FCC Adopts Net Neutrality Rules

[wa_desert_rat]

My understanding is that majority rules and the person that gets the most votes wins. They may not get my vote but they still win if they get more votes than the other person.

 

It doesn't necessarily work that way: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/

 

WDR

[Ray,IN]

Do I remember correctly? Since the 1980's I always heard no-one owns the internet. If that is true then the internet is truly the wild wild West where anything goes and there are no rules. I wonder if the internet today is what Al Gore intended to invent_.

 

Seriously now, due to making all medical records electronic to comply with the ACA, the government had to step in and take control. This is the first step IMO.

[ijon]

I'm concerned about the potential regulation abuse. I have to say though, my major concern is that at some point in the future I'm going to be taxed or fee'd so some non-working, freeloading schmuck can look at his/her online porn because the internet is now an essential utility and everyone as a right to access.

 

I don't believe I'm off base. Just how many free phones were actually used to find a job rather than a dealer? How many welfare rabbits have put increased strain on emergency services by allowing their offspring to use the uninitialized phones as toys and calling 911?

Amen.

[Dutch_12078]

Do I remember correctly? Since the 1980's I always heard no-one owns the internet. If that is true then the internet is truly the wild wild West where anything goes and there are no rules. I wonder if the internet today is what Al Gore intended to invent_.

 

Seriously now, due to making all medical records electronic to comply with the ACA, the government had to step in and take control. This is the first step IMO.

 

As said previously, the Internet and its roots have always had some level of US government input and funding, starting as an ARPA/DARPA funded project in the 60's and continuing after Al Gore's "High-performance Computing and Communications Act of 1991" created the public Internet as we know it today.

[skp51443]

Here is the FCC document. Skip to page 321 for the dissenting opinion.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

[Jimalberta]

I was wondering when Al Gore's name would be brought up.

[Dutch_12078]

I was wondering when Al Gore's name would be brought up.

No reason it wouldn't come up. Then Sen. Gore played an important part in public Internet history. There are good reasons he was inducted into the Internet Hall of Fame.

[wa_desert_rat]

No reason it wouldn't come up. Then Sen. Gore played an important part in public Internet history. There are good reasons he was inducted into the Internet Hall of Fame.

It's true. He introduced the legislation that allowed regular people - and not just government agencies and corporations with defense contracts - connect to the Internet. At the time I was part of a group of amateur radio operators in the Puget Sound area that had a tcp/ip network on 2 meter VHF and we had been blocked from sending email any farther than the radio network even though one of our group was working in a corporation that was willing to hook us up to the Internet. Senator Gore's legislation made that - and the connections we all enjoy (?) today, possible.

 

WDR

[skp51443]

A shorter take on the new rules, still long enough to be in two parts. Some very short snips and links to the full text:

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/12/fcc_net_neutrality/

 

 

Part one The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has finally published its net neutrality rules this morning, comprising 400 pages of text. It was accompanied by statements from all five commissioners.

We read it all so you don't have to. Four hundred pages [PDF] of legalese and formal definitions of an "open internet" in America. It takes more than a few hours to go through, and unless you are a telco lawyer getting paid by the hour, it is not the most rewarding use of one's time.

The rules were approved by the US watchdog at the end of February, but until today have remained secret. Here's what we have learned from today's document.

 

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/13/net_neutrality_rules/

 

 

Part two What is striking about the FCC's rules on net neutrality, released today and likely determining how the United States does internet access for the next decade, is how radical they are.

Radical is something that federal agencies rarely achieve because radical in the context of the large machinery of government is often a sign that a particular group has been given too much unchecked power.

Critics of the new net neutrality rules will certainly be making that argument: that the rules represent unchecked government power grabbing; bureaucrats imposing themselves on the free market.

Meanwhile, on the other side are those who can't quite believe that their petitions and the four million public comments have turned the course of a government regulator, especially when set against the might of Washington DC's big beasts: the cable companies. It is a rare victory for the little man.

But the reality is neither of these are true. What the net neutrality rules really demonstrate – and a little sooner that we are all comfortable with – is that a new status quo is emerging. And that status quo is Google, Netflix, Facebook et al.

There's been no Damascene conversion; the FCC hasn't suddenly discovered it must fight for the people's rights: it's simply realized that it's time to serve new masters.

And as excited as some of us all are that Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner have been given a bloody nose after years of price gouging and focusing on profits over customer service, the fact is that the new rules are simply paving the way for the next generation of companies who will bend the market and government to their profit-making will – and be given the freedom to do so in the policies of today.

[RV_]

Uncle Al really did the legislation that got the Internet running as we see it today.

