Opponents of FCC's New Internet Regulations Vow Swift Recourse
The Federal Communications Commission todsay voted to regulate the Internet for the first time, in what proponents have dubbed a "Net Neutrality" scheme. The new regulations forbid internet service providers from impeding access to legal web content. See the video below the fold for a good summary of what that means for Internet users.
Neither side of the debate over the regulation of ISPs is particularly fond of today's ruling. Regulation advocates were mostly hoping that the FCC would classify the Internet and regulate it as a government-granted monopoly, in much the same way that telephone service has been regulated since the 1930s. Opponents of the new regulations claim the policy is a solution in search of a problem, and that the they will stultify Web innovation.
Fortunately for both sides, then, forces are already at work to scale back the regulations.
The first potential avenue for reversing the regulations is judicial. In April, a federal appeals court in Washington D.C. ruled that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not authorize the FCC to regulate Internet use, and therefore that the FCC had no statutory authority to do so.
While the FCC at the time acknowledge that the Internet did not fall under either the "telecommunications service" or "cable service" categories that would permit federal regulations under the Telecommunications Act. But the Commission claimed the law established its regulatory authority by authorizing the FCC to "perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions."
The judge disagreed, ruling that that "ancillary" power granted to the FCC had to supplement regulatory efforts authorized by sections of the law specifically citing types of communications under the FCC's jurisdiction (telecommunications, broadcast, cable, etc.).
Considering Congress has not passed a law dealing with the FCC's regulatory power in the realm of telecommunications - meaning this judge's ruling still stands - there will almost surely be a court challenge to the new ISP regulations.
But Congress may not wait for a court challenge, and may opt to take more direct action to stunt the FCC's regulatory effort. Key Republicans have already announced their intentions to do so.
Sen. Jim DeMint, always a stalwart of any effort at eliminating regulatory burdens, blasted the FCC's decision in a release today, and lauded legislation he has already introduced intended to block the new reuglations:
Proceeding on its own liberal whims rather than facts, this FCC has chosen to grant itself broad authority to limit how businesses can bring the internet to consumers in faster and more innovative ways…
To keep the internet economy thriving, this decision must be reversed. Regulatory reform will be a top priority for Republicans in the next Congress, and I intend to prevent the FCC or any government agency from unilaterally burdening our recovering economy with baseless regulation.
In order to provide the stability businesses need to grow, I will work with my fellow senators to see passage of my FCC Act, which would ensure that the FCC can only use its rulemaking powers where there is clear evidence of a harmful market failure, as well as the REINS Act, which would add the accountability of a Congressional vote before any government agency’s proposed major regulations may be finalized.
Other Republicans with key committee placements also expressed a desire to scale back the new regulations. Sens. Jon Ensign, R-Nev., and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Tex., announced that they would be introducing a resolution of disapproval, which would prevent the ISP regulations from going into effect. Hutchinson is the Ranking Member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, while Ensign is the top Republican on that panel's subcommittee with jurisdiction over communications and Web issues. Ensign had this to say:
As the rest of the world forges ahead, the United States will face a technological 'Lost Decade' as these new FCC rules restrict access to the Internet and stall this type of innovation in our country. I had hoped that the FCC would act in the best interest of the United States, but I was, unfortunately, wrong.
On the House side, Rep.Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., who come January will chair the House Energy and Commerce committee's sub-panel with FCC jurisdiction, also announced his intention to introduce a resolution of disapproval. Stearns said the following in a release:
Since its inception, the Internet has thrived and grown without any federal regulation,” stated Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Ranking Republican on the House Communications, Technology and the Internet Subcommittee. “Without any hint of market failure, the reason for any regulation is non existent. Furthermore, the Courts have determined that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has no jurisdiction over the Internet.
President Obama defended the decision in a statement today, saying the FCC's ruling "will help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet while encouraging innovation, protecting consumer choice, and defending free speech."
But while the regulations are safe from any executive pressure, the other two branches may pose distinct threats to ISP regulation in its current form. Proponents of the regulations are not out of the woods yet.
- Lachlan Markay's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
DOH!
Submitted by another_old_veteran on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 6:13pm.
Of course the 'ONE' would support the FCC. They work for him. Ergo ... he is the one pushing for this idiocy.
“If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” - Halton C. Arp
How about this for 'Swift Recourse'
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 6:26pm.
The Chairman of the Federal Communication Communists in shackles before the federal judge who presided over the case that specifically forbid the FCC from Internet regulation.
