The Net Neutrality policy proposed by the Obama White House is set for a vote by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) on Thursday.
The President has not been quiet about pushing for internet legislation. On the campaign trail he made many statements like; “I will not take a back seat to anyone in my commitment to net neutrality.”
The internet legislation policy will encompass three key positions. First the government wants to make sure everyone has access to the internet and have set aside $7.2 billion in stimulus dollars for construction.
The White House is treating the internet as another entitlement program that every taxpayer should pay into so all residents can log on, explains Phil Kerpen of the Americans for Prosperity. One of the new rules proposes the government lays broadband cable in rural communities making access to the internet much easier for all Americans.
This will not only be tricky, but very expensive because there are not enough subscribers in rural areas to pay for the hundreds of miles of cable that must be put in place.
Providing internet access for all residents would be a first for the country. In the past, government didn’t ensure every citizen had a radio during World War II, or televisions in the 1950s or even cable in the 1980s.
Why internet?
The second platform is social justice or classic redistribution of wealth.
And finally the third is controlling internet content. The accessibility of the internet has provided U.S. residents the ability to pursue their freedom of speech in larger numbers and level the playing field.
However, in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Susan Crawford, Obama’s internet czar, explained the government’s first move to control internet service comes with the release of $7.2 billion in the stimulus money. “This is just a down payment on the government’s investment in the internet,” she said.
Many on the right think these new rules would kill the free-market economy and turn away any incentive for online entrepreneurs to start up new businesses.
One final thought worth pointing out is the government’s rational in tying the use of cell phones into the internet. Providers like AT&T and Verizon don’t see the need for additional regulation and contend the added regulation could slow their service and lead to more taxes.
"The bar needs to be set very high when it comes to additional government intervention," said USTelecom, the phone industry's lobbying group.
The vote on Thursday, which is expected to pass, will set up a show down between providers and the government. Once the provision is passed it will give the FCC the ability to begin formulating rules and readying them for the legislative process.
The following are some of the FCC's proposed rules:
• Consumers are entitled to access any legal Internet content
• Consumers are entitled to use any Internet applications or services
• Consumers are entitled to connect to any devices that won't harm the network
• The same rules apply to cable/DSL and wireless Internet
• Internet providers can't block or slow competitors' online services
For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner
Comments
And once again, Dvorak waltzes the Orwellian path of reversing the truth.
Net Neutrality is not about the government controlling content - it's about NOT controlling content, not giving favorable advantage to some content over others.
As for internet expansion, I'd question whether it is an investment that makes sense, but it most certainly is NOT a "first for the country."
You conveniently ignore the government's investment in other communications INFRASTRUCTURE - like the telegraph and telephone, even railroads and highways.
Or most accurately, in this case, rural postal delivery.
This isn't about buying the public pens to write letters, it's about expanding the postal service to deliver them.
Amtrak is owned by the governemnt and it's crap. Who rides it?
Investment is one thing, but regulation is another. Investment is usually asked for by the person making the product not the forced on said person by the investor.
I use the internet all the time. I have a job and I pay for internet service. It's expensive but I do without in some areas of my life because I want to "connect". I don't have cable TV and I don't buy many clothes. It's called being responsible.
I also don't fall prey to the "evil internets" because I'm fairly intelligent. For example I don't go into the bad part of town at night holding a wad of cash in my hand...likewise I don't go to shady internet sites and put in my credit card info and I don't click on spam...it's called self-preservation.
I think people should take responsibility for themselves and not look to the government to protect them.
Just my two cents...since this is still a free country.
And what. pray tell, does ANY of that have to do with Net Neutrality, Jack?
Net Neutrality is about preventing that provider you pay for your Internet access from deciding you cannot access certain sites - or, more commonly, providing faster access to certain sites while slowing others (those from competitors, for example) to a crawl.
For example, I prefer to watch Major League Baseball online because of the features MLB offers and because it's slightly cheaper than buying the MLB package from a television provider.
But one of the internet providers around here also offers TV - and although I was showing a 2.5 mps connection, and MLB only requires about 750 kps, it was jerky and kept hanging and reverting to low quality. (While provider-approved live streaming worked just fine, BTW.)
Switch providers, (same base speed) and suddenly I was able to watch MLB HD without a stutter - even while the kids were playing online at the same time.
I COULD switch - but many cannot.
Hey, Jim,
Look a little deeper into what is being proposed. We will be regulated as far as "Consumers are entitled to access any legal Internet content". And who deems internet content legal?
Wake up, already.......
Obamanation strikes again! The Federal Gov. - FCC has No Business Defining Anything in Any Part ofa computer,hardware,software, Internet,Wireless!Our Constitution-AmendmentX Leaves thisto the people;andthe Declaration states: "..life,liberty, &the pursuit of happiness.--That to secure these rights GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN;deriving their JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED,..". Obamanation/Liberals,to some extent too many Americans,have never understood these Two Beautiful, Unique Documents written 233 yrs. ago toprotect 'We the People' froma few-dollar-power mad men who have no knowledge regarding human nature - "..equal station to which the Laws of Nature (science)& of Nature's God (Scripture)entitle them..". Mr. Obama must be suspicious of everyone&the Internet isthe ONLY location of Reliable News ofimportance. The media hasleft journalism some other,unknown to them,locale! So watch out..theabove looks innocent is NOT innocent! FCCwants America tocontinue asleep!
Don't lose site of the pending Cybersecurity Act, also pending a possible vote this week. All of your arguments for or against regulation or expansion are irrelevant if the internet is shut down.
S.773 - Cybersecurity Act of 2009
opencongress. org/bill/111-s773/show
Partial text: The Secretary of Commerce would be given access to this information "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." The bill would also give the President new authority to "declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network."
I'm a bit confused by some of the posts here. Net neutrality guarantees that your ISP cannot censor your news or entertainment.
That's it, in a nutshell.
It doesn't regulate YOU. It regulates your Internet service provider, or ISP, and keeps them from blocking your access to suit them.
That way your ISP can't block VOIP from another provider they compete with (actually has happened) or block web sites they disagree with, or decide that the news channel or blog you like is politically incorrect.
As far as who decides what content is legal under this rule, that would be your ISPs decision. If they blocked something you believed was legal, you could appeal to the FCC, and if your ISP had acted improperly, they could be fined.
This is basically a common carrier provision for the Internet. We don't let the phone company block calls based on who they like or not, either.
"Legal internet content" is the same as it is today - determined by court cases when it becomes an issue.
Illegal is generally stuff like kiddie porn; copyright violations so far have been civil cases.
The Cybersecurity Act simply codifies existing policies into law, mainly about protecting GOVERNMENT computer systems and things like computers controlling utilities like electricity.
I think it has some problems and needs more safeguards - but that is a separate issue from Net Neutrality.
Sally has it right: You'd scream bloody murder if the phone company prohibited you calling someone on another phone company's system. Why should they be able to block or degrade your downloads from a different ISP?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!