[Mariner]

The EPA and other agencys can be a pain but they are ultimatly trying to make sure we all have clean water, clean air and be able to thrive.

 

Granted they may THINK what they're doing is for the over all good, but when was the last time you were asked for your input. They write regs. without any oversight. Now I understand the EPA wants to regulate how you barbeque in your back yard. Some pencil pusher doesn't like the idea of you being able to barbeque with charcoal, or even cooking over a wood fire. So I guess roasting hot dogs on a stick over a fire will run counter to what the EPA THINKS is best for you.

[bigjim]

Life just ain't simple. I know agencies that post info about public hearings and times for input and they can be lucky if they get anyone to show up. Other times a lot of the input is just leave it alone, I like it that way even if what is being done is poisioning someone else's water, etc. In my recent volunteer experience we have had to close a forest due to conditions. Who the heck ever heard of closeing a forest, I sure didn't. Of course some people just thought we were being mean and domineering and beauracratic. Others thank us because we are protecting their homes and their forest.

[Ray,IN]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. But I do know I'm suspicious whenever something like this comes along and no-one knows what's in the regs. until AFTER they go into affect. Sort of like we have to pass it ,to find what's in it!!

 

Haven't we done that already?

 

Now AT&T and and a couple other of the big wireless companies are making noises about sueing the FCC. Seems like Net Neutrality will hit their throttling business.

[skp51443]

Info on the legal action here:

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/24/fcc_net_neutrality_lawsuit/

 

 

America's top telcos are suing the FCC over its efforts to impose net neutrality regulations on US broadband networks.

AT&T, Verizon, and others, represented by trade body USTelecom, will drag the Federal Communications Commission to the appeals court in Washington DC in a bid to overturn fresh rules on what ISPs can and can't do with internet connections on US soil.

The Google-friendly regulations, which will treat broadband services like phone lines, are quite radical, so legal challenges were expected.

USTelecom's "protective petition" lawsuit, which you can read below or here as a PDF, was filed on Monday, and comes after a similar sueball was lobbed at the FCC by Texas ISP Alamo Broadband in New Orleans.

AT&T, Verizon et al are furious that they face being reclassified as common carriers, which are heavily regulated, claiming the move "violates federal law, including, but not limited to, the Constitution, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and FCC regulations promulgated thereunder," the paperwork states.

The big telcos are demanding senior judges review the FCC's Open Internet Order, describing it as "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion."

more at link above

 

400 page PDF of the new rules:

 

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

[skp51443]

Just saw this one...

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/25/tennessee_sues_fcc_chattanooga/

 

 

The US state of Tennessee is suing the FCC after the regulator declared that cities should be free to build their own municipal-owned broadband networks.

The Volunteer State wants to overturn that ruling, made in February, arguing the decision goes against heavy restrictions placed on government-owned organizations that compete with private biz.

Tennessee doesn't want its cities causing trouble for the likes of Comcast with working, affordable taxpayer-backed ISPs, in other words.

The state's attorney general Herbert Slattery has filed suit [PDF] against the FCC with the US court of appeals for the sixth circuit.

At issue is the FCC's contention that states cannot prevent city governments from launching and expanding their own public broadband services. Several US states, including Tennessee, have laws restricting how government agencies can run operations that compete with private businesses, including ISPs.

more at link

 

 

Somehow I see a bunch of lawyers in fancy new cars and politicians with fat wallets, want to guess who is going to be paying for them. (check your mirror)

[wa_desert_rat]

 

Granted they may THINK what they're doing is for the over all good, but when was the last time you were asked for your input.

You're asked for your input all the time! Granted, some of these require that you travel a long distance, but your "input" is certainly asked for.

 

I've been to enough of these to realize that a fair bit of the input is from nutcakes who don't understand the issues but have an opinion anyway; and, in a free country, who is to say that they can't have their say? I have a lot of sympathy for agencies under pressure from every side and also from left field. There are, after all, still people out there who insist that the earth is flat...

 

WDR

[sushidog]

There are, after all, still people out there who insist that the earth is flat...

 

WDR

Many cosmologists today believe that the universe is flat. Well if the universe is flat, that must mean that the earth, which is part of our flat universe, is also flat!

 

You curved earther! Heretic! Burn the witch!

 

Everyone has different experiences in life which shapes their world view. If the majority of one's contacts with government are positive then one tends to have a positive outlook towards government regulation. However if the majority one's contacts with government are negative, one develops the opposite outlook.

 

Sure there are those who cannot logically process information and draw erroneous conclusions based upon their own personal prejudices (as in the former attempt at humor) however the democratic process should account for this as this is not a direct democracy, but a representative one, where our elected representatives will (hopefully) ignore the kooks (statistically a small percentage of the population); unless it is your intent to "poison the well" by tainting those who hold the opposite legitimate, well reasoned political opinion (who represent a much larger percentage of the population, perhaps even the majority opinion) as blithering idiots who just don't understand the complicated nuances of a particular voluminous legislation.

 

There are those who may disagree in principle, unconcerned about the details of any particular legislation, as knowing the corruptible nature of man, believe that any convolute legislation will eventually be perverted to suit their corrupt will, to the general detriment of the people. I for one reject the concept of a benevolent government, believing instead that the more power government holds and concentrates, the more ability they have to abuse this power for their own ends. One only has to look at the plethora of career politicians who may have initially had the reformer attitude and naiveté of a "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" but have eventually succumbed to the storm of inevitable corruption, "playing the game" as a tender reed bends and eventually snaps in the hurricane of a corrupt political system. I have seen this happen many times at the local and state level. Over the last 25 years we have seen 960 corrupt politicians convicted of felonies for their crimes against the people in the state of Louisiana alone! And these are just the ones we have caught. I have reason to believe that many more than this number still remain in office. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/01/louisiana_is_by_one_measure_th.html This not to mention the personal experiences I have had with government corruption which has cost me greatly, including the loss of my home.

 

Short of reforming our entire lobbyist system, and implementing all new levels of promised (but never delivered) transparency, I believe our nation of free people would be better served with less powerful (thus less corruptible) government at all levels, not just the federal oversight level. Indeed we should be dismantling and diffusing this power, as we should also be dismantling the concentration of power of corporate influences to corrupt government to obtain political advantage over their competition. I would not trade one master for another, but would rather live in a more libertarian manner, minimizing all concentrations of power, thus maximizing freedom for all. IMHO

 

Chip

[jsymmes]

Well said !!!

[Zulu]

. . . we should be dismantling and diffusing this power, as we should also be dismantling the concentration of power of corporate influences to corrupt government to obtain political advantage over their competition.

 

Tilt at windmills.

[Mariner]

Bureaucrats are like ticks. Once their imbedded, it's hard to get them out!! I certainly don't want to get into a dispute with anyone. But I have a prolem with unnamed, unelected pencil pushers who wield an enormous amount of power over my daily life by just writting a regulation without any oversight. How does anyone know if what they have, is a personal agenda, not what's necessarily right for Ameica. The real problem about these regulations are once they go into effect, they are rarely rescinded.

[chirakawa]

It's very true that sometimes bureaucrats and elected officials do not act in our country's or our best interest. When they do go against us, we at least have some small degree of input and oversight.

 

However, corporate officers not only do not act in our best interest, they have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the corporation. Sometimes those actions benefit us, but not always and they have no legal obligation to represent us. When it comes to someone choosing which websites I can access and which I can not, I don't want that decision made by someone whose only motive is to make more money for his company.

 

This latest legislative move may indeed indirectly inhibit innovation in the industry. But, hopefully, it will also result in keeping the world wide web open and available to all without profit driven restrictions.

[pjstough]

Bureaucrats are like ticks. Once their imbedded, it's hard to get them out!! I certainly don't want to get into a dispute with anyone. But I have a prolem with unnamed, unelected pencil pushers who wield an enormous amount of power over my daily life by just writting a regulation without any oversight. How does anyone know if what they have, is a personal agenda, not what's necessarily right for Ameica. The real problem about these regulations are once they go into effect, they are rarely rescinded.

 

Who do you think should write regulations?

 

Paul

[richfaa]

Lot of reading on the subject but I think it is a good thing... We have government regulations because we can not self regulate. We are from Pittsburgh ,Pa we remember Pre EPA. We remember Lake Erie being a dead lake.

[pjstough]

Lot of reading on the subject but I think it is a good thing... We have government regulations because we can not self regulate. We are from Pittsburgh ,Pa we remember Pre EPA. We remember Lake Erie being a dead lake.

 

As Paul Harvey used to say, "Self government without self discipline wont work".

[chirakawa]

Those who are against government regulations, consider this. Without strict government oversight, anyone, anywhere, with any type of radio equipment they wanted to use on any frequency they chose, could render the entire electronic communications system in this country useless.

 

Think about that. No telephone. No internet. No air traffic control. No television. No fire or police emergency radio communication. No gps systems. The only radio systems which would work would be the biggest, baddest, most powerful transmitters.

 

I see this internet issue the same way. Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T, or some other internet service provider not only want to control your access to the internet, but they want to decide what content you can access when you do. They have publicly stated this. They have since filed suit over the government's recent action because it restricts them from doing this. They want total control, and we would be at their mercy much like the guy with the biggest, baddest radio.