Republicans warn of ‘chilling effect’ from Obama’s push for more Internet regulation

President Obama drew a sharp rebuke from senior Republicans on Capitol Hill for pushing broad regulation of Internet broadband service, with lawmakers warning that such a move would imperil the “thriving Internet economy and the American jobs it creates.”

The president touched off the battle after issuing a lengthy statement on Monday on so-called “net neutrality.” Staking out his position, the president called on the Federal Communications Commission to more heavily regulate Internet providers and treat broadband much as it would any other public utility.

Obama didn’t get his way in the last election, and he hasn’t really had complete control for the last 6 years.

Liberals lost control of congress, both houses, in the last election.

Certainly, this elections and freedoms thing isn’t working out for democrats or for Obama.

So, they need to try something different...

Hmmm....

Perhaps control of the internet will get their message across, while stifling the message of their opponents.

Bring on “Net Neutrality”!!!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2014/11/11/a-threat-to-the-foundation-of-the-regulatory-state-n1914600

“To be sure, no one will cast a vote for any Republicans in 2014 just because they love Uber. But when Americans use these services, and they see how incumbent businesses use Big Government to try and kill these startups, the seed that markets, not government, is a better solution to most problems has been planted.”

This is the case for Net Neutrality. The reverse of big business using big government to manipulate profits and market share. With Net Neutrality you have Government mandating that all carriers be neutral with regards to other carriers data packets.

The big carriers are the ones against net neutrality, including the not so big but looming and imposing advance of Google into the carrier market.

Government regulation of the internet is a forgone conclusion. It’s regulated in ways right now. It’s who’s side do you want to be on? I want to be on the free internet of the late 00’s that mandate common carrier neutrality with content providers.

Yes, Net Neutrality requires some government oversight, but non Net Neutrality will require much more and will result in much more.

Don't be naive. There are only two valid views: #1 is whether carriers like Comcast can provide their own content and price out competitors. #2 is whether Comcast must build out their network to accommodate the largest bandwidth hog providers.

The liberals pushing network neutrality and you like to talk about issue #1. It is basically a red herring. If you or anyone else doesn't like Comcast pushing their lame content, then you are free to leave. You cannot dictate business practices to Comcast. And as it turns out they want to stay in business and will not provide overpriced lame content contrary to your fairy tale.

Issue #2 is the actual business issue. Comcast does not want to build large pipes to gather streams from Netflix, they want Netflix to pay for that or at least share the cost. If Netflix provides compelling content that Comcast customers want, and Netflix can pony up for the pipes, Comcast will carry it. If not Comcast will build their own streaming video servers into their network. If you don't like what they stream, you can use wireless.

There is another red herring being thrown around which is Comcast wants to control content other than streaming video. That is utter BS, mainly because they cannot. The Chinese do it nationwide other than their network for their elites. The proles accept the censorship. Those that don't want censorship work around it. It is an arms race but the anti-censorship people can always stay ahead.

There has been extensive debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law, particularly in the United States. Debate over the issue of net neutrality predates the coining of the term. Advocates of net neutrality such as Lawrence Lessig have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors.
Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms. Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol and considered a "father of the Internet," as well as Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of net neutrality.

Opponents of net neutrality claim that broadband service providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance. Despite this claim, there has been at least one case where an Internet service provider, Comcast, intentionally slowed peer-to-peer (P2P) communications. In 2007, one other company was using deep packet inspection to discriminate against P2P, FTP, and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of overages, free-to-telecom "value added" services, and bundling. Critics of net neutrality also argue that data discrimination of some kinds, particularly to guarantee quality of service, is not problematic, but is actually highly desirable. Bob Kahn, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, has called the term "net neutrality" a "slogan" and states that he opposes establishing it, but he admits that he is against the fragmentation of the net whenever this becomes excluding to other participants. Opponents of net neutrality regulation also argue that the best solution to discrimination by broadband providers is to encourage greater competition among such providers, which is currently limited in many areas.

On 23 April 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is reported to be considering a new rule that will permit Internet service providers to offer content providers a faster track to send content, thus reversing their earlier position on net neutrality. Municipal broadband could provide a net neutral environment, according to Susan P. Crawford, a legal and technology expert and a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School. On 15 May 2014, the FCC decided to consider two options regarding Internet services: first, permit fast and slow broadband lanes, thereby compromising net neutrality; and second, reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service, thereby preserving net neutrality.

raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors.

Well, the answer to that is that's what the Chinese do. They block many more protocols, IP address ranges, DNS lookups, etc than the US providers could ever dream of blocking. What is the result? A lot of Chinese just cluelessly go along with it and can only access limited content. But the Chinese that want to bypass censorship are able to do that thanks to many techniques like running the banned protocols within allowed protocols. There is an entire industry built around anti-censorship including some very easy-to-use tools. There is no question whatsoever that providers will not be able to block any servers, services or protocols, or if they do, the blocking will not last long before it is circumvented.

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.