Government Internet Control

BigBlue · Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:57 pm Post subject: Government Internet Control

I just read this article and I believe this move may be about 3 days away. I can't believe that any government control is ever a good thing, so what's your take on this?

Internet Freedom Works
By AJIT PAI and LEE GOODMAN February 23, 2015
For the past two decades, Internet freedom has been a remarkable success story. It has given the American people unprecedented access to information and an amazing array of opportunities to speak, debate and connect with one another. Its potential seems infinite as Internet companies expand services, technologists invent ever more life-enhancing applications and increasing numbers of Americans go online.
So, in the face of the greatest technological empowerment of people in the history of the world, why are regulators at our respective agencies, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, calling for new government regulation of the Internet? The answer is simple. Unfortunately, some see any realm of freedom as a vacuum in need of government control.
For its part, the FCC is about to scrap a Clinton-era bipartisan consensus that the Internet should be free from intrusive government regulation. On Thursday, the agency will likely vote to impose rules upon almost every nut and bolt of the Internet, from the digital connection at your house to the core of the network. In so doing, it’ll dust off the heavy-handed monopoly rules designed for Ma Bell back in the 1930s.
How heavy-handed? The FCC will start regulating broadband rates. It will decree, based on a vaguely defined “Internet conduct” standard, whether companies can offer consumer-friendly service plans (such as T-Mobile’s Music Freedom program, which offers customers unlimited access to streaming music). It will institutionalize innovation by permission — giving advisory opinions on prospective business plans or practices (and companies will ask before innovating for fear of what will happen if they don’t). It will even assert the power to force private companies to physically deploy broadband infrastructure and route Internet traffic in specific ways. And in a gift to the plaintiffs’ bar, the FCC will deputize trial lawyers to file class-action lawsuits if they contend that any of these rules are being violated.
These Internet regulations will deter broadband deployment, depress network investment and slow broadband speeds. How do we know? Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband’s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density.
So why is the FCC swinging the regulatory sledgehammer? It’s not to guarantee an open Internet. Nowhere in the 332-page plan — which you won’t see until after the FCC votes on it — can one find a description of systemic harms to consumers or entrepreneurs online. And small wonder, for the Internet is open today. Consumers can easily access the content of their choice. Online entrepreneurs can and do innovate freely.
No, the purpose is control for control’s sake. Digital dysfunction must be conjured into being to justify a public-sector power grab. Aside from being a bad deal for everyone who relies on the Internet, this Beltway-centric plan also distracts the FCC from what it should be focusing on: increasing broadband competition and giving consumers better broadband choices.
While the FCC is inserting government bureaucracy into all aspects of Internet access, the FEC is debating whether to regulate Internet content, specifically political speech posted for free online.

Ajit Pai is a member of the Federal Communications Commission. The opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of their agencies or the U.S. government.
Lee Goodman is a member of the Federal Election Commission.

gelandangan · Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 4:14 pm Post subject: Re: Government Internet Control

Australian Govt is pushing on storing internet metadata for a couple of years.
That means they can go back and see what you have been looking at or communication you made etc for the last 2 years.
Its Ok for us law abiding people, we have nothing much to hide even with our gripes and grievances.
But that also mean our passwords, banking details or other private data will be open for grab like a smorgasbord should there be a leak/crooks/hackers that can access them.

Bet you there will be a lot of people that get the short end of the stick once this is applied.

Gil Martin · Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: Government Internet Control

I hate it when that happens. All the best...
Gil

BigBlue · Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:29 pm Post subject: Re: Government Internet Control

It just seems to me that year after year the government is demanding more and more control over every aspect of our lives. I don't trust this government, especially our current administration, to do the right thing anymore. This is another case of not being allowed to see what's in it until it's passed. The last time that happened we ended up with Obama Care. There was a time, although many years ago now, that I believed the government did it's best to protect it's citizens and was generally beneficent in nature. Well those days are past and the less government control and intrusion, the better off we'll be.
A few of Ronald Reagan's words come to mind,
"There is nothing new in the idea of a government being Big Brother to us all. Hitler called his "State Socialism" and way before him it was "benevolent monarchy."

