Posted on 12/21/2010 10:43:13 AM PST by DBeers
The Federal Communications Commission adopted new rules that will govern how Internet providers treat Web traffic and services, a move that sets the stage for a heated political battle on Capitol Hill come January.
Led by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the Democrats on the panel voted on Tuesday to approve the first enforceable net neutrality rules, which will prohibit Internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from blocking access to lawful content and websites.
Adopting the net neutrality order is a much-needed win for Genachowski, who has been trying to find a compromise on the divisive issue for the past two years.
“Given the importance of an open Internet to our economic future…it is essential that the FCC fulfill its historic role as a cop on the beat to ensure the vitality of our communications networks and to empower and protect consumers of those networks,” Genachowski said at the meeting.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Just because you have your very own hammer doesn’t mean everything that happens in D. C. is your own nail.
Laz is right and this issue stands on its own as a constitutional crisis.
Communists overthrowing America. Wake up patriots.
Why shouldn’t an internet service provider have the right to enter a private contract with it’s customers to provide whatever service they think is useful for the price they can agree upon?
Should the government require Target to sell every brand of shoe, rather than being allowed to limit which brands of shoes the shoppers who choose to use Target can purchase?
And why is the Federal Communications Commission, tasked with regulating the public airwaves, getting involved with internet service provided by a cable into my house?
How many emplyees does it have?
According to Wikipedia, 1,899 full-time employees.
I'm thinking the February unemployment figure should jump by as much.
Seriously??
Please go drink your Kool-Aid someplace else.
Cass Sunstein’s hands are all over this. And those RINO’s who allowed his appointment to go through should be tarred and feathered as well.
Yes, somebody please explain to us neophytes.
Other than additional government regulation, what exactly does this mean to users of the internet?
I think it means they want EQUAL Internet service for everyone whether you pay for it or not. You know, something about the ‘rich’ being able to afford BETTER services if they pay for it.
******
“The supporters of net neutrality regulation believe that more rules are necessary. In their view, without greater regulation, service providers might parcel out bandwidth or services, creating a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy first-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with slow connections and degraded content.”
“Without additional regulation, service providers are likely to continue doing what they are doing. They will continue to offer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer.” Bob Kahn, another computer scientist, has said net neutrality is a slogan that would freeze innovation in the core of the Internet.”
Please go drink your Kool-Aid someplace else.
Seriously!
Please explain the ramifications to the users.
BTW: Yes, this sounds “great”. But if it was “great”, the companies wouldn’t need the law to tell them to do it, their customers would complain, either the company would change or some other company would step in, and the customers would move.
This on the other hand could drive up my costs, because other users decide that rather than watching Verizon shows, they are going to stream from some web site the same shows, thus overwhelming the network.
And yes, if I wanted to stream, I’d complain that I paid for the bandwidth. But we all know that we pay for bandwidth based on the concept that we don’t all use it at once, so we all get it at a lower total cost. Verizon isn’t rolling in money, so it’s clear their charges are somewhat in line with costs. But with net neutrality, I’ll pay a lot more, and since Verizon is regulated, they can’t simply change their charging scheme to make it “equitable”.
But my point isn’t whether one is better than the other, it’s that it’s between the company and me to decide what services they want to provide to me, and I want to buy. Government gets in the way, and I have no way to get my own best deal anymore.
It means that they can't make their own decisions about what clients to service. For example, if they choose to provide more service to businesses rather than political groups, that will be a no-no.
How is that a bad thing? I admittedly don’t know what “net neutrality” is ...
It is a bad thing on many levels in general and specifically.
We see here the government going beyond congressional mandate e.g. the people told government what the FCC can do AND NOW government tells the people what it can do. IT is a power grab plain and simple -REASONS good or bad are not relevant. The path to tyranny is always well intentioned. Here we see the government imposing itself upon yet another private and free enterprise to fix something that is not broken.
How!!! We have lost control of America. Having the House alone will do very little. Keep hearing cut funding, that is a joke. Is everyone forgetting King Obama and his pen. He has the ability to just ignore the House and hand billions to anyone or anything he wants. Isn't that what has happened for months? War is near.
IIRC the plan ultimately is for the UN to regulate/control the internet. Wondering if this is the first step towards confiscation of the internet towards that goal?
Wouldn’t put it past this Leftist pack of radical anus orifice members of the Obama Street Gang.
has nothing to do with regulating the internet
it has everything to do with the dissolution of property rights
Doesn’t matter whether their initial purpose is a good or bad thing. It is the foot in the door to do what they want later.
Almost everyone (not me) thought that the Department of Homeland Security was a good thing when they created it. Now years later they are expanding their role into Climate Change.
You just can’t trust the ba$trades so why give them the leeway to start with? Besides the fact that I believe this is unconstitutional too.
No need to lash out at me for simply asking a question. Sheesh.
There...fixed it
3. bitch about the FCC regulating is a red herring. The whole point of Net Neutrality is to separate content from delivery. That is, the ROADS (delivery) are open to anyone who pays for access. The toll takers don't get to say "Oh, you want to drive over there? That costs extra." Or, "oh, you want to drive a UPS truck and not a FedEx? That costs extra."
The concept has been around for decades, and is already law -- just poorly enforced. Specifically, it is called being a "common carrier". By being a "common carrier" you are the provider of the road, and NOT liable for what happens on the road. If someone uses the road for a getaway after holding up the bank, the owner of the road isn't charged with a crime.
However, once you are no longer a common carrier, you are responsible for content. That is, if there is child porn flowing thru the web, then the ISP providing the links is RESPONSIBLE. Not the website where it is hosted, not the hosting company, but the ISPs such as Comcast, AT&T and the like who own the bandwidth and the T1 lines, etc.
4. The impetus is *NOT* the big actors pushing the gov't to protect their business models. What a moron! It is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. The big companies like Comcast and AT&T are pushing to END net neutrality precisely because they want to stop being simple common carriers, but don't want the liability that goes along with restricting content. They are evolving from plain "dumb pipe" providers to being content providers themselves. They're trying to do both, and there are barriers keeping that separate.
Comcast wants to provide the pipe. The also want to provide the content -- streaming video, etc. AND they want to be able to use their control over the pipe to squeeze out competition for their content. Netflix streaming sucks, but COMCAST streaming is fantastic! Subscribe with us! Etc. Of course, Netflix streaming sucks because Comcast is choking off the bandwidth that YOU ALREADY PAID FOR.
All net neutrality does is ensure that when you pay for bandwidth it is up to YOU, the person who PAID FOR IT, to decide what you want to do with it. You don't have to ask Comcast for extra permission to go somewhere they perceive as competition.
Stop thinking of it from the perspective of the businesses or the ISPs. Stop thinking "big bad government". Start thinking of it from the perspective of YOU, the individual bandwidth user. Do you want Comcast shaking down popular destinations for extra cash? What if Drudge took 20 seconds to load every time you went there? How about Google? But Yahoo loads fast because their check cleared with Comcast. What about YOUR website? What if the ISP decides you aren't "premium" and want you to pay more or it'll be put in the "slow lane"?
Does none of this sound like a Mafia protection racket? That's a nice website. It'd be a shame if anything happened to your load times with the holiday season coming up.
This may help also:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
I see. This is elimination of free market forces driving who gets what.
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.