FCC Moves to Regulate Internet

[Cpilot]

Hold on to your wallets.
FCC Moves to Regulate Internet--Even Though the Law Calls for Internet to be 'Unfettered by Federal or State Regulation'

(CNSNews.com) – The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted on Thursday to begin the formal process of bringing the Internet under greater federal control – a move sought by both President Barack Obama and FCC Chairnman Julius Genachowski--even though federal law calls for an Internet "unfettered by Federal or State regulation."

This step comes after the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in April rebuked the FCC in its attempt to enforce a controversial regulatory doctrine called Net Neutrality, which  would allow the government to prevent private Internet providers from deciding which applications to allow on their networks.

The court said that the FCC did not have the authority to prevent Comcast, specifically,  from blocking certain peer-to-peer Web sites.

The FCC is now trying to reclassify the Internet to broaden its authority over the Web. Currently, the FCC only has “ancillary” authority, meaning it can regulate Internet access only in the process of regulating another service that it has direct authority over, such as television or cable.

The 3-2 party-line vote on Thursday at the FCC began the formal process of reclassifying the Internet as a telecommunications service instead of an information service – its current classification. This is necessary because, as an information service, the government has little power to regulate Internet networks.

As a telecommunications service, such as a telephone network, the Internet would fall under a much broader regulatory scope – giving the government the power to enforce universal service requirements, making them pay into a federal universal service fund used to provide communications services to poor areas.

The FCC will now begin the mandatory public comment period, where it will solicit input from private companies and citizens about whether it should reclassify the Internet and, if so, how it should do it.

The Commission has three options for going forward. First, it can decide not to reclassify the Internet at all, continuing to treat it as an information service. Second, the FCC can completely reclassify the Internet as a telecommunications service, granting the Commission broad powers over it. Third, it could seek a middle ground, reclassifying the Internet as a telecom service but exempting Internet providers from most of the regulations associated with other telecommunications services.

This last approach, presented at the hearing as the “third way,” is the preferred avenue of Genachowski, who unveiled the plan in May.

The “third way” approach would still allow the government the authority to heavily regulate the Internet because it would be classified as a telecom service. However, under this approach, the FCC claims it will exercise “forbearance,” a regulatory doctrine whereby the government promises not use its regulatory authority in most cases.
~snip~

[Stoic Joker]

However, under this approach, the FCC claims it will exercise “forbearance,” a regulatory doctrine whereby the government promises not use its regulatory authority in most cases.

Well, there goes the neighborhood - The internet will completely turn to shit in 5... 4... 3... 2...

[Deozaan]

Isn't there some sort of allegory about a camel's nose in a tent that is analogous to this situation?

[MilesAhead]

Isn't there some sort of allegory about a camel's nose in a tent that is analogous to this situation?

The side with something to gain never quits.  The rest of us have to live and don't get paid for lobbying.  It's inevitable. Unfortunately.

[Deozaan]

I found it, or at least one version of the story:

One day an Arab and his camel were crossing the desert. Night came and the temperature became colder. The Arab put up his tent and tied the camel to it. The Arab went to sleep.

The temperature became slightly colder and the camel asked the Arab if he could just put his nose in the tent to warm up. The Arab agreed that the camel could just put his nose in, because the tent was small and there was no room for 2. So the camel's nose became warm and after a while the temperature went down even more.

The camel asked the Arab again, if he could just put his fore legs in because they were very cold. The Arab reluctantly agreed that the camel could only put his fore legs in and no more. So the camel moved in his fore legs and they became warm. After sometime the camel asked the Arab again that he had to put in his hind legs or else he won't be able to make the journey the next morning with frozen legs. So the Arab agreed and once the camel moved his hind legs in, there was no more room in the tent for the Arab and the Arab was kicked out.

[Cpilot]

There's just no denying the fact that the bigger the internet gets the more various governments will want to regulate (read:tax) it.
It's a consequence of success.

[Renegade]

There's just no denying the fact that the bigger the internet gets the more various governments will want to regulate (read:tax) it.
It's a consequence of success.

I think that's an optimistic view of the situation.

Perhaps by "tax" you mean "bleed dry", and perhaps by "regulate" you mean "snoop on everybody"?

I am very fearful any time any government tries to stick their grubby paws into the Internet. I am scared that they will abuse their power to get "dirt" on people and put people in jail for nothing short of nefarious purposes.

"Government" is the only business that succeeds by becoming progressively more and more incompetent at the jobs they do. (i.e. Create a larger bureaucracy with no increased benefit to the governed.) How is allowing them greater control over the Internet in anyone's best interest? (Even in a non-paranoid sense.)

