Democrats at FCC want to regulate Internet

[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.

Courts? Who needs courts when we have Obama and the new "President can circumvent the courts if he feels its a 'Good Idea'" Doctrine?

 

[txlonghorn]

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.

Did you figure that out all by yourself or did you get it from Olbermann?

Smaller government would be great....we could start by getting rid of all the democrats.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Do you always buy into government propaganda?

For almost two decades the U.S. government has kept its meddlesome mudhooks off the Internet, freeing it to spread its kudzu-like tendrils into the global economy. And it worked.

The FCC took a big step this week to end all of that. For the first time, the Federal Communications Commission proposes using a set of 75-year-old phone regulations to oversee the Net of the 21st century and have a say in the prices that companies like AT&T and Comcast can charge. And set rules for what traffic they must carry. (Comcast is acquiring a 51 percent stake in NBC Universal' CNBC's parent company. The deal is awaiting regulatory approval.)

News Headlines

This will essentially reclassify the Internet as a phone service, and make it subject to the same regulations, and taxes, that phone companies are.

Unbundling will force owners of content to give it away to competitors, who will then charge less for it than the people who did the work can.

News Headlines

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yeah, they really are good at making what they want to do sound reasonable, aren't they?

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

You're close Jethro...the court did make a ruling.....in Comcast's favor.

It gives Comcast the right to limit your or my bandwidth and speed if you or I are downloading from a site they don't want us to use...

Not exactly a victory for net neutrality...but your pea brain coalition can continue your rant...

 

[Oddball]

Wrong, yet again, schmuckburger.

Comcast has officially settled one of the active class action law suits brought against them regarding data discrimination. The result is that current and/or former Comcast customers in the United States that have, or used one of Comcast’s broadband data services may be eligible for a $16 payout. Comcast has allocated a total of $16 million dollars to the program, but one of the stipulations of the settlement is that Comcast admits no wrongdoing. The question is: Was Comcast wrong in throttling bit torrent traffic?

Comcast P2P throttling suit settled

You want to draw a boatload of bandwidth, you're going to pay for it.

Settled in court...No new laws, regulations or bureaucrats needed.

 

[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.

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.

That's what this is about. The FCC took Comcast to court because that ISP blocked a file-sharing site. File sharing isn't illegal in and of itself, but it's used for illegal purposes; which is why I think Comcast was in the wrong here, from an ethical standpoint, even though they broke no regulations. The court said that the FCC doesn't have the authority to sue an ISP for blocking a site.

If the FCC can reclassify broadband as a telecom service, they would then have the grounds to bring cases like this to court and actually win.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Government knows what Internets sites are good for me.

 

[Oddball]

That's what this is about. The FCC took Comcast to court because that ISP blocked a file-sharing site. File sharing isn't illegal in and of itself, but it's used for illegal purposes; which is why I think Comcast was in the wrong here, from an ethical standpoint, even though they broke no regulations. The court said that the FCC doesn't have the authority to sue an ISP for blocking a site.

If the FCC can reclassify broadband as a telecom service, they would then have the grounds to bring cases like this to court and actually win.

They throttled torrent speeds to subscribers who were paying flat rates with no limits on bandwidth stated in their subscriber agreements.

In response, Comcast and other ISPs introduced tiered pricing structures, so if you want to draw the bandwidth you pay a premium.

Problem solved.

I find the claim that gubmint bureaucrats won't eventually block sites to be suspect, at best.

 

[SFC Ollie]

You can take it to the bank that if this administration screws with the Internet it will end up costing us more. No ifs, ands, or maybes about it. In fact any administration. Hell if it were Republicans talking about it you guys would be screaming bloody murder.

Flat out, Freddies Candy Company needs to stay away from the net.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you snort enough KoolAid, the Gubamint looks correct

 

[Sheldon]

That's what this is about. The FCC took Comcast to court because that ISP blocked a file-sharing site. File sharing isn't illegal in and of itself, but it's used for illegal purposes; which is why I think Comcast was in the wrong here, from an ethical standpoint, even though they broke no regulations. The court said that the FCC doesn't have the authority to sue an ISP for blocking a site.

If the FCC can reclassify broadband as a telecom service, they would then have the grounds to bring cases like this to court and actually win.

They throttled torrent speeds to subscribers who were paying flat rates with no limits on bandwidth stated in their subscriber agreements.

