If the idea of the Fairness Doctrine bringing government control of broadcasted speech wasn't bad enough, there's also a possibility that its oversight powers could spill over onto the Internet and control Web content.
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. on August 12. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC 3-2 vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices - expanding the federal agency's oversight of Internet networks. McDowell was one of the two dissenting votes.
He told the Business & Media Institute there's a possibility the next Congress and administration might attempt to package the renewal of the Fairness Doctrine with net neutrality regulation.
"I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view," McDowell said, suggesting some conservatives might support net neutrality legislation based on corporate censorship fears. "I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem."
"Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,' which won't be called that - it'll be called something else," McDowell said. "So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?"
McDowell, a 2006 Bush appointee, also told BMI the Fairness Doctrine isn't currently on the FCC's radar. But a new administration and Congress elected in 2008 might renew Fairness Doctrine efforts, but under another name.
"The Fairness Doctrine has not been raised at the FCC, but the importance of this election is in part - has something to do with that," McDowell said. "So you know, this election, if it goes one way, we could see a re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine. There is a discussion of it in Congress. I think it won't be called the Fairness Doctrine by folks who are promoting it. I think it will be called something else and I think it'll be intertwined into the net neutrality debate."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The fairness doctrine..
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 08:28 ET by shawn228Is one of the biggest threats to free speech in the history of this country. It must never be allowed to pass.
Real life video games are cool
Yes it's a real threat to
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 08:49 ET by 10ksnookerYes it's a real threat to free speech, but Marxism cannot survive with out it. Free speech is doom for Marxism, just ask Communist China for details. I wonder why doesn't it include broadcast TV ... If you are going to shut down speech, shouldn't every form of airwaves be included?
I guess this could include google also, since they are big for the 'whitespace' push.
same with elements of the McCain-Feingold Bill
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 08:54 ET by c5thenBut those weren't deemed to be too bad since they only apply 30 days before an election. That didn't seem to bother too many people. So...staring October 3, people writting on Newsbusters or Daily KOS or any other web site will not be able to ask people to vote for or against McCain or Obama without violating Federal election laws.
I know that most of us will not refrain, so welcome to the ranks of the criminals. Hopefully not too many of us area actually arrested and prosecuted.
Marx would be so proud.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
exactly
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 09:09 ET by candanceHow is McCain going to criticize the Fairness Doctrine when campaign finance reform was also an assault on free speech?
We are so screwed either way.
I think there are quite a
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 09:10 ET by TD in FLI think there are quite a few things to be worked out yet regarding net neutrality, but I do support the concept. Certainly what I do not want is for ISPs to favor one customer over another depending on how the customer is choosing to use the bandwidth that has been promoted to them. Right now the big issue is P2P programs, which suck quite a bit of bandwidth - and companies like Comcast are trying to stiffle that.
Just like many in the music industry made the mistake of not embracing the future of technology, ISPs can shoot themselves in the foot if they are not careful as to how they handle these issues. While much of the high bandwidth users today may be P2P users (which certainly can be used for illegal purposes, but torrents are increasingly being used to spread legit files business-to-consumer style), we are already starting to see streaming video content pick up in demand - this is also a hog on bandwidth. With video on demand just beginning, more and more customers will be maximizing their bandwidth consumption so ISPs need to focus on expanding capacity for future needs instead of alienating customers right now; that's how you lose customers.
Promoted? No, SOLD!
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 09:40 ET by CobraMan"the bandwidth that has been promoted to them"
Promoted? No LEASED! That “bandwidth” is the property of the provider, not the customer. Internet access is offered as a service. It is not a property transfer. If you want greater bandwidth, you have to pay for it. That’s why dial-up providers charge less than cable providers do.
You seem to believe that bandwidth is some free resource found in nature, readily available to everyone at little cost. This is incorrect, as Internet providers have to buy and maintain EQUIPMENT in order to supply Internet access. The greater the bandwidth requirements for that equipment, the great their complexity and costs. Why shouldn't providers charge their customers extra to recoup the added expense of high bandwidth equipment? Someone has to cover those increased costs. That someone is the customer.
I think there are quite a
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 09:40 ET by Dan The Man 2I think there are quite a few things to be worked out yet regarding net neutrality, but I do support the concept - And thats where it should end. Concepts are fine but when the government takes them they blow out of proportion. Any government program will grow and grow until it is a bloated giveaway and if it is a regulation then it will stifle all elements it was ment to protect.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Supply and demand, ever hear of it?
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 10:47 ET by CobraMan"Right now the big issue is P2P programs, which suck quite a bit of bandwidth - and companies like Comcast are trying to stiffle that."
Supply and demand, ever hear of it? Those P2P users are consuming a far higher percentage of a FIX amount of the total possible bandwidth that Comcast can provide. You have to remember that Comcast, like every other Internet provider, is limited as to how much total Internet traffic (AKA BANDWIDTH) their equipment can provide. As demand for that available bandwidth increases, supply decreases. As supplies dwindle, the more Comcast is forced to add additional equipment (supply) in order to keep pace with demand. The more Comcast must spend on upgrades, the greater the costs they incur. The greater the costs they incur, the more they must charge their customers. That's how the system works. So, why shouldn’t Comcast charge the customers who use a greater percentage amount of bandwidth a higher fee than those who use less? After all, it’s those customers who are increasing demand and not the customers who use very little bandwidth like myself..
I am a Comcast subscriber and I know it's not "neutral" for someone to use a dramatically increased amount of that total available bandwidth than I am while paying the same amount that I do. It's comparable to paying the same price for gasoline despite the amount that you pump into your tank. Do you really think that it's “neutral” for you to buy 60 gallons of gas for the same price I pay for 10? No, it’s not “neutral” at all, for if you buy more gas than me for the same price, then you can drive more miles than me at the same cost. It’s only “neutral” if you pay the same amount PER GALLON. That way we can both drive the same amount of miles for the same price.
If your unhappy with idea of charging people more for increased bandwidth usage, then I suggest you start your own Internet provider service. That way you can charge your customers any rate you want. That's called free enterprise and it's the American Way.
huh TD?
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 14:01 ET by candanceCertainly what I do not want is for ISPs to favor one customer over another depending on how the customer is choosing to use the bandwidth that has been promoted to them
Do you know how stupid this sounds? This is like saying Delta shouldn't offer unfair perks to people in first class. You pay a higher price, you get better service.
Why can't the free market solve this? Comcast doesn't build their infrastructure right, they have service issues and start losing customers. Someone comes along who provides better service and the problem is solved.
The government needs to stay the crap away from the internet.
"Certainly what I do not
Thu, 08/14/2008 - 07:36 ET by TD in FL"Certainly what I do not want is for ISPs to favor one customer over another depending on how the customer is choosing to use the bandwidth that has been promoted to them
Do you know how stupid this sounds? This is like saying Delta shouldn't offer unfair perks to people in first class. You pay a higher price, you get better service. "
Maybe I should have been a little more clear. I am talking about like-customer bases (customers who have the same service and are paying the same fee). They both have a 10Mbit/s lines which they are paying for the ability to use up to that ceiling. If Customer 1 rarely pushes the ceiling (and ISP does not interfere), but Customer 2 uses a much heavier bandwidth (and the ISP does put restrictions on them), then, that is unfair. Alternatively, the ISPs could create a system that charges customers based on their data transfer totals for a month. It would charge customers who use a lot of bandwidth much more comparably to a casual user. I have yet to see ISPs do this, but I feel it would nearly eliminate the need for any net neutrality system. However, as it stands now, if you are paying to get up to certain speed, unless it is spelled out in your contract, it is not fair for ISPs to clamp down on a service you are paying for.
why not??
Thu, 08/14/2008 - 10:49 ET by candanceit is not fair for ISPs to clamp down on a service you are paying for
Why can't they? It's their product/service. They can charge whatever they want. It's NOT the government's job to babysit every industry to assure that we get what we deem "fair."
What's really not fair is to tell a private company they can't set their terms as they deem fit.
This kind of ticky-tack babysitting is getting to the point of being ridiculous.
Don't like the way Comcast does their business? Cancel your cable!!! It's a luxury and not a Constitutional right!!
The Fairness Doctrine is a
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 10:10 ET by msh1973The Fairness Doctrine is a lie...the libs don't want "fairness" they want to shut conservatives up! They had control of the media until Rush came along and now conservative radio, blogs and Fox have taken the lead and the libs don't like it one bit. We must never let this so called "Fairness Doctrine" see the light of day.
Flip Flop
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 10:19 ET by dbo"So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views...
Btw, just wanted to let everyone know that I believe in a large, powerful central government, global warming, and that I'm going to vote for Obama. Satisfied? :-)
fairness, smearness!!
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 10:20 ET by STANISZCHARLIE Get real here people on all this baloney of, fairness. NPR, PBS would be harmed more here than the commercial driven talk radio. The liberal driven above outlets are funded and don,t have any balance. The real reason the, limbaugh,s, and the rest of the socalled conservative talkers are scared is because given time to on air opposing views would cut into the controlled air time to sell, sell and sell. This is all it is about. When the clowns like, Conyers.kerry and kennedy start FILLABUSTING to change the 2ND AMEND then start worrying.
Want to bet?
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 11:06 ET by CobraMan"NPR, PBS would be harmed more here than the commercial driven talk radio."
Want to bet? Those stations, being publicly funded non-profit organizations, will be EXEMPT! Just like they were before, and just like the democrats are proposing today.
We will not allow our government to further erode...
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 10:46 ET by ThalpyWe will not allow our government to further erode our freedoms. Freedom of speech is the strength of our nation and our ignorant, traitorous governmental functionaries will not be allowed to abridge that freedom. The United States is a sovereign nation, not Europe. The treasonous EU and the UN along with the individual state parliaments are well on their way towards the eradication of freedom for the individual. The EU coup is almost complete. Many of us in the United States are not sheep.
This must not happen here!
sorry but you're wrong (at least so far)
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 11:49 ET by wizardjrKalifornia just enacted a whole host of laws criminalizing such things as the content of food voluntarily purchased and eaten by adults. While some are leaving, the rest of the sheeple are still there. The Twin Cities area has outlawed smoking in most commercial establishments including bars and grills. There goes property rights. And still the sheeple stay for more abuse.
All victimless crimes are an abuse of power and America is drowning in piles of paper with victimless crime laws and regulations.
As far as the internet and the Fairness Doctrine, I have been warning about this from the begining of this new wave of insanity. Your personal web site, if it is publically accessed will fall under this rubric. All these blogs, while ostensibly open to all comers will be forced by fascists to display an even number of text lines for each side of an issue. I guarantee it.
Thanks for the memories
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 12:16 ET by CobraMan"The Twin Cities area has outlawed smoking in most commercial
establishments including bars and grills. There goes property rights."
Thanks for reminding me as I am a smoker who hates having to go outside in 20 below temps in order to engage in a lawful endeavor.
That ban also includes all government and civic buildings as well. We even have a law that actually bans someone from smoking OUTSIDE within a fix distance (can't remember what that is offhand) from any government, civic, or commercial entrance or exit. It always amazes me that the city would ban smoking in certain outdoor locations in order to protect people from breathing in the slightest whiff of "second hand smoke" while diesel busses drive past (every ten minutes in the downtown district) closer to those entrances and exits than I am legally allowed to smoke! That's just stupid!
that's why I gave it up
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 15:04 ET by wizardjrI quit smoking way back in '90 because I got tired of being treated like a vampire every time I took out a cigarette to light up. Several Chicken Littles would start whinning about dieing from second hand smoke (of which there is no proof even today) and make noises about a stake through the heart.
I will say this though, I am glad I quit. However, I have no issue with your smoking as much as you like.
My rage clouded my mind...
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 17:06 ET by ThalpyMy rage clouded my mind; you are right, but I believe it's far from over. What do you have in mind?
bandwith usage
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 14:37 ET by Darune Albane.. if i pay for a 3gigabyte download speed it is my RIGHT to use 3gig it is like me selling you all the pop you can drink .. but stop you after you have 3 glasses of pop
please reread your contract
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 14:58 ET by wizardjrI'd also suggest going to your provider's web site for more 'fine print'. I believe that you'll find that there are all sorts of restrictions on the continuous bandwidth you can use. All those speeds are based on bursting by the users, not full time at that speed. Perhaps in your case they forgot to publish those restrictions, but I've seen them on a number of providers I've had in the past. I have DSL, so my minimum bandwidth is guaranteed. Most cable providers are providing shared bandwidth not guaranteed slot bandwidth.