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

MacD · Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 7:48 pm Post subject: Re: Government Internet Control

Getting pretty tired of "We need more power to protect you from. ?.....?" BS. Information is the new resource used to attack individual and group freedoms. Being innocent of wrong doing may not be enough to prevent you a from being a target if your politics are not mainstream or you question the need for more police powers etc. Also it really doen't matter who sits on the throne. They all are seduced by the need for more power to influence and control how we think, act and yes ultimately vote. My grandfather used to say a successful politician knows how to fool the voter and follow the money.

Suzanne · Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 8:05 pm Post subject: Re: Government Internet Control

It's just the same as the bellyaching about how we should help out these illegal immigrants the poor souls. Dem.s need someone on the dole to vote for them so the more the merrier. They make it sound like we need to help them out of their miserable predicament, but the reality is that's how the Dem. party builds it's voter base.

They need to intervene in the internet only so they can have control of it, there's lots of money to be had there and they know it. The FCC has been given carte-blanche to write their own laws now? No discussion needed? Just like ObamaCare, they'll vote on it before anyone gets to read it. If this passes anywhere I'd bet it gets a resounding negative response from everywhere.

Suz

hunterjoe21 · Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: Government Internet Control

I'm gonna hafta wait until I get to a computer to post my reaction to this...and the Republican's response...

Bushmaster · Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:45 am Post subject: Re: Government Internet Control

At this point I am NOT speachless...Instead I am so PISSED that I'm afraid of losing my temper and saying what I REALLY think of my government.

Suzanne · Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:14 pm Post subject: Re: Government Internet Control

A solution to a problem that doesn't exist; now there's a problem. In a 3-2 vote today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to radically overhaul the way Internet service is regulated.

Suz

Bushmaster · Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:17 pm Post subject: Re: Government Internet Control

Ain't that just peachie-keen...

Pumpkinslinger · Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: Government Internet Control

Can't Congress override the FCC? If "the big uh-O" thinks this is a good idea there has to be something wrong with it.

Vince · Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:58 am Post subject: Re: Government Internet Control

Well...the FCC have voted...

Suzanne · Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:22 am Post subject: Re: Government Internet Control

Socialists like a level playing field don't they...next step equal pay for everybody, equal housing, equal health care (ooops I think we already got that) and we got the 223 taken care of might consider the 300 AAC I noticed that Eric Holder and his crew are very busy right now. The ATF will only grant the so-called “sporting exemption” to the following types of projectiles:

Category I: .22 Caliber Projectiles
A .22 caliber projectile that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) will be considered to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile weighs 40 grains or less AND is loaded into a rimfire cartridge.

Category II: All Other Caliber Projectiles
Except as provided in Category I (.22 caliber rimfire), projectiles that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition will be presumed to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile is loaded into a cartridge for which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single shot handgun. ATF nevertheless retains the discretion to deny any application fora “sporting purposes” exemption if substantial evidence exists that the ammunition is not primarily intended for such purposes.

Any round that can be used in both a rifle and pistol will be on the list. The director of the ATF, B. Todd Jones, is not an elected official. In fact, Jones was rumored to have been pressuring whistle blowers during the height of Fast and Furious, but was still selected and confirmed as the permanent head of the ATF. Eric Holder, the ultimate law enforcement officer in the nation, isn’t elected. Yet, both of these people are infringing upon our constitutional rights.

The U.S. Constitution empowers only Congress to pass law–not the President, and not his bureaucrats assigned to and employed to the plethora of federal agencies. Even Congress has a pesky little thing called the Bill of Rights that it must honor and respect and of course every member of Congress and the President has taken an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.

Suz
is
spitting

Gil Martin · Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:12 am Post subject: Re: Government Internet Control

If you want something screwed up, let the government handle it. If you liked the Y2K hype, you are going to love their internet control. This is not a done deal.

The FCC is required to publish their recommendations 30 days in advance of any vote or action of this magnitude. That did not happen. The FCC is required to offer a 30 or 60 day comment period prior to any sweeping changes. That did not happen. In the past, the courts have overruled the FCC and this is going to go to court. Stay tuned. Government by decree seems to be immune from any legal remedies. All the best...
Gil

BigBlue · Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:22 pm Post subject: Re: Government Internet Control

We don't need laws when government agencies are allowed to regulate by decree. In this case three people have decided what will be the best for us. Representative government my ***! I think I'll run out and buy some more ammo. You can never have enough.