments and cable companies.

Meddling in the market is bad when the federal gov does it. It is bad when local gov does it. The only difference is scope. Fewer people's lives are made worse off when local gov does it.

90 posted on 05/06/2010 6:57:41 AM PDT by MichiganConservative (A government big enough to do unto the people you don't like will get to doing unto you soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: abb
He wanted radio networks to be “owned by the public” for the greater good.
Whenever a politician says "public" or "society," check to see if he means anything other than government. This will not usually be the case. It's Newspeak, nothing more.

91 posted on 05/06/2010 7:54:08 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion ( DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Beck is discussing this.

Last night, Hannity & Morris remarked that the NWO conspiracists are.....right.


92 posted on 05/06/2010 8:50:08 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spirito Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: justrepublican

Good guess


93 posted on 05/06/2010 8:51:05 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops....and vote out the RINOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

Power grab by NObama & the Czar shadow government to control/shut down the internet whenever they want to.

They fear our ability to communicate so quickly.


94 posted on 05/06/2010 11:02:31 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Drill Thrawl

Gubment by fiat.::

Czars are running the USA in the form of a shadow government.

They were never vetted by Congress, nor approved by Congress.

They are answerable ONLY to NObama.
No opne knows how they are paid- or how much.
No one knows who their staffs are- or who pays them- or how much they are being paid.


95 posted on 05/06/2010 11:04:53 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: abb

In a real world-—Waxman & NObama would be indicted & tried for treason.


96 posted on 05/06/2010 11:05:59 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Once the FCC gets their hands on the Internet they will surely ruin it. The government destroys anything it takes over from the private sector.”

IIRC- Jesse Jackson JR is the head of the FCC.

Anyone out there who can clarify this?


97 posted on 05/06/2010 11:07:41 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: vikingd00d

>>How does the FCC have the authority to do this??!! Didn’t the courts just rule that the FCC does not have the authority? Can someone explain how they can do this?

How many tank divisions do the courts have? Any court decision against the FedGov is unenforceable.”

The Kenyan in the White House does not care what the law is- nor what the courts say, unless he agrees with the courts.

He loves the Executive Orders priviledges.

He has never learned about the need for not doing something just because you CAN do it.


98 posted on 05/06/2010 11:15:13 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: homegroan

Didn’t you know? It’s defined on RFC-69. Lenny from networking told me, he says they even did a movie about that. Somehow it’s not on YouTube.


99 posted on 05/06/2010 1:42:23 PM PDT by Moose Burger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: BikerJoe

“Some ISPs WERE thinking about somehow favoring access to their “portal” site and inhibiting access to other portal sites...”

Do you mean like old time AOL? Before what we know now as “internet” there were providers that let you dial in to their servers, and then you had access to their content, and getting out to other networks was kind of “second rate” access. That didn’t stick. Competition gave direct access to “the net” (not “a portal”) and AOL eventually switched to what we know now.


100 posted on 05/06/2010 1:57:46 PM PDT by Moose Burger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson