FCC's Takeover of the Internet

Discussion in 'Economics' started by bugscoe, Dec 23, 2010.

  1. More big government power grabbing that will do nothing but stifle innovation and lead us down a much darker path economically and socially as the government attempts to control what information you get.

    A good read from Rep. Marsha Blackburn who has been very outspoken about this:
    • This may sound like a Halloween tale, but the FCC’s Christmas Week takeover of the Internet is the best example of President Reagan’s maxim that the nearest thing to eternal life on Earth is a federal program.

      Just four days before Christmas, the FCC will make its vampric leap from its traditional jurisdiction- the terrestrial radio and land line telephones that have fallen into disuse; onto the gifts piled neatly under our trees. The iPads and iPhones, Androids, Wiis, Webbooks, and WiFi will all feel the federal bite in a way they never have before.

      Today the FCC, in spite of Congressional opposition and public outrage, is expected to adopt “net neutrality” regulations over the Internet. They will impose thousands of pages of rules on the most prosperous, creative, and exciting sector of the American economy. They’ll do it- and then Congress will have to undo it.

      The FCC’s blind impulse to regulate before the new Congress can restrain them ignores a host of consequences that will prove ill for America’s Creative Economy. First, in detaching the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from the Internet architecture they have built, the FCC is effectively nationalizing the web. The FCC does this in the name of “fairness”, “non-discrimination”, and “leveling the playing field”. The consequence will be a restriction of bandwidth for users and a deterioration of the online architecture that ISPs no longer have an interest in expanding or maintaining. The underserved communities in this country who don’t yet have access to broadband are now much less likely to get it.

      Second, the FCC’s hysterical reaction to the hypothetical problem of anti-competitive online behavior is also redundant. By asserting jurisdiction over the Internet as a communications platform, the FCC is shortsightedly ignoring the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) who already has sufficient rules in place to contain the bad behavior in the virtual marketplace the FCC seems so worried about. This sets up a real jurisdictional fight and points out what happens when the bureaucracy decides to create work for themselves, rather than wait for Congress to dictate to them.

      Finally, when the FCC moves to regulate the Internet, they focus on those issues they understand: bandwidth, spectrum, and to a lesser extent content. They ignore emerging issues of fair trade, property rights, privacy, and copyright. In my view a more comprehensive approach to the new Creative Economy and how it can be protected is the most appropriate. Such a comprehensive approach can only begin on Capitol Hill.

      The real issue here is not that the Federal Government lacks the authority to sensibly regulate the Internet. Nor, even, that the Internet is in desperate need of regulation- it isn’t. The issue is that the FCC is running out of useful things to occupy their time. There is a real bi-partisan consensus that Congress should act first to regulate the Internet (or not regulate as the case may be). Industry and creative content providers who were coerced into this deal by an over zealous FCC Chairman should take heart. Like the breaking of dawn, the new Congress will prove a swift antidote to the federal bloodsucker you found at your throat this Christmas.
  2. Another good read:

    Don't Tangle The Web With Rules
    Posted 12/17/2010 07:13 PM ET
    FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been accused of wanting to give "the federal government control over all aspects of the Internet."

    Internet: The U.N. is talking about regulating the Web. Meanwhile, Washington is moving toward regulating online news and information content. Though not unexpected, these are deeply disturbing developments.

    The U.S. media don't seem interested in the United Nations' attempt to invade the private sector, so word that the international body "is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonize global efforts by policy makers to regulate the Internet" had to come from an Australian outlet called iTnews.

    Nothing new here. The U.N. has been wanting to run the Web for years and is not letting a crisis — the WikiLeaks releases — go to waste. Following the Chicagoland model, it has plans to form an intergovernmental group that would "attempt to create global standards for policing the Internet."

    The meeting delegate from Brazil, which is pushing the proposal, told iTnews that the plan isn't to take over the Web. Which is no reassurance at all. Whenever an elected official or bureaucrat says a program won't cost much or the regulation being considered won't be a burden, history teaches us to expect the exact opposite.

    This big idea is coming only a few months after the Internet Governance Forum, a group that consults with the U.N., met in Vilnius, Lithuania. Its goal: to save the Internet with an international treaty that would include net neutrality.

    While we ponder the condition of the Internet in the clutches of the U.N. or some other inter-government group, we recall that America's own Federal Communications Commission is days away — Dec. 21 — from voting on net neutrality, a policy in which the government dictates how Internet service providers handle the traffic that flows over their infrastructure.

    This policy, as we've said before, would institute a dangerous system that would violate free speech and property rights.

    While the FCC schemes from its office just off the D.C. waterfront, anger is rising on Capitol Hill. Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan who is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, says FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's net neutrality gives "the federal government control over all aspects of the Internet."

    Rogers complains that Tuesday's vote is poorly timed and gives "Congress and the public little time to review a regulation that will ultimately impact one-sixth of the nation's economy."

    Rep. Fred Upton, another Michigan Republican and the incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has written a letter to the FCC asking it "to cease and desist" in its effort to regulate the Web, which it "does not have authority" to do.

    "Our new majority will use rigorous oversight, hearings and legislation to fight the FCC's overt power grab," Upton's letter warned.

    Genachowski's plan is likely to be approved by the five-member commission, but that won't be the end of it. A group of GOP senators has sent a letter to Genachowski telling him, as Upton did, that they will work to rescind net neutrality if it becomes part of the nation's regulatory regime.

    Those Republican senators will likely be helped by some Democratic colleagues, in addition to the support they'll be getting from the GOP House. Few on the Hill like what Genachowski is trying to do, which is both regulate beyond government's authority — the Republican complaint — and bypass the legislative process in doing it — which neither party cares for.

    The Internet is in no need of supervision from the U.N. or Washington. It is an energetic, broadly accessible marketplace of ideas.

    Expression is wide open on the Web, and commerce thrives there. It has evolved intelligently on its own — giving a master power to oversee it or to ensure a bureaucrat's or politician's sense of fairness is not only unnecessary, it's counterproductive.

    As Rod Beckstrom, president and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, said in September at the Vilnius meeting that the Internet works. It lets us communicate on an unprecedented scale, and its relative lack of regulation has made "it a fertile field for innovation and competition."

    The best thing for the U.N. and Washington to do is just stand back and let it flow.
  3. Net Neutrality is one of the last forms of freedom of speech there is. When I see Lockheed Martin running commercials about protecting us from cyber attacks I know its about protecting their profits.
  4. Bob111



    what i was afraid is that gvt's may use this wikileaks scandal to implement certain "rules" and/or restrictions. this creep Assange could be one of "them" after all..
  5. I told a friend when the WikiLeaks thing happened that this was just some "false flag" event to set the stage for some huge power grab and the Internet was the most obvious target.

    Not long after, news was streaming out of different countries, the UN, the FCC, etc for the need to control and regulate the Internet. The whole net neutrality argument is a crock of shit, just a shoe in argument to set the stage for a massive takeover.

    The Internet has changed the way of information flows and the big nanny statists can't stand the fact they have no control over it.
  6. +1

    This is called Problem-Reaction-Solution.

    Let's observe some patterns :

    9 /11 : Patriotic Act
    Richard Reid shoe bomber : tighter airport search + TSA inception
    The December bomber :TSA scanners
    Wikileaks :Net neutrality

    Doesn't really take a genius to realize what is happening...

    Removing the Federal Reserve is the only solution. JFK, Lincoln, Andrew Jackson tried but didn't succeed.

    Don't be surprised if by next decade one needs to carry ID cards to get out of home, punch in the details where they are going, whom they are meeting and waiting for approvals to do things from the NWO / Fed that were once taken for granted.

    1984 indeed.

  7. bkveen3


    You can call it a kingdom, empire, nation, country, it doesn't matter. The power structure has controlled the flow of information since the beginning of civilization. Do the sheeple even really want to know everything? We shall soon find out.
  8. AK100


    Anyone else start to puke when Americans drone on and on about 'Freedom'?

    Repeat a lie often enough and the masses will believe it......
  9. What? You think the Government might be duplicitous with Wikileaks? That Government either conspired to or willingly allowed the release of all those embarrassing documents just so they could come down with speech-limiting regulations on the internet?

    That's just CRAZY!
  10. Didn't Andrew Jackson (my hero in spite of how he dealt with Native Americans) refuse to renew the charter of the national bank thus effectively repealing it? And we didn't have another such Medusa until Woodrow Wilson (S.O.B) gave us the Federal Reserve?
    #10     Dec 28, 2010