PDA

View Full Version : The Net Neutrality Coup



Eric Johnson
12-22-2010, 12:28 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop=

http://tinyurl.com/2ex43tj

The campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who's who of left-liberal foundations.

By JOHN FUND
WSJ, Dec 21, 2010

The Federal Communications Commission's new "net neutrality" rules, passed on a partisan 3-2 vote yesterday, represent a huge win for a slick lobbying campaign run by liberal activist groups and foundations. The losers are likely to be consumers who will see innovation and investment chilled by regulations that treat the Internet like a public utility.

There's little evidence the public is demanding these rules, which purport to stop the non-problem of phone and cable companies blocking access to websites and interfering with Internet traffic. Over 300 House and Senate members have signed a letter opposing FCC Internet regulation, and there will undoubtedly be even less support in the next Congress.

-more-

Franco
12-22-2010, 01:13 PM
When it all shakes out I think we will see a ruling where the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has zero jurisdiction over the World Wide Web!

That's not to say that Big Brother wouldn't like to control content, ISP, meddle in contracts, taxes and other acts of control.

BonMallari
12-22-2010, 02:18 PM
why don't they go ask the "founder of the internet" what he wants to do :rolleyes:

Eric Johnson
12-22-2010, 03:25 PM
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals in April (Comcast v FCC) ruled that the FCC has no jurisdiction over the Internet. This could turn out to be as good as a dog food fight because the FCC is blantantly violating the decision of the Ct. I've not found any reference to the Administration filing an appeal to the Supreme Ct so the DC Circuit is the ruling decision.

If you read the full article you'll find some fairly disturbing things that could be a harbinger of things to come now that the legislative avenue is closing down.

Eric

Cody Covey
12-22-2010, 06:19 PM
Yes because ISP's telling people where they can and can't go is SOOO much better than the FCC saying they aren't allowed to do that.

depittydawg
12-22-2010, 07:06 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop=

http://tinyurl.com/2ex43tj

The campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who's who of left-liberal foundations.

By JOHN FUND
WSJ, Dec 21, 2010

The Federal Communications Commission's new "net neutrality" rules, passed on a partisan 3-2 vote yesterday, represent a huge win for a slick lobbying campaign run by liberal activist groups and foundations. The losers are likely to be consumers who will see innovation and investment chilled by regulations that treat the Internet like a public utility.

There's little evidence the public is demanding these rules, which purport to stop the non-problem of phone and cable companies blocking access to websites and interfering with Internet traffic. Over 300 House and Senate members have signed a letter opposing FCC Internet regulation, and there will undoubtedly be even less support in the next Congress.

-more-

I heard a different take. The big suppliers, Comcast, Phone companies, etc, who control the access to the internet are trying to sell that access to the highest bidders. In other words, if you want to do business on the internet, if you want your site to be available to people surfing around the net, you got to pay up. This legislation attempts to keep the internet free for access to all. In my book that's a good thing.

Franco
12-22-2010, 07:15 PM
I heard a different take. The big suppliers, Comcast, Phone companies, etc, who control the access to the internet are trying to sell that access to the highest bidders. In other words, if you want to do business on the internet, if you want your site to be available to people surfing around the net, you got to pay up. This legislation attempts to keep the internet free for access to all. In my book that's a good thing.

The internet may be free where you live but I have to pay $40. month for it!

If the FCC wins the right to govern the internet within our boarders, you can bet you'll be paying more. Never in history has our huge Federal Government ever controlled anything and made it better for tax payers financially!!!

Cody Covey
12-22-2010, 07:56 PM
The FCC (at least at this point) is arguing that no one controls the internet. They aren't making a power grab that are saying companies can't limit access to those paying customers. Comcast has shutdown internet to some people current on their payments because it was deemed they were using more than their fair share even though there is nothing in the contract stating comcast will limit bandwidth based on customer following the law.

Eric Johnson
12-22-2010, 08:52 PM
This legislation attempts to keep the internet free for access to all. In my book that's a good thing.

To begin, this isn't legislation. This was passed by a vote of 3-2 by a regulatory agency. That's fewer folks than even a Congressional sub-committee.

This could very well be a hint of the way things will be implemented in the future. Without a law, just a couple of hand-picked administrators, the Federal government could, for instance, ban retrievers from the WMA.

Eric

Nor_Cal_Angler
12-22-2010, 11:54 PM
To begin, this isn't legislation. This was passed by a vote of 3-2 by a regulatory agency. That's fewer folks than even a Congressional sub-committee.

This could very well be a hint of the way things will be implemented in the future. Without a law, just a couple of hand-picked administrators, the Federal government could, for instance, ban retrievers from the WMA.

Eric

All to familiar with Hand Picked Administrators, beholden to NO one running state agencies....Bay Area Air Quality, State Water Board, Cal Recycle, Cal Air Resources Board, etc..etc...etc....

SCUM SUCKERS in my book, elected by NO ONE, telling me what I can and can not do, limiting my rights, imposing regulations on this and that, never putting it before the people....hell, even the elected legislators in California CHOOSEN by the people can not reel in these admisistrators and reglatory bodies/councils. Problem is once you let even ONE of these councils/reglatory agencies/commissions etc in...they extend their tenticles out to touch on just about every avenue of your life....take the CARB...they control SO MUCH of our everyday life now, they have extended themselves into more than just the AIR...ground water, recycling, AG, utilities...its getting REALLY UGLY

LIBERAL PHLISOPHY...the people of this nation are to stupid to know what is good for them so we will tell them what is good for them and make them abide by it....

CALIFORNIA SUCKS

NCA

depittydawg
12-23-2010, 12:23 AM
The internet may be free where you live but I have to pay $40. month for it!

If the FCC wins the right to govern the internet within our boarders, you can bet you'll be paying more. Never in history has our huge Federal Government ever controlled anything and made it better for tax payers financially!!!

That's not the issue. You have to pay. But right now, once you are online, you can access any site you want to. Net Neutrality is an attempt to maintain this freedom.

depittydawg
12-23-2010, 12:33 AM
The FCC (at least at this point) is arguing that no one controls the internet. They aren't making a power grab that are saying companies can't limit access to those paying customers. Comcast has shutdown internet to some people current on their payments because it was deemed they were using more than their fair share even though there is nothing in the contract stating comcast will limit bandwidth based on customer following the law.

This ruling is an attempt to maintain the current freedoms on the internet. Not restrict them.
Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a buzzword used to describe a principle proposed for users' access to networks participating in the Internet. The principle advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication.[1][2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

At the present time, there is no actual law in the United States that enforces net neutrality, but an informal arrangement has been in place for many years. Net neutrality essentially levels the playing field for commercial websites, ensuring that a small online bookstore can still receive visitors, even if sites such as Amazon.com or Barnes&Noble.com are statistically more popular. Under the philosophy of net neutrality, individual Internet service providers (ISPs), search engines and major online services like Yahoo, America Online (AOL) or Google cannot restrict or filter a user's access to rival companies. AOL, for example, cannot prevent one of its subscribers from receiving email from Yahoo accounts.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-net-neutrality.htm

The Federal Communications Commission appears poised to pass a controversial set of rules that broadly create two classes of Internet access, one for fixed-line providers and the other for the wireless Net.

The proposed rules of the online road would prevent fixed-line broadband providers like Comcast and Qwest from blocking access to sites and applications. The rules, however, would allow wireless companies more latitude in putting limits on access to services and applications.

Before a vote set for Tuesday, two Democratic commissioners said Monday that they would back the rules proposed by the F.C.C. chairman, Julius Genachowski, which try to satisfy both sides in the protracted debate over so-called network neutrality. But analysts said the debate would soon resume in the courts, as challenges to the rules are expected in the months to come.

Net neutrality, broadly speaking, is an effort to ensure equal access to Web sites and cutting-edge online services. Mr. Genachowski said these proposed rules aimed to both encourage Internet innovation and protect consumers from abuses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/business/media/21fcc.html

Franco
12-23-2010, 03:23 AM
The Federal Communications Commission appears poised to pass a controversial set of rules that broadly create two classes of Internet access, one for fixed-line providers and the other for the wireless Net.

The proposed rules of the online road would prevent fixed-line broadband providers like Comcast and Qwest from blocking access to sites and applications. The rules, however, would allow wireless companies more latitude in putting limits on access to services and applications.



If you want to see the internet become a political football, just turn it over to the FCC!

I've worked in an industry regulated by the FCC for 36 years. I am well aware how good they are at ------- things up. The internet has worked well because of free enterprise. The better mouse trap will always win when it provides a better product. Right now the consumer has choices. The first time anyone of the big providers starts a lobby to deal with the Feds, the Feds will limit your choices under the guise of protecting the consumers and the financial health of the provider. The Telecom Deregulation Act of 1996 in a very clear example of how the FCC has limited choices in an attempt to financially protect and industry. Consumers didn't benefit from the Act but, it did artificially protect broadcast, satellite and communications companies to the detrement of the public!

If the FCC is allowed to get its claws into it, they'll do what any government agency does, make it more restricted and more costly.

I'm off to my goose pit. With the fog it should be a good morning for geese!

