Obama progressive democrats to control the Internet

So is it ours; or does it just belong to big business??? Are the airwaves ours or do they just belong to big business??? There are a lot of scumbags who just want us to turn everything over to business free and clear... Can't say I agree with doing that...

FCC's Net neutrality vote hit from both sides
Grant Gross


December 21, 2010 (IDG News Service)

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission's vote Tuesday to approve new network neutrality rules received mixed reviews, with broadband provider Verizon Communications appearing to question the agency's legal authority.

A Verizon spokesman declined to comment on news reports that the company was mulling a lawsuit against the FCC, but Tom Tauke, the carrier's executive vice president of public affairs and policy, suggesting the fight over net neutrality rules wasn't over. Verizon will continue to "work constructively" with the FCC and Congress on the issue, he said in a statement.

"Based on today's announcement, the FCC appears to assert broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband wireline and wireless networks and the Internet itself." Tauke said. "This assertion of authority without solid statutory underpinnings will yield continued uncertainty for industry, innovators, and investors. In the long run, that is harmful to consumers and the nation."

Reaction to the FCC's decision was met with criticism coming from groups on both sides of the seven-plus-year net neutrality debate in Washington, D.C. Several consumer and digital rights groups pushing for strong net neutrality rules called the vote a missed opportunity.

The rules, pushed by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, prohibit broadband providers from blocking legal Web content, and they prohibit wired providers from unreasonable discrimination against Web traffic. The exempt specialized, or managed services, offered by broadband providers and exempt mobile broadband providers from the prohibition on unreasonable discrimination.

Verizon is committed to an "open and vibrant" Internet, but the FCC's decision reverses a long-standing U.S. policy against Internet regulation, Tauke added.

Several Republicans in Congress, including Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, said Tuesday they will attempt to overturn the FCC's decision when lawmakers return to Washington early next year.

"Since its inception, the Internet has thrived and grown without any federal regulation," Stearns said in a statement. "Without any hint of market failure, the reason for any regulation is nonexistent. Furthermore, the courts have determined that the Federal Communications Commission has no jurisdiction over the Internet."

Others suggested the FCC's action was weak. The rules were heavily influenced by broadband providers, said Craig Aaron, managing director of Free Press, a media reform group that's called for stronger rules.

"We are deeply disappointed that the chairman chose to ignore the overwhelming public support for real net neutrality, instead moving forward with industry-written rules that will for the first time in Internet history allow discrimination online," Aaron said in a statement. "This proceeding was a squandered opportunity to enact clear, meaningful rules to safeguard the Internet's level playing field and protect consumers."

The rules will allow broadband providers to divide the Internet into fast and slow lanes, Aaron added. "No longer can you get to the same Internet via your mobile device as you can via your laptop," he said. "The rules pave the way for AT&T [mobile] to block your access to third-party applications and to require you to use its own preferred applications."

AT&T defended the vote, saying it wasn't an ideal outcome, but represented a "fair middle ground."

It's time to end the long-standing net neutrality debate, even though AT&T would have preferred no new rules, Jim Cicconi, AT&T's executive vice president for external and legislative affairs, wrote in a blog post.

Opposition to the rules was "a position supported by the factual record in front of the commission, and by law," he added. "It would also be our preference, especially given the utter absence of any evidence that abuses are occurring in the Internet market, let alone any of the gravity to justify government intervention."

Still, the FCC's vote was an "apparent rejection" of groups calling for heavy-handed government control of the Internet, Cicconi wrote.

The National Cable and Telecommunications Association, representing cable broadband providers, praised Genachowski for advancing a compromise net neutrality proposal and for abandoning earlier efforts to reclassify broadband as a regulated, common-carrier service. New rules weren't necessary, but the compromise will balance Internet openness with the needs of a dynamic online market, said Kyle McSlarrow, NCTA's president and CEO.

"It has been clear for some time that there were three votes at the commission for rules that would go much farther than those adopted today," he said in a statement. "Thus, the question before us has been whether rules could be drafted in a manner that avoids a raft of unintended consequences and that preserves broadband providers' ability to innovate and invest in a marketplace that justly represents a great American success story."

The Computer and Communications Industry Association, a trade group representing tech companies, complained, however, that the rules fall short of the protections needed for Internet users and companies. The rules, without action to reclassify broadband as a regulated service, leaves net neutrality on weak legal ground, the CCIA said in a statement.

Web-based voice provider Skype applauded the FCC's decision to prohibit mobile broadband providers from blocking competing services.

"On balance, this decision advances the goal of keeping the Internet an open and unencumbered medium for Skype users," Christopher Libertelli, Skype's senior director of government a regulatory affairs in the Americas, said in a statement. "This decision protects a consumer's entitlement to use Skype on their mobile devices and we look forward to delivering further innovation in this area."

Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service. Follow Grant on Twitter at GrantGross. Grant's e-mail address is [email protected].

Net neutrality: Will the FCC's new Internet policy help consumers?

A divided FCC approved regulation aimed at protecting 'Internet freedom and openness.' But critics of Net neutrality say the policy is unnecessary and will squelch innovation.


By Mark Trumbull, Staff writer
posted December 21, 2010 at 4:36 pm EST

The Federal Communications Commission moved Tuesday to tighten regulation of the Internet, the fast-changing communication platform that plays an increasingly vital role in the global economy.

The FCC, in a vote that broke along party lines, approved a new set of rules promoting "network neutrality," the idea that the Internet should not be dominated by a few large gatekeepers of network traffic.

"For the first time, we'll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said before voting in favor of the rules.

RELATED: Top 10 countries that say Internet access is a basic right

There has long been a consensus among consumer advocates and high-tech entrepreneurs that the Internet should be an open forum for communication and commerce. But how to achieve that has been a source of heated debate, with free-market critics maintaining that any regulation would stifle innovation.

It remains to be seen whether the FCC's effort will succeed at protecting consumers. The commission itself was sharply divided on that point.
Why regulate?

Proponents of a "net neutrality" policy argue that a failure to act would allow a service provider like Comcast to give preferential treatment to its own content and services over those of another company, such as Netflix, that seeks to reach its customers over Comcast infrastructure.

But another commission member, Robert McDowell, voiced concerns shared by many opponents of the new policy.

"Nothing has been holding back Internet investment and innovation – until now," he said before becoming a "no" in the 3-2 vote by commission members.

Mr. McDowell warned that "capital will be diverted to pay lawyers fees" instead of to develop new services, as companies vie for FCC support under a new regulatory framework. He said the grass-roots structure that has allowed the Web to flourish will become politicized.

How the as-yet mostly unpublished rules will work remains to be seen. But, after a process fraught with opposition from high-tech firms, the plan represents a compromise that has drawn greater industry support.
Basic principles

Mr. Genachowski outlined the plan's basic principles:

• Transparency for consumers about how the Internet's core players manage the network.

• A right for consumers and innovators to send and recieve lawful traffic and to connect devices of their choice to the network.

• A level playing field, in which government regulators don't pick winners and losers.

• Reasonable flexibility for network management and service pricing, to promote investment and innovation by private firms.

FCC critics on the left say that, by stepping back from bolder ideas it had considered earlier this year, the agency has caved in to corporate interests. The group Free Press, for example, argues the commission should issue an outright ban on "paid prioritization" deals, in which an Internet service provider cuts deals that put data from some clients on a faster track than others. (The FCC said such deals are "unlikely to satisfy" its new policy.)

But on the right, critics say the FCC is trying to fix something that's not broken, and that existing antitrust laws can be used to protect consumers if the need arises. Further, they say, the FCC has no authority from Congress to regulate the Internet.
Some rules better than none

A middle view, held by other analysts of the high-tech scene, is that the new rules will be better than either tougher regulation or taking no new action. The policies may help consumers while defusing a battle within the industry over how to regulate the Web.

President Obama issued a statement calling the FCC's decision a victory for consumers, free speech, and "American innovation."

Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, joined the Consumer Federation of America in issuing a statement supportive of the new plan.

"Unanimity on Net Neutrality may be impossible, but inaction is unacceptable," the groups said this month, as the FCC unveiled general outlines of the plan. They argued that a failure to act would allow "network operators to discriminate at will."

Some tech analysts warn that the new proposal will cause some Web users to pay higher prices.

The new policy allows Internet service providers to charge heavy users more than light users. Someone who gets lots of video feeds via Netflix, for instance, could end up paying a higher price for their Web access than someone who doesn't use the Web for video.

The policy provides regulations that apply standards for the control of bandwidth usage by internet providers.

It's a complex issue.

Fido wrote:

So is it ours; or does it just belong to big business??? Are the airwaves ours or do they just belong to big business??? There are a lot of scumbags who just want us to turn everything over to business free and clear... Can't say I agree with doing that...

It sounds like 'it' belongs to Big Government.

LOL, well he is a tard.

Fido, Government needs to be less intrusive and less involved in the individuals day-to-day activities. I have no problems that require government assistance. The major role of my government is national security, protecting the American way of life. Their role is not to get in and muck up our lives, but this is exactly what PrezBO and his gang are doing.

Remember this, despots ... and despotic governments ... will always seek to control sources of information.