Net "Neutrality" is about controlling voices of opposition to the government's agenda,
Now, Copps,' one of the Democrat commissioners, "said that he wanted to ensure that the Internet doesn't travel down the same road of special interest consolidation and gatekeeper control that other media and communications industries like radio, TV, film, and cable have traveled.'
They are worried to death that the Internet is gonna become the next conservative talk radio and Fox News, and that's what they're not gonna permit. That's what so-called net neutrality is all about: To make sure that the voices of minorities and the displaced and the dis-financed and the disabused and the whoevers are equally heard. 'What a historic tragedy it would be,' Copps said, 'to let the fate,' that fate, meaning what's happened to talk radio and Fox News, 'befall the dynamism of the Internet.' That's from an earlier app story. Yeah, so we would really hate to see that -- and by the way, they don't have any regulatory authority over cable TV and they haven't asserted it, and that's what galls 'em about Fox. They are trying to control Fox on the basis that Fox does news.
One thing that is worth noting is that Google supported this. Why would big business support government regulation? Would this not hurt big business? A lot of the negative attributes that people ascribe to capitalism is actually the result of the collusion of big government and big business--corporatism. This collusion started under our first modern President Teddy Roosevelt. Big businesses like government regulation because it gives them certainty and an unfair advantage against their smaller competitors because they can afford to comply with the regulations while the smaller businesses can't. Government regulation also helps to prevent competitors from popping up because of the onerous and costly effects of the regulations. Government also likes big business and wants to enact a partnership with them for the purpose of achieving their beneficial goals. Both parties benefit in this Corporatist Fascist model while the people's freedom is the loser. America is not a free enterprise system and has not been for some time now. It is a mixed economic model with free enterprise and government control. This system started out with the free enterprise being the dominate element and the government control being the subordinate element. For quit some time these roles have been in the process of being reversed so that now the government control is becoming the dominate element and to eventually the the only element.
Our health care system and one sixth of our economy has been completely overhauled into a government-controlled model, the financial and banking industry has been basically taken over along with the car industry, the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy has been repealed, the Internet has now fallen under the regulatory foot of the government, and the START treaty looks like it will be passed. President Obama and the Democratic Congress has been very successful in "Fundamentally Transforming" America. The foundation for a new system has been and is in the process of being built, to paraphrase a Congressman referring to Obamacare. This new system is vastly different in a negative sense, change in and of itself is not a negative thing, from what this Country was founded as. All that can be done to these achievements by the new Congress and the new future Republican President, this is still up in the air, is making little reforms in the newly created structure and not getting rid of this structure or replacing it with a free market one. The full effects and force of this fundamental transformation won't be felt for another couple of decades.
In the last paragraph where you sum up the huge policy changes that the Obama administration has been a part of, it really puts things in perspective. Good post.
ReplyDeleteThe half-Republican Congress will put the hammer down on this Jeff. Reports of Congress' irrelevence are premature.
ReplyDeleteOK, START was bad.
ReplyDeleteCongress is not completely irrevlevant as of now, but it is becoming that. That new Congress will hammer down on a this new structure in the sense that it will better shape the newly created structure. The new Congress will almost definitely make a lot of changes to Obamacare and everything else. But they will be making those changes within the newly created structure. They will not do away with it and replace it with a free market structure. Some provisions in Obamacare will be done away with, but the basic framework of the law will still stand. The Republicans still want to keep the provision that prevents an insurance company from deny preexisting conditions. There is a new paradigm for our political structure: the Country has shifted to the left in a major way. We will move back to the right some but we will still be farther to the left than when we started.
ReplyDeleteThis new net neturality is the one thing that does stand to be repealed by the new Congress. That will have to be seen.
ReplyDeleteSenator Rockefeller has a "little bug" inside of him that tells him what he wants the FCC to do: get rid of Fox News and CNN. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUZDPVo3ACE
This guy is a straight up statist and is very dangerous. Who is he to determine what news people watch. The people have chosen to watch Fox News through the free market by making Fox News the most sucessful news network.
That Rockefeller video baffles me. How can he say those things. I can't believe someone like this was chosen to be on any sort of commerce commity.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that people like Rockefeller can be so open about what they want says a lot. He is only one of very many that state their statist intentions and their love and admiration for communist. The sad fact is that a lot of Americans would agree with them and support communist political philosophy as long as it is not called that.
ReplyDeleteI think most people hear what he says and they say to themselves, "no more annoying pop ups? No more hiking rates? Evil corporations? Sounds great!" But they fail to see the real ramifications of this type of government tyranny.
ReplyDeleteHere is an interesting video that makes me question Fox. I don't like that Fox News does this if they do. Over all though I like Fox News.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DfPqNRFVeI
I know CBS just did this to George's Bush's new book: they altered the cover to make a pun at him. I don't know what to make your video. How do we know it wasn't the other pictures that were altered to make these guys look better than they are? This happens all the time. If they were altered on purpose by Fox, they shouldn't have done that. But I think without the proper context, it is a very minor thing as long as it is not done often. Where did you get this video from?
ReplyDeleteBud-D's big faith in the Republican take over of the Congress motivated me to make an over optimistic. This net neturality will Probably Not be overturned by the new Congress. So I stand by my previous statements and view.
"Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can strike down a regulation by passing a joint resolution. If President Obama vetoes the resolution, Congress could overturn it by a two-thirds majority.[...]"'I don't think that any delay in publishing the final rules by the FCC will affect how Congress will act,' Paul Gallant, a research analyst at MFGlobal, told FoxNews.com. 'The Republican position seems pretty clear. They're opposed.'Gallant issued a report in which he said a legislative reversal of the FCC rules is 'unlikely' because a divided Congress would almost certainly not be able to overcome a presidential veto. But Gallant said a legal challenge posed a more serious risk, citing concerns from commissioners in both political parties. "'So there is clearly some risk that yesterday's ruling will ultimately be overturned in court, although the final outcome may not be known for several years,' he wrote" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/22/republicans-aim-block-fccs-new-internet-rules-effect/?test=latestnews
Lovable-liberal.blogspot.com was who alerted me to this video. I hold the same belief that you do about it. I don't know who exactly is altering what. But I tend to think Fox did the original alteration. If you watch the original Fox and Friends episode in its entirety, it appears to me that Fox thought that doing these alterations would be ok since later on in the show they have blatant obvious alterations by putting the Jew guy's face on a poodle. I still think Fox should not have done it in the first place. Not a huge issue but does make me raise an eyebrow.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to start this off by saying I strongly disagree with Net Neutrality. But, no where does this post or Rush's long diatribe explain how net neutrality will give democrats "control of what you search." As per my understanding of net neutrality, this is about a pricing scheme that developed over worries that as cable conglomerates got larger, they would charge different rates for service based upon which sites that users went too. Too my knowledge, this isn't about shutting down access to individual sites, but ensuring that no matter what content you view on the internet or choose to download, Comcast or ATT can't charge you different rates.
ReplyDeleteThus, I don't think the argument is to grasp at extreme gov't paranoia but to look at how terrible this is for markets. The fact is, even if NBC doesn't want users downloading episodes of 30Rock or the Office (which are now under the umbrella of Comcast), the fact is, those people downloading massive amounts of media content are in fact using more resources than those that read the news and post bitter blog posts. The reason why prices exist is to prevent over consumption of a resources (in this case bandwidth). What net neutrality is doing, at least in my understanding of the subject, is declaring the product of private firms a "right" and that we should all have access to it. Which only creates over usage of bandwidth, which is going to create added expenses for cable providers to lay down ever bigger and bigger pipes to accommodate our usage. The companies will then pass this buck onto every user (since they can't charge the ones who are most responsible due to the neutrality policy), so, in the end, the people that are the prime bandwidth users are passing their expenses onto all of us. This is clear rights principle harm, and something I look forward to Republicans killing in the near future. The fact that Federal Courts have already stepped in will only make it easier to shove this into Obama's face.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you say Melkor as far as what this bill sets out to do, but the problem is that this is a first foray into regulating the internet. The internet has been a grand, successful experiment, done without govt intervention, allowing all the good things we know it does. This bill, besides being bad in and of itself, is the proverbial 'camel's nose under the tent'. All you Iraq vets are probably up on that one.
ReplyDeleteJeff, we'll see. I'm feeling good though. Things are going our way.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct Melkor that this will not led to the immediate total control of the internet by the government. But it is a step in that direction. It is being pushed by those that wanted to enact the fairness doctrine and the current adminstration. These new rules will give the government the power to police the internet. And this police power will only grow. What did Copps mean with his statement?
ReplyDeleteThe Fox News article stated that "But the move raises concern that the FCC could soon have its regulatory foot in the door of the wild wild West of the Internet -- with an eye toward eventually exerting tighter control over content at a time when sites like WikiLeaks openly snub the government."
I agree that simply looking at this issue from a "government paranoia" is to maybe oversimplify and doesn't encompass the full extent of the issue and it does sounds stupid, but the fact is that this bill will led to that. What does Senator Rockfeller mean when he said what he said? Does it sound stupid to you when one's says that the government controls the car industry and the new health care bill will led to the government controlling our health care system?
And on Melkor's, "But, no where does this post or Rush's long diatribe explain how net neutrality will give democrats "control of what you search." I should have included this in the post. Check out the FCC's statement on their website. I will post this later.
If I were arguing against this in the political world, I would frame my argument in a more politically correct way by probably using Melkor's points and including some of my own. I would not make it sound "Paranoid"--I mean realist. I don't care to sound politically correct where you have to say things in a around about way nor tell the whole truth, especially for our current audience. I prefer to state things more directly and be realist. These new rules will lead to more government control over the internet. To think otherwise would mean that you would have to overlook past developments that led to the government being able assume these new regulatory powers in this case and almost all other past developments in government regulation. Also look at the history of the rise of totalitarianism to see how it came about very slowly over a long period of time, not necessary intentionally by those that took the steps. Assuming this will not led to negative consequences would mean that you would be ignorant and living in a fairly-tale land where there can be no harm.
ReplyDeleteOn Melkor's point about the fact that the government can regulate what pops up when you do searches, I read that stated directly in an article and I don't have it and I don't want to do a longer post. So I will remove that phrase, although it this is very indirectly referenced in the FCC statement and can easily be seen how these new rules will lead to the government being able to do this.
http://www.fcc.gov/
"A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network."
Before this ruling the service providers had the control over what content could be accessed in accordance with free market principles that Melkor stated. So now this government ruling has taken that control away from the service providers and now the government has assumed that control in the opposite way by NOT allowing the service providers to block access; or stated in another way, the government will be determining what WILL be on the internet. So the government is now determining what content will be on the internet by stating what can not be blocked or charged more for access to certain content by private companies.
You can also read the statement by the FCC to see where it got its authority to do this and to see how it was little steps at a time. This is just another step by the government to assuming larger control over what content we can access by setting a precedent.
I do not intend to sound paraonid. But the fact is that the government has gained the ability to determine what content will be on the internet. And this will be expanded later, by people who want more power to do good for us. This is not being done by evil people that want to take over the world. The bad effects are unintended and not forseen by these people.
Okay. I buy that a priori, there is no need for the gov't to do this. It could lead to more rules down the road. That's fair.
ReplyDeleteBut it's a little hard to digest the statement:
"So now this government ruling has taken that control away from the service providers and now the government has assumed that control in the opposite way by NOT allowing the service providers to block access; or stated in another way, the government will be determining what WILL be on the internet"
So, sure, it is logical to say that the gov't is determining what is on the internet when they say, "everything should be on the internet." But it is a fallacy to say that from this, we're giving the gov't the ability to take things off the internet. No....No no no no. I think if this becomes the benchmark (and if somehow some law is created from this), the provision would be gov't regulation only to maximize internet access not to minimize. If the gov't's initial foray into internet regulation is to stop providers from restricting content, it would be very difficult for the gov't to switch gears down the road to do the same. So, from a free speech point of view and, if we really are forced to accept net neutrality for whatever reason, it isn't as terrible as Rush is making it seem.
I only choose this issue to make a point because when conservatives attack net neutrality as "gov't taking control of the internet" it makes us look weak when the gov't responds that they are actually maximizing access. It's a clever spin that the Dem's can use to turn independent's to their side. It makes your position appear to be extremist and turns people off. I think when framed from a market perspective, it's much more coherent argument, and much more difficult to overcome with spin.
I think you are wrong Melkor. You should read the statement by commissioner McDowell's, who voted against this statement on this ruling. starting at page 26 . http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A4.pdf
ReplyDeleteThis will pave the way for the government to restrict what will be on the internet.
"Third, it is undisputed that broadband ISPs merit First Amendment protection
when using their own platforms to provide multichannel video programming services and
similar offerings. The Order acknowledges as much but simply asserts that the new
regulations will leave broadband ISPs sufficient room to speak in this fashion124 – unless, of course, hints elsewhere in the document concerning capacity usage come to pass.125 So while the Order concedes, as it must, that network management regulation could well
be subject to heightened First Amendment review, it disregards the most significant
hurdle posed by even the intermediate scrutiny standard.126 The Order devotes all of its
sparse discussion to the first prong of the intermediate scrutiny test, the “substantial”
government interest,127 while wholly failing to address the second and typically most
difficult prong for the government to satisfy: demonstrating that the regulatory means
chosen does not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary.”128 And what is the
burden here? One need look no further than the Order’s discussion of specialized services to find it. It announces an “expectation” that network providers will limit their use of their own capacity for speech in order to make room for others – an expectation that may rise to the level of effectively requiring the platform provider to pay extra, in the form of capacity build-outs, before exercising its own right to speak.129 Such a vague
expectation creates a chilling effect of the type that courts are well placed to recognize.130
Yet the Order makes no effort, as First Amendment precedent requires, to weigh
this burden against the putative benefit.131 Instead, Broadband ISP speakers are left in the
dark to grope their way through this regulatory fog. Before speaking via their own
broadband platforms, they must either: (1) guess and hope that they have left enough
capacity for third party" PAGE 29
[...]
What had been bottom-up, non-governmental, and grassroots based Internet
governance will become politicized. Today, the United States is abandoning the longstanding
bipartisan and international consensus to insulate the Internet from state
meddling in favor of a preference for top-down control by unelected political appointees,
three of whom will decide what constitutes “reasonable” behavior. Through its actions,
the majority is inviting countries around the globe to do the same thing. “Reasonable” is
a subjective term. Not only is it perhaps the most litigated word in American history, its
definition varies radically from country to country. The precedent has now been set for
the Internet to be subjected to state interpretations of “reasonable” by governments of all stripes. In fact, at the United Nations just last Wednesday, a renewed effort by
representatives from countries such as China and Saudi Arabia is calling for what one
press account says is, “an international body made up of Government representatives that
would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet.”1 By not just
sanctioning, but encouraging more state intrusion into the Internet’s affairs, the majority is fueling a global Internet regulatory pandemic. Internet freedom will not be enhanced it will suffer."" PAGE 2 OF MCDOWELL statement
Also read Baker's opinion on FCC.gov
This is where Rush Limbaugh got his information, it sounds very similar minus the extra talk radio flair.
And I agree with you on your last paragraph, Melkor. I do not sound as extreme or simple when discussing this with people that have a different opinion than I.
ReplyDeleteALSO this is a straight up power grab by the FCC and the Obama adminstration.
ReplyDelete"'The FCC, like other federal agencies, ‘literally has no power to act . . . unless and until Congress confers power upon it.’”29 The Supreme Court has cautioned that 'the Commission’s estimations of desirable policy cannot alter the meaning of the federal Communications Act.”30 Congress has never
given the Commission authority to regulate Internet network management, a fact validated by the court in Comcast. Lacking any statutory authority to act in this area, the Commission’s effort to establish Net Neutrality rules should have been a non-starter.31 To paraphrase the D.C. Circuit, I “find nothing in the statute, its legislative history, the applicable case law, or agency practice indicating that Congress meant to provide the sweeping authority the FCC now claims…the agency’s strained and implausible interpretations of the definitional provisions … do not lend credence to its position.'32" BAKER PG 9.
"What had been bottom-up, non-governmental, and grassroots based Internet
governance will become politicized. Today, the United States is abandoning the longstanding bipartisan and international consensus to insulate the Internet from state meddling in favor of a preference for top-down control by unelected political appointees, three of whom will decide what constitutes “reasonable” behavior. Through its actions, the majority is inviting countries around the globe to do the same thing. “Reasonable” is a subjective term. Not only is it perhaps the most litigated word in American history, its definition varies radically from country to country. The precedent has now been set for the Internet to be subjected to state interpretations of “reasonable” by governments of all stripes. In fact, at the United Nations just last Wednesday, a renewed effort by representatives from countries such as China and Saudi Arabia is calling for what one press account says is, “an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet.”1 By not just sanctioning, but encouraging more state intrusion into the Internet’s affairs, the majority is fueling a global Internet regulatory pandemic. Internet freedom will not be enhanced, it will suffer.""
