Posted on 06/18/2010 7:43:56 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted on Thursday to begin the formal process of bringing the Internet under greater federal control a move sought by both President Barack Obama and FCC Chairnman Julius Genachowski--even though federal law calls for an Internet "unfettered by Federal or State regulation."
This step comes after the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in April rebuked the FCC in its attempt to enforce a controversial regulatory doctrine called Net Neutrality, which would allow the government to prevent private Internet providers from deciding which applications to allow on their networks.
The court said that the FCC did not have the authority to prevent Comcast, specifically, from blocking certain peer-to-peer Web sites.
The FCC is now trying to reclassify the Internet to broaden its authority over the Web. Currently, the FCC only has ancillary authority, meaning it can regulate Internet access only in the process of regulating another service that it has direct authority over, such as television or cable.
The 3-2 party-line vote on Thursday at the FCC began the formal process of reclassifying the Internet as a telecommunications service instead of an information service its current classification. This is necessary because, as an information service, the government has little power to regulate Internet networks.
As a telecommunications service, such as a telephone network, the Internet would fall under a much broader regulatory scope giving the government the power to enforce universal service requirements, making them pay into a federal universal service fund used to provide communications services to poor areas.
The FCC will now begin the mandatory public comment period, where it will solicit input from private companies and citizens about whether it should reclassify the Internet and, if so, how it should do it.
The Commission has three options for going forward. First, it can decide not to reclassify the Internet at all, continuing to treat it as an information service. Second, the FCC can completely reclassify the Internet as a telecommunications service, granting the Commission broad powers over it. Third, it could seek a middle ground, reclassifying the Internet as a telecom service but exempting Internet providers from most of the regulations associated with other telecommunications services.
This last approach, presented at the hearing as the third way, is the preferred avenue of Genachowski, who unveiled the plan in May.
The third way approach would still allow the government the authority to heavily regulate the Internet because it would be classified as a telecom service. However, under this approach, the FCC claims it will exercise forbearance, a regulatory doctrine whereby the government promises not use its regulatory authority in most cases.
Commissioner Michael Copps, at the FCC, sought to frame the issue in terms of consumer protection, claiming that consumers find themselves in quite a box because government, he claimed, had been all but shorn of the authority to regulate Internet service.
Copps said he was worried about relying purely on the private sector for Internet-based innovation, saying that the problems of such an approach could be seen in the 2008 financial collapse and the recent Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
We need to reclaim our authority, Copps said.
FCC seal Robert McDowell, the commissions longest-serving Republican member, said the commission should preserve the free Internet of today, adding that more Internet freedom would be in the public interest.
An open and freedom-enhancing Internet is what we have today, McDowell said.
McDowell also said that reclassifying the Internet was unnecessary and that the FCC should wait for Congress to grant it explicit authority over the Web, saying, We are not Congress.
In fact, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which gave the government no explicit authority to regulate Internet service, states: It is the policy of the United States to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.
When asked whether the FCCs plans violated this provision, Genachowski said that the light touch nature of his third way approach did not violate the Acts explicit mandate to preserve a free and open market.
We need to have a [regulatory] framework for broadband access that is a light touch framework, he said. That is what we had before and what everyone assumed was the case before the Comcast decision. To me, a central purpose of this process is to determine what is a framework that is available to us that restores the status quo.
Everything the commie/RATS come up with smacks/smells of totaliarnism. beware!!!!!!
Same here. And knocking on my door would require some logistical effort. ;-)
I admit I dont understand all this crap.
What if these folks go offshore?
FreeDominion changed their server to the Republic of Panama because of Panamas laws...all secret, which is on par with their banking laws; therefore, FD is no longer being harassed by their government crooks.
Just asking where the problem is. Changing servers to another country (Panama) is not a problem.
Honestly who gives a damn. In Nov this BUM won’t be able to do a damn thing. It will be a bloodbath. They are all going.
The list, ping
Ping to #46.
Great post
Please ping your lists.
ping for later
Kinda funny, that the FCC can give itself greater power over an information/communication service by reclassifying it from information to communication. Shouldn’t Congress, or some other body independent of the FCC, do the classifying, since it is inherently in the FCC’s self-interest to classify various media as communication services?
"All filings related to this Notice should refer to GN Docket No. 10-127. Further, we strongly encourage parties to develop responses to this Notice that adhere to the organization and structure of this Notice"
PRAISE GOD FOR FREE DOMINION’S WISDOM IN DOING THAT.
Maybe they’ll be around days to months longer than FR with that kind of wisdom.
I think are underestimating the chaos before November.
So, are you saying it doesn’t have a chance of passing or that they are passing it in a different guise?
No regime likes free speech of the people. No regime leaves the press free of state influence. The Net changed that for a time, and to be honest I expected this to happen sooner.
>> skinny Mussolini.
Catchy.
>> skinny Mussolini.
> Catchy.
Yeah, sort of like, Ebonic Ebola.
Comment #46 Removed by Moderator.
Comment #46 Removed by Moderator
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.