Lawmakers trying to overturn FCC Internet rules

from JoeUser Forums

 

 

 

WASHINGTON | Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:29pm EST (Reuters)

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Representative Fred Upton, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative Greg Walden sponsored the resolution to repeal the rules follows a lawsuit filed in January by Verizon Communications that argues the FCC overstepped its authority.

This effort is probably doomed to failure because it would need to pass both chambers of Congress, where Democrats retain a majority in the Senate, and get President Barack Obama's signature, to have effect. At best it’ll turn into a bargaining chip in some other political fight. That really bothers me. Not only is it a waste of time needed for much more important work (like getting jobs!) but it puts me and the American public in the path of rate hikes for internet service. The Canadian Gov’t recently put the kabosh on a similar plan to raise rates there.

So what’s it about?

In December, the FCC voted 3-2 to ban Internet service providers like Comcast Corp and Verizon from blocking traffic but gave them some discretion to ration access and manage their networks. The FCC's two Republicans voted against the item.

Basically, this is Net Neutrality Redux ( link to prior article ).

Make no mistake, there’s a lot of money at stake here. This prima facie explains why politicians are up for the fight.

This split highlighted a huge divide between those who say the Internet will flourish without regulation and those who say the power of high-speed Internet providers to discriminate against competitors needs to be restrained.

I seem to remember this situation from somewhere: Oh yes! Wall St. and Banking deregulation.

Certainly worked to Main St.’s advantage there! We’re all a lot better of, aren’t we?

"I am concerned that this power grab will set a dangerous precedent to undermine the role of Congress as elected representatives of the people to determine the law of the land. I do not intend to allow this to occur," said Upton in a statement on the resolution and Joe Barton expressed a similar sentiment. I really wonder if their motives are so pure when it comes to that. After all, where control and power go, so go campaign contributions (remember? He’s the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House).

For anyone thinking, "Oh, he's a Liberal" (not a dirty word, incidently) I reply, "No, don't label me: I think all parties are compromised by our election funding laws. I don't like the Democrats OR the Republicans."

“John Shimkus, another Republican, pressed commissioners at the House communications subcommittee hearing on whether the FCC had done a cost-benefit analysis.”

To whom, Mr. Shimkus: The ISP’s and their executives, stockholders and the politicians receiving campaign contributions or the small businesses and public?

Verizon filed its complaint with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The same court ruled last year that the FCC lacked the authority to stop Comcast from blocking bandwidth-hogging applications on its broadband network, spurring the agency's most recent rulemaking effort.

"We think we're going to win because we think that the theory we've laid out is very consistent with Supreme Court rulings in the area”, said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

263,361 views 63 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

The problem with this administration is that they do not care what the courts rule.  To date, there have been 3 court rulings that go directly against their policies and in all 3 they have ignored the courts.  IN one case, the judge has already ruled them in contempt.  They are forcing a constitutional crises, that I fear will only be resolved when the house starts impeachment proceedings.  But as you noted, they can vote to impeach, but the senate will never convict.

However, the states are not obligated to go along with the federal government when the laws/rules have been declared null and void.  The feds then have one option left - send in the army,  Hence the constitutional crises.

Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top

DrJBHL your posts (while great) are beginning to show a great amount of bias. It is making them a lot less worth reading. Just something to think about, I hope.

Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Heavenfall... there's no bias in reporting news. The people in favor are in favor, the people opposed are opposed. They are who they are.

You miss the thrust of the article - 1. Net Neutrality (I assume you're not against that, although you didn't say)  2. Where's the bias in this? I believe our faulty election laws together with non partisan greed (ALL politicians and people are less than altruistic) are causing our system to work against the people. I will (as I hope others will) speak for what I believe is in the best interest of the people. I don't think "trickle down" works.

Also, don't forget, this was posted from JoeUser. ;)

I'd hate to lose you as a reader, though. I'm interested in a free, respectful exchange of ideas: So have at it. “Lay on MacDuff, and damn’d be him that first cries, ‘Hold, enough!'".

Reply #4 from Elemental Forums Top

And again this year, Time Warner cable is trying to bribe the NC legislature into making municipal broadband effectively illegal, removing their strongest competition.

 

With Republicans in power this year they'll probably get it.

Reply #5 from WinCustomize Forums Top

If offered, Dems would do the same.... they're in it for what they can squeeze out of it Alstein: All of them.

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

Yeah, you need to keep a constant eye on politicians - there are just too many glittering jewels (read: political "donations") to trust them to do the right thing by themselves.  The only time that the worst can be shrugged off is if people unite to a relatively "heartfelt and just" cause.  But it certainly doesn't help when the system of electing politicians and thus public officials is flawed in some serious way.

Best regards,
Steven.

Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Local governments might soon be the last habitat of those rare birds, 'uncorrupted' elected officials. Various forms of municipal broadband are happening all around the country and it is very disappointing to hear that a state like NC is possibly siding with the mega-corps.

From DC, I expect this sort of crap--and yes, it is a bipartisan problem. I'm a Democrat, but like all good Democrats I can gripe endlessly about the bad decisions taken by the national party leadership, e.g. their mindless submission to the MPAA and RIAA (Free Steamboat Willie!).

StevenAus has the most important point: if you care about an issue, take the time to write to or call your House member and your Senators. If your state legislature is getting into the game as well, write those folks too. And if you can, vote with your dollars. My local public utility provides some broadband, but not to single-family neighborhoods yet; otherwise, I'd probably be sending much less money to our local cable monopoly.

Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top

 The Canadian Gov’t recently put the kabosh on a similar plan to raise rates there.
End of quote

It goes a lot deeper than that. 

Our 2 biggest ISPs, Bell and Rogers all have bandwidth limits on there internet service. They wanted a ruling that would make it illegal for any ISP to provide unlimited bandwidth. Rogers and Bells bandwidth limit has been on a steady decline for the last couple years and raising the overage charges as well. Also breaking CRTC policy throttling peoples downloads that they think are torrents but also include any encrypted download and halted a few multiplayer gaming severs.

Thanks to our courts the little ISP can still offer unlimited bandwidth usage which many many people are switching to if the service is in there area.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

They wanted a ruling that would make it illegal for any ISP to provide unlimited bandwidth.
End of quote

It is not surprising, although it is saddening.  In effect, it is what all monopolies do.  limit entry to upstarts and newcomers.

I love capitalism, but monopolies are not capitalism.

Reply #10 from Elemental Forums Top

Also breaking CRTC policy throttling peoples downloads that they think are torrents but also include any encrypted download
End of quote

Woa, that could screw me seriously if my Florida ISP took up the habit. I'm a contractor; many of the files I work with are increasingly large and almost always hosted behind HTTPS URLs. I haven't had to push gigs at a time up to a server yet, but I've certainly pulled down a few gigs for a modest project more than a few times.

Reply #11 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Canada's PM is my hero for many reasons, the CRTC business among them.

Glad people see why Net Neutrality is so critical.

Reply #12 from Elemental Forums Top

The consequences fall deeper than that.  Net neutrality also bundles with the fairness doctrine and other ridiculous redistributions.  Some of those are strongly favored by the elite left.

Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top

Net Neutrality is a nice idea, like all Utopian bullshit.

 

You're telling someone what they can or can't do with their own property, a violation of the fundamental right to property.

 

The real world consequences of such idiocy are what we have today.  Horribly limited infrastructure that was a decade behind the times, scrambling to catch up.  Deregulation led to FIOS, 3G, the competition is springing up left and right.  Just five years ago, half of you broadband whoring assholes on the east coast(I was on satellite, I have issues, eat me) were pissing and moaning left and right about the frequent disconnects and horrible service in general that you were receiving.  Where's TWC today?  In the shitter and eating FIOS dust.  Every one of you poor suckers still living under a cable monopoly needs to get a clue.  It's your government regulation created infrastructure monopoly that made this mess.  Let them hang themselves, you'll be better off in the long run when the competition eats them alive for their own stupidity.

 

We don't need more regulation, passing net neutrality will just keep the dinosaurs around longer, lagging the shit out of the network.

Reply #14 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Wrong. And it's not their property, and there are laws governing what people do with their property.

"this is my gun, so i can do whatever i want with it." - Wrong.  :typo:

"it's my car so i'll drive it however i wish."  - Wrong. :typo:

Also: You're probably lucky your mother isn't around to wash your mouth out with soap. Your profanity index exceeds the 'merely obnoxious' and is well into the 'intolerable' range.

Change it or find yourself not able to post.

Reply #15 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting psychoak, reply 13
Net Neutrality is a nice idea, like all Utopian bullshit.

 

You're telling someone what they can or can't do with their own property, a violation of the fundamental right to property.

 .
End of psychoak's quote

 

Property rights are not absolute.

 

 

Reply #16 from Elemental Forums Top

Wrong. And it's not their property, and there are laws governing what people do with their property.
End of quote

 

Hilarious.  Ignoring the absurd, irretrievable first half of your opening statement, I'll just shoot down the second half for you.

 

There are countless laws mandating various inarguable requirements on the population.  Podunk towns all over the country have laws against wearing shorts, tank tops, sandals.  You're required by law to have a firearm in at least one.  Others ban gun ownership altogether, something expressly protected and infringement immune by the second amendment.  You're required to have a broom in your garage in quite a few towns.  Bans on PDA, sodomy, it's technically illegal to hold hands in some places.  Just because there are laws violating your rights, doesn't mean you don't have them.  It means they're being violated when enforced.

 

"this is my gun, so i can do whatever i want with it." - Wrong.  :typo:

"it's my car so i'll drive it however i wish."  - Wrong. :typo:

End of quote

 

Your rights end where someone elses right begins.  This is proof of my argument, not yours.  You have a right to freedom of information.  Your right to freedom of information ends where Comcast's right to property begins.  If Comcast wishes to play third world dictatorship and shut down all news traffic through Comcast owned infrastructure, Comcast has a right to do it, it's Comcast's property.  Who doesn't have a right to do it is the government.  It's no different than a delivery service closing shop and leaving it's producer without an outlet.

 

My rights regarding an automobile I own end where someone elses right to life or property begins.  I am not allowed to behave indiscriminate to the welfare of others and their property because they have a right to it.  I must observe safe driving practices when on public road ways.  If I set up my own track, I can indeed drive it however I wish, and should I kill myself in the process it's my own fault.

 

If you have a right to Comcast's infrastructure, slavery is alive and well because that means you have a right to the time invested in creating and maintaining it.  This is much the same argument being made for health care, one has a right to the work of people supplying a service.  Of course, slavery isn't legal and they can't be forced to actually provide services unwillingly.  So, we end up getting shortages and poor service when we try regardless of the consequences.

 

Also: You're probably lucky your mother isn't around to wash your mouth out with soap. Your profanity index exceeds the 'merely obnoxious' and is well into the 'intolerable' range.
End of quote

 

I hadn't even noticed, I'd call it mid ranged.  If she really wants to fly down here and do it, I'll hold my mouth open.  It's going to be hard to find a bar of soap though, modern man discovered detergent a long time ago, only neanderthals would still be using soap. :)

 

Change it or find yourself not able to post.
End of quote

 

I'd call you a bleep-bleeping bleepbleeper(it's on page two of my karma award list for anyone wondering what the bleeps stand for...) for the hell of it, but the presence or lack thereof in regards to colorful metaphors has always been a matter of course.  Attempts at self moderation have proven time consuming, as this post unfortunately demonstrates since I'm about to delete that particular expletive.  You can still blow me though, I give a shit not. :)

+1 Loading…
Reply #17 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I believe you'll have problems posting further psychoak, and with any luck, you might be shown the door.

Reconsidered that. psychoak, I'd really appreciate it if you were to modify your language. I'm kind of 'old school'/dinosaurish about that, and opening doors for ladies.

I hope that won't put too large a crimp in your style. ;)

Reply #18 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Rights are subjective, we have law to protect someone's rights against our own.

Reply #19 from Elemental Forums Top

Rights are subjective, we have law to protect someone's rights against our own.
End of quote

 

As you have no right to someone elses time, there can be no law protecting your non-existent right.  Rights can't be subjective and still be rights.  A right is a right because it "exists" beyond the law of the day.  A legal right isn't a right at all, something you can lose with the flick of a pen isn't yours to begin with.  In essence, to argue that their right to control their own property is subjective and can be changed because you want to run a torrent over their network whether they want you to or not, you must remove property from the list of natural rights.  Then you no longer own any of your possessions, and the state may confiscate and control at will.

 

Reconsidered that. psychoak, I'd really appreciate it if you were to modify your language. I'm kind of 'old school'/dinosaurish about that, and opening doors for ladies.

I hope that won't put too large a crimp in your style.

End of quote

 

It can't, a ban has always been preferable to a muzzle, although it's getting rather long in it's arrival.  Part of me suspects one will never come, but I do know my flagrant, numerous, and unrepentant violations deserve one.

 

I'm bent, rather severely, towards not giving a red rats ass what anyone thinks, and since I can't find a rational argument for a given word being in some way wrong, they just pop out whenever they fit the current train of thought.  I do hold doors though, even if self moderation is a horrible failure most of the time.

Reply #20 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Wow Doc, if you're getting in such an uptight hissy about his language, you'd have a heart attack and fall over if you heard what comes out of my mouth.

+1 Loading…
Reply #21 from Sins Forums Top

Mine as well  }:) . I dont think many children are viewing these threads

Reply #22 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Wow Doc, if you're getting in such an uptight hissy about his language, you'd have a heart attack and fall over if you heard what comes out of my mouth.
End of quote

Now please, Bebi, tell me this isn't true.  Given your cute and completely innocent looking avatar, I envisage a young lady who is as pure as the driven snow and wholly incapable of profanity.  Besides, I've seen a pic and you look like butter wouldn't melt in your mouth, so please tell me that you don't use eff words and the like.

:rofl:

Reply #23 from Elemental Forums Top

My biggest fear is that it's going to turn out something like this:

Let's face it, companies are in it for the bottom dollar. ISPs are already profiting off the maximum amount people are willing to pay for better internet access. They can degrade access much more easily than they can improve it, then charge more for the "new" (old) improved access. I don't see this move as being beneficial anyone, except those who are not the consumer.

+1 Loading…
Reply #24 from WinCustomize Forums Top

The "quote thing is misbehaving so...my responses in bold print (don't really deserve it, just very few other options  :S .

Quoting troglyte, reply 23
My biggest fear is that it's going to turn out something like this:

Reduced 50%Original 1199 x 494

Let's face it, companies are in it for the bottom dollar. ISPs are already profiting off the maximum amount people are willing to pay for better internet access. They can degrade access much more easily than they can improve it, then charge more for the "new" (old) improved access. I don't see this move as being beneficial anyone, except those who are not the consumer.
End of troglyte's quote

Nice shop.   :thumbsup:

Remember why Cable was started? "Great content, no advertising". How long did that last?

In truth they are in it for the money. Anything else is a lie. And I agree with Troglyte in that.

*sigh.

Greed just self propagates.  No cure in sight.

I just want folks to see what's happening and what their stake in it is.

As you have no right to someone elses time, there can be no law protecting your non-existent right. Rights can't be subjective and still be rights. A right is a right because it "exists" beyond the law of the day. A legal right isn't a right at all, something you can lose with the flick of a pen isn't yours to begin with. In essence, to argue that their right to control their own property is subjective and can be changed because you want to run a torrent over their network whether they want you to or not, you must remove property from the list of natural rights. Then you no longer own any of your possessions, and the state may confiscate and control at will.
End of quote

There are rights besides "natural rights". In essence though it all comes down to whether you wish to face jail and civil penalties based solely on "what I can get away with". A certain lady faces a very heavy fine for doing that with downloaded music. "Rights" are what you're willing and able to fight for and hold, imho.

It can't, a ban has always been preferable to a muzzle, although it's getting rather long in it's arrival. Part of me suspects one will never come, but I do know my flagrant, numerous, and unrepentant violations deserve one.
I'm bent, rather severely, towards not giving a red rats ass what anyone thinks, and since I can't find a rational argument for a given word being in some way wrong, they just pop out whenever they fit the current train of thought. I do hold doors though, even if self moderation is a horrible failure most of the time.
End of quote

Nope, psychoak... you're not bent, you were just testing my limits... also the site's.  And yes, I can prevent you from commenting further on the thread and more but won't. Guess I'm just an old softy Grandpa.

I'm more an old fashioned guy who believes in certain proprieties as long as the TOS are held to, I won't. You'd just 'enjoy' that some other way.  ;)

You're more a shock-jock, but that's ok as long as you have consideration for the TOS. [yep, I know you'll deny having them, but that's (I suspect) just you being a cute "bad boy"] ;) .

Quoting Bebi, reply 20
Wow Doc, if you're getting in such an uptight hissy about his language, you'd have a heart attack and fall over if you heard what comes out of my mouth.
End of Bebi's quote

Ahhh... the benefits of the mute button... ;)   Lurv ya Ms. Steffi ...  :inlove:

 

Reply #25 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting starkers, reply 22

Wow Doc, if you're getting in such an uptight hissy about his language, you'd have a heart attack and fall over if you heard what comes out of my mouth.
Now please, Bebi, tell me this isn't true.  Given your cute and completely innocent looking avatar, I envisage a young lady who is as pure as the driven snow and wholly incapable of profanity.  Besides, I've seen a pic and you look like butter wouldn't melt in your mouth, so please tell me that you don't use eff words and the like.

End of starkers's quote

 

Obviously the words from someone who hasn't served in a majority-female unit in the military.  ^_^

 

And rights are under assault constantly- look at Wisconsin right now, where the people are deciding to fight for the right to unionize.  We only have the rights we're willing to fight for- and many across the world are realizing that many people aren't willing to fight for their rights, but some are.