Why Can't the Public See Obama's Proposed Internet Regulations?

[ClosedCaption]

Opposing net neutrality is terrible politics, Republicans

The FCC must stand strongly behind its responsibility to oversee the public interest standard and ensure that the internet remains open and fair. The internet is and must remain the greatest engine of free expression, innovation, economic growth, and opportunity the world has ever known. We must preserve and promote the internet. [FCC]

But for most people who use the internet, the net neutrality fight is about Netflix. Not just Netflix, of course, but the Netflix model of sending large amounts of data over the internet to customers' homes, unimpeded. That covers not just movie-streaming but also online video games and video-chat services like Skype and FaceTime. The unfettered movement of bits and bytes will also help determine what bandwidth-hogging goodies will make their way onto your laptop or smartphone in the future.


Who could be against that? Well, broadband service providers like Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast, which won an earlier ruling against the FCC on net neutrality. Republicans tend to oppose the push for net neutrality, too — including the FCC's two Republican commissioners. Because, regulation.


FCC commissioner Mike O'Rielly, for example, said he is "deeply concerned" that Wheeler and the other two Democrats on the FCC "will begin considering new ways to regulate the Internet." Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its subcommittee on technology, respectively, also issued a joint statement opposing Wheeler's revival of net neutrality. "[T]he Obama administration refuses to abandon its furious pursuit of these harmful policies to put government in charge of the web," they said. "These regulations are a solution in search of a problem."


There are cogent arguments to make against net neutrality. The most persuasive, perhaps, is that if ISPs can't unilaterally add surcharges for companies that use large amounts of bandwidth, a small number of heavy internet users are essentially getting a free ride on the backs of lighter-using customers who mostly read blogs and laugh at cat gifs. If Netflix traffic accounts for a full third of all internet activity, shouldn't it pay to help ISPs upgrade their infrastructure to accommodate that traffic?


Those are the type of points big ISPs are making, even as they rake in money from paying broadband customers (the companies with the keys to the internet are perhaps the only ones guaranteed a profit in the crazy internet economy). But it's not the argument Republicans are making. Their main complaint is that this is government interference in the free market.


And in a narrow sense it is, as is all government regulation. But when the government steps in to make sure that private companies can't bilk consumers by exploiting their dominant slice of a market or through legalese, that tends to be pretty popular. Is anyone really upset that George W. Bush's FCC mandated that cellphone customers can bring their phone numbers with them when they switch carriers?


The political problem for Republicans is that net neutrality doesn't feel like Big Government stepping in to run your business. It may tie the hands of a few companies, but it lets consumers use the internet on (mostly) their own terms. They can watch Netflix or Hulu or YouTube as much as they want without fear that their ISP will throttle their service, or charge them extra.

Consumers already use the net on their own terms.
Consumers can also not accept Netflix or Hulu or you tube and change their ISP service, new services will start up to offer the consumers what they want. We are the people are controlling the internet now and it should stay that way, not the government.
Once government gets their hands on something it never lets up on continuing to expand their control over things.

Any arguement against Net Neutrality is stupidity and or ignorance of the subject. As shown above. The person above believe govt is going to control something just because Obama is for it. It doesnt occur to the poster above to find out any information because his mind is made up before he knows about it. His conclusions are based on ignorance.

Example: A Slug tells a bird he should be able to land on the sun since the sun is "up there". The bird knows the slug is ignorant about flight

I have already posted a link on this subject.
See how much your services that you use will go up when they add the tax and regulation expenses, then get back to those of us who warned you and tell us how much you like it.

Your speculation means dick

 

[ClosedCaption]

Opposing net neutrality is terrible politics, Republicans

The FCC must stand strongly behind its responsibility to oversee the public interest standard and ensure that the internet remains open and fair. The internet is and must remain the greatest engine of free expression, innovation, economic growth, and opportunity the world has ever known. We must preserve and promote the internet. [FCC]

But for most people who use the internet, the net neutrality fight is about Netflix. Not just Netflix, of course, but the Netflix model of sending large amounts of data over the internet to customers' homes, unimpeded. That covers not just movie-streaming but also online video games and video-chat services like Skype and FaceTime. The unfettered movement of bits and bytes will also help determine what bandwidth-hogging goodies will make their way onto your laptop or smartphone in the future.


Who could be against that? Well, broadband service providers like Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast, which won an earlier ruling against the FCC on net neutrality. Republicans tend to oppose the push for net neutrality, too — including the FCC's two Republican commissioners. Because, regulation.


FCC commissioner Mike O'Rielly, for example, said he is "deeply concerned" that Wheeler and the other two Democrats on the FCC "will begin considering new ways to regulate the Internet." Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its subcommittee on technology, respectively, also issued a joint statement opposing Wheeler's revival of net neutrality. "[T]he Obama administration refuses to abandon its furious pursuit of these harmful policies to put government in charge of the web," they said. "These regulations are a solution in search of a problem."


There are cogent arguments to make against net neutrality. The most persuasive, perhaps, is that if ISPs can't unilaterally add surcharges for companies that use large amounts of bandwidth, a small number of heavy internet users are essentially getting a free ride on the backs of lighter-using customers who mostly read blogs and laugh at cat gifs. If Netflix traffic accounts for a full third of all internet activity, shouldn't it pay to help ISPs upgrade their infrastructure to accommodate that traffic?


Those are the type of points big ISPs are making, even as they rake in money from paying broadband customers (the companies with the keys to the internet are perhaps the only ones guaranteed a profit in the crazy internet economy). But it's not the argument Republicans are making. Their main complaint is that this is government interference in the free market.


And in a narrow sense it is, as is all government regulation. But when the government steps in to make sure that private companies can't bilk consumers by exploiting their dominant slice of a market or through legalese, that tends to be pretty popular. Is anyone really upset that George W. Bush's FCC mandated that cellphone customers can bring their phone numbers with them when they switch carriers?


The political problem for Republicans is that net neutrality doesn't feel like Big Government stepping in to run your business. It may tie the hands of a few companies, but it lets consumers use the internet on (mostly) their own terms. They can watch Netflix or Hulu or YouTube as much as they want without fear that their ISP will throttle their service, or charge them extra.

Consumers already use the net on their own terms.
Consumers can also not accept Netflix or Hulu or you tube and change their ISP service, new services will start up to offer the consumers what they want. We are the people are controlling the internet now and it should stay that way, not the government.
Once government gets their hands on something it never lets up on continuing to expand their control over things.

Any arguement against Net Neutrality is stupidity and or ignorance of the subject. As shown above. The person above believe govt is going to control something just because Obama is for it. It doesnt occur to the poster above to find out any information because his mind is made up before he knows about it. His conclusions are based on ignorance.

Example: A Slug tells a bird he should be able to land on the sun since the sun is "up there". The bird knows the slug is ignorant about flight

Did you not read the article? Simply the fact that the public is not allowed to see 332 pages of proposed internet regulation before they are potentially passed should be enough to opposed the bill. Doesn't matter if Obama supports the bill or if Rush Limbaugh supports the bill. you don;t support a bill that is no open to the public.
You would support a bill being passed into law without knowing what it actually included in it, Only people with IQ less than room temperatures would do that.

Two diff issues:

1. IF the public is not allowed to see the bill I'll stand along with you in opposing it. But I cant find anything that says we cant except for Mike Lee's rantings about it. I followed the link to the Washington Examiner piece that said nothing...not one word about no one being able to see the bill

2. This quote:

Republican senators Mike Lee, Ben Sasse, and Rand Paul have all been high profile opponents of the Obama administrations current plan to regulate the internet -- in particular, Lee has called the regulation a government "takeover" of the internet and says it amounts to a "a massive tax increase on the middle class, being passed in the dead of night without the American public really being made aware of what is going on.”

Means Dick. Can you see why?

Mike Lee SAYS blah blah govt takeover....Mike Lee SAYS blah blah massive increase....

What Mike Lee says and what is reality may be two different things wouldnt you agree?

Also, Mike Lee says that the increase will come once companies pass the cost to you. So the Net Neutrality isnt the increase. He assumes that IF there is an increase. Then the company HAS TO pass the cost to you. Like its inevitable. Free Market doesnt exist to Mike Lee, all his speculation leads in a bunch of "ifs" and "maybes". And you guys are repeating it like Mike Lee is infallible

 

[peach174]

Then see if you can find the bill and post it Closed Caption.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Then see if you can find the bill and post it Closed Caption.

I havent been able to find it but I've found more than a dozen links that talk about what is in the bill. So people have seen it or they wouldnt be able to weigh in on it.

If I find the PDF I'll let you know

 

[ClosedCaption]

Network (Net) Neutrality Legislative History


113th Congress Net Neutrality Legislation
Since the D.C. Circuit Court struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) rule of network neutrality inVerizon v FCC in January 2014 there has been several bills introduced in Congress on net neutrality.

1. S. 1981, The Open Internet Preservation Act, introduced by Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) with 6 co-sponsors (Blumenthal, Franken, Merkley, Udall, Warren, and Wyden). This legislation restores the rules adopted by the FCC in the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices that were vacated in the Verizon v FCCruling.
2. H.R. 3982, The Open Internet Preservation Act, introduced by Representative Henry Waxmen (D-CA). This legislation has 31 cosponsors and is a companion bill on S. 1981.
3. H.R. 4070, The Internet Freedom Act, introduced by Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and has 37 cosponsors. Prohibits regulations adopted by the FCC in the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices from having any force or effect. It also prohibits the FCC from reissuing such regulations in substantially the same form, or from issuing new regulations that are substantially the same, unless such regulations are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the enactment of this Act. Finally, H.R. 4070 exempts from such prohibitions any regulations that the FCC determines are necessary to: (1) prevent damage to U.S. national security, (2) ensure public safety, or (3) assist or facilitate actions taken by a federal or state law enforcement agency.
4. H.R. 4880, The Online competition and Consumer Choice Act of 2014. This legislation was introduced by Representative Doris Matsui (D-CA) on June 17, 2014, would prohibit Internet service providers from giving preferential treatment to the traffic of online content, applications, services, or devices. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) also have also cosponsored this legislation.
5. S. 2476, The Online competition and Consumer Choice Act of 2014. This legislation was introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on June 17, 2014. This is a companion bill to H.R. 4880 and would prohibit Internet service providers from giving preferential treatment to the traffic of online content, applications, services, or devices. Senators Al Franken (D-MN), Barnard Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) are cosponsors of this bill.

Currently no action has been taken on any of these three pieces of legislation.

Network Net Neutrality Legislative History Advocacy Legislation Issues

 

[peach174]

Network (Net) Neutrality Legislative History


113th Congress Net Neutrality Legislation
Since the D.C. Circuit Court struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) rule of network neutrality inVerizon v FCC in January 2014 there has been several bills introduced in Congress on net neutrality.

1. S. 1981, The Open Internet Preservation Act, introduced by Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) with 6 co-sponsors (Blumenthal, Franken, Merkley, Udall, Warren, and Wyden). This legislation restores the rules adopted by the FCC in the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices that were vacated in the Verizon v FCCruling.
2. H.R. 3982, The Open Internet Preservation Act, introduced by Representative Henry Waxmen (D-CA). This legislation has 31 cosponsors and is a companion bill on S. 1981.
3. H.R. 4070, The Internet Freedom Act, introduced by Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and has 37 cosponsors. Prohibits regulations adopted by the FCC in the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices from having any force or effect. It also prohibits the FCC from reissuing such regulations in substantially the same form, or from issuing new regulations that are substantially the same, unless such regulations are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the enactment of this Act. Finally, H.R. 4070 exempts from such prohibitions any regulations that the FCC determines are necessary to: (1) prevent damage to U.S. national security, (2) ensure public safety, or (3) assist or facilitate actions taken by a federal or state law enforcement agency.
4. H.R. 4880, The Online competition and Consumer Choice Act of 2014. This legislation was introduced by Representative Doris Matsui (D-CA) on June 17, 2014, would prohibit Internet service providers from giving preferential treatment to the traffic of online content, applications, services, or devices. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) also have also cosponsored this legislation.
5. S. 2476, The Online competition and Consumer Choice Act of 2014. This legislation was introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on June 17, 2014. This is a companion bill to H.R. 4880 and would prohibit Internet service providers from giving preferential treatment to the traffic of online content, applications, services, or devices. Senators Al Franken (D-MN), Barnard Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) are cosponsors of this bill.

Currently no action has been taken on any of these three pieces of legislation.

Network Net Neutrality Legislative History Advocacy Legislation Issues

Yes there are plenty of bills that the congress did and that we can see.
The one proposed by the President is the one we can't see.
This is the one that we are talking about.
This is exactly why he is doing an Executive Order because congress is listening to the people they represent and they don't want this.
This is why no action has been taken of any of the above bills.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Do you know the name of that bill? Did Mark Lee ever say?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Does this not scare the shit out of anyone with a brain? Seems that this is the same way they passed ObamaCare. Remember Nancy Pelosi's infamous quote: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Republican senators Mike Lee, Ben Sasse, and Rand Paul have all been high profile opponents of the Obama administrations current plan to regulate the internet -- in particular, Lee has called the regulation a government "takeover" of the internet and says it amounts to a "a massive tax increase on the middle class, being passed in the dead of night without the American public really being made aware of what is going on.”

