Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 206

Thread: The FCC Just Voted to Regulate the Internet Like a Utility

  1. #1

    The FCC Just Voted to Regulate the Internet Like a Utility

    Goodbye internet, hello Obamanet.

    http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/26/th...late-the-inter

    In a 3-2 vote today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to radically overhaul the way Internet service is provided. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and the commission’s two Democratic commissioners voted to move forward with the rules. The agency’s two GOP-appointed commissioners opposed them.

    Under the new rules, broadband providers, long classified by the agency as Title I information services, will now be regulated as Title II telecommunications services—essentially making them public utilities, like the phone system. The move is designed to allow the FCC to implement strict net neutrality rules limiting how much control Internet service providers (ISPs) can exert over what passes over their networks.
    [...]
    Today’s vote will mean that Wheeler’s proposal, which has been kept secret up until now, will finally be released to the public. And it likely means that the FCC will push forward with clarifying and implementing the as-of-yet-unknown-details of Wheeler’s proposal.

    In part that's because much remains uncertain about exactly how the proposal will be implemented. Wheeler's plan promises to use the FCC's forebearance authority to hold off on some of the more onerous parts of Title II regulation, like rate regulation, but this amounts to little more than an unenforceable promise not to regulate ISPs quite as strictly as Title II allows. There will also be fights over which taxes and fees may apply to Internet service under the new regulatory regime. Proponents of the Title II switch say that Internet service won't be subject to new fees under the proposal, but in today's meeting, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, a Republican appointee who opposes the Wheeler plan, warned that new taxes and fees on Internet service were sure to come.

    It is also virtually certain to result in another court battle—one that the FCC may well lose, as Berin Szoka of Tech Freedom, which opposes Wheeler’s plan, has argued. At minimum, the proposal will be challenged and, over time, probably redefined.

    In the meantime, though, it means that the FCC has taken an unprecedented and fear-reaching step in order to make good on one of the Obama administration’s long-running political priorities—a step that solves no significant existing problem, but is instead designed largely to fend off hypothetical harms, and give the agency far more power over the Internet in the process.

    As FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, a Republican appointee who opposes the Wheeler plan, told ReasonTV, the move is a “solution that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist.” It is a solution, however, that is now in place, and is sure to create some problems of its own.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Welcome to government internet...

  4. #3
    ^ Plus, it will be expensive as hell. I hope everyone likes paying their fair share for my bandwidth hog in the other room!

    Worse...

    Cometh the Censor
    Birth of What Will Prove a Short Siege
    http://www.fredoneverything.net/Internet.shtml
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  5. #4
    sad day
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  6. #5
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Can this be reversed?

  7. #6
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-0...nsorship-begun

    "An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life," according to President Obama and it appears his perspective on the heavy hand of government regulation inserting itself into the last bastion of freedom and dynamism in the US economy, is how best to achieve "openness." Having pressured FCC's Tom Wheeler, the vote just came down: U.S. FCC APPROVES NET NEUTRALITY INTERNET RULES IN 3-2 VOTE. While potentially good for a consumer's pocketbook, the handing over of "fair-use" decision to the government, as we previously noted, could be the first step on a slippery slope to increased censorship.

    FCC Votes...

    *FCC ADOPTS NET-NEUTRALITY RULE BACKED BY OBAMA
    *INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS MUST TREAT WEB TRAFFIC EQUALLY
    *COMCAST, AT&T, VERIZON AMONG COMPANIES REGULATED UNDER RULES
    *NETFLIX, TWITTER HAD SOUGHT FCC REGULATIONS
    [...]
    U.S. regulators invoked broad powers to ensure that Web traffic for all users is treated equally, adopting net-neutrality rules that Bloomberg reports, supporters say will preserve a wide-open Internet and that opponents vow to fight in court.
    [...]
    But as Mike Krieger so eloquently noted previously, this could permit discrimination of web content...
    Could? Make that "absolutely will."
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  8. #7
    The government fears only what it cannot control. Therefore, regulation.

  9. #8
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucille View Post
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-0...nsorship-begun



    Could? Make that "absolutely will."
    None of this stuff happens in a vacuum. Follow the non-profit think tanks. And we all know where the trail of the think tanks lead....



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Bastards! They hate us for our freedom!
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    None of this stuff happens in a vacuum. Follow the non-profit think tanks. And we all know where the trail of the think tanks lead....
    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    Tom Wheeler tweaks net neutrality plan after Google push

    FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has made some last-minute revisions to his net neutrality plan after Google and public interest groups pressed for the changes, according to sources at the commission.

    Google, Free Press and New America’s Open Technology Institute last week asked the commission to revise language they said could unintentionally allow Internet service providers to charge websites for sending content to consumers. Such a scenario could open the door to an avalanche of new fees for Web companies and threaten their business models.

    ....
    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz3SsAEhARa
    Soros, Ford Foundation shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House

    Liberal philanthropist George Soros and the Ford Foundation have lavished groups supporting the administration’s “net neutrality” agenda, donating $196 million and landing proponents on the White House staff, according to a new report.