[Cpilot]

My remark was mildly tongue in cheek.
I am well aware of the governments inability to do anything short of spending massive amounts of other peoples money.
But consider for a moment the concept of taxes, there was talk of states legalizing marijuana for the purpose of "balancing" their budgets. Raising the tax on cigarettes and soft drinks for the same purpose.
They would also like to collect more revenue from regulating the internet, not to mention the danger of government censors and moderators running wild.
Legalizing pot, the danger of cigarettes or soft drinks and commerce on the internet really isn't the point.
My position is this, governments are very poor stewards when it comes to being frugal and efficient with our tax dollars, so why give them another revenue stream to squander?
Also if they can't manage their own affairs then why allow them to manage ours?
The internet works well as it is now, could it be improved?
Yes
Is involving government the best way to do it?
Hell no.

[JavaJones]

Does no one remember the reason they were trying to regulate Comcast? Do we all just trust the corporations to keep things hunky dory and price things fairly when they have virtually complete monopoly (how many of you have a choice of cable or phone company in your area?).

- Oshyan

[Renegade]

Does no one remember the reason they were trying to regulate Comcast? Do we all just trust the corporations to keep things hunky dory and price things fairly when they have virtually complete monopoly (how many of you have a choice of cable or phone company in your area?).

- Oshyan

Very true. I'm partial to being screwed by a company though, rather than being screwed by a government. One is a hammer. The other is a 2,500 kg ACME anvil dropped on you. God only knows how badly a government will screw things up. With a company, provided it's not a monopoly as you pointed out, is still somewhat subject to keeping customers happy. The unfortunate thing there is that telcos are notorious for abusing their customers. Why do you think Apple and AT&T make such good partners?

It's nice when governments can regulate industries that NEED regulation for the benefit of consumers first, then the industry. (If an industry doesn't benefit its consumers, then it's pointless and really needs to disappear. Kind of like the market for getting your face punched in -- not a consumer benefit, hence, no industry for it. )

It has been a nightmare up to now though with government regulations for hi-tech (Internet, etc.). Look at Australian regulations... jeez... They're primitive morons. They actually believe that they can censor the Internet! Naive. Misinformed. Stupid. And it's driven by the christian right...

Governments need technologists like Tim Berners Lee, Bill Gates, Larry Elison, Linus Torvalds -- those kinds of people -- to help them draft sane, effective, beneficial laws and regulations. Problem is, they don't. They get some jack-@$$ that got elected because he promised to spend money that the government doesn't have to spend on a new public swimming pool and god knows what -- and this incompetent nitwit then goes on to champion some inane bill for the sake of publicity and image, and not because the bill is good for people. This is a real problem for technology, and liberty.

So you've got a dilemma - get hosed by the evil corporation, or get hosed by an incompetent government. Which is worse? It seems like there are only lose-lose solutions to the problem. Sigh... ;(

My remark was mildly tongue in cheek.
I am well aware of the governments inability to do anything short of spending massive amounts of other peoples money.
But consider for a moment the concept of taxes, there was talk of states legalizing marijuana for the purpose of "balancing" their budgets. Raising the tax on cigarettes and soft drinks for the same purpose.
They would also like to collect more revenue from regulating the internet, not to mention the danger of government censors and moderators running wild.
Legalizing pot, the danger of cigarettes or soft drinks and commerce on the internet really isn't the point.
My position is this, governments are very poor stewards when it comes to being frugal and efficient with our tax dollars, so why give them another revenue stream to squander?
Also if they can't manage their own affairs then why allow them to manage ours?
The internet works well as it is now, could it be improved?
Yes
Is involving government the best way to do it?
Hell no.

Sorry -- I think I came off wrong there. I saw your point -- I just wanted to point out the dark paranoid version.

My position is this, governments are very poor stewards when it comes to being frugal and efficient with our tax dollars, so why give them another revenue stream to squander?
Also if they can't manage their own affairs then why allow them to manage ours?

Bingo! It's really a very sad state of affairs.

[JavaJones]

Ok, but the point is *the corporations are a monopoly and have already been abusing it*. So what do you suggest? Continue to trust Comcast, AT&T, etc? The point of the FCC's proposed legislation is, theoretically, to establish fair and equal access to Internet connectivity at a fair and reasonable price. The government's regulation is responsible for $19.99 DSL from multiple providers in many locations, thanks to the requirement that telcos do line sharing. Were it not for this and competition from cable, AT&T could charge whatever they wanted for DSL and would probably be priced a lot higher. I'm sorry, I'm not a fan of "big government" and excessive regulation, but in this case I think the better choice is government regulation, and that is based on the actual history of this industry. This is the continuation of the net neutrality debate that we're seeing in discussion, let's not forget that. If you're for net neutrality, then the FCC's proposals deserve another look. If you're not for net neutrality then well, you're insane.

- Oshyan