Then we impeach the Comrade Chairman himself and put him in the next cell, as there is no way he is not behind this outrage.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Yes and Not Sure
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 6:37pm.
YES you will get the FCC chairman for contempt of court
Not Sure aboutr BHO. I don't know if executive priveledge extends here.
Although if he ORDERED Chmn/FCC to go through with this, that makes him guilty of conspiracy at a minimum, does it not?
Gz, hope everyone saved their 56k phone modems.
NVCon
PURPLE IS THE NEW BROWN see below link
http://inlinethumb43.webshots.com/17194/2872764590061034863S600x600Q85.jpg
What is the chance of having
Submitted by Van Halen on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 7:17pm.
What is the chance of having Julius arrested?
I would like to remind
Submitted by Van Halen on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 7:17pm.
I would like to remind everyone here that in under one week, the Republicans have now sold us out on:
1) The tax deal.
2) ME-Chelle Obama's food industry takeover.
3) The START treaty.
They are taking revenge on us for our siding with the TEA Party. It's war now.
This means we have to let our
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 7:28pm.
This means we have to let our Tea Party representatives know where we stand and make sure they know we are watching them and support them when they do what they were elected to do.
The November elections were only the beginning. We have a long way to go.
And repeal of DADT.
Submitted by Martin2717 on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 8:25pm.
I would like to remind everyone here that in under one week, the Republicans have now sold us out on:
1) The tax deal.
2) ME-Chelle Obama's food industry takeover.
3) The START treaty.
They are taking revenge on us for our siding with the TEA Party. It's war now.
And repeal of DADT.
Whoops! Forgot that one.
Submitted by Van Halen on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 8:52pm.
Whoops! Forgot that one. Honestly! I can't keep all this stuff in order because the Republicans are fighting us so hard.
2012
Submitted by Utherpend on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 11:23am.
Thats why in 2012 a lot of these timid Republicans are going to be looking for work. If Mitch McConnell doesnt get the others in line and do what the mandates of the last election showed I am going to vote against him as well.
I told you all way back when that I would let you know...
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 7:32pm.
...when I had reached the point where I stopped worrying about the immediate future of America and became downright scared.
Given what transpired today, It's official.
I'm scared.
Sh*tless.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Well the good thing is less
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 8:53pm.
Well the good thing is less trips the the bathroom.
If this is not reversed you
Submitted by pwb on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 7:33pm.
If this is not reversed you can kiss this country goodbye. This administration has been destroying the constitution from day one and this is the last straw. What is it that the left doesn’t understand about freedom of speech. Do they think that they will always be in the majority or are they figuring that the republicans, as always, will just roll over when they take power. Maybe they figure they can do enough damage before those that believe in the founding of this country are back in charge
So much ignorance, hype and emotion
Submitted by niner-four-whiskey on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 7:57pm.
I have no faith at all that the government can regulate this mess. 99% of the legislators have absolutely NO idea what they are talking about, most of the FCC has no idea what it is talking about, Rush Limbaugh has no idea what he is talking about, MSNBC have no idea what they are talking about with regard to this issue.
It all boils down to which side of the internet is going to make money off of you, the consumer. This is a battle between the last-mile ISP and the content providers on the trunk.
Up to this point, you buy service from your ISP who provides a pipe from your house to the main pipe or trunk of the internet. That is all that your traditional ISP does, just supply you with a pipe to the main line.
Today, the ISP's are consolidating into the big players from the phone business, the cable tv and wireless business. They are looking at the consumer as their exclusive cash cow to milk. If you get your internet DSL from AT&T, and want to rent a movie from Netflix, (AT&T and Netflix for example only) AT&T figures they should get part of the revenue that Netflix gets from you. Better yet, they'd rather you just rent a movie from them directly and just shut out Netflix altogether. So they go to Netflix and say, "hey, we want so many dollars per megabyte that goes from you to one of our customers who gets internet service from us." If Netflix says no, then AT&T says, "Fine, we'll just lower the amount of traffic we accept from you or just block you entirely." AT&T can do that, they own their own network equipment. Or they say to Google, "our users are seeing ads when they search on your service. We want a piece of that money, or we're going to block your ads." Or even better, just replace the ads that were placed and paid for at Google with ad insertions of AT&T's choosing.
Same holds true for Comcast, Verizon and all the other big, last-mile players. They view their consumers as exclusive cash cows for their own milking. It is no coincidence that AT&T is pushing U-Verse and Comcast X-Finity, which combine many services onto TCP/IP networks to the consumer's home.
