Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, February 19, 2015

The Coming FCC Regulations

 As I understand the matter, these regulations will take effect on February 26, 2015. According to Hot Air, these regulations will result in new taxes, a slower Internet, and fewer choices.

 From the above link:
First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly.
The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.

[...]

...The commissioners can see the plan before they cast their votes. But the rest of us can’t. Lobbyists will likely be able to discover key details affecting their clients, and some details will leak out in the press. But the full text of the plan won’t be made public at all before the vote....
More information at Hot Air.

Additional reading: Net neutrality a looming threat to free speech.

An Orwellian noose is tightening.

Is there any way to prevent this?

47 comments:

  1. It might pay to review many of the sixty-five comments under "What Is Your Opinion of Net Neutrality?" at FreeThinke's blog published in February 6.

    http://freethinkesblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-is-your-opinion-of-net-neutrality.html

    I, myself, using common sense and intuition leapt to most of the conclusions laid out here in AOW's article, but many -- whom I believe ought to have known better -- wanted to persuade us that it was all about increasing the availability of MORE DATS while regulating the SPEED of ACCESS so that we could "KEEP UP" with a world that has rapidly outpaced the USA in this area.

    HELLO-HO!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FT,
      That was an excellent thread at your site. Thanks for the link!

      Delete
    2. Sounds l like they dusted off the arguments worn out on Obamacare.

      Delete
  2. As FT just said,
    It might pay to review many of the sixty-five comments under "What Is Your Opinion of Net Neutrality?" at FreeThinke's blog published on February 6.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Al I need to know is, going by the odds, if Obama is for it I'm ag'in it.
    I must admit, I didn't think it was so imminent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes sir, Ed. The vulgarity might offend you, but I never tire of quoting my old friend Bîtch Cassidy, who long ago wrote at FrontPage Magazine when told she needed to read a lot more about Marxism before she dared comment on it:

      "Honey, I dont need to eat a pound of sh-t to know it don't taste good."

      Delete
  4. "If God be for us, who can be against us?"

    ~ Aria from Handel's "Messiah" text based entirely on Holy Writ.

    I'll tell you who. BARACK OBAMA and ISLAM for starters.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Neither party is an advocate of free speech. Between this Administrations pursuit of "net neutrality" and the GOPs love affair with the NSA.....It's coming down to either revolution or acceptance of our future as an utterly servile and non-sovereign nation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CI,
      Neither party is an advocate of free speech.

      I can't argue with that statement.

      However, is one party worse than the other when it comes to advocating or forbidding free speech?

      Delete
    2. Writ large, I'd say it's a wash. Each has its own predilections, whether it be attempting to prohibit speech, or attempting to control speech.

      Delete
    3. CI,
      Thanks for your response. Not sure that I agree, but I'm willing to be persuaded to agree. Evidence needed and all that.

      Delete
    4. One only needs to read your post's points to know which party is going overboard. This is getting out of hand and where IS the GOP? ANYTHING happening to help stop this?

      Delete
  6. The true motivation is buried in the details: More tax money, and more power and control for government bureaucrats.

    Net Neutrality is a 'solution' to a nonexistent problem.

    Too bad the GOOPers are balless, feckless and lacking in guiding principles. If a few of them stood up on their hind legs and learned how to fight, maybe such attacks on liberty could be rebuffed. The GOOP will get their vig to keep their mouths shut.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet"

    Name one, just one, thing that this miserable POS hasn't completely screwed-up. Those responsible for him occupying the office of POTUS should be exiled!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's almost like, by now, all we can do is live our private lives to the fullest, ignoring the government, or we'd all go nuts.
      As bad as the GOP can be, who can DENY all the serious problems with this president? F&F, NSA, IRS, now this internet loss of freedom, talking instead of doing what needs to be done,....we could ALL go on and on....and it's all so serious and all so ignored by our media and the Republicans, too, are doing a good job ignoring much of it. WHY?

      Delete
    2. What loss of freedom?

      Telcom utilities are not going to be allowed to bleed us dry without performance improvements and that's a loss of freedom?

