FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule (next Monday)

Washington Post ^ | September 18, 2009 | Cellia Kang

[perfect_rovian_storm]

We’ll have to see the details. To me, the Trojan Horse in ‘net neutrality’ was always the government getting its foot in the door to regulate content.

Of course, it will increase the cost of internet services. But at least torrents will be fast. :)

[meyer]

Everything that this administration does should be looked at with the highest degree of suspicion. Obama's administration is very likely to take the same approach as Chavez in trying to silence opposition. That's his game. He can't sell his bill of goods as long as facts are readily available so he'll do everything he can to prevent those facts from being available.

They want to get their overbearing hands on the internet because they know that we, the people, communicate freely on the net. It's that simple.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Why can’t they sell tiers of service. Slow-torrent and fast-torrent, for example.

[cvq3842]

Yes, that’s my starting point also.

[LaybackLenny]

Camel’s nose...tent...

[The Duke]

...this would keep companies from blocking data... not the other way around.

In my experience every bill does exactly the opposite of what its name implies.

In fact, why would the current oligarchy allow this opportunity to silence opposing voices pass(?)

[bert]

Regulation of interstate commerce. The fiber is interstate and state regulation would be impossible. National regulation is required.

Those who perceive their ox being gored can go to court.

Hulu is the big problem. Comcast provides broad band internet that provides the same programs for free it charges for. Internet tv is the future and a gigantic mess.

[Nachum]

The list, ping

[La Lydia]

You may be right. But there is also the possibility that this is the camel’s nose under the tent, and once they do this, they will move on to something more sinister. What has the government interfered in and gradually taken over that turned out well?

[robby]

I agree. Something smells here. Kennedy was behind this also. “Net Neutrality” sounds like “Fairness Doctrine” to me. It sounds nice but........

[JPII Be Not Afraid]

Have you ever watched “The Net” with Sandra Bullock? This sounds to much like “The Gate Keeper” in the movie.

[bert]

I understand your point.

The industry is headed into completely uncharted territory and some regulation is needed for the various parties to understand what they are doing. If they all charge ahead with no boundaries there is high probability of chaos.The fact it is done does not mean it will be right and not subject to revision.

Look at what is happening. The cable that provided TV is the largest provider of Internet broadband. The internet provides telephone service and programming for the TV sets, on demand, free. Meanwhile cell phones are eating away at plain ol telephone service that provides DSL broad band and is also a threat to the cable companies. My local phone company offers Satellite TV as well. Long distance service is available free over skype along with a video of the person called.

At some point there is going to be a massive conglomeration as the various providers seek to buy capability. It is going to be a glorious mess to sort out.

[WHBates]

How in the world would the FCC have any over-site or regulatory authority over the Internet?

[BuffaloJack]

> Joe Goebbels would be proud.
Joseph Goebbels, if I recall correctly, was a socialist.

[plain talk]

If the Telcos can’t discriminate then they will implement bandwidth usage charging. To most of us that don’t download videos and such stuff this won’t be a big deal.

[SE Mom]

This is pretty tricky and for me to understand it I’d need an attorney to explain. What it seems to do is tell the big telecom companies, i.e. Verizon, AT&T etc. what content they must allow- basically telling them what they must provide to their customers.

The other thing that makes me suspicious on general principles- Google has pushed for this and advocates it strongly. I trust Google as much as I trust the president- not at all.

[MichiganConservative]

The industry is headed into completely uncharted territory and some regulation is needed for the various parties to understand what they are doing. If they all charge ahead with no boundaries there is high probability of chaos.

Basically, you're saying the companies don't know their business and we need to cower in fear until the government comes riding in on a white horse to save the day?

We need a nanny to make sure we all play by "fair" rules in life? Don't want life to be unfair or anything.

[ronnyquest]

Of course, these are private enterprises for which users must pay a fee to access. The Internet is not a utility, as many would have us believe, nor is it a public service; it is "owned" by carriers. The switches, servers, lines, code, etc. are all property. Should the owners not reserve the right to say what crosses their networks and how? No one surfs porn liberal media sites on my network because I own it and I make the rules. Yes, I know that the World Wide Web started as DARPAnet and then became ARPAnet, then morphed into what it is today. Even in the earliest stages it was a collaboration of government agencies with private enterprises, like Bell, and universities, like Washington University, because the government did not own the infrastructure to make it happen.

I hesitate to say that I can get behind anything this administration does, just on principle, even if it sounds good on the surface. We do not need more precedent-setting openings (regulations) through which the federal government can worm its way into our lives and business enterprises. Enough is enough.

Μολὼν λάβε