Ramblings of an old Doc

 

 

 

WASHINGTON | Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:29pm EST (Reuters)

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Representative Fred Upton, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative Greg Walden sponsored the resolution to repeal the rules follows a lawsuit filed in January by Verizon Communications that argues the FCC overstepped its authority.

This effort is probably doomed to failure because it would need to pass both chambers of Congress, where Democrats retain a majority in the Senate, and get President Barack Obama's signature, to have effect. At best it’ll turn into a bargaining chip in some other political fight. That really bothers me. Not only is it a waste of time needed for much more important work (like getting jobs!) but it puts me and the American public in the path of rate hikes for internet service. The Canadian Gov’t recently put the kabosh on a similar plan to raise rates there.

So what’s it about?

In December, the FCC voted 3-2 to ban Internet service providers like Comcast Corp and Verizon from blocking traffic but gave them some discretion to ration access and manage their networks. The FCC's two Republicans voted against the item.

Basically, this is Net Neutrality Redux ( link to prior article ).

Make no mistake, there’s a lot of money at stake here. This prima facie explains why politicians are up for the fight.

This split highlighted a huge divide between those who say the Internet will flourish without regulation and those who say the power of high-speed Internet providers to discriminate against competitors needs to be restrained.

I seem to remember this situation from somewhere: Oh yes! Wall St. and Banking deregulation.

Certainly worked to Main St.’s advantage there! We’re all a lot better of, aren’t we?

"I am concerned that this power grab will set a dangerous precedent to undermine the role of Congress as elected representatives of the people to determine the law of the land. I do not intend to allow this to occur," said Upton in a statement on the resolution and Joe Barton expressed a similar sentiment. I really wonder if their motives are so pure when it comes to that. After all, where control and power go, so go campaign contributions (remember? He’s the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House).

For anyone thinking, "Oh, he's a Liberal" (not a dirty word, incidently) I reply, "No, don't label me: I think all parties are compromised by our election funding laws. I don't like the Democrats OR the Republicans."

“John Shimkus, another Republican, pressed commissioners at the House communications subcommittee hearing on whether the FCC had done a cost-benefit analysis.”

To whom, Mr. Shimkus: The ISP’s and their executives, stockholders and the politicians receiving campaign contributions or the small businesses and public?

Verizon filed its complaint with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The same court ruled last year that the FCC lacked the authority to stop Comcast from blocking bandwidth-hogging applications on its broadband network, spurring the agency's most recent rulemaking effort.

"We think we're going to win because we think that the theory we've laid out is very consistent with Supreme Court rulings in the area”, said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.


Comments (Page 1)
5 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Feb 17, 2011

The problem with this administration is that they do not care what the courts rule.  To date, there have been 3 court rulings that go directly against their policies and in all 3 they have ignored the courts.  IN one case, the judge has already ruled them in contempt.  They are forcing a constitutional crises, that I fear will only be resolved when the house starts impeachment proceedings.  But as you noted, they can vote to impeach, but the senate will never convict.

However, the states are not obligated to go along with the federal government when the laws/rules have been declared null and void.  The feds then have one option left - send in the army,  Hence the constitutional crises.

on Feb 17, 2011

DrJBHL your posts (while great) are beginning to show a great amount of bias. It is making them a lot less worth reading. Just something to think about, I hope.

on Feb 17, 2011

Heavenfall... there's no bias in reporting news. The people in favor are in favor, the people opposed are opposed. They are who they are.

You miss the thrust of the article - 1. Net Neutrality (I assume you're not against that, although you didn't say)  2. Where's the bias in this? I believe our faulty election laws together with non partisan greed (ALL politicians and people are less than altruistic) are causing our system to work against the people. I will (as I hope others will) speak for what I believe is in the best interest of the people. I don't think "trickle down" works.

Also, don't forget, this was posted from JoeUser.

I'd hate to lose you as a reader, though. I'm interested in a free, respectful exchange of ideas: So have at it. “Lay on MacDuff, and damn’d be him that first cries, ‘Hold, enough!'".

on Feb 17, 2011

And again this year, Time Warner cable is trying to bribe the NC legislature into making municipal broadband effectively illegal, removing their strongest competition.

 

With Republicans in power this year they'll probably get it.

on Feb 17, 2011

If offered, Dems would do the same.... they're in it for what they can squeeze out of it Alstein: All of them.

on Feb 17, 2011

Yeah, you need to keep a constant eye on politicians - there are just too many glittering jewels (read: political "donations") to trust them to do the right thing by themselves.  The only time that the worst can be shrugged off is if people unite to a relatively "heartfelt and just" cause.  But it certainly doesn't help when the system of electing politicians and thus public officials is flawed in some serious way.

Best regards,
Steven.

on Feb 17, 2011

Local governments might soon be the last habitat of those rare birds, 'uncorrupted' elected officials. Various forms of municipal broadband are happening all around the country and it is very disappointing to hear that a state like NC is possibly siding with the mega-corps.

From DC, I expect this sort of crap--and yes, it is a bipartisan problem. I'm a Democrat, but like all good Democrats I can gripe endlessly about the bad decisions taken by the national party leadership, e.g. their mindless submission to the MPAA and RIAA (Free Steamboat Willie!).

StevenAus has the most important point: if you care about an issue, take the time to write to or call your House member and your Senators. If your state legislature is getting into the game as well, write those folks too. And if you can, vote with your dollars. My local public utility provides some broadband, but not to single-family neighborhoods yet; otherwise, I'd probably be sending much less money to our local cable monopoly.

on Feb 17, 2011

 The Canadian Gov’t recently put the kabosh on a similar plan to raise rates there.

It goes a lot deeper than that. 

Our 2 biggest ISPs, Bell and Rogers all have bandwidth limits on there internet service. They wanted a ruling that would make it illegal for any ISP to provide unlimited bandwidth. Rogers and Bells bandwidth limit has been on a steady decline for the last couple years and raising the overage charges as well. Also breaking CRTC policy throttling peoples downloads that they think are torrents but also include any encrypted download and halted a few multiplayer gaming severs.

Thanks to our courts the little ISP can still offer unlimited bandwidth usage which many many people are switching to if the service is in there area.

on Feb 17, 2011

They wanted a ruling that would make it illegal for any ISP to provide unlimited bandwidth.

It is not surprising, although it is saddening.  In effect, it is what all monopolies do.  limit entry to upstarts and newcomers.

I love capitalism, but monopolies are not capitalism.

on Feb 17, 2011

Also breaking CRTC policy throttling peoples downloads that they think are torrents but also include any encrypted download

Woa, that could screw me seriously if my Florida ISP took up the habit. I'm a contractor; many of the files I work with are increasingly large and almost always hosted behind HTTPS URLs. I haven't had to push gigs at a time up to a server yet, but I've certainly pulled down a few gigs for a modest project more than a few times.

on Feb 17, 2011

Canada's PM is my hero for many reasons, the CRTC business among them.

Glad people see why Net Neutrality is so critical.

on Feb 17, 2011

The consequences fall deeper than that.  Net neutrality also bundles with the fairness doctrine and other ridiculous redistributions.  Some of those are strongly favored by the elite left.

on Feb 17, 2011

Net Neutrality is a nice idea, like all Utopian bullshit.

 

You're telling someone what they can or can't do with their own property, a violation of the fundamental right to property.

 

The real world consequences of such idiocy are what we have today.  Horribly limited infrastructure that was a decade behind the times, scrambling to catch up.  Deregulation led to FIOS, 3G, the competition is springing up left and right.  Just five years ago, half of you broadband whoring assholes on the east coast(I was on satellite, I have issues, eat me) were pissing and moaning left and right about the frequent disconnects and horrible service in general that you were receiving.  Where's TWC today?  In the shitter and eating FIOS dust.  Every one of you poor suckers still living under a cable monopoly needs to get a clue.  It's your government regulation created infrastructure monopoly that made this mess.  Let them hang themselves, you'll be better off in the long run when the competition eats them alive for their own stupidity.

 

We don't need more regulation, passing net neutrality will just keep the dinosaurs around longer, lagging the shit out of the network.

on Feb 17, 2011

Wrong. And it's not their property, and there are laws governing what people do with their property.

"this is my gun, so i can do whatever i want with it." - Wrong.  

"it's my car so i'll drive it however i wish."  - Wrong.

Also: You're probably lucky your mother isn't around to wash your mouth out with soap. Your profanity index exceeds the 'merely obnoxious' and is well into the 'intolerable' range.

Change it or find yourself not able to post.

on Feb 17, 2011

psychoak
Net Neutrality is a nice idea, like all Utopian bullshit.

 

You're telling someone what they can or can't do with their own property, a violation of the fundamental right to property.

 .

 

Property rights are not absolute.

 

 

5 Pages1 2 3  Last