From the WSJ:
Even HuffPo thinks this is a bad idea:
According to all reports, the rule, which will be voted on during tomorrow’s FCC meeting, falls drastically short of earlier pledges by President Obama and the FCC Chairman to protect the free and open Internet.
The rule is so riddled with loopholes that it’s become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the endorsement of AT&T and cable lobbyists, and not defending the interests of the tens of millions of Internet users.
You and I are one of those tens of millions. So the immediate question: With this newfound power, how long before it mutates beyond original scope, and websites that are critical of the government begin to be shut down, or simply IP throttled out of meaningful existence?
I would imaging that site like this one would be a target, since we don’t report what the government line on climate change is.
I can only imagine the future where I’ll be typing some story, like this one, and there will be a knock at the door and
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
First of all when did Congress give the FCC the authority to regulate the internet?
When has government regulation ever made anything freer? The internet is just about the last bastion not regulated. It seems to be humming along very well without any regulation. The first rule should be if it isn’t broken don’t fix it. Sure there are some pockets that could benefit form more bandwidth but that’s about it leave well enough alone.
Nothing this administration does is intended to advance the cause of Freedom.
Insufficient regulation? You mean regulation that required no-doc loans and programs that over-looked practical financial factors for the purpose of putting people in homes (never mind for the moment the MBS* market that underwrote that effort)? C’mon man, where have you been, under a financial rock all this time?
* Mortgage Backed Securities (home loans)
.
Sam:
No. First it is not legislation which has to pass Congress, this just regulation. It’s regulation by 3 people. Do you know their names? I don’t. This is regulation in area where the FCC doesn’t have authority to regulate. So the three kings just declared that they could regulate it.
Second just calling something “net neutrality” doesn’t make it so. There is no sign at all that anyone is censoring the Internet now, so why is this needed? It is not, unless the government is interested in a huge power grab. My bet is that it is a huge power grab. One hint is in the fact that instead of going through Congress we have 3 unelected people doing this by decree, that in and of itself is a huge power grab.
Even if the end goal is to censor the internet as the powers that be see fit, I’m not sure they can actually meet that goal with everyone so tech savvy nowadays. I’m actually more interested in knowing how exactly the government would be able to control the internet.
It’s for our own good.
This is a GREAT idea, the FCC is FOR net neutrality, or in other words STOPPING Comcast and the rest for not allowing streaming movies to your home.
Just wrong on this one Anthony, not everything OBama does is wrong, read up on it first.
I’m not that convinced that governments are capable of regulating the Internet.
There will always be hackers who will out-smart the bureaucrats.
Oh, and as a note added, it was Bush who wanted to regulate internet porn, internet language and make it into TV. Not Obama.
You have to wonder if the expansion of NEWSCORP is partly (or entirely) the reason for this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/8218006/Vince-Cable-stripped-of-responsibility-for-media-competition-after-Rupert-Murdoch-comments.html
The issue of what businesses need regulation is not as simple as some here would believe. Banks need regulated to guard against failure since they can not be allowed to fail or our financial system fails with them. This would result in a contraction of all economic activity and prices, such as occurred in the US great depression. Electric utilities have been regulated for decades. Attempts to deregulate them have proved unsuccessful recently. This is simply because of the large capitol investment needed to enter this market and the risk involved in making these long term investments. A free market assigns a price (cost) to risk. In short, the return on equity required in the free market would be higher than the regulated ROE is IMHO. Certainly, this creates problems of its own. I believe Anthony pays 15+ cents for each kWH of power he purchases in CA, were I pay less than half that in the Midwest. This is a result of poor decisions made by regulators in CA. And not just recently but for decades.
I am curious to know some of the legitimate reasons that proponents say the internet needs regulated. As I understand it, the most significant effect of this law is to allow ISPs to charge based on capacity used. At first blush, this seems to me to be reasonable but why do they need the FCCs permission to do this? Unfortunately, I think this is more likely the ISPs asking the FCC to lend legitimacy to this new pricing scheme that perhaps the free market wouldn’t tolerate.
Next stop: Stalin 1937…
I can only imagine the future where I’ll be typing some story, like this one, and there will be a knock at the door and
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
And you can’t finish the sentence because of an American government that stops acting American and ends free speech.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
What’s worse, Congress has been bypassed. This action by the FCC is unConstitutional. At some point they felt they were given the power by the American public to act unilaterally. Whatever misstep in America’s past that created this protocol must be discovered and expunged.
“…..that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . . and that government of the people. . .by the people. . .for the people. . . shall not perish from the earth.”
~The Gettysburg Address
http://www.gettysburg.com/bog/address.htm
I’m not sure I’m clear on the issue… If I’m missing any great links in this thread I apologize:
From the WSJ:
The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday voted 3-2 to back Chairman Julius Genachowski’s plan for what is commonly known as “net neutrality,” or rules prohibiting Internet providers from interfering with legal web traffic.
Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033513990668654.html#ixzz18oQHxSzs
How exactly is that a bad thing? I believe “net neutrality” is necessary. I don’t believe ISP’s should regulate their content, but should be considered more of a utility than anything. If the FCC isn’t going to regulate them who is? I don’t think a free market system works in this case. Tho I hate to say it.
It’s quite possible I’m missing the point.
Doug Badgero says:
December 21, 2010 at 8:36 pm
At first blush, this seems to me to be reasonable but why do they need the FCCs permission to do this? Unfortunately, I think this is more likely the ISPs asking the FCC to lend legitimacy to this new pricing scheme that perhaps the free market wouldn’t tolerate.
It does appear that the government is influencing fairness in business. But it is common for that to happen in the Obama Administration.
My question is if this is what America wants why did it get rushed through before the new Senators and Congressmen, that Americans just elected in an historic fashion, get sworn in in January?
Black Sabbath says:
December 21, 2010 at 5:30 pm
In the last week, the GOP have:
1) Caved on the tax bill.
2) Caved on DADT.
3) Caved on the ‘Food Safety Bill’ led by ME-Chelle Obama.
4) Caved on START.
This is just Pelosi and Reid giving America the middle finger. I don’t think you can say the GOP “caved”. This is still the Pelosi/Reid congress elected in 2008. All the GOP had a chance of doing was blocking some of this garbage in the senate with a filibuster (not counting START, which they could block). With the current balance, all it took was one or two RINOs to prevent that.
The really amazing thing is that the democrats were able to do so little with the power they had the last two years. Sure, the damage they were able to do will never be undone. But, they planned to do so much more damage.
But, we mustn’t forget, they knew the result of Obamacare would be defeat in November and they did it anyway. So, in a sense, they planned to turnover power next month. They have so much confidence in whoever is pulling the strings (Soros?) that it’s a little scary to think about.
Ethan says:
December 21, 2010 at 8:43 pm
If the FCC isn’t going to regulate them who is? I don’t think a free market system works in this case. Tho I hate to say it.
I don’t want the regulations of a far left personality—especially since they bypass duly elected eyes and minds. Safeguards were put into place by the Founding Fathers to protect the American people from individuals acting unilaterally. And when doesn’t freedom work? It always has before. I can’t see why it will stop working now.
I really do think that President Barak Obama included the Founding Fathers when he talked of people who created a mess and must now get out of the way so America can “fundamentally transform”.
Brad says:
December 21, 2010 at 8:28 pm
This is a GREAT idea, the FCC is FOR net neutrality, or in other words STOPPING Comcast and the rest for not allowing streaming movies to your home.
Just wrong on this one Anthony, not everything OBama does is wrong, read up on it first.
===================================
Comcast has no choice but to throttle your streaming of movies via netflix. If they don’t do that, then I don’t get the bandwidth I’m paying for and I can’t even pull in WUWT without something timing out.
Ethan says:
December 21, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Ethan,
It is that many of us believe the reasons that are stated for this action are not the real reasons. It isn’t clear what those reasons are, but Obama was not nicknamed the “stealth” senator for nothing.
Ethan says:
“I believe ‘net neutrality’ is necessary. I don’t believe ISP’s should regulate their content, but should be considered more of a utility than anything. If the FCC isn’t going to regulate them who is?”
Ethan, net neutrality is not necessary, because there is not an internet problem that trumps free speech.
Why is internet regulation even necessary? The internet has thrived without government interference, so where is the problem – outside of the conniving minds of the big government conspiracy theorists? And why should ISPs be any more of a “utility” than newspapers? The arguments for and against are no different.
As with newspapers, the public itself regulates ISPs through natural selection: if the market doesn’t support them, they will wither and die. The market is self-regulating, and the cost to taxpayers is free.
It is the FCC’s political appointees who are anti-free market. They are nothing but self-appointed censors, who presume to tell the public what it may or may not be allowed to hear.
I don’t blame people like you for being confused. I blame the government education industry for failing to educate citizens on the difference between individual liberty and totalitarian thought control; AKA: Big Brother [and Big Sis].
