Goodbye Internet Freedom? The FCC Is About To Prove Once Again Why They Should Be Shut Down

[Obama 2012 1,714]

As if I needed any more reason to dislike the FCC....

----------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023452250748540.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.

How did the FCC get here?

For years, proponents of so-called "net neutrality" have been calling for strong regulation of broadband "on-ramps" to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

Nothing is broken and needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.

It wasn't long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet's privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.

Last year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski started to fulfill this promise by proposing rules using a legal theory from an earlier commission decision (from which I had dissented in 2008) that was under court review. So confident were they in their case, FCC lawyers told the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., that their theory gave the agency the authority to regulate broadband rates, even though Congress has never given the FCC the power to regulate the Internet. FCC leaders seemed caught off guard by the extent of the court's April 6 rebuke of the commission's regulatory overreach.

In May, the FCC leadership floated the idea of deeming complex and dynamic Internet services equivalent to old-fashioned monopoly phone services, thereby triggering price-and-terms regulations that originated in the 1880s. The announcement produced what has become a rare event in Washington: A large, bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something. More than 300 members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, contacted the FCC to implore it to stop pursuing Internet regulation and to defer to Capitol Hill.

Facing a powerful congressional backlash, the FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of Internet regulation. Curiously, the commission abruptly dissolved the talks after Google and Verizon, former Internet-policy rivals, announced their own side agreement for a legislative blueprint. Yes, the effort to reach consensus was derailed by . . . consensus.

After a long August silence, it appeared that the FCC would defer to Congress after all. Agency officials began working with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules. No Republican members endorsed the measure. Later, proponents abandoned the congressional effort to regulate the Net.

Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a "choice" between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC's action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of "reasonable" network management for years to come. How's that for regulatory certainty?

To date, the FCC hasn't ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom.

[mawilson 2,133]

Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.

Funny how the article criticizes the "new rules" without explaining what they are.

"Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication." (Wikipedia)

Why is that a bad thing, again?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

What do you like Paul? I'm sure it will be much easier to list than what you don't like. :lol:

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What do you like Paul? I'm sure it will be much easier to list than what you don't like. :lol:

Women and Beer.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Funny how the article criticizes the "new rules" without explaining what they are.

"Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication." (Wikipedia)

Why is that a bad thing, again?

Women and Beer.

You've managed to avoid the question at hand. I have reposted it for your ease. I think we would all like to know

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You've managed to avoid the question at hand. I have reposted it for your ease. I think we would all like to know

Once you give government an inch, they'll take a mile. or 100.

[mawilson 2,133]

Once you give government an inch, they'll take a mile. or 100.

What are you giving the government in this particular case?

[The_Dude 1,142]

Once you give government an inch, they'll take a mile. or 100.

I think that you should actually read what net neutrality is.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What are you giving the government in this particular case?

the ability to legislate something they have no reason to legislate at the moment.

if it aint broke, don't fix it.

[The_Dude 1,142]

the ability to legislate something they have no reason to legislate at the moment.

if it aint broke, don't fix it.

You are aware that net neutrality empowers the end user, while limiting what the government can regulate?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You are aware that net neutrality empowers the end user, while limiting what the government can regulate?

By accepting government's role in determining "net neutrality," you are inherently awarding government the power to take it away.

If government lived by the rule of law of "limiting" itself, we wouldn't have half the Federal Laws we have today....

[mawilson 2,133]

the ability to legislate something they have no reason to legislate at the moment.

Your opinion, dude.

[The_Dude 1,142]

By accepting government's role in determining "net neutrality," you are inherently awarding government the power to take it away.

If government lived by the rule of law of "limiting" itself, we wouldn't have half the Federal Laws we have today....

There is no accepting the government's role in this, the Communications Act of 1934 and 1996 well established that.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Rob & Mel

[Dan J 277]

the ability to legislate something they have no reason to legislate at the moment.

if it aint broke, don't fix it.

Maybe you should look at what Comcast has been trying to do to stifle net neutrality in the past few years.

Of course the excuse has to do with not having enough capacity, but the truth is they are more interested in protecting their cable business than providing free and open internet. If there was competition in the ISP market, it would be fine. But in truth, they have monopolies in many areas or in a duopoly with a DSL provider.

There are a couple places where there is actually quite a bit of competition, like with the UTOPIA network in Utah. But in those cases the infrastructure is owned by a city or state sponsored company.

[mawilson 2,133]

By accepting government's role in determining "net neutrality," you are inherently awarding government the power to take it away.

You are worried about the government's power to take away net neutrality, which according to you is totally useless?