    ...
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/so...rticle/2560702
    Last edited by Suzanimal; 02-26-2015 at 01:04 PM.

  13. #11
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Can this be reversed?
    lol
    "One thing my years in Washington taught me is that most politicians are followers, not leaders. Therefore we should not waste time and resources trying to educate politicians. Politicians will not support individual liberty and limited government unless and until they are forced to do so by the people," says Ron Paul."

  15. #13


    Pretty much sums up how I feel about the fcc. All this is going to accomplish is make a bunch of lawyers rich(er).

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Can this be reversed?
    As much as anything can be reversed. You would need a few million patriots to do it.

  17. #15
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by ZENemy View Post
    lol

  18. #16
    How does some federal agency ever get to vote on anything?



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    It's only the beginning, too.

    With the vote, the FCC is changing the way it views both wireless and fixed-line broadband service providers, reclassifying them as “Title II” common carriers under the nation’s telecommunications laws. The Title II designation, which already covers voice services, gives the FCC the ability to set rates, open up access to competitors, and generally more closely regulate the broadband industry. It’s a reversal of course for the FCC, which until now did not even enforce net neutrality rules on wireless broadband services, and very lightly regulated fixed providers. But it’s also a return to the regulatory regime that governed consumer internet services 20 years ago, when hundreds of dial-up internet service providers competed on Title II-regulated phone networks.

    Ironically, today’s vote was first set in motion by a series of lawsuits dating back several years, which challenged the FCC’s ability to enforce it’s own net neutrality regulations. Last year the latest legal challenge ended when a D.C. court ruled in Verizon’s favor, saying that the way that the FCC had classified internet services didn’t give it the right to enforce net neutrality.

    A year ago, Chairman Wheeler said that the FCC could find a new way to enforce net neutrality without the Title II designation. But in November, the man who appointed Wheeler, President Barack Obama, called for Title II. In retrospect, that made today’s vote inevitable, although Wheeler said today that he was looking at the Title II option months before Obama’s statement
    You see? They're just setting the stage so they can full-bore $#@! ass. This is all a deliberately planned and orchestrated legal strategy to $#@! all over the internet, and since the State has a monopoly on law, guess who is going to win.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  21. #18
    Time to hit the button: http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    How does some federal agency ever get to vote on anything?
    It's constitutional, bro.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  23. #20
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    So the millennial boobs essentially sold the internet away for faster file sharing service and rural accessibility?


  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    It's constitutional, bro.
    I don't see any place in the constitution mentioning the FCC.

  25. #22
    They. Are. KILLING US!

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    I don't see any place in the constitution mentioning the FCC.
    The Constitution is worded and designed in such a way that it doesn't have to explicitly mention the FCC.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    I don't see any place in the constitution mentioning the FCC.
    Nor is there an air force or permanent standing army or Dept of Education, but you wouldn't deny those to be constitutional-would you, Citizen?
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    So the millennial boobs essentially sold the internet away for faster file sharing service and rural accessibility?

    I'm sure some did. But I'm technically a millenial (I think? I've heard it defined a few ways), and I didn't do that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    The Constitution is worded and designed in such a way that it doesn't have to explicitly mention the FCC.
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Nor is there an air force or permanent standing army or Dept of Education, but you wouldn't deny those to be constitutional-would you, Citizen?
    Such is the way government grows out of control.

  31. #27
    Everything government gets involved in it $#@!s up.....

    Now we just have to watch and see how/when and why they $#@! up yet another thing they should have stayed out of....

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Everything government gets involved in it $#@!s up.....

    Now we just have to watch and see how/when and why they $#@! up yet another thing they should have stayed out of....
    It's for the Greater Good(TM), Citizen. Can't you see that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    Such is the way government grows out of control.
    That's an odd thing to say.

    The State, by its nature, is purposed towards seizing as much control as possible. So the idea that the State has 'grown out of control' doesn't really make much sense, as it's doing exactly what it was meant to do; it implies that the State is ultimately controllable by the wills of those who would say it has grown out of control. This isn't and has never really been the case. It's a false premise.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    That's an odd thing to say.

    The State, by its nature, is purposed towards seizing as much control as possible. So the idea that the State has 'grown out of control' doesn't really make much sense, as it's doing exactly what it was meant to do; it implies that the State is ultimately controllable by the wills of those who would say it has grown out of control. This isn't and has never really been the case. It's a false premise.
    Submit citizen!

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. President Obama urges the FCC to treat the internet as a utility
    By aGameOfThrones in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 11-21-2017, 08:44 PM
  2. FCC Chairman: Internet to be a Public Utility
    By RonPaulFanInGA in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-19-2015, 10:23 AM
  3. Rasmussen: Just 21% want the FCC to regulate the internet
    By sailingaway in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-28-2010, 02:32 PM
  4. Should the Government Regulate the Internet?
    By ericsnow in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-20-2010, 08:31 PM
  5. 49% think Feds should regulate Internet
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 07-10-2008, 11:55 AM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •