Skip to comments.FCC chief, GOP spar on ‘net neutrality’ ( Lawsuits arent enough )
Posted on 05/06/2011 12:13:55 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski on Wednesday offered a strong defense of his agencys new Internet traffic regulations, telling skeptical Republican lawmakers that existing laws were not strong enough to police the large firms that operate the Webs infrastructure..
In my view, while critically important, antitrust laws alone would not adequately preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet, the FCC chief told a House Judiciary subcommittee on the hot-button issue of net neutrality.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Here’s that article I was talking about.
This is clearly a power grab. They have an alternate goal than what’s stated.
When a government employee tells congress that his organization isn't constrained by laws and his budget isn't immediately zeroed, I suppose we've reached the point where I begin to understand how the Senate in ancient Rome lost their power. They simply stopped defending it and decided to just go with the flow and live high. And so it is with this congress.
Wasn’t the FCC barred by a federal court order from implementing Internet regulations the courts stating the FCC did not have the authority to regulate the Internet? I also seem to recall a Congressional resolution that said the same. Genachowski should be held for contempt of court and contempt of Congress.
They should have asked this yo yo what a router was. What is a switch? Heck, what is a firewall?
I would think that if the court barred them from implementing the regs then business should be able to just tell them to go pound sand.
I think I didn’t type my post very well.
—————The Supreme Court said they can NOT institute “Net Neutrality”.———————
They, meaning the government. Typically, you can’t sue government anyways.
But your question furthers the point I was making. Even when you sue government, they *STILL* don’t listen. Making net neutrality even more dangerous in this context than my original post even intended.
——————How is suing to stop them going to stop them?—————
Them, meaning the corporations/telcos/etc.
The telcos can fight all they want, but several lawsuits that are being referenced for net neutrality have most certainly slowed down telcos from doing things which are clearly wrong. IIRC, the telcos have been stopped.
Thus my conclusion. If lawsuits work against telcos, but we are completely defenseless against big government, then I am 100% against a net neutrality power grab.
I hope someone goes ‘et tu, brutus’ on net neutrality legislation.
No more power for unelected bureaucrats. None.
You’re thinking along my lines.
The FCC clearly wants more power. They could easily expand existing laws to make lawsuits effective(depending on what they’re missing, unless he is completely lying) or they could write new laws to make lawsuits effective. But doing this empowers the people.
He doesn’t want to empower the people. He wants power for himself.
I want rule of law. Net neutrality is the rule of man.
Ok, well, who did you mean then?
I want to stop government as much as I want to stop the telcos.
Do you agree with that? Or are you ready for a master? With Genachowski(sp?) stating that lawsuits aren’t enough, then it’s clear that a master is what they’re preparing for us.
I reject a master.