FCC Wants to Regulate Internet's 'On/Off Ramps,' Commissioner Says

CNSNews ^ | 6/13/11 | Nicholas Ballasy

[CNSNews]

(CNSNews.com) - Federal Communications Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, an Obama appointee, told CNSNews.com that the FCC does not want to regulate Internet content but it does want to regulate the Internet's “on/off ramps.”

At the National Association of Broadcasters Service Awards on Monday, CNSNews.com asked Clyburn to what extent the federal government should regulate the Internet.

[little jeremiah]

Amazing. If the thugs in DC aren’t turned out soon and every damn thing they’ve signed, enacted, appointed, hired, executive ordered, and so on is not dismantled in their entirety, we’re toast.

Or rather, we’re on Jack Black’s and Travis McGee’s ping list.

[MamaDearest]

A 'Death Panel' by any other name

Snip: So, there will be a humongous panel after all. And it will influence who gets what treatment -- the British-style rationing that healthcare Czar Berwick so passionately adores. And people, especially elderly, will live in unnecessary discomfort or die an earlier than necessary death because of the panel's work.

Death Panel

"[F]or the first time in history, an FDA-approved anti-cancer therapy may not be covered by Medicare."

IN THE COMMENTS: Irene said (after I said "Picture someone who wants that drug to live. It isn't funded. FDA approved, but you can't get it under Medicare. We don't have to go by their euphemisms. Why isn't "Death Panel" an appropriate statement and an important way to create alarm?")…

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

-——————On/off ramps indeed. If you control access, you control everything.-———————

Exactly, JOAT. Exactly.

They’re getting closer to admitting that content really is their target.

It always has been their target. It’s too unneutral. We say too many unneutral things.

They’re marxists! What could they possibly understand about freedom?

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

If Obama wins re-election, it’s bye bye internet.

But he won’t do that during the campaign.

2013 is the year when everything solidifies. The net becomes neutral along marxist lines, Frank/Dodd kicks into higher gear, Obamacare starts finalizing.

We as americans have the most to lose, it would be a shame if future generations look back and perceive that we did the least to protect it.

[Jo Nuvark]

The following is my son’s take on this:

This is a good thing. There are two other sides here and
actually the FCC is the one saving your neck.

1. The government wants an internet kill switch. Not the
FCC. I’d rather have the communications people watching over
this than giving direct access to whatever liberal government
is in place.

2. This mostly looks like net neutrality coming up again.
The telco’s have been trying for years to throttle internet
access depending on your “status.” For example, if you are
big company that sells cogs you would pay more to have your
website go faster than a little company that pays cogs. Or
even more likely, you will have to pay “entry level” internet
access fees to get the internet but it would be “a-la’carte”
much like the crappy way cable companies have made cable very
complicated and expensive. The FCC has been fighting these guys
for years. Net neutrality means “all the internet all the time”.
It doesn’t matter what you pay or how controversial your message.
The internet stays open for business to anyone with something to
say. Because this is a government agency fighting a lobbying group
you hear these “fcc wants to regulate” messages but it clouds the truth.
They’re the ones trying to keep the playing field flat. I don’t
want the goverment regulating in the sense that they censor what
I can get. But I DO want them doing their true job as the government
telling everyone ELSE not to screw me and censor what I can get.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

1. The FCC has no legitimate power over the Internet. There job is to allocate RF frequencies so that they don't interfere with each other. That's the only thing they don't want to do. They just allocated frequencies to one of Obama's cronies for free Internet that will interfere with GPS. Thwarting GPS goes right along with the Internet Kill Switch.

2. You obviously believe that government is more efficient than private enterprise. That speaks to your intelligence. The whole reason cable prices are so convoluted is BECAUSE of government regulation. In an open market, if a cable company is charging too much, another one would move in and eat their lunch.

[Nachum]

There are two other sides here and actually the FCC is the one saving your neck.

To quote Ronald Reagan:

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

[Jo Nuvark]

Thanks EPU, I will relate your response to my son.
I knew someone would give me the knowledge for an
informed face off.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I apologize for the snarkiness. I thought you agreed with your son.

[Jo Nuvark]

LOL! I figured as much.

Can’t wait for his response.

...Jo

[antiRepublicrat]

The government wants an internet kill switch. Not the FCC.

Even the recently released "Kill Switch" (note, also separate from net neutrality) bill didn't have a kill switch in it. At least I didn't see one when reading it. I've asked several times for people to point out the exact "kill switch" provision, but have never received an answer. It's possible there is one, but nobody has found it as far as I know.

For example, if you are big company that sells cogs you would pay more to have your website go faster than a little company that pays cogs.

The important issue is where this "go faster" is happening. Both are paying their own ISPs for their internet access. In the neutral Internet, it is entirely possible that the bigger company pays its ISP for higher bandwidth and lower latency. On the consumer side, it is also possible under the neutral Internet that one customer pays his ISP extra for higher bandwidth and lower latency than others. Pay for your level of service, quite straightforward in a free market.

The problem comes when the consumer ISPs essentially hold their consumers hostage, using them as assets to be leveraged. They tell the "cog" companies that if they don't want their access to the ISP's consumers restricted, they'd better pay up. It's basically highway robbery on the information superhighway, or a tollbooth if you prefer that metaphor. Everybody's already getting paid for their services under net neutrality, the ISPs are just getting greedy, and using their position as the gatekeepers to the Internet to extort money from those doing business on it

Also, the consumer ISPs would like to suppress competition for their offerings, especially VOIP and video. Without net neutrality, you will find Skype, Vonage, Netflix and Hulu not working too well compared to the ISP's more expensive offering, unless the company pays your ISP for the privilege of having you as a customer. And guess who pays that extra charge in the end? It's either Comcast or Sprint that has already admitted its own VOIP runs at a higher priority than the competition, so it's started.

