EDITORIAL: Wave goodbye to Internet freedom--FCC crosses the Rubicon into online regulation

The Washington Times ^ | December 2, 2010 | Editorial

[jazusamo]

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated industries. The agency's chairman, Julius Genachowski, announced Wednesday that he circulated draft rules he says will "preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet." No statement could better reflect the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama administration policies.

With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the "freedom" of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski's draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped "non-public, for internal use only" to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled Dec. 21 vote. So much for "openness."

The issue of "net neutrality" is nothing new, but the increasing popularity of online movie streaming services like Netflix have highlighted an area of potential concern. When someone watches a film over the Internet, especially in high definition, the maximum available capacity of the user's connection is used. Think, for example, of the problems that would arise at the water works if everyone decided to turn on their faucets and take a shower simultaneously. Internet providers are beginning to see the same strain on their networks.

[G Larry]

Does this idiot know we’re just going to end run him?

[Major Matt Mason]

If this were only about keeping a few big corporations from having their way with Internet access, it might be a worthy endeavor. But "NN" has absolutely nothing to do with the above. The Left has hijacked this effort as a means to better control the flow of information on the Internet. They are losing control of the message and can't stand that fact, with the Internet being the main reason for the more open dialogue now available as a result of the Internet. Frankly, there isn't a crisis here, but this is just more of the "never waste a (made-up) crisis" garbage from the Obama admin.

[ballplayer]

Right on, No one is Speaking for Good old Americans. Elections have Consequences,but when Republicans get Elected that Doesnt apply,they are Clueless,we are all screwed

[Cheerio]

they are Clueless,

I, for one, do not believe they are clueless. IMHO it has been a bloodless coup by the RAT party from within our own shores without a shot being fired.

When the GOP is in charge, we are constantly reminded of the "balance of power" and how the minority must be heard.

When the RAT party of food stamps is in power, we are constantly lectured about how the GOP must compromise with the minority.

Remember this?

On Tuesday, March 15, Senate Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, flanked by over three dozen Democratic Senators, declared war on the plan of the Republican leadership in the White House and the Senate to destroy the right of extended debate ("filibuster") in the United States Senate—a right unique to the Senate, and one which is an essential component of the system of checks and balances embodied in the United States Constitution.

This article appears in the March 25, 2005 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Maybe this is more accurate.
Myth: The filibuster is necessary to maintain the “checks and balances” of our democratic system. Truth: “Checks and balances” refer to the separation-of-powers doctrine between government branches (executive, legislative and judicial), not the Senate’s balance of power between Democrats and Republicans. In this case, the president nominates judges, and the balance on that prerogative is the Senate’s “advice and consent” by an up-or-down, majority vote. The president’s ability to appoint new judges (executive branch “check”) and impeachment (legislative branch “check”) balances the government’s judicial branch. Democrats want to abuse a Senate procedural rule8 to, in effect, rewrite the Constitution’s “advice and consent” clause, requiring a supermajority (three-fifths vote) to approve nominees. The Constitution defines where a supermajority vote is required (treaties, veto overrides, etc.). No such requirement is required for “advice and consent.” The Senate’s authority to write its own procedural rules cannot conflict with the Constitution’s substantive requirements. If the filibuster were vital to the concept of “checks and balances,” then the House of Representatives also would have a three-fifths-vote cloture rule, which it does not. A simple majority can end debate and bring a matter to a vote in the House of Representatives.

[FrankR]

No...it’s time to line the streets of Washington and raise hell over this unconstitutional tyranny...stifling free speech. Where is the ACLU? Where is the TEA party? Where are freedom loving Americans?

[blondee123]

I'd say we here at FR need to start saying our goodbyes, as this site will cease to exist after Dec. 21st!

Every one of our freedoms are being stripped in a month, a lame-duck month!

Obama, the narcissist, just keeps rolling forward with his marxist plan, by the time 2012 comes, we will not even have the right to vote!

[yoe]

Mark Lloyd, the FCC CZAR that the awful, lying, mendacious, talk radio has been warning us about, telling us about this Communist Czar. Did anyone listen?....Those Americans who voted/fell for Obama and his Fantasy Utopia should be very proud of themselves.

[dforest]

Remember what passed last year in December. I think they choose December because people are preoccupied.

It is a shame, but until we get preoccupied with hanging on to our freedom more than gifts and ham, we will continue down this path.

I wonder where the congresscritters stand on this?

[SE Mom]

BTTT

[1010RD]

he says will "preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet."

What a gift to conservatives and the GOP. We have a once in a generation opportunity to capture the mushy middle using GEN X & Y by preserving Internet freedom.

I hope Boehner uses both edges of the sword on this one:

1. Very publicly undo the meddling and declare the Internet off limits while he's Speaker

2. Defund the FCC and replace it with a market mechanism.

The hits keep on coming. If we play it right we'll hold the House and capture the Senate in 2012...and hold them for 40 years!

[jazusamo]

Amen! May it happen.

[nutmeg]

More happy news from Obama’s Amerika...

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

“I pulled the plug on DirecTV Tuesday after fifteen years,”

This won’t help your mood,,, but,,, you will get at least 4 mailings a month from them. I threw them out 5 years ago, and got two letters yesterday.

[sauropod]

*sigh*.

I hate these people.

[ExTexasRedhead]

What can the new House do to stop this?

[jazusamo]

With the turkey we have in the WH I’d guess the only thing would be to defund if they’ve got the guts to do it.

[Cacique]

The elites have wanted to destroy the internet since day one. They are already squeezing FOX news. Now they need to regulate and control the internet under various pretexes. What they cannot control they destroy, what they cannot destroy they tax to death. Watch them try and license websites like broadcast stations. Watch foreign governments extert pressure to shut down websites they find offensive.

[matt04]

Yes. Their are plenty of professional organizations such as the IEEE who already have standards to make sure that computers can talk via Ethernet (IEEE 802.3), WiFi (IEEE 802.11) and countless others that are universally accepted world wide. No reason a organization could not come up with technical standards ensure the internet functions while not caring about the content.

[Senator John Blutarski]

..... couldn’t agree more. This is all about controlling access to content and who gets to charge for it. And like every other slippery slope of governmental intervention, it WILL metasticize into a process of controlling content itself. IMO, this is about as certain as the fact that the sun will come up tomorrow.

Power corrupts, etc, etc.

[rurgan]

Yes there's that.

AND there are many morons who actually trust the FCC (government) to do this. Yes it's mostly democrat idiots. But also on this forum I am having a continuing debate with several “freepers” who are for this communist FCC regulation ( Censorship) of the Internet. Useful idiots for socialism or fakes, democrats is what they are. There is at least one on here that is obviously for the FCC as he/she is bashing the private Internet companies but not the FCC.

I always ask them why do they trust government bureaucrats who are unaccountable, incomepetent. Why do they trust government running things when that is socialism and never works?.