"If You Like Your Internet"... Obama Calls For Regulation To Keep "Internet Open"

[Lucille]

Obama's lying again.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-10/if-you-your-internet-obama-calls-regulation-keep-internet-open


"An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life," begins the President as he explains why the FCC should regulate the internet for Americans' own good:

*OBAMA CALLS FOR REGULATING INTERNET LIKE PHONE COMPANIES
*OBAMA ASKS FOR 'STRONGEST POSSIBLE RULES' FOR OPEN INTERNET

"The Internet has been one of the greatest gifts our economy — and our society — has ever known," and that's why Obama feels the need to regulate it to "protect an open, accessible, and free Internet."
[...]
As we concluded previously (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-26/say-goodbye-net-neutrality-%E2%80%93-new-fcc-proposal-will-permit-discrimination-web-content),

This is truly the American way of censorship. Figure out how those with the deepest pockets can smother the free speech of those with little or no voice on the one medium in which information flow is still treated equally. The nightmare scenario here would be that status quo companies use their funds to price out everyone else. It would kill innovation on the web before it starts. It’s just another example of the status quo attempting to build a moat around itself that we have already seen in so many other areas of the economy.

The internet really is the last bastion of freedom and dynamism in the U.S. economy and this proposal could put that at serious risk. Oh, and to make matters worse, the current FCC is filled to the brim with revolving door industry lobbyists.


Full Statement:

An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life. By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known.

“Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.

Who are these 4 million dumbasses?

IOW, it's the government's job to pick winners and losers (http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/23/the-fccs-new-net-neutrality-rules-will-brutalize-the-internet/).

http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/22/the-fccs-net-neutrality-proposal-is-abou


The key thing to understand about the Federal Communications Commission's new net neutrality proposal is that it's not strictly about net neutrality or fast lanes or any of the other regulatory buzzwords you hear. Instead, it's primarily about giving the FCC more power and more authority to regulate what sorts of business practices are acceptable for broadband Internet providers.

The FCC, of course, is framing the rules as a kind of light-touch approach that will give the agency discretion to intervene only when really necessary, but what it really comes down to is that the agency wants to be the gatekeeper in terms of Internet provider innovation, and doesn't want strict rules to constrain its authority.
[...]
Why would the FCC go out of its way to provide more detail about what "commercially reasonable" means? It means whatever the FCC decides it means someday down the road when the agency feels like doing something, whatever that something may be. The agency of course likes to emphasize that these sorts of vague guidelines give the agency flexibility to avoid doing bad things, but that's really just another way of saying that the FCC doesn't know what the rules should be—it just knows that it should be in charge.

A pretty good rule of thumb when it comes to federal authorities is that they tend to leave, or create, as much wiggle room for themselves as possible in any given circumstance. It's why you'll rarely see the administration draw up a legal memo saying that the president does not have the power to do something, and why agencies tend to prefer vague rules that give them a lot of interpretive leeway. They want to do what they want to do, and they don't want to create guidelines or precedents or rules that might get in the way.

Net Neutrality: Don't Let the FCC Control the Internet!
http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/26/net-neutrality-dont-let-the-fcc-control

[LibForestPaul]

oh we are past that...


Obama: Regulate broadband Internet like a utility so it 'works for everyone'

[Lucille]

All this control freak son of a bitch has to do is open his big mouth to kill jobs and investments. The FCC hasn't even done its worst yet.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/13/obamas-scheme-to-regulate-us-into-broadb


President Obama's bold proposal to respond, 20 years later, to the explosion of the dynamic, innovative online world by regulating Internet service providers like a government-crafted public utility from the 1930s spurred a response from the telecom industry: A screeching halt on investment in Internet access. "We are now starting infrastructure projects that we don’t have any clarity or line of sight, in terms of what rules those will be governed under," AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson said, referring to the company's big-ticket investments in fiber-optic broadband networks around the United States. "That can have no effect other than to cause one to pause."

No doubt, Stephenson's announcement that his company will stop the expansion of broadband networks was intended as a "fuck you" to the president—AT&T already announced its opposition to the White House's plan to "reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act." There's also more than a little irony in the spat considering that AT&T was, for decades, a creature of the state, benefiting from the brief nationalization of the telecommunications industry in 1918 and favorable state and federal regulations that froze out competitors long afterward. But that doesn't erase Stephenson's threat, or the potentially chilling impact of new regulation on what has been a dynamic sector of the economy.

Holding off on investments is not an unexpected or illogical response to a shifting regulatory landscape. There's the damage done by heavy-handed regulation in and of itself, of course. Red tape tends to strangle. But changing the rules of the game, especially when they look like they're moving in a punitive direction, causes businesspeople to hold their money tight and keep their heads down, in hopes that they'll escape the wrath of the bureaucrats.
[...]
That is, Title II has a specific purpose, and it has nothing to do with Obama's annoyance that Netflix may have to pay for expanded access to paying consumers. In fact, Litan points out that Title II may still permit such charges.
[...]
So...the threat of regulation and aggressive regulatory oversight tends to chill investment. Title II regulation would likely still permit the stuff the president says he wants it to stop. And once unleashed, Title II is likely to follow in the footsteps of other regulatory regimes and engulf unexpected companies and whole industries. And that will probably discourage investment by people who have little or no connection with Randall Stephenson.

Note that businesses' reaction to the threat of regulatory whack-a-mole has nothing to do with their moral fiber or lack thereof. Randall Stephenson may be sulking because, this time, the bureaucrats' could turn their guns on him instead of on AT&T's less-connected competitors. But his qualities and those of his company have nothing to do with the jobs, businesses, and infrastructure not created because investors are frightened by an unfriendly regulatory environment.

The abuses that the FCC was established to mitigate were themselves creations of government. This is yet another example of government promising to fix things that it fucked up.

The best use of the FCC in the modern world—or, indeed, the world of decades past—is to hold a pillow over its face until it stops twitching. Once gone, it won't be available as a bludgeon for ignorant (or opportunistic) politicians to use to inflict damage on a world they don't understand (or don't respect).

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_26924728/ciscos-second-quarter-profit-forecast-misses-estimates


Two or three large phone companies "cut their orders dramatically, and I mean dramatically," Chambers said on a conference call. The forecast for this quarter is conservative because of the likelihood of further declines, he said.

Alex Henderson, an analyst at Needham & Co., said the debate over broadband policy following President Barack Obama's call this week for tighter Web regulation would lead to much reduced investment.

"You are going to see these service providers slow, if not pause completely, on broadband build-outs," Henderson said. "I think we're going to be challenged for the next few quarters" on spending by carriers, he said.

[Lucille]

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/11/12/obama-wants-to-now-fully-regulate-the-internet-as-a-public-utility/


There is perhaps no President who has done more to destroy everything he has ever thought about than Barrack Obama from world peace to our constitutional rights. OMG, we cannot get rid of this idiot soon enough. Two more years may be way too long to wait. He will have us in WWIII and the Constitution shipped off to the Smithsonian displayed with original works like ”Hansel and Gretel” recorded by the Brothers Grimm published back in 1812.

Believe it or not, Obama wants to fully regulate the internet – EVERYTHING right down to content!. Yes you read it correctly. He wants to create the effective Department of the Internet under the FCC. On Monday, Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that regulates TV and Radio, to reclassify the Internet as a public utility.

Obama is now using his EXECUTIVE POWERS to seize control of the internet. This is not a democratic action voted on by the people or even their pretend representatives. No bill was drafted and introduced in the House or Senate. This is Obama using dictatorial powers that are undemocratic by their nature. This is simply a presidential decree and the majority of people are too socialist to even understand what is taking place here. They just believe whatever government does is for our good.

There have been no gatekeepers deciding which sites you get to access. There are no toll roads on the information superhighway. This set of principles, the idea of net neutrality, has unleashed the power of the Internet and given innovators the chance to thrive. Communism collapsed BECAUSE of central planning. Abandoning these principles would threaten to end the Internet as we know it. What government program has EVER worked? Social Security is the classic example. There are fools who are so naive it is shocking cheering Obama from the sidelines. Some of these people praise this regulation and cannot see plainly the government NEVER acts for the benefit of the people – it is always only their own self-interest and they lie about EVERYTHING.

Good sources state clearly that this will be a very dangerous step toward both taxation and censorship. The FCC function is to REGULATE radio and TV. They have to apply to the FCC for licenses. Why anyone would imagine that the FCC will regulate with no attached costs is beyond belief. Obama is one nasty communist and he has supported the NSA 150%. What makes you think this is a good thing is beyond belief. Obama already passed a law that if your site violates the copyright of someone else, it can be seized by the Feds and shut-down. The FCC will be the enforcer in that role as well. But laws are enforced ONLY on a discretionary basis. Let someone violate your civil rights and it is entirely the Department of Justice that decides if they want to prosecute. They NEVER prosecute their own unless they go against government like Snowden.

The ONLY way for the FCC can ensure traffic is “neutral” is to officially monitor the flow of traffic. That means they will have to be monitoring stations everywhere. This is a back-door to the NSA for starters. ALL emails will have to flow through the government fingers. Send money to someone by Western Union online and they will hand that info to the IRS. If the receiver did not declare it, here they come. The government will have 100% access to absolutely everything from your emails and photos to your credit cards and bank accounts.

This is just the beginning. The FCC will monitor CONTENT as well to ensure neutrality. What they do on radio and TV will be applied to the internet. The Supreme Court struck down a law and created the right to privacy when Connecticut saw fit to outlaw condoms for married people. The Supreme Court realized how does one enforce such a regulation without entering the bedroom to inspect before insertion that you are complying with the law. (GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT, 381 US 479 (1965)). How will the FCC regulate without inspecting what you write? Under the pretense of protecting “neutrality” they will be able to shut down political speech.

The public at large are totally ignorant of how law is made. It is not crafted by Congress but judges and prosecutors after agencies write it not Congress. Agencies write their own laws. Insider trading etc. are SEC regulations. But then a clause states it is a crime to violate a SEC regulation. Therefore, this is a dictatorial power that is NOT enacted by Congress. Agencies simply write regulations that become crimes.
[...]
However, sites outside the USA will be beyond the jurisdiction of the FCC. So how will they “monitor” such foreign sites to ensure neutrality? They will block sites from access. This is the very same policy imposed in both China and Russia. Say goodbye to the freedom of access and freedom of speech. Obama is en route to destroy the internet. Censorship is what they are worried about with the Sovereign Debt Crisis. They KNOW what is coming. This is a power-play to seize control of the internet to protect their ass – not yours!

This means under FCC Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, Obama unilaterally wants to regulate what you now say. He will not allow a public vote any more than the EU will allow free elections on the Euro. Obama is acting simply as an unconstitutional dictator. Anyone publishing on the internet would need a license and if they do not approve what you write – goodbye.
[...]
Forget free speech. Obama naturally claims he wants “to protect net neutrality.” That is the code word for regulating free speech just like we have free speech in the media. Oh lets see, I do not believe what you wrote was neutral or fair – that’s a fine and imprisonment. Every law has fine and imprisonment as a penalty. You will be sitting in a cell with a serial killer. He will ask you “what’s u in for”, and you will say publicly saying taxes are not fair.

[Lucille]

This is good news, but doesn't mean it will stop the fedgov. They do what they want.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/14/am-links-obama-vows-executive-action-on


According to a new poll, 61 percent of Americans "strongly oppose so-called 'net neutrality' efforts that would allow the federal government to regulate the Internet."

[Lucille]

“Net Neutrality” Is an Oxymoron When Government Logs On
http://blog.independent.org/2014/11/12/net-neutrality-is-an-oxymoron-when-government-logs-on/


In other words, the “pipes” forming the Internet’s backbone would be treated like a “common carrier” and, like any other older economy service delivery platform (public utilities supplying your electricity and natural gas, railroads, and motor carriers), they would be required to provide access to all users on substantially equal terms. Neutrality in cyberspace means that broadband “hogs” (think Netflix or Amazon Prime’s video streaming service) would pay essentially the same fees to reach subscribers that other content providers pay.
[...]
More certain, however, is that regulations requiring “net neutrality” will end up benefiting the large, established ISPs. Incumbent firms have gained from “common carrier” regulation throughout U.S. history. As a matter of fact, the FCC predictably will be captured (if it has not already been) by the very companies President Obama wants to regulate “in the public interest.”

The president’s call to action sounds eerily similar to demands for federal railroad regulation that ultimately led to the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. Until it was put out of business in the early 1980s by President Jimmy Carter, the ICC allowed the railroads and, later, motor carriers and pipelines to charge prices exceeding competitive levels, thereby trying its best to protect the carriers’ profits at consumers’ expense.

The FCC’s chairman, Tom Wheeler, says he prefers a nuanced approach to net neutrality. “What you want,” he told representatives (i.e., lobbyists or rent seekers) from Comcast and other major industry players, “is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business.... What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby.”

Expect news soon that the baby is on life support or on the way to its funeral. When a politician or regulator claims to have consumers’ best interests in mind, hold on to your wallet.

Net Neutrality: Pushing on Another Side of the Balloon
http://blog.independent.org/2014/11/13/net-neutrality-pushing-on-another-side-of-the-balloon/


Here are some additional thoughts.

Because Google and other content providers will likely undermine the monopoly powers of today’s cable-based “gatekeepers” in the near future, it seems odd that “net neutrality” lately has become a clarion call of Barack Obama’s failed presidency. Moreover, the issue is hardly new.

The source of today’s online bottleneck can be traced back to local and regional government authorities, who quickly recognized the benefits (to them personally) of creating and granting exclusive franchises to one ISP that would, for the term of the contract, be a monopolist. (Government officials can extract more rents if they negotiate with only a handful of contestants.) Given that only one ISP would “win” the right to provide online content to local customers, the local monopolists also recognized a benefit of exclusive franchises: They would have the freedom to discriminate against some content suppliers by adding extra fees for privileged access.

So, a simple solution to the absence of net neutrality is readily available: Foster competition between ISPs.

Some people might raise the objection that, in this realm, robust competition for consumer dollars is unlikely because the suppliers of connections to the Internet are “natural monopolists”. In fact, ISPs are not “natural monopolists” as some commentators would have us believe. They are local government-granted monopolies. (Even Frederic Scherer, the author of the influential textbook Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, wrote that such claims of “natural monopoly” are “trumped up.”) Competition between ISPs nowadays is a contest for the favors of mayors and city councils who ultimately will determine who will win the exclusive franchise; it is not competition for the business of paying customers.

If public policy were to encourage competition between ISPs at the local level, the debate about net neutrality would die in short order because each of the rivals would have incentives to provide content at the lowest possible price.

[Lucille]

Net Neutrality is Not Neutrality, It is Actually the Opposite. It's Corporate Welfare for Netflix and Google
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2014/11/net-neutrality-is-not-neutrality-it-is-actually-the-opposite-its-corporate-welfare-for-netflix-and-google.html


Net Neutrality is one of those Orwellian words that mean exactly the opposite of what they sound like. There is a battle that goes on in the marketplace in virtually every communication medium between content creators and content deliverers. We can certainly see this in cable TV, as media companies and the cable companies that deliver their product occasionally have battles that break out in public. But one could argue similar things go on even in, say, shipping, where magazine publishers push for special postal rates and Amazon negotiates special bulk UPS rates.
[...]
What "net neutrality" actually means is that certain people, including apparently the President, want to tip the balance in this negotiation towards the content creators (no surprise given Hollywood's support for Democrats). Netflix, for example, takes a huge amount of bandwidth that costs ISP's a lot of money to provide. But Netflix doesn't want the ISP's to be be able to charge for this extra bandwidth Netflix uses - Netflix wants to get all the benefit of taking up the lion's share of ISP bandwidth investments without having to pay for it. Net Neutrality is corporate welfare for content creators.

Check this out: Two companies (Netflix and Google) use half the total downstream US bandwidth. They use orders and orders of magnitude more bandwidth than any other content creators, but don't want to pay for it (source)

http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/sandvine-2h-2013.png

Why should you care? Well, the tilting of this balance has real implications for innovation. It creates incentives for content creators to devise new bandwidth-heavy services. On the other hand, it pretty much wipes out any incentive for ISP's (cable companies, phone companies, etc) to invest in bandwidth infrastructure (cell phone companies, to my understand, are typically exempted from net neutrality proposals). Why bother investing in more bandwidth infrastrcture if the government is so obviously intent on tilting the rewards of such investments towards content creators? Expect to see continued lamentations from folks (ironically mostly on the Left, who support net neutrality) that the US trails in providing high-speed Internet infrastructure.

Don't believe me? Well, AT&T and Verizon have halted their fiber rollout. Google has not, but Google is really increasingly on the content creation side. And that is one strategy for dealing with this problem of the government tilting the power balance in a vertical supply chain: vertical integration.

Postscript: There are folks out there who always feel better as a consumer if their services are heavily regulated by the Government. Well, the Internet is currently largely unregulated, but the cable TV industry is heavily regulated. Which one are you more satisfied with?

[Suzanimal]

FCC Will Vote On Net Neutrality In February


WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal regulators are expected to vote next month on rules to govern how Internet service providers deal with the flow of content on their high-speed networks.

The five-member Federal Communications Commission will consider then a proposal from Chairman Tom Wheeler on so-called net neutrality rules, agency spokeswoman Kim Hart said Friday. She was confirming reports in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal on the planned timing of the vote. Details of the draft proposal weren't disclosed.

President Barack Obama has asked the FCC to put Internet service providers under the same rules as those imposed on telephone companies 80 years ago. The aim is to protect net neutrality, the concept that everyone with an Internet connection should have equal access to all legal content online, including video, music, email, photos, social networks and maps.

The outcome could affect the prices consumers pay for access to entertainment, news and other online content.

The idea was a fundamental tenet of the Internet from its origin. But its fate has been in limbo since January 2014, when a federal appeals court struck down the FCC's guidelines and forced the agency to come up with new rules. The court ruling said the FCC has the authority to regulate service providers' treatment of Internet traffic but that the agency failed to establish that its regulations don't overreach.

Advocates of regulating the service providers like utilities contend that the companies, if left unchecked, will create a two-tier system that funnels Internet traffic into fast and slow lanes. In that scenario, only the richest content providers will be able to pay the extra tolls to ensure that their online content is accessible through the fast lanes.

Internet service providers reject such regulation. They assert they would be prevented from recovering some of the costs for connecting to content providers that use large quantities of broadband.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/02/fcc-net-neutrality-feb-vote_n_6408854.html