Net Neutrality at Death’s Door?
As the FCC regulations are put into effect that bring net neutrality to its knees, I point to FoxNews to get all Shakespearean about it:
President Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has fittingly chosen the darkest day in 372 years to impose potentially devastating regulations on the up-to-now free market Internet.
As the moon was eclipsed earlier today, Congress and the American people will be eclipsed by this regulatory coup d’état — orchestrated by the White House — that will substitute the judgment of three Democrats at the FCC for the legitimate democratic process.
Starting today, the Internet will be regulated, despite the fact that network neutrality regulations have almost no support in Congress, where Rep. Ed Markey’s legislation, which aimed to do by legitimate means what the FCC is now doing surreptitiously, has just 27 co-sponsors.
Senator Al Franken summed up the problem so that any Democrat could understand it:
“Maybe you like Google Maps. Well, tough. If the F.C.C. passes this weak rule, Verizon will be able to cut off access to the Google Maps app on your phone and force you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it is not as good. And even if they charge money, when Google Maps is free. If corporations are allowed to prioritize content on the Internet, or they are allowed to block applications you access on your iPhone, there is nothing to prevent those same corporations from censoring political speech.”
Tags: Net Neutrality
“I will take a backseat to no one with regards to net neutrality.” -Barack Obomba, November 2007
“, the FCC chair appointed by President Obama,(delacrat’s emphasis) Julius Genachowski, endorsed the implementation of what he called “usage-based pricing.”
JULIUS GENACHOWSKI: “Reasonable network management is an important part of the proposal, recognizing that what is reasonable will take account of the network technology and architecture involved. Our work has also demonstrated the importance of business innovation to promote network investment and efficient use, including measures to match price to cost, such as usage-based pricing.”
“…unfortunately, these rules simply aren’t good enough. They’re half net neutrality or fake net neutrality,” -Craig Aaron, Managing Director of Free Press.
” For example, they would not protect wireless networks, so things that you would be prohibited from doing on your home wire line connection that companies couldn’t, say, discriminate or favor certain sites over the others, those protections are not extended to the wireless internet.”
As a musician whose entire ability to pursue my career depends on Net Neutrality, this is a pet issue for me. I have been attending conferences hosted by The Future of Music Coalition for two years’ running now. They have been working very closely with the FCC to preserve musicians’ rights with regard to net neutrality. This is not, as you might think, with the idea that ISPs have a responsibility to prevent piracy. That is the cause of the RIAA, who has long abandoned what is actually in musicians’ best interests. The FMC accepts that the internet exists and seeks to use it as a tool to further our common cause of getting our art to potential listeners, rather than quash it. The FMC’s Casey Rae Hunter released this statement today:
“Today’s vote is meaningful in that it is a fundamental recognition of what has made the internet such a powerful platform for free expression, creativity and commerce. Although the FCC’s Order seemingly falls short of offering full protections, it does provide a framework in which those who depend on access and innovation — including musicians and music entrepreneurs — can pursue their goals in a legitimate digital music marketplace.
“If provisions to preserve the open internet are to be effective, however, they must be coupled with steadfast enforcement as well as an unambiguous application to the wireless space. Mobile broadband is the fastest growing segment of the internet, and it is crucial that today and tomorrow’s artists and innovators have the ability to access and compete on that platform. We thank Commissioners Copps and Clyburn for their recognition of this dynamic and encourage the FCC to stay attentive with regard to the wireless web.”
FCC proposed new rules, WRITTEN BY CORPORATIONS, that will end net neutrality. For the first time in history, the US government approved ccorporate censorship of the internet putting our future of online free speech at risk. Obama has (again) violated his campaign promise to protect net neutrality. Net Neutrality compromise, its not! There is no such thing as half of a first amendment. Ready to dump this corporate chump yet~. I am.
Thank you, Mr. President, for more Orwellian policies.
A1, I don’t think Orwellian means what you think it means.
“Orwellian” has many layers of meaning in regards to loss of freedom under a repressive government. In this case I am referring to “The encouragement of “doublethink”, whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent, e.g. giving up liberty for freedom. Similar terms used, are “doublespeak”, and “newspeak.”
In this case, what the government is calling “net neutrality” will end actual “net neutrality,” hence the reference to it being another of Obama’s Orwellian policies.
I hope that helps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian
Here’s a good primer for those that are unfamiliar what net neutrality is suppose to be about.
They made different rules for wired and wireless internet. Will allow big corporations to censor your mobile phone. Will allow corporations to set up a toll booth stifling innovators like future YouTube, who cant pay the fees the big corpse can. They embrace the “public internet” for regular people vs private internet with all new renovation for corportions who can pay more. Thus ending the internet as we know it.
Corporations own every politican, every goverment agency and the people get the shaft.
It will be an odd pairing next year as Senator Al Franken and the Republican House of Representatives work on nullifying these regulations.
The problem is that the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled that the FCC does not have the constitutional or statutory authority to regulate the internet — a ruling handed down in April.