Archive for the ‘Government Control of Internet’ Category
Maybe it’s time for people who like freedom to boycott Google.
NATIONAL JOURNAL: The budget President Obama is proposing today will allocate a total of $3.73 trillion into federal programs. That’s not an easy number to get your head around. We take a look at just how big $3.73 trillion really is.
Defense, education, energy, and seniors are all beneficiaries in President Obama’s budget request. But what else could one do with $3.73 trillion?
CNBC: The move by Egyptian authorities to seal off the country almost entirely from the Internet shows how easily a state can isolate its people when telecoms providers are few and compliant.
In an attempt to stop the frenzied online spread of dissent against President Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year rule, not only Facebook and Twitter but the entire Internet was shut down overnight, leaving some 20 million users stranded.
Hundreds of service providers offer connections in Egypt, but just four own the infrastructure..
Daniel Karrenberg, chief scientist at RIPE NCC, a European not-for-profit Internet infrastructure forum, says immature markets with few providers can achieve such shutdowns relatively easily.
DETROIT NEWS EDITORIAL: Without authorization from Congress, and in defiance of a federal court ruling, the Federal Communication Commission this month has seized control of the Internet and has started the process of regulating it. The process could distort the evolution of the Internet and slow investment in it. The agency should be told to back off.
The FCC move occurred as the result of a straight party line 3-2 vote, with the Democratic majority deciding to intrude government regulation on the Web. The decision allows the FCC to impose a so-called “net neutrality” regime on the Web, which means Internet providers would not be able to block access to legal websites.
The regime isn’t needed. Providers weren’t doing that anyway. The FCC also gave itself the power to determine if a network is “unreasonably discriminating” against a content provider in determining how quickly to allow content to appear on consumers’ computer screens.
In other words, the FCC has given itself the authority to involve itself in the business decisions of Web access providers.
It has done so even though, this spring, a federal court ruled that the FCC has no express statutory authority to govern the Internet at all. Congress briefly took a pass at creating its own Internet rules this year and gave up the idea. In fact, a number of members of Congress, including many Democrats, told the FCC to back away from its proposed regulations.
Most believe regulation will promote political agenda.
RASMUSSEN: The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 21% of Likely U.S. Voters want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet as it does radio and television. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed to such regulation, and 25% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
The survey was conducted shortly after the FCC decided on a party line vote to impose so-called “net neutrality” regulations on the Internet world. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly oppose FCC regulation of the Internet, while Democrats are more evenly divided. Those who use the Internet most are most opposed to FCC regulations.
JACK SHAFER-SLATE: The Federal Communications Commission recently issued new rules regulating the Internet—even though it doesn’t appear to have such powers. A federal court gangster-slapped the commission last year, accusing it of regulatory overreach for attempting to dictate Internet policy to service providers. These new regulations got me to thinking of where we would be today if the FCC had regulated the Internet from the get-go. …
In January 1993, idle regulators at the FCC belatedly discover the burgeoning world of online services. Led by CompuServe, MCI Mail, AOL, GEnie, Delphi, and Prodigy, these services have been embraced by the computer-owning public. Users “log on” to communicate via “e-mail” and “chat rooms,” make online purchases and reservations, and tap information databases. Their services are “walled gardens” that don’t allow the users of one service to visit or use another. The FCC declares that because these private networks use the publically regulated telephone system, they fall under the purview of the Communications Act of 1934. The commission announces forthcoming plans to regulate the services in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.”
MICHELLE MALKIN: When bureaucrats talk about increasing your “access” to X, Y, or Z, what they’re really talking about is increasing their control over your lives exponentially. As it is with the government health care takeover, so it is with the newly-approved government plan to “increase” Internet “access.” Call it Webcare.
By a vote of 3-2, the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday adopted a controversial scheme to ensure “net neutrality” by turning unaccountable Democrat appointees into meddling online traffic cops.
The panel will devise convoluted rules governing Internet service providers, bandwidth use, content, prices, and even disclosure details on Internet speeds. The “neutrality” is brazenly undermined by preferential treatment toward wireless broadband networks. Moreover, the FCC’s scheme is widely opposed by Congress – and has already been rejected once in the courts. Demonized industry critics have warned that the regulations will stifle innovation and result in less access, not more.
Meet your fun new Internet cops. They just want to help.