BrianW
12-23-2010, 05:14 PM
First I would say look at this from strictly a legal standpoint:
The Obama Admin, through the FCC and as it has demonstrated before, is ignoring the rule of law and is taking authority not granted unto itself. Imo, that ought to scare the hell out of anybody, no matter which side of "net neutrality" you're on.
From the ruling:
Comcast vs FCC http://www.scribd.com/doc/29489974/Full-Text-Comcast-vs-FCC-Federal-Court-Ruling
"In this case we must decide whether the Federal Communications Commission has authority to regulate an Internet service provider’s network management practices. Acknowledging that it has no express statutory authority over such practices, the Commission relies on section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, which authorizes the Commission to “perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in theexecution of its functions.” 47 U.S.C. § 154(i). The Commission may exercise this “ancillary” authority only if it demonstrates that its action—here barring Comcast from interfering with its customers’ use of peer-to-peer networking applications—is “reasonably ancillary to the . . . effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.”Am Library Ass’n v. FCC, 406 F.3d 689, 692 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
The Commission has failed to make that showing. It relies principally on several Congressional statements of policy, but under Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit case law statements of policy, by themselves, do not create “statutorily mandated responsibilitiers.” The Commission also relies on various provisions of the Communications Act that do create such responsibilities, but for a variety of substantive and procedural reasons those provisions cannot support its exercise of ancillary authority over Comcast’s network management practices. We therefore grant Comcast’s petitionfor review and vacate the challenged order."
And as pointed out by Eric , there has been no appeal of this ruling yet.
So the FCC has effectively said "Screw the court system" hasn't it?


Yes because ISP's telling people where they can and can't go is SOOO much better than the FCC saying they aren't allowed to do that.
Next, aren't ISP's as private business entities providing a service which you are free in your choice to utilize or not? If you don't like the service that one provides like Comcast, do business with another one like Verizon, or AOL etc or go to Hughesnet for satellite. Let the market and the consumer decide, not an appropriation of power from gov.org!

Lastly, once the gov assumes the authority to state what a private business MUST provide, it assumes the corollary authority to dictate what it CAN'T provide, and that's where the danger really begins in my view.
The liberals, progressives and, yes, the MOTR's too, should be terrified of a "Bush/Cheney on steroids" in a succeeding administration getting a hold of this type of power!

Cody Covey
12-23-2010, 05:31 PM
That's not how ISP's work. There isn't a true choice. ISP's control areas and you don't have a real choice in who you get for internet. Most ISP's take government funds to fund their multi-million/billion infrastructure expansions.

Franco
12-24-2010, 06:56 AM
I have access to at least half a dozen ISP's at home including one that is Fiber Optic.

If I don't like what one ISP is doing, I can always switch to another!

YardleyLabs
12-24-2010, 07:24 AM
I have access to at least half a dozen ISP's at home including one that is Fiber Optic.

If I don't like what one ISP is doing, I can always switch to another!
You actually have access to many fewer ISP's than you think. I provide ISP services (web site hosting). However, all of my traffic goes through Qwest and Verizon. If Qwest or Verizon begin limiting access to preferred sources, that will affect all of my traffic as well.

While the communication companies have sought to define the issue in terms of managing scarce network resources, the reality is that their objective is to limit traffic in ways that will increase demand for their own content. That produces much higher margins than commodity bandwidth. They have already succeeded in driving all smaller vendors out of the bandwidth business, primarily through their control of residential connections that were established under the auspices of governmentally granted franchises and easements.

BrianW
12-24-2010, 09:26 AM
That's not how ISP's work. There isn't a true choice. ISP's control areas and you don't have a real choice in who you get for internet. Most ISP's take government funds to fund their multi-million/billion infrastructure expansions.

I have access to at least half a dozen ISP's at home including one that is Fiber Optic.

As up here, even in the "backwoods". Through cable provider, phone company, wireless through cell provider(s), at least 3 sat services.
That's not a "real choice"?

I'm reasonably sure the appeals court heard the "ISP's/gov funding" argument during the case, but they still ruled the FCC doesn't have the statutory authority. Regardless of the "good intents/efforts" or "principles/concepts", :rolleyes: until that ruling is vacated, where is "the mandate" for this action, if not from just arrogance on the part of this Obama appointee?

depittydawg
12-24-2010, 09:50 AM
You actually have access to many fewer ISP's than you think. I provide ISP services (web site hosting). However, all of my traffic goes through Qwest and Verizon. If Qwest or Verizon begin limiting access to preferred sources, that will affect all of my traffic as well.

While the communication companies have sought to define the issue in terms of managing scarce network resources, the reality is that their objective is to limit traffic in ways that will increase demand for their own content. That produces much higher margins than commodity bandwidth. They have already succeeded in driving all smaller vendors out of the bandwidth business, primarily through their control of residential connections that were established under the auspices of governmentally granted franchises and easements.

So given this assessment, which seems to coincide with the arguments I posted earlier, how does the FCC ruling impact the consumer? Provider?

Cody Covey
12-24-2010, 12:17 PM
I have access to at least half a dozen ISP's at home including one that is Fiber Optic.

If I don't like what one ISP is doing, I can always switch to another!

As Jeff stated you have access to half a dozen resold ISP's most likely ALL coming off the one fiber trunk into town. The only real time you have access to different providers is when you have some sattelite in the area and when you know the latency that sattelite has it really isn't an option. You pay twice as much for the same speed service as low rated DSL but after you factor in both latency from the sattelite as well as the wireless tower pumping it to you you are getting about 1/3rd of the rated speed. Not to mention most sattelite customers are all on the same backhaul if there are many people on line its even less then the 1/3rd stated.