Posted on 07/02/2011 5:02:59 AM PDT by markomalley
The Federal Communications Commission sent its semi-final draft of net neutrality rules to the White House for approval Thursday, bringing the controversial Internet rules one step closer to enforcement.
The FCC sent its proposed rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget, where the OMB will gather data from internet service providers on their networks and performance before making recommendations on the rules.
Full approval of the FCC’s proposal is still likely a few months away. Besides OMB review, the rules still must go through several other steps, including public comment period, before they become official.
Net neutrality would prohibit Internet service providers from limiting access to their consumers, both in terms of bandwidth and content. Proponents say it would prevent providers from creating a tiered Internet or intentionally slowing down service for lower-paying consumers. Critics say net neutrality isn’t necessary and, even if it was, free-market competition would fix the problem anyways.
Some Republicans are trying to stop the FCC from enforcing net neutrality, but their efforts appear to have little chance of success. The president has said he will veto any such attempts.
But even then, it’s highly expected that many companies will sue the FCC to try and overturn the rules.
Upon swearing in, Timothy Geithner would be charged with tax fraud, every FCC employee contributing to the Fairness Doctrine or Net Neutrality, would be fired, the NEA, Planned Parenthood, PBS, etc., would be defunded, all drilling restrictions would be voided, all federal lands would be returned to the states except the National Parks. Then for the second day . . . .
All rules codified by agencies will be nullified and reviewed by congress.
Recent legislation passed in FL requires legislative approval of all agency rules/regs that could cost the private sector $1 million or more over five years.
Regaining control of the Administrative State should a Presidential campaign issue.
Once upon a time in America,
there was Freedom of Speech.
I like unlimited bandwidth as much as the next guy, but this is property seizure and a tragedy of the commons.
If I were a telco, I would slow down my buildout and limit the bandwidth available to my customers so that I wouldn’t have to keep upgrading my backbone to handle unlimited amounts of data.
In other words, this policy will be counterproductive. It is a typical leftist view—the evil profiteering companies have unlimited bandwidth and are gouging us.
Of course, in certain cases, like SMS messaging charges, this is true, but that’s not the main point here.
Not being argumentative but what does bandwidth and/or speed have to do with the neutrality rules?
More importantly, the policy will tend to cause scarcity of bandwidth, since the capital necessary to build new infrastructure will likely not flow to a controlled business.
Once scarcity is predominant, then government will be able to dictate usage.
See radio and tv frequency spectrum and the history of the FCC.
And, every agency administrator down to the lowest levels who participated in drafting these quasi legislative rules be fired.
slight correction. every agency administrator and their subordinates...
These agencies are filled with parasites who do absolutely nothing productive. These agencies should be completely eliminated, ALL employees fired and the buildings they resided in sold (if outside D.C) or razed if located inside D.C.
The power and scope of the Federal government must be severely rolled back.
The neutrality rules say that the provider cannot limit the bandwidth to any user, even via a tiered pay for bandwidth scheme. So, a few hogs--downloaders, spammers, get a lot more service than most, which in turn requires more overall capacity on the part of the provider. He can only provide that by charging everyone more, or by not improving the bandwidth available at the curb.
For example... Verizon now gives something like 15 MBPS service at the curb, but theoretically, their fiber can handle much, much greater bandwidth. But, if they improve the curb level technology, then they will have to make dramatic improvements in their overall backbone capacity. I contend that net neutrality will disincentivize them.
That was my point, perhaps stated less concisely.
There is no free-market. For many locations, particularly for rural and apartment dwellers, you have a single choice for broadband internet.
I agree totally. I would go through those agencies like a tornado and and fire every one of those useless pukes.
There are many roadblocks for ISPs, although a WISP is not too difficult and works in rural locations. Part of the regulatory apparatus will be used to make sure those roadblocks stay in place and are strengthened. For example to protect their monopoly the incumbents will point out that there are usage and bandwidth caps on the WISPS (there has to be to make it work). Those are content based and violate the rules. That is how the WISPs will be kept out of the market.
There is not one single case in the history of regulation where it has not been abused by the incumbents to keep their monopolies. As for apartment dwellers, there are tons of choices unless the apartment prohibits them (a different problem, and you simply need to move).
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.