Thread: USA FCC Seeks to Control the Internet

Picked up the following from my local newspaper -

www.spectator.org

Despite opposition by a House of Representatives majority and a bipartisan group of Senators, the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday is expected to proceed with plans to impose federal government regulation of the Internet, which would essentially treat broadband networks -- and the companies that invested more than $200 billion in private capital to deploy them -- as utilities.

The commission's chairman, Julius Genachowski, and his staff have insisted that imposing federal regulations originally written in the 1930s for the telephone is the only way the Obama Administration can gain the "kind of oversight and control that we need," says an FCC staffer with ties to another Democrat commissioner. "Look at the Gulf oil spill, that's what happens when we let corporations just do their own thing without any accountability. We can't allow that to happen with the Internet. We won't allow it."

The vote to continue the review and comment process at the FCC is expected to be a party-line vote, with the two Republican commissioners voting against the proposed regulatory scheme.

Under the Obama Administration's plan, the FCC would be able to enforce so-called "net neutrality" rules, allowing the federal government to set how broadband and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) manage the networks. By bringing broadband and the Internet under FCC regulatory oversight, the FCC would also be able to impose policies related to speech or online business models.

"The American public really has no idea how devastating these policies are going to have on free speech and the Internet," says a Republican Senate staffer. "If they are able to impose these regulations, they would be able to impose a host of different regulations that would limit free speech online and essentially give the left the upper hand. First the auto industry, then health care and the financial services industry, now this."

What comes next - requiring us to fill out a form and showing ID in order to buy a modem or wifi device?

Excuse my language but this is total Bullshit in my opinion. This is just as bad as the government having talks over and over again about putting meters on wells and charging us for the water we take out of the EARTH.
Now I am totally aware there are certain things and websites on the web that should NOT be there. But isn't this similar to DRM? Wasn't it Apple inc. who said "DRM hurts honest customers more than it stops piracy"? What good will control be over the Internet? Criminals will still find a way to do what they want with the net and this "Control" over the net will only hurt honest users. Some of us make or are trying disparately to make a living over the Internet. What's to become of us?

Well, Apple's a bunch of hypocrites, putting drm all over the i-pad. And the Spectator is an unabashedly right-wing publication. But I generally oppose direct government regulation of the internet.

iPad does have DRM. But I was speaking more along the lines of Music and Movies which I believe DRM was removed at the request of Apple. It isn't like Microsoft doesn't use DRM to the bone. And the only way DRM hurts customers on the iPad is for Jailbreaking really. And Jailbreaking brings about viruses and other problems, hence more problems for customers. Direct regulation of the net is BS and to me relates more to DRM'd music rather than Computer Operating System Software. That was the point I was making. Both Apple and Microsoft use DRM all for different reason.

Hello Big Brother. Welcome to the 21st century.

http://spectator.org/about

Internships

The American Spectator takes pride in its history of providing meaningful experience to young conservatives.

\

A cursory look at the other "reports" on the site further flesh out its conservative bias. As usual, there are many cries and very few wolves. Like "Death Panels" and Obama the Non-American.

Now that we've cleared that up, let's move on to a more impartial source.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/business/18fcc.html

WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted 3 to 2 on Thursday to move toward giving itself the authority to regulate the transmission component of broadband Internet service, a power the commission’s majority believes is central to expanding the availability of broadband.

The monsters.

The commission has said it intends to exempt broadband service from most of the regulatory options it has under the stricter designation, keeping only those regulations that are necessary “to implement fundamental universal service, competition and market entry, and consumer protection policies.”


It would not regulate Internet content.

Our freedom is under attack.

the commission was seeking comment on three possibilities — keeping regulation as it is, imposing a full telecommunications regulatory regime, and a “third way” approach of limited regulation. He likened that approach to the way the commission has regulated mobile phone services for nearly 20 years.

The phones are where They broadcast their subliminal messages. God help us all.

Hey, those liberals are more devious than a posse of mutated racoons. You can't let the innocent guise of their monstrosity fool you. World domination; that's what they're after.

In this case I think it might just be safe to say we're royally screwed.

Originally Posted by Christopher Brian Gibbon

Excuse my language but this is total Bullshit in my opinion.

You're right, that article is total Bullshit.

I haven't seen a more biased portrayal of what the FCC is trying to accomplish.

Here's the question: do you want the ISPs deciding how the networks are managed, which traffic gets priority, what limitations they can put on your bandwidth, all based on their own interests, or would you rather see a set of government imposed regulations determining your rights?

Let me paint a picture of no FCC oversight:

Comcast starts a video sharing site, blocks Youtube, or charges a premium.

Verizon charges you $5 for every gig you go over your 20GB monthly maximum.

Bell bills you $0.05/minute for VOIP traffic, unless of course you are using their service, in which case bandwidth is free.

You can argue whether the current regulations are appropriate to the current state of affairs, and addresses the unique nature of the Internet, but if you're arguing there should be NO regulation, well that's just absurd.

I guess I'm not up on what the problem is. What's happened that has brought about the need for FCC regulation? Has Comcast or anyone blocked any content? Or does it need to happen just because the phone companies are regulated? What isn't working?

Originally Posted by JosephB

I guess I'm not up on what the problem is. What's happened that has brought about the need for FCC regulation? Has Comcast or anyone blocked any content? Or does it need to happen just because the phone companies are regulated? What isn't working?

There has been major cases of packet shaping (prioritizing traffic), and "seedy" practices by some ISPs to shape the way their customers are using the net. As well, big talk of usage based billing, OTT service (over the top) service interference, and potentially even billing web services (like youtube, hulu, etc) for the traffic they generate if they want access to a network.

Basically, it's anyone's game as far as what can and can't happen on the Web. The FCC is coming out saying that the net has grown too important to commerce and communication to remain completely unregulated and, since they have jurisdiction over telecommunications, they are the most logical to oversee under the current system.

I'm inclined to agree. Still, I think it should be a completely separate branch of the FCC, with a deep understanding of the specific needs and challenges consumers and businesses face on the Internet.