Posted on 11/14/2010 7:20:50 PM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Just days before Congress recesses for the upcoming elections, House Commerce Committee chair Henry Waxman stepped into the debate over Internet regulation yesterday, releasing draft legislation to impose certain "neutrality" rules to providers of broadband Internet service. Hammered out in negotiations over the past few weeks with the active participation of Google, Verizon, and other competing broadband industry players, the final product-not surprisingly-looks a lot like the Google-Verizon consensus plan announced last month.
Specifically, the Waxman proposal would ban Internet access providers such as Verizon from blocking content outright but would otherwise allow them to manage the traffic on their networks-and even offer "priority service" for a fee-as long as they do not "unjustly or unreasonably discriminate." This anti-discrimination requirement would not apply to wireless Internet access, which would be kept mostly free of regulation.
In general, the new rules would be enforced on a case-by-case basis by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which would be banned from writing its own rules on the subject. The FCC would also be barred from pursuing its plans to classify broadband Internet service as a type of telecommunications service, which would have permanently subjected it to heavy, telephone - style rules.
Waxman’s plan left many pro-regulation advocates, who wanted a virtual ban on any sort of active traffic management, sputtering. And it could represent a death blow to their efforts: If Waxman - who has rarely met a regulation he didn’t like - doesn't support them, who will?
...
(Bottom line) Lite or not, policymakers should reject this proposed new regulation.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.heritage.org ...
Oh, and shadowace........ tech ping if you want.
Further reading from the heritage foundation.(And yes, this headline says it all 100% accurately)
FCC Net Neutrality Smackdown a Win for Free Market, Limited Government
Waxman is the worst member of Congress. Who would elect him?
Dated September 29th? Hopefully this will be dead in the new Congress.
Waxman will be getting NOTHING and will have to like it.
We won.
Waxman should spend the next two years proposing laws to repeal old laws rather than thinking up new ones that just add more regulations.
btt
Waxman? Geez- I wish he woud do a Kennedy and save us all from his BS.
If you could get Waxman into a rainstorm, he just might drown though those nostrils.
The idea of some 1’s and 0’s being more important than others doesn't make too much sense to me. And if I've paid for 15Mbps unlimited service, then everything I download better d@mn well be coming in at that speed... for anything outside of malfunctions and breakdowns would be a breach of contract to me.
That said, if companies want to offer cheaper service plans with restricted speeds for certain sites, clearly laid out *PRIOR* to any contract signing... well, that's their perogative.
Well, unless they are a monopoly (and specially if they are a municipally sanctioned monopoly). Then, since consumers are restricted from having a choice... they would then need to be mandated to have all options available at competitive prices. And if that's a bother for ‘em, then a little free market competition might change their tune.
ping per our discussion
You know my position on net neutrality, as an internet old-timer; I can't get into the discussion today, unfortunately...
It's an industry agreement that they're putting into law. OTOH, if they have an agreement, why put it into law? I'm happy as long as the threat of regulation keeps the companies in line.
As far as Heritage goes, once the telco astroturfs and lobbyists turned what was an issue of freedom into a conservative/liberal issue, then of course the likes of Heritage will jump on board on the side of conservatives. Another sucker.
Hey, Henry Nosehairs! YOU LOST. GET USED TO IT.
——————It’s an industry agreement that they’re putting into law.—————
Which is yet another reason why people know that net neutrality is censorship.
Google is out there censoring websites.
——————As far as Heritage goes, once the telco astroturfs and lobbyists turned what was an issue of freedom into a conservative/liberal issue, then of course the likes of Heritage will jump on board on the side of conservatives. ——————
LOL! Did you even read what’s being posted?
Heritage actually reads the bills. And they quoted from them.
You should try it some time. Then perhaps you’d know how targeted your free speech is online.
And the astroturf groups didn’t make it a lib/con issue. The government as well as the soros funded groups did by usurping it.
The net neutrality you seek hasn’t existed for a very long time. The current net neutrality under proposal *IS* the fairness doctrine for the internet.
And as long as it remains defeated, limited government is the winner.
At this level it is a battle between content providers and consumer ISPs. It appears they've come to an agreement, where basically the content providers win by keeping the status quo. On the other hand, the leftist dreamers who wanted to forbid even necessary traffic management, which would have been a huge burden for the telcos, have lost.
You should try it some time. Then perhaps you’d know how targeted your free speech is online.
I read all bills I post about, with the obvious exception of the huge ones that are pretty much impossible to find the time to read unless that's your job. This one isn't even a bill yet, and I found it despite Heritage's link being broken.
The net neutrality you seek hasn’t existed for a very long time.
With a few notable exceptions, net neutrality still exists.
The current net neutrality under proposal *IS* the fairness doctrine for the internet.
These are the guts. It says ISPs:
“(1) shall not block lawful content, applications, or services, or prohibit the use of non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management;Do you honestly see anything about fairness doctrine in there? I see: don't block, don't discriminate, inform customers. Do you see a "give equal bandwidth to differing opinions?" Do you see anything at all regarding content producers, the ones who would be the target of a fairness doctrine?“(2) shall not unjustly or unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful traffic over a consumer’s wireline broadband Internet access service. For purposes of this subparagraph, reasonable network management practices shall not be construed to be unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory.
“(3) shall disclose accurate and relevant information in plain language regarding the price, performance, and network management practices of its wireline broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop and market new Internet offerings. The Commission shall not require public disclosure of competitively sensitive information or information that could compromise network security or undermine the efficacy of reasonable network management practices]. In promulgating rules implementing this subparagraph, the Commission shall at minimum require providers to display or provide links to the required information on an Internet website and to update such information in a timely fashion to reflect material changes in the information subject to this paragraph
I agree. This is about internet liberty for all versus money and power for a few (as in MSM and ISPs) and has nothing to do with politics. The few turned it into politics using the government regulation wild card. I may reply to the OP in more detail. I’ve worked the business for 30 years.
Quasimofo.
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.