” The problem comes with the form the rules will take. With heavy nudging from the White House, the FCC has opted to repurpose an authority it was given under an old telecoms law, known as Title II, to make it apply to the internet era.
Like all deeply technical issues that become political footballs, it has not been hard for the rival camps to turn this into opposing talking points. Depending on where you stand, it is either bold action to protect an open internet or inappropriately sweeping, utility-style regulation.
What is indisputable is that the legislation the FCC is relying on was designed for circuit-switched telephone networks in a different age. The only way to adapt it to modern times is to suppress certain parts of Title II and implement it piecemeal. The FCC promises a light touch: in particular, it says it will avoid price regulation or any requirements that might force operators to unbundle their networks.
If history is any guide, a challenge in the courts will follow. There is simply too much at stake for the regulations not to be tested. And, as was the case with the last approach to net neutrality, it is not beyond the courts to reject the FCC’s compromise as unduly arbitrary.
This is where things could become dicey for companies such as Google and Facebook. Who knows how some future FCC would interpret its new Title II powers, or whether a court would order a different implementation of the law. Price regulation of the internet’s interconnection agreements would always be a looming threat.
It is not just the impact in the US itself that is at stake. There is also the question of what message US regulators are about to send to the rest of the world. The risk is that Washington will be seen to be giving a nod of approval to the idea of extending traditional telecoms rate regulations to the internet.”
Read the whole piece at Financial Times
The government controls our water supplies , food supplies , medical supplies , the media , our education system , the police and military and the most horrifying weapons on earth … this in the “Land Of Liberty” … See anything wrong ?
The Founders would be appalled …
” So President Obama has announced that the Internet should be regulated as a public utility. He’s asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reclassify internet service providers (ISPs) from “information services” under Title I as telecommunications providers under Title II regulatory guidelines. (See here for background on the distinction.)
This is all being done in the name of “Net Neutrality,” keeping the Internet free and open, prohibiting “fast lanes” for certain services and sites, making sure no legal content is blocked, and all other horribles that…have failed to materialize in the absence of increased federal regulation.
Reason contributor and Clemson University economic historian Thomas W. Hazlett defines Net Neutrality as “a set of rules…regulating the business model of your local ISP.” The definition gets to the heart of the matter. There are specific interests who are doing well by the current system—Netflix, for instance—and they want to maintain the status quo. That’s understandable but the idea that the government will do a good job of regulating the Internet (whether by blanket decrees or on a case-by-case basis) is unconvincing, to say the least. The most likely outcome is that regulators will freeze in place today’s business models, thereby slowing innovation and change. “
More on this latest example of Orwellian State-Speak so commonly spewed by the current administration can be found here . Obama’s line is sure to be a classic right up there with “if you like your doctor…” and “we must pass the bill to see what’s in it . ” .
One is forced to ask , are the progressives so dense as to be blissfully unaware of the ignorance of their statements , or are they inveterate liars ?
” Gun retailers and manufacturers say the SAFE Act is having a negative impact.
Joseph Palumbo owns Albion Gun Shop in Albion. He says since the SAFE Act went into effect earlier this year, he has lost 40 to 50 percent of business. He and his family have considered moving out of state.
Palumbo said, “I don’t want to leave, this is where I live, this is my home, but I have to do what I have to do to survive.”
Amanda Ciavarri asked, “What would you say to the hundreds of people who say hundreds, maybe thousands of jobs in upstate New York, have been lost because of the New York State SAFE Act? It’s driving gun retailers and gun manufacturers across the boarder to Pennsylvania.”
Governor Cuomo said, “I don’t think that’s correct on the facts.”
Cuomo’s main reason for the SAFE Act has been safety. But, is this the solution? A study from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which aims at the reducing the threat of gun violence, says gun restrictions don’t necessarily prevent violence. The study suggests better policing and targeting certain areas works. The SAFE Act passed 43 to 18 in the New York Senate, but 52 counties including Monroe, Ontario, Wayne have passed resolutions opposing the SAFE Act. Ten counties have not.”
As the above graph clearly shows , dangers of gun violence and murder in the New York is a myth . The crime rates have been plummeting even as gun ownership has skyrocketed , since Rudy Giuliani instituted the “broken windows” policy in the early nineties . The need for the government to ban legal firearms ownership is a misleading effort to consolidate power with the State and has nothing at all to do with “safety” .
Basic Human Rights
the Right To Profit From Your Labors
the Right To Self-Defense
the Right To Travel Freely
the Right To Freedom of Speech
They also just happen to be the targets of current UN attempts at anointing itself , along with it’s barbarian horde of un-elected , unaccountable bureaucrats as our overseers .
They’ve been after control of the world economy through the global warming fraud , the right to bear arms with the small arms treaty , control of the ocean with LOST and now they are after the most liberating force in human history and thus our right to free speech/assembly with this latest power/revenue generating intrigue .
” Next week the United Nations’ International Telecommunications Union will meet in Dubai to figure out how to control the Internet. ”
Remember that the people seeking to regulate our means of communication aren’t voted into office by you and I and are certainly not going to be removed from office by us .
“Having the Internet rewired by bureaucrats would be like handing a Stradivarius to a gorilla. The Internet is made up of 40,000 networks that interconnect among 425,000 global routes, cheaply and efficiently delivering messages and other digital content among more than two billion people around the world, with some 500,000 new users a day. . ”
Can any thinking individual see anything positive for humanity coming out of this ?
” “The ITU is the wrong place to make decisions about the future of the Internet,” says Google. “Only governments have a voice at the ITU. This includes governments that do not support a free and open Internet. Engineers, companies, and people that build and use the web have no vote.”
“The ITU is also secretive. The treaty conference and proposals are confidential,” adds Google. ”
US OUT OF THE UN … NOW
” It doesn’t matter what Obama meant . Here’s why.”
“Conservatives suspect that President Obama sees government as the solution to everything. Only someone who thinks government is the answer would describe a stimulus program that cost at least $185,000 per job as successful. I can’t think of a starker difference between the liberal and conservative worldviews than the Life of Julia slide show. Liberals look at that video and see a woman
aided by a social safety net. Conservatives look at it and are creeped out by the fact that liberals
think the very-capable-seeming Julia can’t do anything without government help.
That same sentiment comes through in the “You Didn’t Build That” speech. Obama’s words
contain an undertone that business owners are selfish, that they are ungrateful toward those teachers who helped them along the way. And that is where Obama’s misunderstanding of small business, real or perceived, shines