September 21, 2009
More on Obama Plans Internet Grab Plans
Obama Plans Internet Grab: FCC to Embrace 'Net Neutrality'
Since the Internet took root as a mass communications phenomena in the mid 1990s, a quiet war has been waged in Washington over the extent to which the new medium would be regulated by the Federal Communications Commission.
This is a money grab and a power grab with the big 5 service providers in each respective field having enough power to bully every other company who want to transverse their network or peer.
Until now the Internet has largely been self-regulated and the FCC has taken a hands-off approach.
But that could soon change dramatically if the Obama administration has its way.
This weekend, press reports revealed a stunning development. The Obama administration will announce Monday that the FCC would propose new rules to embrace what it calls "Net Neutrality."
According to reports, Obama's new Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will use a speech to the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank, to announce the FCC proposals.
On the face of it, Net Neutrality appears to be a popular and fair proposal.
According to the Associated Press, Genechowski will "propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks . . . "
The news service added that once in effect, the FCC rules "would bar Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. or AT&T Inc., from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks."
But critics contend that the proposals are nothing more than a backdoor way for the FCC to tighten federal control over the Internet by beginning with the regulation of Internet service providers.
The battle lines over Net Neutrality have formed along partisan and ideological lines, with some exceptions.
During his campaign, Obama said he would embrace Net Neutrality -- a cause championed by Google and other Silicon Valley companies that don't want large ISPs denying or controlling their access to Internet users.
But Republicans have largely opposed Net Neutrality, suggesting self regulation has worked well.
The last FCC Chairman, Bush appointee Kevin Martin opposed Net Neutrality. He suggested it was not needed.
Conservatives see Net Neutrality as a power grab that will benefit big Internet players like Amazon and Google while stifling smaller competitors.
The libertarian CATO Institute, in a 2004 policy analysis concluded: "The regulatory regime envisioned by Net Neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential 'gaming' of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general."
Democrats in Congress have pushed for such controls in the past without success. In 2006 House Democrats offered an amendment to make Net Neutrality law, but the motion failed.
At the time Republicans warned of efforts to control the Internet.
"I want a vibrant Internet just like they do," Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said during the 2006 House debate over the issue. "Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it... I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet."
Wild Thing's comment........
The proposal doesn’t just take on the force of law, poof. It has to go through a comment period and possible revisions. So we will be able to know what the heck is happening, like this article says and more articles will come out too along the way. Not that we can do anything about this kind of thing they want to do. AUGH!
The way I understand it is the reason the FCC came about was because there had to be some way to keep radio stations and others who transmit over radio frequencies from stepping all over each other.
I don’t see why they need to be involved in ANYTHING that doesn’t have to do with assigning radio frequencies, regulating transmitter emissions and so on with an eye toward preventing interference. NOTHING else should be their business. Like Blogs for instance or our opinion of bills being passed and whoever is president at the time.....oh wait we don't have a president we have a dictator.
So “net neutrality” is letting the government camel’s nose under the tent.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
Posted by Wild Thing at September 21, 2009 07:49 AM
Typical federal government. It starts off in one direction, then branches and grows. Internal Revenue, Social Security, USDA all have the same track record.
Posted by: Jim at September 21, 2009 09:02 AM
It's here Folks. Big big government. To regulate and control every aspect of our lives. I don't doubt that obama would propose crap regulations. How often and at what time we could take a dump. The Democrats already regulated how much water we can use in a flush.
Posted by: TomR at September 21, 2009 11:35 AM
heck, he's already taking some control. I'm trying to research hb3200 section 1177 and can't find a lick on it and why denying those with special needs is so bad. I thought the bill was suppose to cover every one. It's actually let them die and decrease the surplus population and the awesome burden the handicaps put on all of us, like they are expendable and not really worthy of being loved. I am way beyond pissed off with this bozo jackass!
Posted by: Lynn at September 21, 2009 02:08 PM
They want to do this so that they can collect campain contributions in exchange for favorable legislation = OFFICIAL CORRUPTION!
Posted by: Odin at September 21, 2009 02:18 PM
Net Neutrality Act, just another way of them writing the rules and we having to follow them. This is the hope and change. No hope for the future and all the chains we can carry.
Posted by: Mark at September 21, 2009 04:05 PM
Lynn, that's what happens when religion is disregarded and we have to listen to the eggheads who don't see a reason why some people are born with handicaps. They're just surplus, unproductive, a drain on the State. The way I see it, they are teachers. They teach us more about life and love than we could learn anywhere else. God has a purpose for everyone. The leftist will never understand that.
Posted by: Jim at September 21, 2009 05:15 PM