Skip to comments.FCC & Net Neutrality: Let the Real Rumble Begin
Posted on 09/20/2011 6:42:44 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
It looks like it is finally going to happen. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has finally gotten their net neutrality regulations through the bureaucratic mess, and now it [IS] only a matter of times before they start to take effect.
The National Journal reports:
Open Internet regulations, or network-neutrality rules, have cleared the final regulatory hurdle before getting on the books, a Federal Communications Commission spokesman said on Monday. The rules, which limit how cable and phone companies can treat legal Internet traffic, are strongly opposed by Republicans in Congress, who have unsuccessfully attempted to repeal them on several occasions. The FCC passed the regulations in December over Republican objections, creating the defining saga of commission Chairman Julius Genachowskis tenure so far and fulfilling an Obama campaign promise. The Office of Management and Budget, which had a procedural role in OKing the regulations thanks to the Paperwork Reduction Act, had to review new data-collection responsibilities that the rules apply to Internet service firms. OMB signed off late Friday, an FCC spokesman said in an e-mail.
Now the net neutrality rules will head to the Federal Register and [TO] be published within one to three weeks. Following that, it will be another 60 days after they are published before they go into effect. Can someone start the countdown? Within the next few months the real fight over net neutrality is going to commence and rightly so. Verizon Wireless and Metro PCS are expected to challenge the legality of this net neutrality regulation. They filed lawsuits in January when the regulations were first approved, but they were thrown out of court because the rules hadnt gone into effect yet. As we have previously reported, Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell believes that there is a better than average chance that the court will deem these regulations illegal. If that isnt enough and as we have also previously reported, House Republican have made attempts in the past to defund the FCC in part to prevent them from implementing net neutrality. It is for sure that if the courts fail to step in the GOP will make another attempt at defunding the FCC. Net Neutrality is bad policy that will hurt consumers and frankly is down right illegal. Hopefully with an all-hands-on-deck approach, we can come together to stop net neutrality as quickly as possible.
The same argument all over again. How is letting major telco monetize every bit going over the internet HELPing consumers exactly? Paying more for less functionality IS the future, if the telco's have their way. Thanks to them carving up the country, there is precious little choice for consumers at their house, when it comes to internet options.
The present form of net neutrality is BAD. But some of the core points of it are not.
——————The same argument all over again.——————
It’s the same marxists over and over again.
They don’t change. Their goal hasn’t changed. Why would my argument change?
-————How is letting major telco monetize every bit going over the internet HELPing consumers exactly? Paying more for less functionality IS the future, if the telco’s have their way.-————
This is disconnected from reality, in two ways. Regulations have an inherent cost to them. Studies have been done that prove how expensive regulations get.
Net neutrality will make things more expensive, not less.
The second way that this is disconnected from reality is only looking at this from an economic aspected. These marxists pushing all of this could care less about your 39.95 or 79.95 or whatever per month you pay for your broadband. This is about freedom. It always is for marxists. It was in Cuba, it was in Russia, it was and still is in China. To think that marxists have now somehow changed just because the internet is on the line is an equivalent of burning history books.
-————The present form of net neutrality is BAD. But some of the core points of it are not.-—————
As a birthchild of marxist thought, every single part of it are bad. Even those parts which seem good on the surface, are nothing more than a means to an end. This is a historical truth for this type of ideology.
“Big Brother U.S. Government Subpoenaed Amazon.com to Obtain Book Purchasing Records of Customers”
Saturday, December 08, 2007
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Note the date.
Also, follow the money.
“5 Heavily Discounted George Soros Buy Ideas”
“Why Is George Soros Selling AT&T and Verizon?”
by: Investment Underground April 20, 2011
What the hell, I thought this was OVER!!! That’s what the headlines said 3 months ago right here at FR.
I am in the business of providing broadband Internet services. There is no doubt in my mind that I will be raising my prices.
