Skip to comments.Liveblogging the Vote on Rules Protecting the Open Internet
Posted on 12/21/2010 12:31:45 PM PST by abb
I realize this has been posted several times over the past few days. However, this blog notes the six "principles" today's order covers. And all of us here at FRee Republic know that what is WRITTEN in federal rule means nothing. It's what the FCC's lawyers SAYS it means is all that counts.
1) Transparency. Consumers and innovators have a right to know the basic performance characteristics of their Internet access and how their network is being managed.
2) No Blocking. A right to send and receive lawful traffic. This prohibits blocking of lawful content, apps, services, and the connection of non-harmful devices to the network
3) Level Playing Field. A right to a level playing field. A ban on unreasonable discrimination. No approval for so-called pay for priority arrangements involving fast lanes for some companies but not others.
4) Network Management. An allowance for broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management. These rules dont forbid providers from offering subscribers tiers of service or charging based on bandwidth consumed.
5) Mobile. Broadly applicable rules requiring transparency for mobile broadband providers, and prohibiting them from blocking websites and certain competitive applications.
6) Vigilance. Creation of an Open Internet Advisory Committee to assist the Commission in monitoring the state of Internet openness and the effects of our rules.
Of interest to our group.
Any indication what part of the constitution they’re wrapping around this dead fish to justify it?
Here’s a working link.
What does this one mean?
2) No Blocking. A right to send and receive lawful traffic. This prohibits blocking of lawful content, apps, services, and the connection of non-harmful devices to the network.
Does that mean Jim Rob can’t zot trolls anymore?
It does? Okay, can you give us a timeline on when trolls can start 'coming out'?
/Sarc, quoted from a CNN anchor.
This strikes me as unconstitutionally vague.
Ensuring that mobile providers do not block SKYPE and that Comcast does not block Hulu may be good and desirable, but that is the job of Congress, not the FCC bureaucrats.
Of course none of that has happened yet, so no “solution” to the non-existent problem is required.
IIRC, Apple’s I-phone wouldn’t use Flash, but they’ve relented on that.
Sent to everyone of the commissioners:
In a very short time WITHOUT government interference the Internet has grown exponentially in speed, functionality, and number of users.
Given, in ALL RECORDED history government has shown to NOT deliver on its promises and usually create a host of unintended consequences why on Gods green earth would any serious user of the internet want ANY bureaucrats getting their regulatory fingers on the internet?
When AOL tried to do their own brand of censorship of any 2nd Amendment discussions, thousands, including myself, dropped them immediately and forced them to rescind their stupid policy.
When a behemoth the size of the FCC, and what we are seeing in the future, the UN makes the inevitable rule change for our own good (right) how do we effect the same change as we did with AOL?
This is a dark day for the future of the internet because if you were honest with yourself you would admit that this is only the FIRST step in a long line of regulations which knowing exactly how government works even this e-mail will eventually be forbidden.
The founders would be very displeased with you and your fellow heavy handed regulators.
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.