Posted on 12/21/2010 10:40:28 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
WASHINGTON -- The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday approved a plan to regulate the Internet despite warnings that it could strangle industry investment and damage an economy that is still struggling to recover.
The 3-2 vote fell along partisan lines with Democrats capitalizing on their numerical advantage.
The rules would prohibit phone and cable companies from abusing their control over broadband connections to discriminate against rival content or services, such as Internet phone calls or online video, or play favorites with Web traffic.
Lawmakers in both parties have been arguing for months that Congress, not the Obama administration, should take the lead role in deciding whether and how much to police the web. But despite a brief backing-off earlier in the year, the FCC has pushed ahead with its new regulatory plan.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski secured the three votes needed for approval, despite firm opposition from the two Republicans on the five-member commission.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
‘The Constitution Shredder’ is working over-time these days in Washington! Grrrrr!
OF course I don’t want the FCC regulating content. I’ve said that every chance possible. I also don’t want the telco’s to destroy the internet as well.
BOTH parties should not be peering into the contents to prioritize or block.
My problem is that YOU are painting this as a black and white issue when it clearly is not. The telco’s, who are wearing the white hats in your mind, are going to totally F over consumers if nothing is done. Take the worst of cable/FiOS/U-Verse/Satellite pricing/packaging and now apply that to the internet.
Ain't happened yet. And if it does, someone will step up to provide the service, if there's a dime to be made.
Meanwhile, you suggest the citizenry cede power to a federal agency with a history of censorship, the FCC.
Bad, bad, move.
Define airwaves. At some point, it is all airwaves.
Unfortunately those 1000 fat soft Louis XVI wannabes are protected by ~1,000,000 LEOs. IMO the fertilizer is going the hit the fan fairly soon ... and it ain’t going to be pretty.
Absurd.
(1) If there are two providers or more, there is a free market. And nearly everyone has access to two or more providers, either DSL, cable and/or satellite. If my DSL provider restricted my access to anything, especially FR, I’d switch to cable in a second. And the alternate providers would (successfully) advertise that they do not restrict access.
(2) You are suggesting that we implement greater government controls OVER A PROBLEM THAT HASN’T HAPPENED YET. Once you let the government have ANY control over the internet, it will quickly become COMPLETE control.
(3) The USSC has determined that FCC control of net neutrality is unconstitutional. There are a whole bunch of unconstitutional things the Obama administration would like to control under the guise of “its cheaper if the government regulates it” (healthcare, energy, and now communication).
That and why would a Verizon ISP let you shop for a Sprint ISP? They have a vested interest in controlling where you go.
Not just the telcos. Newspapers and other MSM are loosing money fast. They want to stop the bleeding, and that means ending free content on the internet.
.
Every member of Congress and every federal department or agency has:
1 - Telephones
2 - FAX machines
3 - Email accounts
If they get a lot of contacts all at once they feel very popular.....
In the spirit of the season it would be nice if those hard working people received a friendly message from an American voter
There are free FAX sending websites on the internet
Send some friendly messages to those underpaid people in Washington DC!
-
Indeed!
“The Vampire Economy”.
CA....
“The Obama Administration has no interest in stimulating the economy or in creating jobs. Their goal is to hurt American business and weaken the nation”
Their goals is take over every aspect of American life. Only then will their Socialist plan be completed.
And if both of your providers block FR? What do you do then? YOU ARE SCREWED, and there will be NOTHING you can do about it.
(2) You are suggesting that we implement greater government controls OVER A PROBLEM THAT HASN’T HAPPENED YET. Once you let the government have ANY control over the internet, it will quickly become COMPLETE control.
telcos are big enough and have been given monopolies over vast areas of the country. They know you have little to no recourse over their filtering policies. And what makes you think they haven't tried this yet - http://gigaom.com/2010/11/29/forget-net-neutrality-comcast-might-break-the-web/
(3) The USSC has determined that FCC control of net neutrality is unconstitutional. There are a whole bunch of unconstitutional things the Obama administration would like to control under the guise of “its cheaper if the government regulates it” (healthcare, energy, and now communication).
Great. So be it. The problems come when monopolies/oligopolies coordinate to limit choice and charge an artificially high price for service. That is coming to the internet. Kiss it all good bye. The telcos are going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by making the internet unusable by anyone other than those with very deep pockets. And for some reason, you couldnt' be happier. You are enjoying the benefits of net neutrality now, and you don't even know it.
Whoever the Republican nominee is in 2012. They need to run on a platform of totally reformimg the FCC, IRS and Federal Reserve. Rip them into a thousand pices and throw them into the wind.
yeah I remember the old BBS sites. Time to dust off teh old hardware...
If I'm an AT&T customer and I'm calling my mom's Verizon number, Verizon can't break up my signal or charge AT&T an extra fee or end the call to make room for more Verizon-to-Verizon calls. This is what makes the telephone network a reliable backbone service for nation-, even world-wide telecommunications.
Same thing with the internet. ISPs are still allowed to negotiate their own pricing to their customers. (i.e. If they want to offer different price levels for differing bandwidth usage, that is allowed — just like the phone company is allowed to offer deals and packages based on usage.) But once that fee is negotiated and paid, they can't tinker with the integrity of your signal based solely on the number you choose to dial.
Why don't you specifically describe the problem you are having and how this bill will fix it? Right now I have many choices in internet service providers and if I don't like a Cable carrier I can go with a Telco or vice-versa. Let the marketplace decide.
No, three people came along and said “We control you now.”
I suggest that two can play at that game...there are liberal sites as well.
It's the proverbial "camel's nose under the tent".
If the FCC is allowed to have the jurisdiction to do this, they can do much, much more. None of it good for America and the 1st Amendment.
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.