from John Stark:
Sen. Maria Cantwell said the FCC’s net neutrality rules approved in a 3-1 vote Tuesday, Dec. 21 don’t go far enough, and she promised to introduce legislation to improve those rules.
From Cantwell’s office:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, (Dec. 21) Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) released the following statement after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted 3-2 to issue the final report and order on its open Internet proceeding, which includes rules on net neutrality.
“While the open Internet order the Commissioners voted on today represents an improvement over the initial draft, I am disappointed and concerned that the rules don’t do enough to make sure the Internet remains a source of American innovation and economic growth,” said Senator Cantwell. “I will introduce net neutrality legislation next Congress to ensure the Internet remains open and free.”
For more information on Senator Cantwell’s recent efforts to urge a bold net neutrality plan, see her December 1st statement on the FCC’s initial draft of the rules. Also see Cantwell’s December 10th letter she sent to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski urging the Commission to consider a number of specific changes to strengthen the final rules, and Cantwell’s letters to the Chairman from June 17, 2010 and October 21, 2009. Senator Cantwell is a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation which has jurisdiction over the FCC and telecommunication issues.
Government running the net, well there goes freedom!!
But you can bectha government will have no problem picking the winners and losers (like in who has the biggest campaign contributions don’t ya know!)!!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
“The rules will give government, for the first time, a substantive role in how the Internet will be operated and managed, how broadband services will be priced and structured, and potentially how broadband networks will be financed. By replacing market forces and technological solutions with bureaucratic oversight, we may see an Internet future not quite as bright as we need, with less investment, less innovation and more congestion…..
Discouragingly, the FCC is intervening to regulate the Internet because it wants to, not because it needs to. Preserving the openness and freedom of the Internet is non-negotiable; it is a bedrock principle shared by all in the Internet economy. No government action is necessary to preserve it. Acting only on speculative concerns about network operators and contrary to a decade of industry practice, the FCC is moving forward aggressively without real evidence of systemic competitive harms to cure, markets to fix or consumers to help.
Given these conditions, I do not believe it is appropriate for unelected FCC officials to make a decision with such potential long-term consequences for the Internet economy, for high-paying jobs and for the nation’s global competitiveness without explicit direction from Congress….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122003901.html
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
….the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government’s reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.
Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.
Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority….
Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs….
On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter’s night for Internet freedom.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023452250748540.html
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
I love how it takes NEW legislation so that something “remains open and free”. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it (because you WILL probably break it).
One of the things that works best in my life is my broadband internet connection. The enormous amount of content available, virtually instantaneously, is nothing short of amazing.
Since it works so well, I’m not surprised that there is a government agency that can’t wait to screw it up for me.
Look at what they’ve done for medical care!
Damn , I agree with AFY.
From the Movie Demolition Man:
You see, according to Cocteau’s plan, I’m the enemy, ’cause I like to think; I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I’ve SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It’s a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing “I’m an Oscar Meyer Wiener”.
“One of the things that works best in my life is my broadband internet connection. The enormous amount of content available, virtually instantaneously, is nothing short of amazing.”
Davesix, the USA actually has the slowest connections for the highest prices in the developed world. In fact, Ghana beats us on both counts. The is mainly due to the near monopoly conditions. Monopolies don’t increase profits by improving service, they do so by making is worse. By intentionally slowing the internet, an ISP could charge content providers for better speed, which would kill the next big startup before it even has a chance. No one wins but the big ISPs.
If we had six or seven internet providers to choose from, I’d say not mess around with it. But we don’t, we have hardly anyone else to switch to when our ISP misbehaves. Thus, the gov’t intervention.
From the not so conservative Slate;
…Does the FCC have the power to issue such dictates? A federal court ruled 3-0 last May that the commission had overstepped its authority when it told Comcast not to slow file-sharing-network traffic to users, so its powers are in question. Both the Washington Post and New York Times predict a future court date for the new rules…..
…Please, don’t take me for a corporate apologist: I would punch my Internet provider, Comcast, in the face for its lies, poor service, and general hamfistedness if it had a face to punch. And from what I can tell from my neighbors’ experience, I’d throw the same punch at Verizon if I had a Fios account. The broadband companies are not angels. But before we lock them up, clip their wings, and blind them, we might want to demand a little more proof of their wrongdoing……
…But then why….haven’t the broadband providers erected such walled gardens? Because 1) they face competition from another broadband provider and don’t want to give their customers an incentive to leave, or 2) where they’re the only broadband provider, they tend not to want to give a potential competitor encouragement to enter their market.
Traditionally, the state censors and marginalizes voices while private businesses tend to remain tolerant. Even at the height of the rebellions of the 1960s and early 1970s, political radicals and social radicals could always find printers to publish their most sordid, seditious, and sensational material. But that’s only because there was no FCC control over who could own and operate a printing press, no control over what prices they could charge for their services, and no state commandment that they had to accept any print job….
While I dread the hassles and unintended consequences of corporate control of the Internet, I dread the intended consequences of a controlling FCC much, much more.
http://www.slate.com/id/2278626
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!