If and when the internet becomes a bigger problem than restricting freedom of speech, then we can debate regulating it. But until that far off day, this is just a sneaky means to a dictatorial end. If you want a government regulated internet, be fully prepared to give up your freedom of speech in return for it.
The feds have no constitutional authority to regulate the Internet. It can only happen if we let them. The feds also have no authority to regulate weather and climate, but who is stopping them? We continue down the road of allowing the government to do what is best for us, regardless of the Constitution.
A bit of bright news for traditional Americans like myself.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/12/20/republicans-start-teaching-members-how-to-obey-the-constitution.aspx
On a side note, the story was front and center on Google News, now Google’s auto-search won’t even suggest it when typed in fully. We are under full attack from the left. My teapot is on a fast simmer.
Ethan says:
December 21, 2010 at 8:43 pm
“I’m not sure I’m clear on the issue… If I’m missing any great links in this thread I apologize:…….”
========================================================
There’s no need to apologize. Many aren’t clear. You’ve got the basics right, but you may be applying them in a different manner than some. And then there are greater implications than just the issue de jour.
You said, “How exactly is that a bad thing? I believe “net neutrality” is necessary. I don’t believe ISP’s should regulate their content, but should be considered more of a utility than anything.”
This is how its a bad thing. Each ISP only has a certain amount of bandwidth available. The bandwidth is ample for “normal” use. But, down the street, we have a basement dwelling gamer. He’s sucking a lot of bandwidth(bw), his neighbor is watching the entire Star Trek movie series downloaded via netflix. That’s not all that bad, these are legal enterprises, but known to be bw hogs. Elsewhere in ISP land, little Johnny has a bit torrent allowing you to download virtually anything you want from porn to music, movies, and pirated MS Office programs. We know most of the content is illegal, but not necessarily so. Even worse, with the bit torrent, comes an evil trojan, where it tells the user he’s got a problem on his ‘puter and to click here to clean it up. Later they give you a great offer to clean it up for a price. Of course, pay or not, it doesn’t get cleaned. Johnny e-mails his buddy asking him what he should do. The trojan then accesses both Johnny’s and his buddy’s e-mail account and sends everyone an offer for viagra or an alert of an inheritance from some country in Africa…….suddenly, I can’t refresh my page on WUWT, because there is no bandwidth left for average Joe user to even read the news.
Obviously this scenario is fictional, but happens everyday in ISPs around the world. Now I ask you, do you think the ISPs have an obligation to their subscribers to try and limit that type of activity I described? I do. Some ISP’s address this by tiered pricing for total bandwidth used, such as WildBlue or Hughes Net.(I’m not picking on them, I’m just familiar.) They sell you a speed, but you can’t use that speed very long or you will exceed the total limit. Some allow you to continue, for an exorbitant price. (Cell phone companies) or like WB, they basically shut you down until you drop below a threshold. Currently, my ISP doesn’t limit much. They will throttle a person they see others having difficulties (Irate phone calls.) because of the porn marathon they are engaged in, while others are uploading their entire Metallica collection.
Now for the larger implications of this power grab. The FCC is trying to ensure this activity continues. And it will if there is no prioritizing traffic. So what is the next logical step the FCC takes when it sees they’ve messed this up? They will move to “fix” the mess. Suddenly, it will be the FCC determining who gets what traffic. On what authority will they move? The same authority used for this rule. Once its established they can regulate, regulate they will.
I hope that clears some things up for you. I’m sure I missed something or wasn’t entirely technically correct on some point of minutia, someone will come along and correct me. Others may have a different perspective, but that’s it in a nutshell.
April E. Coggins says:
December 21, 2010 at 9:27 pm
On a side note, the story was front and center on Google News, now Google’s auto-search won’t even suggest it when typed in fully. We are under full attack from the left. My teapot is on a fast simmer.
=======================
In our Internet-dependent age, this is the scariest thing going on in the world at the moment. This amounts to control over access to information by an agenda-driven organization. Where are the calls to regulate google?
I’m not sure I see the problem here either. Nor do I see why some are complaining about others using all “their bandwidth”. If your ISP isn’t providing what you’re paying for, complain, or get a new ISP. It’s kind of like saying “all these people on the highway are in my way, keeping me from going as fast as I want.” It’s not YOUR internet, it’s everyone’s.
I used to have Satellite internet. Horrible. They would cap me at 100mb downloads for a certain time frame. I was working from home, sending and receiving large documents, applications, etc. 100mb was nothing. Now I have cable internet, I can send and receive gigs without an issue. So you guys want to go back to capped speeds and bandwidth? No thanks.