Posted on 12/22/2010 12:40:46 PM PST by JoeA
The Obama administration continues its relentless march toward a fully regulated and controlled economy, slowly but inexorably erasing the freedoms Americans have long held, piece by piece. The latest assault on our freedom comes in the form of internet regulations approved by the Federal Communications Commission, designed, they claim, to ensure “net neutrality.” “As we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the Internet are unprotected ... That will change once we vote to approve this strong and balanced order.” So intoned FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, posturing like a gallant knight riding to the defense of a fair maiden in distress. However, no damsel was available to be rescued, as none was threatened. The freedom and openness of the internet exists precisely because of the lack of federal control. But protecting the world wide web is not the intent of the FCC’s regulation, it is control that they seek. Much to the consternation of Genachowski and his ilk, the unregulated internet is one of the finest examples of free market capitalism at work. With no government control or guidance, the unprotected internet satisfies the demands of hundreds of millions of users every minute of every day. The flow of goods and services continues unabated, without the help of bureaucrats in Washington. As does the flow of ideas, and the power of free speech. And that is what this administration cannot have. The power of web sites like Freerepublic, Redstate, Drudge, and Pajamasmedia must be reigned in, for in the marketplace of ideas that populates the internet, this administration and its neo-fascist actions take a beating on a regular basis. To silence their critics the administration seeks to ration all content, to ensure, they claim, equal distribution. In their way of thinking, you must choose both chocolate and vanilla, for that is what fairness is about. You may not decide which you prefer, but will instead be served both. The FCC’s Fairness Doctrine was a previous attempt to ensure equal distribution of content, and it was nothing more than an albatross around the necks of broadcasting executives. By burdening radio and TV with the notion that all ideas must be equally represented, radio and television were largely empty of meaningful political content. An explosion of broadcasting ensued with the cancellation of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, saving the once languishing AM radio band, as hundreds of politically oriented talk radio shows sprang up across the nation. Now the Obama administration has decided to march back in time, to those glorious days of plain vanilla content, and regulate a flourishing medium, to “protect the freedom and openness of the internet.” Or so says the Ministry of Truth.
Perhaps it's nearing the time to turn things from a bloodless coup d'etat to a bloody reaquisition of our God-given rights as enumerated in the Constitution. I ain't going to start it, but if a shooting war breaks out, I sure as he** won't be siding with the government - I'll be siding with the people.
“If we want to fight government creep over speech on the internet, we should be up in arms over COICA, not net neutrality.”
this government will use either vehicle to arrive at the same destination. They will ignore our votes and our wishes and plunge forward.
The last thing in the world we need to happen is for the internet to become a ‘public utility.’ The Marxists wanted that for radio in the twenties, but were thwarted by commercial interests who wanted to advertise. If the Marxists had their way, we would today be listening to nothing but NPR and watching nothing but PBS.
What comes with being a public utility is a legal term called “Universal Service”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_service
With universal service comes the accompanying regulations.
And since when did internet access become a civil right?
If information is that precious, why weren’t newspaper subscriptions and TV sets handed out along with the welfare check?
By “regulation of some sort” I was referring to the throttling that ISPs do in the course of their business to ensure the maximum service for the maximum amount of users, and related agreements with larger content providers and end users.
I guess that’s the old-school definition of “regulation”, not the new one that infers only government can do it.
“I ain’t going to start it, but if a shooting war breaks out, I sure as he** won’t be siding with the government - I’ll be siding with the people.”
If the DADT Repeal and START ratifications are any evidence, the military could be in trouble if they don’t start waking up. I would hate to speculate what would happen if this coup turns nasty. But we are in one, no question. People of my acquaintance hate it when I say it, but I believe it as sure as I sit here.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/12/red-tape-under-the-tree-fcc-plans-internet-regulation-for-christmas#_ftn7 _________________ From avove link: “While the FCC plan would not bar all discrimination, it would vest vast discretion in the FCC to determine what is allowed and what is not. Critical decisions as to what is permitted and what is not would be left to the political whims of five FCC members. At best, that will create an unpredictable atmosphere, with firms left unsure whether their activities will be deemed acceptable. At worst, it will lead to abuse and political game-playing.
Level 3
Case in point: Earlier this month, communications provider Level 3 got into a business spat with Comcast over how much it will pay, if anything, Comcast to handle traffic from Level 3’s network. Such negotiations are common among networks, and the longstanding system of private interconnection agreements has worked quite well. Yet Level 3 claimed that Comcast’s request for payment to carry Level 3’s traffic violates net neutrality rules. The claim caused a political stir that promises to help Level 3 in its ongoing negotiations. The incident is likely a harbinger of rent-seeking to come under a net neutrality regime, as firms—as well as political advocates of all stripes—use vague neutrality rules to advance their interests.[7] http://www.multichannel.com/blog/BIT_RATE/31830-Level_3_Plays_Politics_In_Internet_Peering_Spat_With_Comcast.php
The overall result would be bad news not just for Web surfers but also for the economy as a whole. Investment in broadband today is one of the few bright spots of the economy, with providers expected to invest some $30 billion per year in private capital into their networks annually for the next five years, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. Neutrality rules would threaten that investment and those jobs by hindering efficient network management and creating uncertainty.
Charles M. Davidson and Brett T. Swanson, “Net Neutrality, Investment and Jobs: Assessing the Potential Impacts of the FCC’s Proposed Net Neutrality Rules on the Broadband Ecosystem,” Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute, June 2010, at http://www.nyls.edu/user_files/1/3/4/30/83/Davidson%20&%20Swanson%20-%20NN%20Economic%20Impact%20Paper%20-%20FINAL.pdf (December 17, 2010).
Talking about utilities does bring in some fun things. I’m not talking about universal service, as that’s not related to net neutrality.
I’m talking about common carrier. Right now the telephone company is not responsible for anything you do over its lines. You can commit wire fraud, send death threats or commit any number of crimes over the phones, and the phone company cannot be touched because it is a common carrier. The key to this is that they don’t know what you’re doing on the phone. They can’t responsible if they don’t know, but they also can’t interfere if they don’t know. If they want to interfere, then they have to know, and that means they can be held responsible because they allowed it to happen.
This directly applies to the ISPs. Do they want to be common carriers or not? If Comcast can degrade certain streaming video or P2P, then they can know when various illegal acts are being committed, which makes them accomplices. So I say go ahead, let them interfere with the Internet all they want. After the first few CEOs go to jail, they’ll be begging for common carrier certification.
But are they doing that now? I mean to a measurable degree? I don't think so. They only throttle when excessive bandwidth usage (for whatever reason, P2P, hulu, etc) is present.
And yes, I agree that universal service is not exactly the same as net neutrality. But the logic is similar in that there is an 'entitlement' component.
The best example of universal service the US Postal Service. People who live out in the boondocks are 'entitled' to the same postage rates as folks who live in town, yet you know the costs are nowhere near comparable.
And that's where the net neutrality supporters are headed. Internet access will become a "civil right," with all the government oversight such a designation brings.
Net Neutering.
I don’t see how you can believe in more government regulation as a good thing.
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.