      When the Telcoms get their main stooge at the FCC to throw out a little terror talk it's our obligation as informed citizens not to imitate Pavlov's dogs.

      Delete
    3. "Telcom utilities are not going to be allowed to bleed us dry without performance improvements"

      Who says?

      Remember telephones back before deregulation?

      Delete
    4. Go ahead Ducky, tell us how much better and cheaper telephones were back in the government monopoly Ma Bell days. We need a good laugh

      Delete
    5. Ma Bell was NOT a government entity, Jack. I was a privately owned corporation. It was the GOVERNMENT who moved in on it and broke it up.

      Life was MUCH more pleasant when Ma Bell sill had control of the telephone industry.

      Delete
    6. Ducky, please don't tell me after all these years that you are STILL unfamiliar with the tale of The Camel in the Tent?

      Go look it up -- RIGHT NOW.

      That's an ORDER. |:-(

      Delete
    7. Mr. FreeThinnke,

      I said "government monopoly," that is, a monopoly authorized by the government, and it was not better in those days. It cost a small fortune to call long distance, the devices were clunky, and getting an extension was like building an addition onto your house.

      Delete
  8. @Z,

    I would love to live a private life "ignoring the government". Now, given the obtrusiveness of the government, how can I? I always knew that sooner or later the internet would fall victim.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Controlling internet content is the endgame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What in the FCC ruling controls content?

      Myself, I think neutrality is important for content. Giving a speed bump to large companies that are streaming mainstream pablum at the expense of less common titles represents a content loss to me.

      Delete
    2. "Giving a speed bump to large companies that are streaming mainstream pablum at the expense of less common titles represents a content loss to me."

      Herein lies the problem with such socialist thinking:

      Who decides what is pablum and what is worthy? A government committee schmeared off by big companies?

      Should a Lexus cost no more than a Chevy Sonic? Should a porterhouse steak at one of those hoity toity restaurants 1%'ers like you eat at cost no more than a hamburger?

      You think the internet is screwed up now (it's not) wait until government gets involved and does for it what it did for health care and education.

      Delete
    3. This is the same FCC that started in on monitoring newsrooms a couple years ago!

      Delete
  10. It's sad to see how the stupid cons turned away from Net Neutrality the minute their masters told them to. You guys really are just plain stupid.

    @$$holes.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, Jersey, what problem will net neutrality fix, and how?

      Delete
    2. Freight rate neutrality fixed the railroad system. Just ask Joe Biden, he'll tell ya!

      I can hardly wait for the Internets to become as efficient as Amtrak...

      Delete
    3. Jersey McJones,

      Yeah, that's what we thought. All full of msnbc bluster, but someone asks you a real question and suddenly you're dumb and flat-footed.

      Delete
  11. Ducky: Nothing... yet. Endgame, get it? You'd have to have only two neurons, with one of them being inhibitory, to conclude that they're not going to after content next.

    FreeThinke: Thanks for the Bitch Cassidy quote. It's a keeper.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rhett Butler said

      Frankly, my dear Pintail, I don't give a rat's rump what you think.

      Delete
    2. You're welcome, Cube. It's a classic that's for sure. I only wish I had thought it up, myself. I often wonder what happened to Ms Cassidy? She was a Good Ol' Girl, if ever there was one. ;-)

      Delete
  12. AOW: Sorry if I offended with the b*tch comment above. I meant to use the asterisk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cube,
      It is not that I get offended. I have a tough shell.

      I do, however, have students (minors) who read this site.

      Delete
  13. It seems every post on Obama could rightly start with "Unlawful Power Grab." He's back to basics: If it doesn't move, tax it; if it moves, tax it quick!

    ReplyDelete
  14. *sniff* *sniff* ... Hey! Something stinks in here!

    Smells like... leftwing ignorance and hopium smoke...

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So then, pull you head out of you msnbc and tell us how the "rightwing" is "restricting the internet."

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Regulations never improved any communication medium

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kid,
      Can't convince the Left of that fact, however. **sigh**

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective