FCC Moves to Regulate Internet

[scribblet]

I'm not clear on exactly what it is they want to do or how they want to regulate it, but it sure sounds like 'big brother' to me and more gov't interference.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=68003

FCC Moves to Regulate Internet--Even Though the Law Calls for Internet to be 'Unfettered by Federal or State Regulation'

(CNSNews.com) – The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted on Thursday to begin the formal process of bringing the Internet under greater federal control – a move sought by both President Barack Obama and FCC Chairnman Julius Genachowski--even though federal law calls for an Internet "unfettered by Federal or State regulation."

This step comes after the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in April rebuked the FCC in its attempt to enforce a controversial regulatory doctrine called Net Neutrality, which would allow the government to prevent private Internet providers from deciding which applications to allow on their networks.

The court said that the FCC did not have the authority to prevent Comcast, specifically, from blocking certain peer-to-peer Web sites.

The FCC is now trying to reclassify the Internet to broaden its authority over the Web. Currently, the FCC only has “ancillary” authority, meaning it can regulate Internet access only in the process of regulating another service that it has direct authority over, such as television or cable.

cont.

[Remiel]

This step comes after the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in April rebuked the FCC in its attempt to enforce a controversial regulatory doctrine called Net Neutrality, which would allow the government to prevent private Internet providers from deciding which applications to allow on their networks.

I am curious as to what the thinking was behind the Court's ruling against Net Neutrality. Do the old fogies that likely make it up truly understand or care what it is about, having likely been from a generation (or two) before the advent of the Internet Revolution.

[Shady]

I am curious as to what the thinking was behind the Court's ruling against Net Neutrality.

It's one of those Orwellian named laws that doesn't quite live up to its name.

[dre]

Im all for FCC regulation at this point.

[kimmy]

I am curious as to what the thinking was behind the Court's ruling against Net Neutrality. Do the old fogies that likely make it up truly understand or care what it is about, having likely been from a generation (or two) before the advent of the Internet Revolution.

This article explains some of the background, and what the FCC would like to happen.

The Net Neutrality doctrine says that the service provider should allow the exchange of data without regard to content. When Comcast decided to throttle data transfer rates of BitTorrent clients, that was in contradiction with the tenets of Net Neutrality, and FCC ordered them to stop doing it.

Comcast appealed in court and won. The court rule that the FCC does not have the authority to regulate Comcast's management of its subscribers' bandwidth.

The FCC is seeking to obtain legal tools that would give it the power to enforce such a decision next time.

-k

[dre]

This article explains some of the background, and what the FCC would like to happen.

The Net Neutrality doctrine says that the service provider should allow the exchange of data without regard to content. When Comcast decided to throttle data transfer rates of BitTorrent clients, that was in contradiction with the tenets of Net Neutrality, and FCC ordered them to stop doing it.

Comcast appealed in court and won. The court rule that the FCC does not have the authority to regulate Comcast's management of its subscribers' bandwidth.

The FCC is seeking to obtain legal tools that would give it the power to enforce such a decision next time.

-k

Yup and if neutrality is not enforced then what youll see is telecomms trying to monopolize content. A very bad thing for the internet which is why so many internet companies like google are supporters of neutrality.

[eyeball]

Yup and if neutrality is not enforced then what youll see is telecomms trying to monopolize content. A very bad thing for the internet which is why so many internet companies like google are supporters of neutrality.

The Googles of the world will just have to take over the Telecoms I guess.

Of course, Google has always wanted to be more than a search engine. Even in the early days, its ultimate goal was extravagant: to organize the world's information. High-minded as that sounds, Google's ever-expanding agenda has put it on a collision course with nearly every company in the information technology industry: Amazon.com, Comcast, eBay, Yahoo!, even Microsoft.

Who's Afraid of Google? Everyone.

[scribblet]

Okay, I guess I'm not clear on this still. Is this a move to regulate the written content on the internet, or to do with regulating software, hardware, applications or whatever ?

More here

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bill-gives-obama-kill-switch-to-shut-down-the-internet.html

he federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.

Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.

“The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.

Edited June 20, 2010 by scriblett

[Remiel]

Are they that stupid, really? Do they not realize that trying to exert that kind of control over the internet would cause waves internationally that could lead to the killing of the Golden Goose? It will no longer be the " World Wide Web " if every country feels compelled to create their own because the U.S. was threatening their ability to use it.

[dre]

Okay, I guess I'm not clear on this still. Is this a move to regulate the written content on the internet, or to do with regulating software, hardware, applications or whatever ?

More here

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bill-gives-obama-kill-switch-to-shut-down-the-internet.html

No this is a move to NOT allow content to be regulated by telecomms, and keep the internet as a place where anybody can post content that is available to anyone.

Without nuetrality telecoms can pick and choose what traffic they allow on their networks, and use that to bolster their own businesses. For example if Comcast wanted to start a search engine, it could promote that business by blocking traffic to google, or if it wanted to start an onliner retailer it could block traffic to Amazon or Ebay, thereby removing their competitors from the playing field.

THAT is really what this is all about.

[dre]

Are they that stupid, really? Do they not realize that trying to exert that kind of control over the internet would cause waves internationally that could lead to the killing of the Golden Goose? It will no longer be the " World Wide Web " if every country feels compelled to create their own because the U.S. was threatening their ability to use it.

