FCC chairman to propose plan for net neutrality

[Jroc]

More big government from Obama's cronies

By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 1, 2010; 12:01 AM

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission plans to announce Wednesday a controversial proposal that would prohibit Internet providers from favoring or discriminating against any traffic that goes over their networks.

He would do so, however, without resorting to the more drastic step of changing the way the FCC regulates broadband providers, a move that would have more clearly asserted the government's authority over Internet access.

In a statement provided to reporters in advance of Wednesday's announcement, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said he thinks he has "a sound legal basis" to pursue so-called net-neutrality rules that would prevent companies such as Verizon, Comcast and AT&T from blocking or serving up some Web sites faster and at better quality than others.

Last summer, Genachowski said he would move to reclassify broadband as something akin to more heavily regulated telephone service, after a federal appeals court threw the government's position as Web access regulator into question. The court said in April that the FCC had no legal authority to sanction Comcast for blocking files shared through the BitTorrent application.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/12/fcc_chair_announces_net_neutra.html

 

[Truthmatters]

Its a start

 

[Revere]

Rotary phones for everyone again.

 

[Jroc]

Its a start

Really is it you're opinion that the government should censer and decide what’s fair and what isn't? I think we should give that power directly to Obama how’s that sound

 

[Revere]

Why are you entitled access to my private network at the price government tells me I must charge?

 

[DiveCon]

Its a start

Really is it you're opinion that the government should censer and decide what’s fair and what isn't? I think we should give that power directly to Obama how’s that sound

 

[georgephillip]

Its a start

Really is it you're opinion that the government should censer and decide what’s fair and what isn't? I think we should give that power directly to Obama how’s that sound

How about we give the authority to the US Chamber of Commerce or the Koch brothers or George Soros?

Do you want government or corporate control of the internet?

Is there any other alternative?

 

[Revere]

Its a start

Really is it you're opinion that the government should censer and decide what’s fair and what isn't? I think we should give that power directly to Obama how’s that sound

How about we give the authority to the US Chamber of Commerce or the Koch brothers or George Soros?

Do you want government or corporate control of the internet?

Is there any other alternative?

I want free enterprise on the internet.

 

[onecut39]

Really is it you're opinion that the government should censer and decide what’s fair and what isn't? I think we should give that power directly to Obama how’s that sound

How about we give the authority to the US Chamber of Commerce or the Koch brothers or George Soros?

Do you want government or corporate control of the internet?

Is there any other alternative?

I want free enterprise on the internet.

Great! Look what free enterprise has done for health insurance. Who wouldn't want that?

 

[Revere]

Health insurance is one of the most regulated industries around.

 

[DiveCon]

Health insurance is one of the most regulated industries around.

at both the state and federal levels

 

[zzzz]

But did you see the part where they would allow the network providers to increase costs to those subscibers that use streaming video and high volume users. This would not effect me since I am on Hughesnet and I have a download limit anyway but for those of you on DSL and others you could see a substantial increase in your monthly bill. If you don't get netflix or download a lot you won't have to worry.

 

[DiveCon]

But did you see the part where they would allow the network providers to increase costs to those subscibers that use streaming video and high volume users. This would not effect me since I am on Hughesnet and I have a download limit anyway but for those of you on DSL and others you could see a substantial increase in your monthly bill. If you don't get netflix or download a lot you won't have to worry.

they want this "net neutrality" thing to stop things that wouldnt happen anyway because it would be BAD FOR THE BUSINESS to do it

 

[Revere]

But did you see the part where they would allow the network providers to increase costs to those subscibers that use streaming video and high volume users. This would not effect me since I am on Hughesnet and I have a download limit anyway but for those of you on DSL and others you could see a substantial increase in your monthly bill. If you don't get netflix or download a lot you won't have to worry.

Free markets don't fail because they fail to give you all the gifts you want.

 

[Spoonman]

geez, keep government out of our faces.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"net neutrality" is a nifty term that holds all kinds of crazy future possibilities for the State...

 

[zzzz]

If everyone charges by download/upload then is it bad business? The problem earlier was that charging high impact users higherfees could be seen as discrimination aginst certain customers. The new rules would clarify this and allow providers to charge higher fees for those use use more. Nothing wrong with that is there. If you use more elecetricity you have to pay for it.

Net neutrality plan is 'right there in the middle'

I would like to see the blocking technology too.

 

[Revere]

There is no upside with government messing with the internet.

 

[Meister]

Regulate the internet and regulate cable news....where does it stop?

 

[Jroc]

Regulate the internet and regulate cable news....where does it stop?

They're going for the sweets next. I guess the feds are going to be raising our kids for us

Hold the brownies! Bill could limit bake sales



WASHINGTON – Don't touch my brownies! A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama — and championed by the first lady — gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom.

Republicans, notably Sarah Palin, and public school organizations decry the bill as an unnecessary intrusion on a common practice often used to raise money.

"This could be a real train wreck for school districts," Lucy Gettman of the National School Boards Association said Friday, a day after the House cleared the bill. "The federal government should not be in the business of regulating this kind of activity at the local level."

The legislation, part of first lady Michelle Obama's campaign to stem childhood obesity, provides more meals at school for needy kids, including dinner, and directs the Agriculture Department to write guidelines to make those meals healthier. The legislation would apply to all foods sold in schools during regular class hours, including in the cafeteria line, vending machines and at fundraisers.

Hold the brownies! Bill could limit bake sales - Yahoo! News