Posted on 01/15/2010 9:03:08 AM PST by IrishMike
The Federal Communications Commission is considering aggressive moves to stake out its authority to oversee consumer access to the Internet, as a recent court hearing and industry opposition have cast doubt on its power over Web service providers. The FCC, which regulates public access to telephone and television services, has been working to claim the same role for the Internet. The stakes are high, as the Obama administration pushes an agenda of open broadband access for all and big corporations work to protect their enormous investments in a new and powerful medium.No worries, this is just some kind of move toward a cyber-redistribution scheme, nothin' to worry about. Thanks IrishMike.
This could not plant the seeds of, but make a new REVOLUTION likely.
Please see post 23.
I agree about Comcast, but my problem here is whether the FCC is overreaching in its power. If they are, then it’s a bunch of bureaucrats exerting power that we the people (through our reps) didn’t give them. I can’t tolerate that even if I agree with what they’re doing.
The FCC has broad powers already, however, and they can make decisions based on consumer interests or monopolistic entities such as Comcast. This one bears close watching to see where they come down, especially on the "net neutrality" issue. I don't want Comcast telling me what I can and cannot download or what email messages are screened.
Bunch of bored rat basturd bureaucrats trying to make it look as though we really need them and like they really earn a paycheck. Fire them and let them apply for hamburger flipper jobs...and compete with the illegal aliens to get that job. Ef’ ‘um!
There is so much dead wood in the federal bureaucracy. 99% of them are useless eater Democrats...affirmative action hires...dead heads...dolts...otherwise unemployable
There is no longer any such thing as a private company if you are in the scope of Obama’s radar.
"The issue may have reached a turning point last week when a federal appeals court questioned the limits of the FCC's authority in a 2008 case involving Comcast. The agency had ordered the Internet and cable giant to stop blocking subscribers' access to the online website FreeRepublic.com."
“Then the FCC needs to trot over to that big building down the street and ask Congress to pass a law granting them the authority to regulate the internet,”
They don’t have to. They already have the authority, based on the law which created the FCC as the regulatory body for communications.
Sad but true.
Sad but true.
I work in Broadcast, and deal with FCC regulations all the time. The FCC can only regulate to the extent that they are given a mandate by statute. Currently there is no statute to regulate "the internet" as a common carrier, so existing statutes are inadequate to empower the FCC to regulate.
If someone believes the FCC has overstepped their bounds, then they take the FCC to federal court, and the courts decide how far the FCC's authority into any issue goes.
BINGO !!!
"The issue may have reached a turning point last week when a federal appeals court questioned the limits of the FCC's authority in a 2008 case involving Comcast. The agency had ordered the Internet and cable giant to stop blocking subscribers' access to the online website FreeRepublic.com."
You have the concept of net neutrality (thank you, too many here, purposefully or by accident confuse it with the unrelated broadcast Fairness Doctrine) but I give the targets of net neutrality the benefit of the doubt in that they are less ideologically based and more profit based. ie. They wouldn't block Free Republic for idealogical reasons, they would just cap speed from the a popular site like this to 56k speeds or such unless Jim Rob paid Comcast for the 'Premium' speed. Of course he would also have to do likewise to all the other major ISP's: Charter, Verizon, etc.
The effect would be the same of course, but I believe in being intellectually honest as the likely motive of organizations like Comcast in fighting the Fairness Doctrine.
Personally, I think all ISPs should bill solely on bandwidth.
You want to buy 10 Mbps service? You get 10 Mbps service.
Want a higher speed, you pay more... but you get more.
Which is usually how ISP’s bill. But then to have them conduct the sleight of hand that makes it so they don’t actually give you the bandwidth speed they promise, well... I consider that a breech of contract.
The problem is that in large areas of rural America, there really is only one ISP to use. So, as an internet user, you have no choice in how they provide service. You either agree or not have internet.
That said... I would prefer that anti-monopoly legislation be used to bust up these situations instead of resorting to new regulation.
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.