And companies aside, all I can think of is those cash-rich Soros-funded and commercial liberal sites that can afford to pay off all the consumer ISPs to get their message through. Without fat cat donors and ads, Free Republic can't afford that. We're now back to the old days before the Internet, where you needed a large budget in order to be able to reach people.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

-—————The government wants an internet kill switch. Not the FCC.——————

You should remind your son what the letter “F” in FCC means.

_ederal

Teach your son what the word “nationalization” means, then ask him “who’s going to stop the government from throttling?”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2713730/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2729438/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2711488/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2699462/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2699677/posts

You can sue a telco. You can’t sue the government. That makes net neutrality the greater threat.

[econjack]

The government wants an internet kill switch. Not the FCC.

The FCC is the gov't and to think a political appointee isn't going to go along with the people who appointed him seems like whistling in the graveyard to me.

I don’t want the goverment regulating in the sense that they censor what I can get. But I DO want them doing their true job as the government telling everyone ELSE not to screw me and censor what I can get.

What is "their true job"? Once you allow regulation, historically the amount of control always increases. I don't know if it's because they view it as a make-work process or what, but it is very rare that a regulated industry gets less regulated over time.

[antiRepublicrat]

They just allocated frequencies to one of Obama's cronies for free Internet that will interfere with GPS

I've read that it only interferes with GPS receivers that are susceptible to interference from adjacent bands. Even your article shows they broadcast on different frequencies. The GPS makers are probably mad because this is exposing their poorly-made hardware. No need to make sure you listen only on your band when there's nothing adjacent -- oops, there's something adjacent now.

Thwarting GPS goes right along with the Internet Kill Switch.

The supposed "Internet kill switch" was proposed legislation in Congress, not FCC. And of course right now the government could instantly kill GPS, or drastically reduce civilian accuracy on the fly, because they control it. They could also seriously hinder the Internet in a heartbeat, because they control the root DNS.

You obviously believe that government is more efficient than private enterprise.

Net neutrality enforcement does not suggest the government take over any private operations. It prevents one industry from harming many others, from drastically altering the historical operation of the Internet, and has some consumer protection thrown in (mainly fully informing the consumer about the service he's paying for).

I know the government loves to abuse the Commerce Clause, but I can't think of anything that says "interstate commerce" as much as the Internet. One click of the mouse can invoke business relationships across several states. It is definitely constitutional federal government business. If not FCC, definitely FTC.

The whole reason cable prices are so convoluted is BECAUSE of government regulation.

The government requires them to carry local channels. Beyond that, their convoluted pricing is their own doing.

In an open market, if a cable company is charging too much, another one would move in and eat their lunch.

Except that cable companies are usually local monopolies with government-granted exclusivity, easements and public domain acquisitions. It is usually cost-prohibitive for competition to move in.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

You would do well to give your son a copy of Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom.

I wrote about the road to serfdom and net neutrality last night.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2734851/posts

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

==========Mignon Clyburn, an Obama appointee, told CNSNews.com that the FCC does not want to regulate Internet content but it does want to regulate the Internet’s “on/off ramps.”============

You failed to have admin moderator delete this thread.

I can back up everything I say. She let the cat out of the bag. This is their goal for regulation.

This purist view of net neutrality in which the FCC merely keeps ISPs at bay is ludicrous. What the FCC wants is to transform the internet from a freeway into a toll road.

Their words. Control of the on/off ramps *IS* control of the content. As I’ve been saying all along. They want to control content so bad it hurts.

[dalereed]

What the hell is an internet on and off ramp?

[antiRepublicrat]

the FCC does not want to regulate Internet content but it does want to regulate the Internet’s “on/off ramps.”

That is very clearly stated, very true, and what I've been saying all along. The "on/off ramps" are the consumer ISPs. They want to regulate that to make sure the ISPs themselves do not install toll booths. This says absolutely NOTHING about the FCC itself installing toll booths.

Their words. Control of the on/off ramps *IS* control of the content.

Their words here are that the FCC does NOT want to regulate content. I think they do eventually under fairness doctrine. But you're here telling me to believe their very words, and those words say they do not want to regulate content.

You absolutely failed at backing up your statement. Her words say the exact opposite of what you claimed.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

—————But you’re here telling me to believe their very words, and those words say they do not want to regulate content.-—————

With everything we know about these people, who they hang out with, who they appoint, and who’s opinion matters most to them, It’s incredible to see you willingly suspend disbelief.

————Their words here are that the FCC does NOT want to regulate content.-—————

That’s like saying “I don’t want to control you when you get old”. “I just want to create a program called social security”. It’s the same thing.

“I don’t want to control your toilet. I don’t want to control your lightbulbs”. “I just want to protect the environment”. It’s the same thing.

If they control the on/off ramps, then they control the content anyways. These are defacto toll booths.

[antiRepublicrat]

It’s incredible to see you willingly suspend disbelief.

You told me to read their words because their words supposedly showed their intent in line with your theory. You posted the text for me to read, I read it, and the plain text clearly opposed your theory. You can't portray their words as both reliable and unreliable sources on the subject of their intent.

If they control the on/off ramps, then they control the content anyways. These are defacto toll booths.

Again, you are going very far away from the words you posted. Evidence, give me evidence. Show me in a rule where the FCC will charge consumers or Internet-based companies in a way that hurts the neutrality of the Internet. A toll booth charges. Without charges, it's not a toll booth. I need specifics, not vagueness, not conspiracy theory. I've read the FCC rules, don't see a thing in there about toll booths, actual or de-facto. Maybe I missed something, but I doubt it.