The FCC doesnt want to control content, they want to stop telecommunications providers from controlling content.

[kimmy]

Okay, I guess I'm not clear on this still. Is this a move to regulate the written content on the internet, or to do with regulating software, hardware, applications or whatever ?

More here

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bill-gives-obama-kill-switch-to-shut-down-the-internet.html

This here is a great example of why you can't trust PrisonPlanet (and InfoWars and the rest of Alex Jones' family of websites) as a news source. They start with a legitimate news article and then add in a bunch of their own fear-mongering that has nothing to do with what the news article they link to says.

In this case, they start with this article from ZDnet... (Ziff-Davis is a long-running and credible observer of technology-related issues) which confirms that there is a bill under discussion that would give the US government the power to shut down internet service providers in cases of "cybersecurity emergency" (whatever that means.)

But then they go off the rails into PrisonPlanet mode, talking about how the idea here is to destroy independent media, prevent reportage of things like that senator who roughed up the student, and suppress criticism of the government... none of which relates to the original article, and all of which is entirely their own paranoid speculation.

But mooks will read the article and say "gee, they linked to another news article, so what they're saying must be true!"

Don't be a mook. Don't take anything Jones and his crew say at face value.

-k

[scribblet]

.....

But mooks will read the article and say "gee, they linked to another news article, so what they're saying must be true!"

Don't be a mook. Don't take anything Jones and his crew say at face value.

-k

Whoops, didn't realize that.

Dre: thanks for the explanation

[Michael Hardner]

Alex Jones is at the head of the next wave of pseudo-journalistic disinformation chiefs that awaits us after Glenn Beck.

[bush_cheney2004]

The FCC doesnt want to control content, they want to stop telecommunications providers from controlling content.

Correct...but why is this applicable to users in Canada, who already have "content control" via the CRTC?

[BubberMiley]

Correct...but why is this applicable to users in Canada, who already have "content control" via the CRTC?

You're disoriented again. This is the United States Politics forum.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're disoriented again. This is the United States Politics forum.

Oh I see..."regulated content" is OK in Canada, but not the United States?

[Michael Hardner]

Correct...but why is this applicable to users in Canada, who already have "content control" via the CRTC?

You've got that "why do we talk about America" bug again this morning.

Have a coffee.

[bush_cheney2004]

You've got that "why do we talk about America" bug again this morning.

Have a coffee.

We already know why....today we are parsing how. It would be such a shame if all that free American content would come to an end, eh?

[ToadBrother]

Correct...but why is this applicable to users in Canada, who already have "content control" via the CRTC?

Last time I checked, the CRTC doesn't control content on the Internet. In fact, it's one of the big demands of the arts welfare groups that they should now be getting a cut off Internet fees, because, shockers, you can't seem to enforce Canadian content quotas on the Net.

Edited June 21, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

Last time I checked, the CRTC doesn't control content on the Internet. In fact, it's one of the big demands of the arts welfare groups that they should now be getting a cut off Internet fees, because, shockers, you can't seem to enforce Canadian content quotas on the Net.

OK, but the larger point is that Canada already has a pernicious system of content control with the specific goal of limiting access to foreign content with co called "CanCon Rules" in other mediums. Why is "net neutrality" in another nation above such government or private sector consideration(s)?

[eyeball]

Are they that stupid, really? Do they not realize that trying to exert that kind of control over the internet would cause waves internationally that could lead to the killing of the Golden Goose? It will no longer be the " World Wide Web " if every country feels compelled to create their own because the U.S. was threatening their ability to use it.

Actually maybe more than one WWW would be the better way to go. Like having another constellation of GPS satellites in the sky...just in case.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually maybe more than one WWW would be the better way to go. Like having another constellation of GPS satellites in the sky...just in case.

That's right...what the Americans giveth...the Americans can taketh away.

[ToadBrother]

OK, but the larger point is that Canada already has a pernicious system of content control with the specific goal of limiting access to foreign content with co called "CanCon Rules" in other mediums. Why is "net neutrality" in another nation above such government or private sector consideration(s)?

The United States has long been the touchstone of Internet freedom, and considering that it basically controls important aspects of its infrastructure via ICANN, obviously any moves by Congress or via regulatory changes pushed by the FCC, these are going to have implications far beyond the United States' borders.

Governments around the world have basically taken a back seat on the issue of net neutrality. Part of the problem is that there is no single expansive definition, and it seems to mean different things to different groups. But the general idea that ISPs, particularly top tier providers, shouldn't be traffic limiting or blocking certain packets over other ones because of the type of data being transmitted or because of the source or destination seems a good one to me. These providers, not just in the US, but elsewhere, have tried to argue that governments have no business telling them what to do, but I call BS on it because, at least in Europe and North America, the Telcos and cable companies, in particular, have basically enjoyed a big fat gift from the taxpayer over the last century through free right-of-ways and major subsidies for last mile wiring. That they have received such substantial largess strikes me as an argument that they cannot simply assume themselves immune to government policies like net neutrality.

This is hardly new. Telcos have long enjoyed common carrier status.

[dre]

Correct...but why is this applicable to users in Canada, who already have "content control" via the CRTC?

Because we dont live in a vacuum, and because Americans are our neighbors. I want people all over the world to be able to use the internet as they have been, and if you allow carriers to arbitrarily block content then the landscape will change in a way that harms consumers.