There are embedded in the rules record keeping and log maintenance rules that will require me to alter my practices. You see my company isn’t large enough to afford the equipment necessary to restrict bandwidth from certain places or with certain content. If you buy a 4 meg package you get 4 megs.
BUT I will STILL have to keep logs for years, fill out some stupid paperwork reports, and I am sure spend time responding to complaints. I may have to buy some other pieces of hardware so I can monitor every connection to make sure they are getting the full boat. And I will have to gather statistics so I can post them “conspicuously” on my web site so as to be “more transparent”. I figure that at a minimum my monthly price will have to increase by at least $5 to cover these additional costs.
I may have to raise it more after I read the entire rules as posted but $5 is a starting point.
My customers can thank the FCC.
Thanks. I hope you don’t mind, but some of what you posted has relevance in what I posted last night so I copied it there. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2780825/posts
The glorious revolution is never over. It’s only put on hold for a period of time.
Wasn’t the FCC already slapped down by the courts who said they did not have the legal authority to regulate the Internet? So much for the rule of law in this country.
My apologies. I have only briefly leafed through FR and didn’t realize you’d posted this previously.
COMING SOON: GHETTO INTARWEBZ
Your post was good. It was similar to what I had already posted, but different.
The ‘Attack Watch’ commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XYKRokgX00&feature=player_embedded#!
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Fairness doctrine is over. But that hasn't prevented some people from following the astroturf to purposely confuse net neutrality with it or any other bad policy.
The words "if applicable" precede traffic limiting disclosure requirements. It sounds like you don't have the kind of equipment needed to violate net neutrality, so that part would be easy. If you know your business, you should be able to comply with this rule in about half an hour, and publish it to your users.
Don't believe the scaremongers. They're just doing the bidding of the big telcos that stand to lose their ability to secretly screw their customers.
I link stories together because they are already inherently linked together.
Like these two:
Some will see how they relate, just like what I posted relates to net neutrality. Some will see them as completely separate issues. They are not.
And the Fairness Doctrine is dead. Obviously it would be, net neutrality is the future of censorship.
If the ISPs were so bent on charging more for less functionality they’d have done it already. The ISPs face competition, if yours censors the net in a way you don’t like you can go to another. The government is a monopoly, if the FCC starts censoring the net in a way you don’t like you get to learn to like it. Putting the government in charge of communication is bad, that’s why the first amendment says not to do it.
Wrong. You used to be able to get unlimited data plans for cell phones and the internet. Now you have to buy reduced plans, and you get limited by the network as soon as you reach a predetermined amount. You are paying more for less already. It’s once the telco’s figure out how to charge content providers *cough* netflix *cough* that they will be forcing you to enjoy even LESS for the same amount. Do you think the telco’s will pass that winfall over to the users? hahahaha
But now, they have all joined together and agreed that they SHOULD kill the goose that laid the golden egg. They have agreed that they should shape the internet into their own vision. They should block access, they should retard the throughput through their networks as they see fit. The consumer is requesting access, but the telco's are saying "No, we won't let you have access to that."
In your world, to complain about such BS is to tote the hammer and sickle. To point out that the consumers are getting screwed is akin to calling each other comrade. That's garbage, and you know it.
So please tell me again how the telco's build multi billion dollar companies off of the ideals of net neutrality already, but yet the concept is evil. You can not, because it is not BAD. Any provision that allows for government oversite of the CONTENT of the internet is the evil part and should be abolished at all cost.
Hilarious. Net neutrality prevents censorship. Yes, I know, you'll put on the tin foil hat and show me the big conspiracy, but remember I am sane, I don't do conspiracy theory.
By reading your reply you are FOR more government control over your media.
You are on the wrong forum.
———————I think I see your debating technique now. You simply label those opposed to you as marxist.———————
Nope. You don’t see it. The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund did a great piece detailing the marxist roots of Net Neutrality here:
You could always complain to John Fund, and tell him he lied. I’d like to know how that goes for you if you did try, and he replied. You should post it around here.
Here’s more information. That net neutrality is marxist is not in question. All their words are there. All their history is there. All the money............ All the money is there. Follow the money. The documents are there. Follow the influence. It’s all there.
I’m with you on this
there is nothing wrong with the internet that THIS [so called ‘net nuetrality’] fixes
It is a marxist power grab to control information- pure and simple
Even the name is deceptively communist. Why not just call it the “really nice shiny new internet” act- who could be against a nice shiny new internet, right?
It's even worse when you consider what it was originally supposed to be called. Tim Wu coined the phrase 'net neutrality', but he preferred 'broadband discrimination'. He said this in an interview with the NY Slimes, here.
Originally, the phrase I was promoting was "broadband discrimination," and I also said "network neutrality," to capture the concept, which ended up becoming the default.
Broadband Discrimination. That will tell you just how dishonest these schmucks intended to be right from the beginning. Everything with these leftists is some battle cry of discrimination, which as we've seen over the decades is nothing more than their way of grabbing power.
Sorry but you’re wrong. All the cable companies, and all the regional phone companies offer the internet, then there’s Verizon. That’s a minimum of 3 ISPs available to everybody that doesn’t live out in farm country. Cell phone is a different situation entirely and not even covered by net neutrality.
ISPs already know how to charge content providers, they have the DNS servers, they know where the traffic is going, and they aren’t. Which proves you wrong again. Laugh all you want. Putting the government in charge of communications is giving the fox the keys to the hen house. Only tyrants and fools think it’s a good idea. Pick which group is you.
No, I am for restricting corporate control over my media by whatever mechanism is necessary.
And what happens when all three of the ISPs are doing it? You make it out as if it’s going to be a rarity, and you can simply switch. What happens when you want to go to Foxnews, freerepublic, and you wife wants to go to Oprah, and your kids want to play games on nickelodeon. Today, you all simply access them with no problem. In the future, each will be aligned with a different ISP and you will have LESS choice, and be paying more to boot.
You simply have no concept of what is going to happen. You think things will remain relatively the same, they will not. The sooner you realize that the telcos are going to break with the model they have enjoyed to financial success to date, while also ignoring the wishes of their consumer, the sooner you will see the problem for what it really is.
Your citing three different ISPs a some magical choice. OK, I’ll hand you three sources for your news - Washington Post, NYTimes, MSNBC. Soo you have choices. Only problem is that they all suck. THAT is going to the internet of the future.
But they won’t all do it. Because it’ll be a selling point. If one starts throttling Netflix then the others can say “we don’t throttle Netflix, come join us”. Which is why none of them are doing it now. There’s money to be made not doing something the competition is doing.
Ask yourself your own questions. What happens in a Net Neutrality world if the FCC decides they aren’t into FoxNews and Freep? I can replace my ISP in your example, you can’t replace the FCC in mine. That’s why capitalism is better.
I’ve got a fine concept of what’s really going on. I know that things have good reason to remain the same if the government isn’t in charge, and I know that government doesn’t like unfettered communication. The sooner you realize that the government is not your friend and is trying to gain control of this to do EXACTLY what you fear from the ISPs the sooner you will see the problem for what it really is.
You’re need to restrict your list shows exactly why I’m right and you’re wrong. I have many more than those 3 choices for news. Where as with the FCC in charge all I’d get is their choice.
Antitrust regulations already prevent the exact scenario you are describing. All an ISP would have to do in your scenario to make a killing is simply not fall in step with the others. Which is why none of them do it. That is the beauty of a free market and the ugliness of socialized regulations.
Sorry, but people are simply lazy. About 10% know about this stuff, the rest just accept whatever the telco’s give them.
They are already shaping traffic and they are eliminating unlimited data packages. There are two instances TODAY where you are getting less for the same amount. How is that benefiting the customers exactly?