Why Can t the Public See Obama s Proposed Internet Regulations The Weekly Standard

Most transparent Administration in this country's history

 

[peach174]

Do you know the name of that bill? Did Mark Lee ever say?

The FCC has written the bill not congress.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The GOP game plan on net neutrality - Alex Byers - POLITICO

The GOP game plan on net neutrality
Republicans are pursuing a strategy of investigation, legislation and complaining about the FCC making policy behind closed doors.


And heres the thing Peach. The GOP wants the cable companies to be able to have pay for play "lanes". Which would change the way you currently get your internet.

Dont believe me. Go ahead and ask any of them anywhere. And they wont say they are FOR pay for play but what they will say is "What is wrong with paying for using bandwidth?" or some other rhetorical question.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Do you know the name of that bill? Did Mark Lee ever say?

The FCC has written the bill not congress.

Whats the name of it?

 

[peach174]

Do you know the name of that bill? Did Mark Lee ever say?

The FCC has written the bill not congress.

Whats the name of it?

That is the problem, they won't say.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Do you know the name of that bill? Did Mark Lee ever say?

The FCC has written the bill not congress.

Whats the name of it?

That is the problem, they won't say.

Why didnt Mark Lee say?

 

[peach174]

What the FCC is doing is illegal, they wrote the bill to expand on a previous bill (Title II of the Communications Act) and they will vote on it, not congress.

The FCC is expected to vote on Wheeler's proposed rules on Feb. 26.
The head of the FCC just proposed the strongest net neutrality rules ever - The Washington Post

 

[peach174]

The GOP game plan on net neutrality - Alex Byers - POLITICO

The GOP game plan on net neutrality
Republicans are pursuing a strategy of investigation, legislation and complaining about the FCC making policy behind closed doors.


And heres the thing Peach. The GOP wants the cable companies to be able to have pay for play "lanes". Which would change the way you currently get your internet.

Dont believe me. Go ahead and ask any of them anywhere. And they wont say they are FOR pay for play but what they will say is "What is wrong with paying for using bandwidth?" or some other rhetorical question.

Yes which the people do not want and why their bills have gone nowhere.
This is the Dept. doing it where we the people can't do anything at all about it.
It is unconstitutional for a Dept. to write expansion proposals from a previous bill passed by congress and they themselves vote on it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The GOP game plan on net neutrality - Alex Byers - POLITICO

The GOP game plan on net neutrality
Republicans are pursuing a strategy of investigation, legislation and complaining about the FCC making policy behind closed doors.


And heres the thing Peach. The GOP wants the cable companies to be able to have pay for play "lanes". Which would change the way you currently get your internet.

Dont believe me. Go ahead and ask any of them anywhere. And they wont say they are FOR pay for play but what they will say is "What is wrong with paying for using bandwidth?" or some other rhetorical question.

Yes which the people do not want and why their bills have gone nowhere.

Exactly!! But Mark Lee and republicans want it and are against Net Neutrality which only means to keep the internet the way it is now.

This is the Dept. doing it where we the people can't do anything at all about it.
It is unconstitutional for a Dept. to write expansion proposals from a previous bill passed by congress and they themselves vote on it.

Well ok...Thats an aside to my issue with Mark Lee's whining.

 

[peach174]

The GOP game plan on net neutrality - Alex Byers - POLITICO

The GOP game plan on net neutrality
Republicans are pursuing a strategy of investigation, legislation and complaining about the FCC making policy behind closed doors.


And heres the thing Peach. The GOP wants the cable companies to be able to have pay for play "lanes". Which would change the way you currently get your Internet.

Don't believe me. Go ahead and ask any of them anywhere. And they wont say they are FOR pay for play but what they will say is "What is wrong with paying for using bandwidth?" or some other rhetorical question.

Yes which the people do not want and why their bills have gone nowhere.

Exactly!! But Mark Lee and republicans want it and are against Net Neutrality which only means to keep the Internet the way it is now.

