FCC's Net Neutrality Rule Wrecks The Internet

[Suzanimal]

...

Earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to approve the “Open Internet” order – a new regulation to enforce net neutrality. The FCC’s rule is the wrong direction for the Internet. Four million Americans wrote the FCC asking it to protect and promote an open Internet. The FCC turned a deaf ear and delivered the most heavy-handed regulatory regime imaginable. It relies on the false premise that regulation will result in increased competition. The Internet has transformed the economy and thrived precisely because of an environment of limited regulation. Increasing regulation on the rapidly growing Internet would be a mistake and undermine the intent of net neutrality, which is to maintain a free, open, and competitive Internet.

The order will undoubtedly raise Internet service costs, discourage investment, and slow broadband speeds. It’s currently estimated that we will see $11 billion in new taxes and fees. It will reduce consumer choice as well. A group of 142 wireless Internet service providers, 24 of the country’s smallest ISPs, and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council all urged the FCC not to issue this regulation because it would “erode investment and innovation,” and “badly strain our limited resources.” These are the types of companies that serve small and rural communities, like many in the Sixth District, and the FCC’s regulations threaten their very livelihood. Forcing companies out of business rarely results in more consumer choice.

Recently, I held a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee to examine the net neutrality rule. At the hearing, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who opposed the rule, asked what problem it fixes. The FCC has presented no proof that there isn’t competitive access to the Internet right now. The FCC’s rule is in search of a problem that does not exist, and I’m concerned that it is just opening the door to future regulations on the Internet.

The Internet doesn’t need an inflexible “one-size-fits-all” government mandate to ensure net neutrality and consumers don’t need the extra costs. The key to an open and free Internet lies in strong enforcement of our nation’s antitrust laws. These time-trusted laws allow for maximum flexibility and consistently demonstrate their ability to prevent anti-competitive conduct in the marketplace. We should focus on using these laws to keep the Internet open and free, not regulations that will wreck it instead.

http://goodlatte.house.gov/columns/fcc-s-net-neutrality-rule-wrecks-the-internet

[presence]

The big ISP all WANT net neutrality because it eliminates competition.


Just like the big hospitals WANT all the rules and regulations that come with medical care.

Just like the big unions all WANT ridiculous licensing schemes for every profession known to man.

Just like the big universities all WANT Accreditation standards.

Just like the big pharma WANTS expensive FDA requirements and the drug war.

Just like big MIC WANTS firearm regulation




Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.
Regulatory capture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture)




ISP racketeering with the long arm of the law.

Next step is jail time for setting up private mesh networks.

[Cabal]

All I could think when everyone seemed to be praising the recent net neutrality ruling

http://www.sharegif.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/4-star-wars-quotes.gif

[Natural Citizen]

The big ISP all WANT net neutrality because it eliminates competition.




FCC overturns state laws that protect ISPs from local competition (http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-overturns-state-laws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/)

[muh_roads]

FCC overturns state laws that protect ISPs from local competition (http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-overturns-state-laws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/)

I expect this to start off just fine. Wanting to make internet a public utility probably has more to do with lawyers and having more legal legs for the NSA spying to stand on.

[kpitcher]

2 of Bob Goodlatte's top 5 contributors are comcast and time warner. Of course he'd say the same thing those 2 big ISPs have been saying.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=N00009154&newMem=N&cycle=2014

[angelatc]

FCC overturns state laws that protect ISPs from local competition (http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-overturns-state-laws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/)

So the Federal Government overrides the rights of the states to make law, and here you are, implying it's a good thing. Imagine that.

[Stratovarious]

So the Federal Government overrides the rights of the states to make law, and here you are, implying it's a good thing. Imagine that.

The fed does not have the authority to over ride state laws, they do think they do though.

[Stratovarious]

I stated this from the very beginning ,they (FCC) is here to fleece billions (eventually trillions) in taxes , fees, fines, forfeitures, as well as control dissent.

[Stratovarious]

All I could think when everyone seemed to be praising the recent net neutrality ruling

http://www.sharegif.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/4-star-wars-quotes.gif

NET NEUTRALITY : Biggest Trojan Horse in US History.

, ,

[Deborah K]

NET NEUTRALITY : Biggest Trojan Horse in US History.

, ,

this.

It won't be much longer and the fedgov will be filtering what we see.....like they do in China.

[Stratovarious]

this.

It won't be much longer and the fedgov will be filtering what we see.....like they do in China.

All the dots are being connected at an accelerated rate , exponentially; FCC, TSA, NSA, DHS, OBAMA, FEMA, Holder, PATRIOT ACT, Jade Helm, Carbon Taxes, Ammo Bans, Gun Grabs, Vaccines (mandatory) Forced Health Care, Autonomous Vehicles, Open Borders, L-1B Visa, International Interventionism.

My money is on Rand Paul and people like Trey Gowdy (So Carolina) and Andrew Napalitano,
Paul should make sure Trey Gowdy is his Attorney General if not running mate.

, ,

[GunnyFreedom]

FCC overturns state laws that protect ISPs from local competition (http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-overturns-state-laws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/)

Any time a federal anything overturns a state anything, right or wrong notwithstanding, then I want to see that power listed in Article 1 or among the Amendments. Standardizing the disparate state laws and capturing the regulatory environment is just one of several things that happens when you allow the FCC to abuse this power. It takes local autonomy and hands it to a bureaupalace in Washington DC. bureauarchy. If I was ever going to coin a word, it would be bureauarchy. "BYOO-row-AR-chy" rule by bureaucracy. Characterized by mass madness in government and everybody pretending things are normal.

[Natural Citizen]

So the Federal Government overrides the rights of the states to make law, and here you are, implying it's a good thing. Imagine that.

Nooooo...I didn't imply anything at all, angela. I shared a link to an article relevant to what was mentioned with regard to competition in the market so that we have a fair understanding of what is happening. What is there to imagine aside the illusion that you seem to want to create of others? Of course, I could ask you the same thing with regard to specific instances where Federal Government has attempted and continues to attempt to override the rights of the states to make law that you, yourself, have supported vigorously. Right? Instances in which I've said that I'm absolutely opposed. We have had this debate before. I suppose I could bump that thread if it is something that you wish to discuss in an honest way. Really, I think it may be practical for, if nothing else, to remind you of just how selective and hypocritical you really are when Federal Government seeks to override state law. And you aren't being an honest injun, angela. Because we both know you're essentially the pot calling a theoretical kettle black. I mean, what were we discussing with regard to the legislation that Congressman Mike Pompeo put together and introduced on behalf of the Koch network and Monsanto that specifically voided states rights and essentially protected these industries from a genuine free market. You were A-Okay with that Federal attack on state law and state rights. Remember? Of course, this is mercantilism but the phenomenon is exactly what you are insinuating that I am supporting (although I made no indication of this at all...I just shared a link to a report) but then you actually have shown that you do support the phenomenon. Specifically with regard to the case in which I've just reminded you here. You're being a disingenuous hypocrit. It is mean spirited, in my view, when you look to point fingers...unfounded, I might add, yet you have a brain freeze when it comes to the fortitude to point the same finger toward yourself.

I don't know why you tinker with me, angela. Nothing good ever comes from it.

[Matt Collins]

Goodlatte also supports the Internet Sales Tax, so I would be very leery of anything he says.

[Stratovarious]

Everybody gets a puppy.....The Government always sells us this crap wrapped in bows and sparkly paper,
then they take your cash, fine you , censor you , and put you in jail.

[angelatc]

I don't know why you tinker with me, angela. Nothing good ever comes from it.

I get lots of plus reps, so that's something good. And I get remind the others that that your definition of conservatism isn't quite as strong as other people's, so thats something. ANd I get to test my beliefs with hard facts, and that's always good.

Having said that, if you were pointing out that the fed government was overstepping boundaries, then I apologize. I freely admit that I think you're a liberal who believes that the federal government should ban things you do not like, and that certainly colors my perceptions of your posts. So perhaps clarifying your positions when you post random links would help in that respect.

[Suzanimal]

FCC's net neutrality rules open door to new fee on Internet service


Recently adopted net neutrality regulations soon could make your monthly Internet bill more complicated — and potentially more expensive.

Every month, consumers pay a small fee on their phone bills for a federal program that uses the money — a total of $8.8 billion raised nationwide last year — to provide affordable access to telecommunications services in rural areas, underserved inner cities and schools.

Now the fee could start appearing on broadband bills too, in a major expansion of the nearly two-decade-old Universal Service Fund program.

It's not clear yet, however, if most consumers would end up paying more in total USF fees than they do now.

In approving the tough rules for online traffic in February, the Federal Communications Commission put broadband in the same regulatory category as phone service, opening the door for the charges.

For phone service, telecom firms pass the fees directly to their customers, with the average household paying about $3 a month.

Those who opposed the net neutrality rules foresee the fees rising.

"The federal government is sure to tap this new revenue stream soon to spend more of consumers' hard-earned dollars," warned Ajit Pai, a Republican on the FCC. "So when it comes to broadband, read my lips: More new taxes are coming. It's just a matter of when."

Higher fees on Internet bills could make the service unaffordable for some people, reducing broadband adoption instead of expanding it, critics said.

The FCC held off on adding the assessment until a special federal and state board that has been weighing whether broadband providers should contribute to the fund makes a decision in the coming weeks.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, a Democrat, argued that even if broadband firms are required to contribute, there are no plans to increase the annual size of the fund. That means the cost simply would be spread among more customers, and in many cases a new broadband fee would be offset by a lower fee on a consumer's phone bill.

"I think it is incorrect ... to say anything in what we have done will lead to an increase in [USF] fee contributions," Wheeler told House lawmakers at a recent hearing.

"You would have a reduction in one area that may be accompanied by an increase in another that should end up washing out because the gross number is the same," he said.

So, for instance, under his view, a customer with both phone and Internet service from the same carrier might still pay about $3 a month, but it could be split between the two services instead of allocated all to phone service.

But when pressed on the issue at a House hearing last month, Wheeler would not guarantee that consumers will not end up contributing more to the fund.

Critics pointed out that his reckoning assumes that the total amount of the fund wouldn't be increased by the agency.

The FCC sets the size of the fund, and the size has been increasing almost every year as the focus has shifted from providing phone service to providing Internet access to those without it. The fund has grown about 47% since 2004.

In December, the agency approved a $1.5-billion annual increase in the amount the fund can spend to help boost high-speed online services for schools and libraries under the E-rate program.

E-rate is one of four programs funded by the USF, which was created as part of the 1996 overhaul of telecommunications laws. The other programs provide assistance for low-income consumers, help rural residents connect with healthcare providers and help customers in isolated areas pay the higher costs of reaching them.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), who heads a House subcommittee that oversees the FCC, proposed last month that Congress cap the fund at $9 billion a year to stop its "runaway growth."

One of the problems with assessing USF fees is that they're based on what has quickly become a less popular way of communicating. Fees are collected on a percentage of carriers' revenue from long-distance calls. Intrastate calls are subject to fees for similar programs run by individual states, including California.

...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-broadband-fees-20150409-story.html#page=1

[Natural Citizen]

I get lots of plus reps, so that's something good. And I get remind the others that that your definition of conservatism isn't quite as strong as other people's, so thats something. ANd I get to test my beliefs with hard facts, and that's always good.

Having said that, if you were pointing out that the fed government was overstepping boundaries, then I apologize. I freely admit that I think you're a liberal who believes that the federal government should ban things you do not like, and that certainly colors my perceptions of your posts. So perhaps clarifying your positions when you post random links would help in that respect.

Heck, I'm not even very political, angela. A lot of times I run my pie hole in a way in which people do actually take the initiative to counter in a relevant way. So, you're welcome for your rep.

I do want to know what is in my food, though. I'm serious about that and I'll participate in citizens initiatives when government hooks up with industry to void states rights in that regard. But that's a different discussion. Another day, perhaps. Well...likely, I should say. There is no perhaps about it. Heh...

[osan]

this.

It won't be much longer and the fedgov will be filtering what we see.....like they do in China.

Dr. Morbius, my alter-ego (not to be confused with the character from Forbidden Planet), is just loving this. He's hoping they go balls to the walls with this because his curiosity-run-wildly-sick is now REALLY jonesing to see whether Americans retain any shred of self-respect. He wants to see how far Theye can go and whether Johnny Meaner will ever move to stop this. How far, Morbius wonders, will Theye get before they are stopped... assuming it happens at all.

So I say let's ride this bitch to the bottom. The faster is wrecks for good, the sooner we can get to the business of recovering.

Purgatory is the worst.

[osan]

Any time a federal anything overturns a state anything, right or wrong notwithstanding, then I want to see that power listed in Article 1 or among the Amendments. Standardizing the disparate state laws and capturing the regulatory environment is just one of several things that happens when you allow the FCC to abuse this power. It takes local autonomy and hands it to a bureaupalace in Washington DC. bureauarchy. If I was ever going to coin a word, it would be bureauarchy. "BYOO-row-AR-chy" rule by bureaucracy. Characterized by mass madness in government and everybody pretending things are normal.

I must take some issue here. All this wasted discussion on states' rights v. fed is just that - waste. It's like opinions of SCOTUS. When they rule in your favor, they are gods of justice. Otherwise, they are idiots. All swords cut two ways. The only rights that exist are OUR rights. Freedom is the arbiter of right and wrong, not states' rights or fedgov rights, etc.

You criticize the homogenization of regulatory mishmash, but would you complain were I to be made King of those issues, where free markets would reign supreme and solo? That would be a case of centralized authority doing everything right, if I daresay so myself. :)

I don't think the issue is the direction in which the authority moves, but rather in the authority itself. As soon as my dried corpse would be carried from the throne room, the next Bammy might step in my place and change everything around. So why give ANYONE such authority, fed or state? This is the central problem of humanity: they move authority away from the individual and place in concentrated form in the hands of people whose sound mental states are at the very least in question.

Empire is capricious, unaccountable force.