Showing posts with label Net Neutrality Proposal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Net Neutrality Proposal. Show all posts

Thursday, February 26, 2015

FCC Re-Classifies Internet From 'Info-Service' to a 'Tele-Service' (ALT ~Laws & Regulations), How Predictable… It Voted on Strict Party Lines to Adopt Obama’s 332 Page “Net Neutrality” Proposal

""How predictable… The Federal Communications Commission voted on strict party lines to adopt Obama’s 332 page “Net Neutrality” proposal. Given that everything the government touches ends up as a rousing success-story, I’m sure you’ll be able to keep your internet if you like your internet. According to Fox News:
The commission, following a contentious meeting, voted 3-2 to adopt its so-called net neutrality plan -- a proposal that remained secret in the run-up to the final vote. On its surface, the plan is aimed at barring service providers from creating paid "fast lanes" on the Internet, which consumer advocates and Internet companies worry would edge out cash-strapped startups and smaller Internet-based businesses. Chairman Tom Wheeler said it would ensure an "open, unfettered network."
Of course… Because if there is one thing the government is known for it is protecting truly free markets, right? At issue is a concern that service providers might unfairly target certain companies for preferential (or discriminatory) treatment. However, I can’t help but notice that this is largely a problem that doesn’t actually exist. Apparently the big government fanatics over at Obama’s FCC believe it is prudent governance to restrict freedom because someone might(someday) abuse it.
How terribly Orwellian. I think George Washington is credited with a quote about such overzealous governance:
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
Democrats fear that a lack of competition within the industry is leading to monopolistic injustice; and evidently believe that slapping a 21st century technology with rules designed for rotary telephones, will somehow level the playing field. (I call it socialism for broadband… Let’s make sure everyone has equally atrocious internet service.)""

Micromanaging the Internet is Real

Fairness Doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
""The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[3] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.""

Application of the Doctrine by the FCC[edit]

""In 1974, the Federal Communications Commission stated that the Congress had delegated it the power to mandate a system of "access, either free or paid, for person or groups wishing to express a viewpoint on a controversial public issue..." but that it had not yet exercised that power because licensed broadcasters had "voluntarily" complied with the "spirit" of the doctrine. It warned that:

Friday, February 6, 2015

Net Neutrality Proposal: Panel to Investigate Whether White House Improperly Influenced Agency on Broadband with it's FCC Rules

""WASHINGTON—A House oversight committee on Friday said it was launching an investigation into whether the White House improperly influenced the Federal Communications Commission on its new rules for how broadband providers treat traffic on their networks.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler on Friday demanding all documents and communications between the FCC and the White House or other executive-branch agencies on the issue, along with all internal discussion at the FCC.
Mr. Wheeler on Wednesday made public the outlines of a proposal that would ban broadband providers from blocking, slowing down, or speeding up certain websites in exchange for payment.
The plan would use strong utility-like rules to regulate broadband companies, an approach largely in line with President Barack Obama’s call in November for the “strongest possible rules” to protect net neutrality—the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.
To implement those rules, Mr. Wheeler proposed reclassifying broadband from a lightly regulated information service to a more strictly overseen telecommunications service. Advocates of such an approach say that without such rules, broadband companies could charge tolls to websites for their fastest speeds, putting startups and smaller websites at a disadvantage.
“[R]eports indicate that views expressed by the White House potentially had an improper influence on the development of the draft Open Internet Order circulated internally at the Commission on February 5, 2015,” Mr. Chaffetz wrote.Mr. Wheeler had previously laid out proposals to his fellow commissioners that wouldn't have used the public-utility route. Then Mr. Obama made his statement in November, one of a series of events outlined in a Wall Street Journal article Thursday that appeared to leave Mr. Wheeler little choice but to go with the stronger rules.
Neither the White House nor the FCC responded to requests for comment.
Earlier on Friday, FCC Special Counsel Gigi Sohn rejected the notion that the president’s statement forced Mr. Wheeler’s hand.
“I think what the president’s statement did was rather than force the chairman’s hand was give him cover to do something that he already was thinking about doing,” Ms. Sohn said during an interview on C-Span.
In his letter, Mr. Chaffetz said he is particularly interested in “how the FCC communicated with the White House and other Executive Branch agencies.”
He also requested a briefing on the issue within two weeks. The commission plans to vote on the proposal Feb. 26.
Other Republicans in Congress had already expressed concerns about the FCC proposal. The chairman of the House committee that oversees the FCC, Rep. Fred Upton (R., Mich.), noted that Mr. Wheeler himself said in November that the agency was independent. “Turns out that wasn’t the case then, it’s not the case now, and the White House needs to get its hands off the FCC,” he said Thursday.
But the broadband industry and conservatives strongly opposed changing how broadband is classified, arguing it would saddle the industry with outdated regulations and depress investment in upgrading networks.Senior FCC officials said Wednesday that reclassifying broadband puts the new rules on much firmer ground in the face of a legal challenge from the broadband industry.
Mr. Wheeler’s proposal would apply the portion of the law used to regulate common carriers to broadband providers, but without invoking all of the rules designed for the old landline phone network. He specifically said the FCC wouldn’t regulate broadband prices, or force providers to lease capacity on their networks to competitors.
But those assurances were of little comfort to the broadband industry. An industry official said the FCC plan would give the agency the authority to regulate prices, allowing future commissioners to do so if they choose.
Randolph May, president of the free-market think tank The Free State Foundation, said the FCC’s plan faces serious legal hurdles.
Courts generally give independent agencies broad deference to interpret laws that guide them. Mr. May said, though, that Mr. Obama’s “active intervention has cast the FCC’s action in a light in which the courts may not accord the usual deference.”
Conservatives in Congress agreed. “The president gave a speech demanding that the FCC seize control of the Internet and treat it as a government-regulated utility. The FCC promptly turned around and behaved like an agency of the White House,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in an interview.""

Continue Here:

All My Verses Chemistry 4 Conscious Eggs ********* ALCHemYEGG AUMniVERSE