Skip to comments.Here are the FCC Net Neutrality Rules (HAVE AT IT)
Posted on 03/12/2015 9:03:09 PM PDT by CptnObvious
click here to read article
Designed to take over the Internet and regulate opposition out of existence.
Don’t you just love how the master minds release this stuff AFTER they pass it? “You will swallow this pill, and now that we’ve force you to, we will tell you what you’ve taken”. This is Obamacare all over again. It’s the absolute definition of un-American and everything to do with tyranny. Just on that reason alone should it be made invalid. How far are they going to go before they incite rebellion? It seems they want to find out don’t they.
Can you show this quoting from the document?
I’m looking for folks to take apart this document. Can you help?
This is basically distributors vs. content providers. The distributors normally have the upperhand in a free market because they can always threaten to throttle content, while content providers can only threaten to deny content. So long as there are plenty of people desperate to generate content, the distributors have a hammerlock on the content providers.
The FCC sided with the content providers most likely because they gave them more money under the table. When the distributors up the ante, the FCC will modify the rules in favor of the distributors.
Got through the first paragraph of the Executive Summary and it is nothing but pointless babbling.
Seriously, I think it was written by a bunch of feces flinging monkeys sitting at a keyboard, though monkeys would have probably typed up something that makes more sense.
Can you help find the poison?
some ‘light’ reading for you. :D
One person’s poison is another person’s fine single-malt scotch.
Your analysis overlooks the fact that in many instances the “content providers” and the “distributors” are one in the same (e.g. Comcast owns NBC).
The point of net neutrality is simply to prevent joint ISP/content-providers or cabals formed by ISPs and content providers from functioning as a vertical trust to prevent other content-providers from having equal access to the market or to suppress entrance of competing ISPs which can’t provide access to the vertical trust’s content on equal terms.
Contrary to what most FReepers seem to think net neutrality per se is a good thing, being a pro-market regulation. Whether the Obama administration managed to get it right or to implement something else in the name of net neutrality remains to be seen. The devil is always in the details and the “400 pages of regulations” which strangely have an item in their index beginning on page 583, and had previously been describes as 700 pages, have enough room to house a whole hell of freedom killing devils. No one, however, in anything I have read has actually managed to find one.
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has actually seen the 332-page edict and we’ll let his warning speak for itself:
- First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world.
- Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money.
- Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds.
- Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.
- Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.
- And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy.
I briefly scrolled through the document and ran across the following:
“Al Franken, Edward J. Markey, Bernie Sanders, Ben Cardin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Charles E. Schumer, Richard Blumenthal, Elizabeth Warren, and Ron Wyden”
When you see that, you just know that something bad is happening.
Good find, keep it up folks.
Not surprisingly, “fair” appears 84 times in this document.
Why should all data be treated equally?
Exactly, some archived blog nobody reads and YouTube should not be treated the same
Oh come on, you can do better than “cabals”. Why not “mustache twiddling robber barons”?
Because that is what allowed the net to grow and be the level playing field that has fostered innovation. Where would FR be today if it had to pay for fast lanes and reliable access?
Pay to play and pay to win will significantly hamper growth and put those small blogs and sites at a massive disadvantage. Who does pay to win favor?
bump for weekend
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.