Eventually, this will lead to utter balkanization. You sign up for internet and you get ONLY what your ISP decide to let you have off the internet. If Google and Netflix don't pay tariff to your ISP, then they get dialed down or blocked entirely.
Same goes for Skype and other VOip services. Should your ISP be able to block or degrade their quality of service if they'd rather you bought the ISP's competing services instead?
On the other hand, why should Google and Netflix and all the other content providers be the only ones to make money? If the ISP's were limited to being fat, dumb-pipe providers from the house to the main trunk, there's no way for them to compete or differentiate other than price and service. The big money is in content and everyone knows it.
In theory, a neutral net means that the user gets to decide what he wants and who to get it from. His ISP does not provide anything other than a pipe to get to the main trunk of the internet. Perhaps his provider offers competing services, but does not alter or block the consumer's access to the internet at large if that's what he wants.
In an ethical world, this would not require regulation. But the same ethics that drive cellphone contracts and satellite TV commitments are what will drive ISP service in the future.
This is a complex issue, but it boils down to who is going to make money on what end of the pipe and whether your ISP gets to milk you himself or let other companies make money on you via network access.
It is a complex issue and it is clear that almost no one "gets it", especially not the lawmakers, the pundits and about 99% of the people who's panties are in a wad about it.
Wow, thank you so much for
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 8:13pm.
Wow, thank you so much for trying to explain such a complex issue to us idiots here. We just press a button on our computers and hope something happens that lets us talk to people who aren't in the same room us. I don't know what I would do without you to try to 'splain to me how deese machines work and all.
Better yet .....
Submitted by Fan77 on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 8:41pm.
How about a simple concept called competition. A solution to all of the above "fabricated" problems.
Unintended consequences of "net neutrality" is down right freightening and probably not that "unintended"!
Those problems aren't "fabricated"...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 9:14pm.
And addressing them is not nearly as frightening as the intended consequences consumers would suffer due to the burgeoning power of the dominant internet service providers to control the market.
Jer
True ....
Submitted by Fan77 on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 9:23pm.
and all mergers/aquisitions must be pre approved by the FCC. Hmmmmmmm interesting!
Create the problem then "sell" the solution ......Getting to sound pretty typical!
You, Sir, Are an Ignoramus
Submitted by Tenebrous on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 8:58pm.
Eventually, this will lead to utter balkanization. You sign up for internet and you get ONLY what your ISP decide to let you have off the internet. If Google and Netflix don't pay tariff to your ISP, then they get dialed down or blocked entirely.You presume that customers will sit around and take that. I don't know of a single customer that would accept that as a condition for internet access. You think that companies can exist without customers? What you wrote is probably the stupidest assessment on this topic that I have ever read, and I've read more than a few.
Visions and Principles blog
Other than the fact that
Submitted by niner-four-whiskey on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 9:55pm.
Other than the fact that everything I stated is already happening. I've been engineering and developing IT equipment and software for the last 20+ years of my life, much of it do this very thing.
Actually, most people would accept what they get from their ISP. Most consumers have no idea of the fundamental operation of the internets, how they work or anything else. (internets with an 's' is indeed, correct) Consumers want content, period.
How will this come about? Consumers will be sold "data services" that include limited "internet access". The idea being that they'll buy it all from the ISP.
Already, the the large ISP's are offering bundled IP based services. These services are designed to compete with and capture consumer dollars at the primary level. The foundation for this are already being set. Many of the new IP based service bundles provide very high data rates to the last-mile consumer, but only offer limited bandwidth beyond the content sold by the ISP.
No one wants to be an ISP anymore if that means being a fat dumb pipe to the internet. The money is in the content upsell.
If you think can offer a better treatise on the subject, by all means, go ahead.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357517,00.asp
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2204751,00.asp
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/comcast-also-jamming-gnutella-and-lotus-notes
Actually I seem to remember
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 3:59am.
Actually I seem to remember the services offered by providers to be quite paltry and only through competition has the price and quality of service been improved. I have been computing for the last 30 years and keep up with IT and trends.
I say lets wait until the market forces are as you describe then lets take care of it. That method has worked well for the last 10K years.
BTW the idea of net neutrality and the doomsday scenario has been around for the last 10 maybe 15 years and so far it has not occurred. Sorta like Global Warming.
We need more ISP's, more
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 8:51pm.
We need more ISP's, more cable providers, and more phone providers; however, I hate the idea of the government getting too involved in the internet. We lose either way. We need more competition, not more government.
*
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 9:29pm.
*Vote for the American in November
This is Unnecessary. End of Story.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 8:51pm.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The FCC does NOT need to regulate the internet. That's it. Let the customer choose.
Visions and Principles blog
Here's the next tack the Left
Submitted by Van Halen on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 8:55pm.
Here's the next tack the Left is going to take - I believe that they will join with us to stop this power grab because even THEY can see this is really bad. But they'll want it settled in favor of their side. So already the "I don't believe that NO government regulation is a good thing' arguments are starting.
I disagree. I believe in a TOTALLY free internet - or how about this - at least what we have now. May not be totally free but it's - well, it's fine as it is. So the goddamned governent - in particular the LEFT can just leave it the hell alone.
In short, don't be sold on ANY government control of the internet. ALL OR NOTHING.
A couple more years with the
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 8:57pm.
A couple more years with the Democrats in charge and we will have:
1. Use tax for our online time and how much storage space we use online
2. We will have to get a permit to use the internet (like a drivers license)
3. You will have to use your real identity. You know, to quash anonymous bloggers.
The idjits in DC have been
Submitted by Rowane on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:38pm.
The idjits in DC have been threatening the internet since its very inception. Now the vaunted FCC have decided that whether its constitutional or not they will regulate the internet. This simply cannot be allowed to stand. I have spent most of the afternoon on the phone with various congress critters and they assure me that things are in the works to quash this little power grab. I'll believe it when I see it as there is nothing less trustworthy than a politician.
You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything. (Aaron Tippin)
One to Another
Submitted by jaywl on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 11:18pm.
There is a reason the Democrats on the FCC pushed this to a vote in defiance of Congress and a Federal Judge. The stated purpose is a sham, although the excellent presentation by 4-9-W is exactly what the FCC ruling is about. It is obvious that our President thought the risks did not outweigh the the opportunity to begin government control of the internet in some benign, not well understood way. And that is the ultimate aim, perhaps years down the road. After all, one tactic of the Alinskites is to simply say there is a problem enough times until people start believing it just because they hear it so often. As if the internet problem is severe because the FCC is trying to fix it even in defiance of a court (how heroic). "All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new" is from Alinski and here is used to mean we must tear down the old internet that served so well and repair it with one that serves the people. How ironic that the BBC carried this today:
"We aren't eliminating the internet here, or censoring it," he said during his weekly television and radio broadcast on Sunday.
"What we're doing is protecting ourselves against crimes, against cybercrimes," he added.
The ............ Chamber of Electronic Commerce has criticised the measure saying that it is another step on the way to censorship and the blocking of websites.
Opposition politicians accuse President .......... of passing a raft of restrictive laws before January, when a new parliament with more opposition delegates is sworn in."
I'm sure most guessed this was about Chavez and Venzuela, not Obama and our country. But when I read the part about a new parliament in January it sure made me wonder. Watch what the other hand is doing when The ObamaOne is explaining his latest gift to our country.
This is just the first step
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 3:22am.
This is just the first step in the Obama Socialist Regimes plan to generate billions, if not trillions yearly in tax revenue by cracking down on no tax internet purchase transactions across state lines.
All you need to remember, whether your liberal or conservative, each and everything the Ass Clown does is for personal gain and power, never for the American people.......no matter how much the lame street media lies to the contrary.
Barack_Must_Go.....
They have only just begun.... Over the air tv is next
Submitted by rgr11 on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 7:21am.
You don't hear much about this from the media yet.
There is another reason that they are pushing this internet issue now. They are "punishing", that is , putting into effect laws that will make it appear that they are getting tough on the wireless carriers and cable companies.
But a more sinister plan is in the works.
After forcing television broadcasters to spend Billions of dollars to convert to digital broadcast, the FCC now claims that they still represent an inefficient use of the spectrum, and have announced plans to "take back" a total of 400 MHZ ( at least 150 MHZ from the TV broadcast industry) by allowing stations to "sell back" their 6 MHZ chunk, by forcing stations to share their allloted spectrum, etc.
The biggest loser here will be consumers who don't want to pay outragous cable bills or satellite fees... it should come as no surprise that the poor will be impacted by this most of all.
The ultimate winner of this will be the wireless carriers, who promise to provide broadband internet to everyone... at a nominal cost, of course.
The FCC and their buddys at Google, whose lobbyists visit the White House on a regular basis, and whose ex employees have filled many critical FCC posts ( and the left thought Bush's association with Halliburton was scary!) are sticking a dagger in the heart of locally originated broadcast television. Your favorite station will be "Cable only" by 2015.
Call your congressman before it is too late.