Posted on 02/18/2009 11:07:17 AM PST by ebiskit
The House Democrats' $825 billion legislation released on Thursday was supposedly intended to "stimulate" the economy. Backers claimed that speedy approval was vital because the nation is in "a crisis not seen since the Great Depression" and "the economy is shutting down."
That's the rhetoric. But in reality, Democrats are using the 258-page legislation to sneak Net neutrality rules in through the back door.
The so-called stimulus package hands out billions of dollars in grants for broadband and wireless development, primarily in what are called "unserved" and "underserved" areas. The U.S. Department of Commerce is charged with writing checks-with-many-zeros-on-them to eligible recipients, including telecommunications companies, local and state governments, and even construction companies and other businesses that might be interested.
The catch is that the federal largesse comes with Net neutrality strings attached. The Commerce Department must ensure that the recipients "adhere to" the Federal Communications Commission's 2005 broadband policy statement (PDF)--which the FCC said at the time was advisory and "not enforceable," and has become the subject of a lawsuit before a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.
One interpretation of the "adhere to" requirement is that a company like AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast that takes "stimulus" dollars to deploy broadband in, say, Nebraska must abide by these rules nationwide. (It's rather like the state of Nebraska demanding that a broadband provider filter out porn nationwide in exchange for a lucrative government contract.)
In addition, recipients must operate broadband and high-speed wireless networks on an "open access basis." The FCC, soon to be under Democratic control, is charged with deciding what that means. Congress didn't see fit to include a definition.
The Bush administration has taken a dim view of Internet regulations in the form of Net neutrality rules, warning last year that they could "inefficiently skew investment, delay innovation, and diminish consumer welfare, and there is reason to believe that the kinds of broad marketplace restrictions proposed in the name of 'neutrality' would do just that, with respect to the Internet." A report from the Federal Trade Commission reached the same conclusion in 2007.
In addition, a recent study from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that the absence of Net neutrality laws or similar federally mandated regulations has spurred telecommunications companies to invest heavily in infrastructure, and changing the rules "would have a devastating effect on the U.S. economy, investment, and innovation."
Now, perhaps extensive Net neutrality regulations are wise. But enough people seem to have honest, deep-seated reservations about them to justify a sincere discussion of costs and benefits--rather than having the requirements stealthily injected into what supposed to be an emergency save-the-economy bill scheduled for a floor vote within a week or so.
Net neutrality requirements can, of course, always be imposed retroactively on broadband "stimulus" recipients. As recently as one day ago, a Democratic Senate aide was saying the topic would be addressed in the Judiciary Committee in the near future; there seems little reason to rush to lard up this particular legislation.
But it always seems to happen. Last fall's TARP bailout bill included IRS snooping. A port security bill included Internet gambling restrictions; the Real ID Act was glued onto a military spending and tsunami relief bill; a library filtering law was attached to a destined-to-be-enacted bill funding Congress itself.
It's enough to make you want to force our elected representatives to actually read the bills they pass.
what???
The word to describe my utter hatred of the fascist demoncrats and this tyrannical bastard Obama needs to be invented first.
bump
Old news, much hype about nothing. The guts of the policy are:
“consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.” - Reasonable. ISPs shouldn’t block you from accessing lawful content.
“consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.” - Reasonable. Sprint shouldn’t be able to say you can’t use Vonage on your DSL because it cuts into their VOIP business. That’s anticompetitive.
“consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network” - This issue was settled with the phone companies decades ago. Comcast shouldn’t force me to buy an expensive wireless router from them when I have their service, I should be able to use my own.
“consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.” Reasonable. Competition is good, and this reflects the proper state of the Internet.
So what exactly in there is disagreeable?
bump for later research
Why did Al Gore invent the internet if it is so bad? LOL
Who defines "lawful Internet content" and/or "legal devices?"
What ? What?
A good analogy would be the legal ruling on whether bars and nightclubs could allow women in for free and yet still charge men at the door. The idea was that while women are good for business and a bar “rich in female content” will attract the paying men to come in while keeping out enough guys(who couldn’t afford to pay) to keep the content at a proper “male/female” ratio. The courts ruled that “ladies night” was discriminatory. We all deserve equal access to their business. ISPs want to charge more for you and I to access the internet(the guys) than they would for the big internet draws like the major media outlets(the girls) knowing that we will pay up. They reduce some of the traffic which is expensive(too crowded bar) but make up for it with the higher rates(the cover charge).
It’s tantamount to a service denial attack.
S.O.S. ...lol
The government, of course. But we already have unlawful Internet content and probably illegal devices regardless of net neutrality. I'm sure kiddie porn will stay illegal. All this does is say the ISPs can't ban what is lawful, like TWC getting a contract with MSN and cutting its millions of customers off from Google.
CNN already pays its commercial ISPs for the outgoing content (probably thousands of times more than FR pays) and the customers of the consumer ISPs already pay to receive that content. The consumer ISPs want payment from both ends. Any justification is BS, it's just greed.
I may start listening if they finally give me that 40 Mbps to the house they promised when the government gave them billions to do that in the 90s. Until then I assume they've been paid enough and shouldn't get any more concessions until they deliver.
I’m not sure how the Dems’ approach on Net Neutrality merits a comparison to Hitler. I actually think agree with the Dems on this issue. I think that the provider of the device should get paid for providing the device, but shouldn’t get to control what goes across that device. The Telecom firms want to privilege certain packets (advertisements that they get paid for). I think that’s crap.
Hitler has a “civilian military”....they called it the GESTAPO.
Actually, it was the Brown Shirts. Armed “bully boys” and thugs, which is what the “Civilian Military” would be...or will be if “reasonable gun control” takes place.
I'm wondering what kind of questions he will insert into the census. For example, what is your net worth? Do you own any firearms?
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.