In response, Comcast and other ISPs introduced tiered pricing structures, so if you want to draw the bandwidth you pay a premium.

Problem solved.

I find the claim that gubmint bureaucrats won't eventually block sites to be suspect, at best.

Okay. I think the tiered pricing for bandwidth usage is fine. That's how Verizon does it with their number of minutes per month. I'm assuming there's a fee if you go over the monthly amount, too?

But that seems different from what Comcast did do. They targeted a P2P site specifically, and slowed it down. I think there should be legal recourse for that kind of action. As long as the user is within their monthly bandwidth amount, they should have equal access to all sites.

If Comcast is looking at buying the controlling stock in NBC (I think QW posted a link to that), then, as the regulations are shaped right now, there would be nothing to prevent them from slowing video streaming from sites like ABC or YouTube, even if the user is within the alloted bandwidth.

So tiered-pricing coupled with regulations preventing ISPs from slowing/blocking specific sites seems like a good combination.

 

[Bfgrn]

Wrong, yet again, schmuckburger.

Comcast has officially settled one of the active class action law suits brought against them regarding data discrimination. The result is that current and/or former Comcast customers in the United States that have, or used one of Comcast’s broadband data services may be eligible for a $16 payout. Comcast has allocated a total of $16 million dollars to the program, but one of the stipulations of the settlement is that Comcast admits no wrongdoing. The question is: Was Comcast wrong in throttling bit torrent traffic?

Comcast P2P throttling suit settled

You want to draw a boatload of bandwidth, you're going to pay for it.

Settled in court...No new laws, regulations or bureaucrats needed.

I am not a lawyer, but there are two story lines.

Comcast Wins Suit Vs. FCC Rules On Internet - FOXBusiness.com

A class action suit is a form of lawsuit where a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or where a class of defendants are being sued.

 

[Oddball]

They capitulated and paid out...In most circles that constitutes losing, the opinion of Fakes News nonwithstanding.

 

[Bfgrn]

They capitulated and paid out...In most circles that constitutes losing, the opinion of Fakes News nonwithstanding.

They are two different lawsuits Jethro.

Comcast sued the Federal Communications Commission - Read more: Comcast Challenges Fcc - News Markets - Portfolio.com

And WON...

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to force Internet service providers to keep their networks open to all forms of content, throwing into doubt the agency's status as watchdog of the Web.

The FCC has long sought to impose rules requiring Internet providers to offer equal treatment to all Web traffic, a concept known as network neutrality. But in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the agency lacked the power to stop cable giant Comcast from slowing traffic to a popular file-sharing site.

Washington Post

AND...
Comcast hit with class-action lawsuit over traffic blocking

AND...

Comcast settles P2P throttling class-action for $16 million

That, of course, failed to stop several class-action lawsuits from moving forward. Angry customers argued that Comcast had violated its own Terms of Service as well as various consumer protection laws by representing itself as offering the fastest Internet connection—P2P or not. Comcast has now agreed to settle at least one of those, which was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

 

[Oddball]

Spent all night trying to dig up some stuff that spun settling and paying off the suit as a "win" for Comcast, didja?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Spent all night trying to dig up some stuff that spun settling and paying off the suit as a "win" for Comcast, didja?

So BP just won the Gulf suit?

 

[Gadawg73]

Under the old news you get no comment Frank.
Under the new rules you get a comment.
I want to hear and have your comment and respect it.
Big business wants to dictate that you have no comment and you favor that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Under the old news you get no comment Frank.
Under the new rules you get a comment.
I want to hear and have your comment and respect it.
Big business wants to dictate that you have no comment and you favor that?

I'm sorry, I don't understand Yoda-speak. What is it you're asking me?

 

[Bfgrn]

Spent all night trying to dig up some stuff that spun settling and paying off the suit as a "win" for Comcast, didja?

Hey Jethro,

can you chew gum and walk at the same time?

Have Uncle Jed, Granny, Miss Hathaway or one of Elly Mae's critters explain these words to you:
Plaintiff
Defendant

Then, have them pull out a map or a globe, and show you the District of Columbia is not in Pennsylvania.


1) Plaintiff Comcast filed a lawsuit against the FCC with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia




2) Plaintiff John Hart filed a lawsuit against Comcast with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania