F.C.C. Net Neutrality Rules Clear Hurdle as Republicans Concede to Obama

WASHINGTON — Senior Republicans conceded on Tuesday that the grueling fight with President Obama over the regulation of Internet service appears over, with the president and an army of Internet activists victorious.

The Federal Communications Commission is expected on Thursday to approve regulating Internet service like a public utility, prohibiting companies from paying for faster lanes on the Internet. While the two Democratic commissioners are negotiating over technical details, they are widely expected to side with the Democratic chairman, Tom Wheeler, against the two Republican commissioners.

F.C.C. Net Neutrality Rules Clear Hurdle as Republicans Concede to Obama

Republicans seem to have been spreading a lot of fear and disinformation in this campaign, leading their constituents to believe that enacting net neutrality laws would change the internet - when in fact it is the opposite that would happen.

Let us take the example of someone streaming something on Netflix. Right now, there is no slowing of speed. With the new FCC rules, there will be no slowing of speed. But without the FCC rules corporations could deliberately sabotage your Netflix speed.

The F.C.C. plan would let the agency regulate Internet access as if it is a public good. It would follow the concept known as net neutrality or an open Internet, banning so-called paid prioritization — or fast lanes — for willing Internet content providers.

In addition, it would ban the intentional slowing of the Internet for companies that refuse to pay broadband providers. The plan would also give the F.C.C. the power to step in if unforeseen impediments are thrown up by the handful of giant companies that run many of the country’s broadband and wireless networks.

People already pay for different internet speeds, and this will remain in effect.

The current plan is one that is supported by millions of taxpayers, and technology companies like Twitter, Tumblr, chess.com, Firefox, Netflix and Reddit.

Why does the FEC need to help regulate your internet?

a reply to: darkbake

And now let the exceptions begin to accrue...

a reply to: ketsuko

Better than having verizon or comcast regulating it... even if indirectly

a reply to: ketsuko

Because companies like comcast and verizon screw the little people..for the moment I see this as a great victory...now three months from now we may learn differently but for now....Huzzah

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: ketsuko

Because companies like comcast and verizon screw the little people..for the moment I see this as a great victory...now three months from now we may learn differently but for now....Huzzah

So the Federal Election Commission needs to help the Federal Communication Commission regulate your Internet ... why again?

you supporters of this do realize this will let them monitor you even worse than they do now right? Torrent? NOPE GONE.

Private VPN? nope gone. Watching a show online free? nope gone too. This is a way for the FCC to collect taxes when they get it set up properly.

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: ketsuko

Because companies like comcast and verizon screw the little people..for the moment I see this as a great victory...now three months from now we may learn differently but for now....Huzzah

And three months from now it will be too late. We'll all be screwed just like with Obamacare.

I wonder; if I like my internet, will I still be able to keep my internet?

a reply to: beezzer

No silly rabbit, now it is 'our' internet.

a reply to: darkbake

Great news!
a reply to: ketsuko

Why did you bring up the FEC?

Let me give you some help.

Maybe this is why they want the FEC to help.

Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

Does no one remember this? When they sent "observers" into various media outlets to "observe" how and what news was being reported?

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

So they sent people in to tally up the newsrooms' CINs. Hah!

This is not the first time the agency has meddled in news coverage. Before Critical Information Needs, there was the FCC's now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, which began in 1949 and required equal time for contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. Though the Fairness Doctrine ostensibly aimed to increase the diversity of thought on the airwaves, many stations simply chose to ignore controversial topics altogether, rather than air unwanted content that might cause listeners to change the channel.

And now instead of the radio Fairness Doctrine, we have Net Neutrality. Who could be opposed to either? They sound so similar and so ... fair. But they can move on from radio because it's the Internet where the real wilderness of free speech is. And that's what they are really worried about - controlling access to information.

Yeah, this is power grab by the FCC. Here's to more government! Exactly what we all need.

They have two leaked rules. The second has seven broad areas:

Unfortunately, if a recent report from Reuters is correct, the general conduct rule will be anything but clear. The FCC will evaluate “harm” based on consideration of seven factors: impact on competition; impact on innovation; impact on free expression; impact on broadband deployment and investments; whether the actions in question are specific to some applications and not others; whether they comply with industry best standards and practices; and whether they take place without the awareness of the end-user, the Internet subscriber.

If some points of view get more time than others, it could constitute "harm" in terms of competition and free expression for example.

If no one visits certain sites but lots of people go to others, again, how do you define constituting harm to competition?

a reply to: ketsuko

So they don't just want equal opportunity.

They want equal outcome.

But what about this.....

[[ Democratic FCC commissioner balks at net neutrality rules ]]


A Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission wants to narrow the scope of new net neutrality rules that are set for a vote on Thursday, The Hill has learned.

Mignon Clyburn, one of three Democrats on the FCC, has asked Chairman Tom Wheeler to roll back some of the restrictions before the full commission votes on them, FCC officials said.

The request — which Wheeler has yet to respond to — puts the chairman in the awkward position of having to either roll back his proposals, or defend the tough rules and convince Clyburn to back down.

Can't wait to see the actual "regulation" package.

originally posted by: ketsuko
So the Federal Election Commission needs to help the Federal Communication Commission regulate your Internet ... why again?

YOU brought up the FEC. No one else has mentioned the FEC.

originally posted by: xuenchen

Can't wait to see the actual "regulation" package.

I'll go ... Out-on-a-Limb:


It will be found to be SO-RESTRICTIVE that IT will end up in the ...


Supreme-Court.
.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ketsuko
So the Federal Election Commission needs to help the Federal Communication Commission regulate your Internet ... why again?

YOU brought up the FEC. No one else has mentioned the FEC.

Here

These rules could interfere with the FEC and the FTC.

While the FCC is inserting government bureaucracy into all aspects of Internet access, the FEC is debating whether to regulate Internet content, specifically political speech posted for free online,” the commissioners wrote.

So far the FEC has remained out of regulating the Internet, but lately, the votes have been split with Democrats voting in favor of it after two anti-Obama YouTube ads.

The FCC’s new Internet regulations, which are widely expected to be implemented via vote Thursday by the Democratically dominated commission, could be the first step toward more broad cross-agency regulation of the Internet — something the Internet doesn’t need, according to the commissioners.

So, you have Democrats wanting to regulate the Internet in all cases. It will lead to regulating political speech just like it did with the Fairness Doctrine. If you can't convince them, shut them up one way or the other.

originally posted by: FarleyWayne

originally posted by: xuenchen

Can't wait to see the actual "regulation" package.

I'll go ... Out-on-a-Limb:


It will be found to be SO-RESTRICTIVE that IT will end up in the ...


Supreme-Court.
.

And we know how well that worked out last time.