Democrats at FCC want to regulate Internet

[Misty]

FT.com / Technology - FCC in move to regulate internet

"In a 3-2 vote along party lines, Democrats at the FCC on Thursday agreed to begin formal consideration to adopt new rules for high- speed internet companies such as AT&T and Comcast, which have until now operated virtually free of the FCC’s oversight. Technically, the FCC’s majority passed a motion to “open for comment” new broadband rules, the first step to passing the rules. "

 

[Oddball]

The old "net neutrality" through the back door.

There's absolutely no end to these gubmint hooligans.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqp0eXfpiWU]YouTube - Congressman John Dingell: Control The People[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They're open for comments? Here's my comment: FUCK OFF!!!

 

[George Costanza]

Oh, NO! Those damn Democrats want to tell me what I can or cannot say on the Internet??? Those BASTARDS!

Oh, wait a minute . . .

But the legal change Mr Genachowski is pursuing, which would change the classification of broadband providers from Title I information services to Title II telecommunications services, would legally give the FCC far greater authority to enforce rate changes and unbundling.

This looks like the proposed changes involve such things as rate changes and "unbundling" (whatever that is). Hmmmm . . . . rate changes. That involves money - something near and dear to the hearts of Republicans. Hmmmmm . . .

But the thread title left me under the impression that the Democrats were about to begin a program of Internet censorship that would inhibit something I might want to say or do on the Internet on a personal level. Hmmmm . . .

Do we have a misleading thread title here? Methinks we do.

 

[George Costanza]

YouTube - Congressman John Dingell: Control The People

New low, Frank. Congratulations!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

YouTube - Congressman John Dingell: Control The People

New low, Frank. Congratulations!

Useful Idiot and more idiot than useful

 

[Oddball]

Oh, NO! Those damn Democrats want to tell me what I can or cannot say on the Internet??? Those BASTARDS!

Oh, wait a minute . . .

But the legal change Mr Genachowski is pursuing, which would change the classification of broadband providers from Title I information services to Title II telecommunications services, would legally give the FCC far greater authority to enforce rate changes and unbundling.

This looks like the proposed changes involve such things as rate changes and "unbundling" (whatever that is). Hmmmm . . . . rate changes. That involves money - something near and dear to the hearts of Republicans. Hmmmmm . . .

But the thread title left me under the impression that the Democrats were about to begin a program of Internet censorship that would inhibit something I might want to say or do on the Internet on a personal level. Hmmmm . . .

Do we have a misleading thread title here? Methinks we do.

"We're from da gubmint and we're here to help".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, NO! Those damn Democrats want to tell me what I can or cannot say on the Internet??? Those BASTARDS!

Oh, wait a minute . . .

But the legal change Mr Genachowski is pursuing, which would change the classification of broadband providers from Title I information services to Title II telecommunications services, would legally give the FCC far greater authority to enforce rate changes and unbundling.

This looks like the proposed changes involve such things as rate changes and "unbundling" (whatever that is). Hmmmm . . . . rate changes. That involves money - something near and dear to the hearts of Republicans. Hmmmmm . . .

But the thread title left me under the impression that the Democrats were about to begin a program of Internet censorship that would inhibit something I might want to say or do on the Internet on a personal level. Hmmmm . . .

Do we have a misleading thread title here? Methinks we do.

"We're from da gubmint and we're here to help".

Income Tax is temporary and will only be applied to the individuals at the highest incomes

Your Social Security number can NEVER be used to identity you, "Not for identification" was stamped right on the card

The check is in the mail

I won't come in your mouth

Mankind is warming the planet through atmospheric homeopathy

Republicans are in favor of smaller government. (thanks GC)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The old "net neutrality" through the back door.

There's absolutely no end to these gubmint hooligans.

Hope Change Gubbamint Uber Alles

 

[George Costanza]

Income Tax is temporary and will only be applied to the individuals at the highest incomes

Your Social Security number can NEVER be used to identity you, "Not for identification" was stamped right on the card

The check is in the mail

I won't come in your mouth

Mankind is warming the planet through atmospheric homeopathy

Republicans are in favor of smaller government.

 

[Oddball]

That too.

So, what makes their claims of what they ostensibly want to do any more credible this time around?

 

[editec]

That too.

So, what makes their claims of what they ostensibly want to do any more credible this time around?

What DO they want to do, exactly.

Do any of you actually know?

 

[Oddball]

Given the track record of politicians, bureaucrats and regulators, they want the power for the sake of it.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

GOD the Democrats blow.

 

[Sheldon]

The proposed rules by the FCC would not regulate content. The idea behind these rules is to prevent ISPs from slowing down or altogether blocking certain sites, as well as preventing them from arbitrarily high-jacking the rates. This is already done with telecom companies. With broadband becoming increasingly accessible and integral to people's daily lives, I think it makes sense to ensure that ISPs are not allowed to slow or block websites.

F.C.C. Moves Toward Deeper Broadband Role - NYTimes.com

The F.C.C. began reconsidering its broadband regulation policies after a federal court of appeals in April invalidated the approach that the commission had long taken. That decision involved the commission’s ability to require that Internet service providers not discriminate against any content or application. The F.C.C. claimed that Comcast had done so in blocking access by its users to BitTorrent, a file-sharing service.

Mr. Genachowski said 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 third way approach was developed out of a desire to restore the status quo light-touch framework that existed prior to the court case,” Mr. Genachowski said. “Let’s not pretend that the problems with the state of broadband in America don’t exist; let’s not pretend that the risk of excessive regulation is not real, or, at the other extreme, that the absence of basic protections for competition and consumers is acceptable.”​

Doesn't really seem that fascist to me.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Oh... Yeah, that doesn't seem that bad. ASOIDJSpoaDAKJSDPOS

 

[saveliberty]

Lieberman was talking about the need for a government "kill switch" to protect against cyber terrorism. Mentioned China has such a system.

 

[Oddball]

The proposed rules by the FCC would not regulate content. The idea behind these rules is to prevent ISPs from slowing down or altogether blocking certain sites, as well as preventing them from arbitrarily high-jacking the rates. This is already done with telecom companies. With broadband becoming increasingly accessible and integral to people's daily lives, I think it makes sense to ensure that ISPs are not allowed to slow or block websites.

F.C.C. Moves Toward Deeper Broadband Role - NYTimes.com

The F.C.C. began reconsidering its broadband regulation policies after a federal court of appeals in April invalidated the approach that the commission had long taken. That decision involved the commission’s ability to require that Internet service providers not discriminate against any content or application. The F.C.C. claimed that Comcast had done so in blocking access by its users to BitTorrent, a file-sharing service.

Mr. Genachowski said 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 third way approach was developed out of a desire to restore the status quo light-touch framework that existed prior to the court case,” Mr. Genachowski said. “Let’s not pretend that the problems with the state of broadband in America don’t exist; let’s not pretend that the risk of excessive regulation is not real, or, at the other extreme, that the absence of basic protections for competition and consumers is acceptable.”​

Doesn't really seem that fascist to me.

And Comcast lost the court case on the issue, subsequently introducing a tiered pricing system.

These concerns belong in the courts, not in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The proposed rules by the FCC would not regulate content. The idea behind these rules is to prevent ISPs from slowing down or altogether blocking certain sites, as well as preventing them from arbitrarily high-jacking the rates. This is already done with telecom companies. With broadband becoming increasingly accessible and integral to people's daily lives, I think it makes sense to ensure that ISPs are not allowed to slow or block websites.

F.C.C. Moves Toward Deeper Broadband Role - NYTimes.com

The F.C.C. began reconsidering its broadband regulation policies after a federal court of appeals in April invalidated the approach that the commission had long taken. That decision involved the commission’s ability to require that Internet service providers not discriminate against any content or application. The F.C.C. claimed that Comcast had done so in blocking access by its users to BitTorrent, a file-sharing service.

Mr. Genachowski said 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 third way approach was developed out of a desire to restore the status quo light-touch framework that existed prior to the court case,” Mr. Genachowski said. “Let’s not pretend that the problems with the state of broadband in America don’t exist; let’s not pretend that the risk of excessive regulation is not real, or, at the other extreme, that the absence of basic protections for competition and consumers is acceptable.”​

Doesn't really seem that fascist to me.

And Comcast lost the court case on the issue, subsequently introducing a tiered pricing system.

These concerns belong in the courts, not in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.

Why is it when facts meet Lib talking points the result is usually a 2,000 car pile up?