Posted on 05/18/2010 11:27:32 AM PDT by MichCapCon
Last month, a federal appeals court put a halt to the Federal Communications Commission's attempt to exert its authority over the Internet and its power play to regulate the companies who provide access to it. According to the Heritage Foundation, "The decision, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, centers around the FCC's efforts to enact 'net neutrality,' a policy that would prevent ISPs such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from managing the flow of traffic on the Internet by discriminating among content and applications that put a high load on their networks."
So what is "net neutrality" and why does the FCC want to impose it? And why do Internet providers worry that it will harm their businesses and ability to provide Internet service?
Declaring access to the Internet to be like "running water or the light bulb," FCC chairman Julius Genachowski declared [in April 2009] that it should be regulated. Specifically, he announced that the Commission will be voting next month [Oct. 2009] on a proposal to impose so-called "net neutrality" regulation on Internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.
Specifically, the plan is to codify four Bush-era "principles" for Internet firms, while adding two more. The first four principles state that consumers are "entitled" to run applications, connect to devices, and access content of their choice, as well as enjoy a choice of providers (all subject to reasonable network management practices). Genachowski would add to these a ban on discriminating among any content or applications, and a mandate that service providers publicly reveal their network management practices.
While perhaps innocuous-sounding, these rules could play havoc with effort to manage congestion on the Internet. The net result - a slower and more congested Internet, and more frustration for users...
(Excerpt) Read more at michigancapitolconfidential.com ...
Why not? The Nazis and the Stalinists got control of the media. Why should Obama be denied total control?
That is what Woody Allen would want~!
Well, it’s like Obama said, there’s too much information today and that’s a distraction.
Why not? The Nazis and the Stalinists got control of the media. Why should Obama be denied total control? That is what Woody Allen would want~!”
Well, Woody (how appropriate a name) would also like to see child rape laws repealed, I think, given his recent “defense” of Polanski and his little STEPDAUGHTER he started having sex with when she was a kid...
...and, at some point, how much is TOO much info? Seems that they should be passing out some of the info to those who have less, and not hoarding it among those with plenty of info.
Woody is vying for propaganda film maker.
Among the gems is, “It is not difficult to deprive the great majority of independent thought. But the minority who will retain an inclination to criticize must also be silenced. Public criticism or even expression of doubt must be suppressed.”
Count down till some tool pops up to tell us that net neutrality is good for us.
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.