This is the Dept. doing it where we the people can't do anything at all about it.
It is unconstitutional for a Dept. to write expansion proposals from a previous bill passed by congress and they themselves vote on it.

Well ok...Thats an aside to my issue with Mark Lee's whining.

That's Mike Lee not Mark.
FCC is doing this knowing that it will go to court eventually but gives them 2 or 3 years to get control over the net (their foot in the door so to speak)
They know that the GOP has no backbone and will not do anything other than whine and just let the Supreme Court rule on it.

Government should not be doing it.
We the people should. If a customer does not like the way the Internet companies are doing things then you don't choose to be a customer.
New companies will rise and offer what we the customers wants.
The FCC should stay out of it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The GOP game plan on net neutrality - Alex Byers - POLITICO

The GOP game plan on net neutrality
Republicans are pursuing a strategy of investigation, legislation and complaining about the FCC making policy behind closed doors.


And heres the thing Peach. The GOP wants the cable companies to be able to have pay for play "lanes". Which would change the way you currently get your Internet.

Don't believe me. Go ahead and ask any of them anywhere. And they wont say they are FOR pay for play but what they will say is "What is wrong with paying for using bandwidth?" or some other rhetorical question.

Yes which the people do not want and why their bills have gone nowhere.

Exactly!! But Mark Lee and republicans want it and are against Net Neutrality which only means to keep the Internet the way it is now.

This is the Dept. doing it where we the people can't do anything at all about it.
It is unconstitutional for a Dept. to write expansion proposals from a previous bill passed by congress and they themselves vote on it.

Well ok...Thats an aside to my issue with Mark Lee's whining.

That's Mike Lee not Mark.
FCC is doing this knowing that it will go to court eventually but gives them 2 or 3 years to get control over the net (their foot in the door so to speak)
They know that the GOP has no backbone and will not do anything other than whine and just let the Supreme Court rule on it.

Government should not be doing it.
We the people should. If a customer does not like the way the Internet companies are doing things then you don't choose to be a customer.
New companies will rise and offer what we the customers wants.
The FCC should stay out of it.

I dont see any reason on earth to leave this in the hands of the cable companies. They will rape more than ever and since the competition is scarce you can go with them or go with them.

Before you even start yes there is technically competition but not real competition in any sense of the word. It'll be like Mike Jordan "competing" with some kid in a wheelchair. Technically it is competition but...

 

[Manonthestreet]

Nancy Pelosi says we have to pass things to find out whats in em.........
its just the best way to do things

 

[peach174]

The GOP game plan on net neutrality - Alex Byers - POLITICO

The GOP game plan on net neutrality
Republicans are pursuing a strategy of investigation, legislation and complaining about the FCC making policy behind closed doors.


And heres the thing Peach. The GOP wants the cable companies to be able to have pay for play "lanes". Which would change the way you currently get your Internet.

Don't believe me. Go ahead and ask any of them anywhere. And they wont say they are FOR pay for play but what they will say is "What is wrong with paying for using bandwidth?" or some other rhetorical question.

Yes which the people do not want and why their bills have gone nowhere.

Exactly!! But Mark Lee and republicans want it and are against Net Neutrality which only means to keep the Internet the way it is now.

This is the Dept. doing it where we the people can't do anything at all about it.
It is unconstitutional for a Dept. to write expansion proposals from a previous bill passed by congress and they themselves vote on it.

Well ok...Thats an aside to my issue with Mark Lee's whining.

That's Mike Lee not Mark.
FCC is doing this knowing that it will go to court eventually but gives them 2 or 3 years to get control over the net (their foot in the door so to speak)
They know that the GOP has no backbone and will not do anything other than whine and just let the Supreme Court rule on it.

Government should not be doing it.
We the people should. If a customer does not like the way the Internet companies are doing things then you don't choose to be a customer.
New companies will rise and offer what we the customers wants.
The FCC should stay out of it.

I don't see any reason on earth to leave this in the hands of the cable companies. They will rape more than ever and since the competition is scarce you can go with them or go with them.

Before you even start yes there is technically competition but not real competition in any sense of the word. It'll be like Mike Jordan "competing" with some kid in a wheelchair. Technically it is competition but...

What part of we the customers control companies are you not getting?
The companies do not control us.
There is plenty of internet services out there other than cable.
It is the Cable services who wants this government control because they do have more competition and are starting to die out. Their stocks are falling and their prices are outrageous.
Are Cable Companies in Trouble - GuruFocus.com