This could lead to an intergovernmental regulatory body regulating the internet in a negative way. Mcdowell pg 2
"Using these new rules as a weapon, politically favored companies will be able to pressure
three political appointees to regulate their rivals to gain competitive advantages. Litigation will supplant innovation. Instead of investing in tomorrow’s technologies, precious capital will be diverted to pay lawyers’ fees. The era of Internet regulatory arbitrage has dawned. And to say that today’s rules don’t regulate the Internet is like saying that regulating highway on-ramps, off-ramps, and its pavement doesn’t equate to regulating the highways themselves.""" pg 2 This is the collusion of big business and government.
""By reading out of the provision any deregulatory focus, the explicit broadband deployment purpose, and the removal of barrier limitation, the Commission has given itself plenary authority to regulate the Internet. Anything that promotes the 'virtuous cycle' in the Internet ecosystem could be regulated under this analysis. This is my biggest concern with the majority’s section 706(a) analysis. In essence, the majority has replaced an unbounded ancillary authority rejected by the Comcast court with an equally unbounded direct authority under section 706(a). The majority is quite candid that this was its intent: it sought a power as broad as its pre-Comcast understanding of its ancillary authority. The Order explains that “our authority under Section 706(a) is generally consistent with… ancillary jurisdiction … before the Comcast decision.” The Comcast court had significant concerns with the Commission’s legal theories under which “if accepted it would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether.”46 The same fundamental concern applies here with equal force: trading one unlimited power for another is far from comforting to me, or the courts. I also have to believe a court will be skeptical of the timing and manner in which the majority has discovered section 706(a) to be a superpower, unlocked only after an adverse court opinion and political pressure to find some legal foundation to justify Net Neutrality rules."" BAKER pg 12 THIS WILL BLoom into continuing more government regulation or a "SUPERPOWER".
ReplyDeleteThese are the word of the commissioners that voted against this. Maybe they sound paranoid, but I view them as creditable sources as they are very familiar with these regulations and the whole process that lead to these new rules. This is a power grab and WILL lead to more harmful government regulation in the future UNLESS this is overturned. This is something that should concern any citizen of a free nation that wishes to perserve their freedom.
Uhm, all I can add is that I think you both have good points.
ReplyDeleteOne thing though, if we can't be paranoid and sensationalist on this blog, where can we?!
That's half the fun!
I am asking again to rid the blog of John Connolly. He is a good friend but probably wont come back to the blog. Not a big issue but I don't want his name as a contributor if he doesnt contribute.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that this sounds paranoid or sensationalist. You have have to include the FCC members McDowell and Baker who voted against this ruling if you are to say that this is the case.
ReplyDeleteMelkor: "So, sure, it is logical to say that the gov't is determining what is on the internet when they say, "everything should be on the internet." But it is a fallacy to say that from this, we're giving the gov't the ability to take things off the internet. No....No no no no. I think if this becomes the benchmark (and if somehow some law is created from this), the provision would be gov't regulation only to maximize internet access not to minimize. If the gov't's initial foray into internet regulation is to stop providers from restricting content, it would be very difficult for the gov't to switch gears down the road to do the same. So, from a free speech point of view and, if we really are forced to accept net neutrality for whatever reason, it isn't as terrible as Rush is making it seem."
This is not a logical fallacy. If the government can control what content is on the internet period, then it can also exert this control by limiting content.
And Melkor's thinking that this will not being such a terrible thing, McDowell and Baker disagree with you in their dissenting statement. This a nothing but a pure attack on free speech. The people pushing this did so in an illegal manner and did it for the purpose of limiting free speech.
I like the fact that Melkor tries to sound educated and increases the quality of the tone on this matter by sounding more professional, but you are completely wrong and ignorant of the facts in this matter. Or as Melkor would say, "no no no no no no."
I don't think Connolly has even left a comment.