Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: What Is Your Opinion Of the New Proposed Internet Rules President Obama Wants The FCC To Impose?
The Independent Sentinel : It's the government getting its tentacles into one more thing.
It gives companies immunity when they share our data. We no longer have privacy protections from the government in the name of security. The government will freely share our information among government agencies.
The government claims the information-sharing system would not put privacy at risk as the information disclosed will principally concern the method of attack on computer data and systems, rather than its content.
Who trusts them?
Why do they need these rules when they can already do it? Is it just a way of bullying companies into doing it more readily? They have been resistant.
According to the Guardian, "it would criminalize the overseas sale of stolen US financial information like credit card and bank account numbers, would expand federal law enforcement authority to deter the sale of spyware used to stalk or commit ID theft, and would give courts the authority to shut down botnets engaged in distributed denial of service attacks and other criminal activity.”
Meanwhile, our government won't allow illegal immigrants to be charged or held if they steal IDs.
There will be more consumer notifications pushed on companies who become aware of breaches but they already notify consumers. It's more regulation and more expense that will be passed down to consumers.
The bill is vague and will be misinterpreted.
Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason:If we have learned anything with this administration, what they say and what we get are diametrically opposed. The Affordable Care Act has proven unaffordable for many. President Obama wants the FCC to reclassify the internet under Title II of the Telecommunications Act and extend that regulation to mobile broadband service as well. Net neutrality will not lead to a fairer, more open and free internet as the president promises. As Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz stated: “Net neutrality puts the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities, and higher prices for consumers.” I believe that about sums it up.
The internet has been working very well in a free market system. If we want to keep an affordable, free, and open internet, we must keep government out of it.
The Glittering Eye : I'm not sure how to answer the question. Perhaps the best way would be for me to state what I'm in favor of. First, a brief preface.
The Internet grew from developments by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for a computer network that could survive nuclear war. The Internet has succeeded because a) it was in the public domain, b) ICANN (the ultimate registrar of domain names) has been seen as apolitical and fair, c) it has largely been free of regulation and taxes, and d) the cost of entry was relatively low. Later that development was augmented by the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the University of Illinois's computer science department.
Previous attempts at large scale computer networks whether public (in France) or private (by many companies) had failed. There is no reason to believe that any proprietary network would have succeeded.
I am unsympathetic to the complaints of the mega-service providers. In large part they enjoy the position of power they hold because of their government-granted monopolies. They have expended very little capital on research and development in their Internet service enterprises and have enjoyed substantial revenues with things as they are. That other companies, e.g. Google, Netflix, are making profits out of the Internet as it is is merely sour grapes on the part of the ISPs. If they demand more money from their investments on network infrastructure, minor relative to the revenues they've derived from them, they should meter bandwidth at the customer level and leave providers alone.
Consequently, I believe in network neutrality, that the Internet should be largely free of sales taxes, that it should remain predominantly uncensored, and that Time-Warner, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and so on should be regulated by the FCC. In particular I think that any business that has gained its present position as the result of government-granted monopoly should be kept out of the content business. I'm not sure where that puts me relative to the Obama Administration but that's what I think.
JoshuaPundit: What government can regulate, it can control. And what it can control, it can tax. Ultimately, screwing yet more tax revenues out of the American people is a lot of what this is all about,and the fact that this president wants the FCC to impose these new proposed rules without congressional oversight while it has a majority of his appointees who took their seats while he had a congressional majority tells me all I need to know.
The other major part of what this is about is censorship and control of content. This president is also not only hyper-partisan but a long time appeaser of Islamists, and he has already said that he is going to 'fight the media ' and the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles,using the lame excuse that he is suddenly concerned about the welfare of the same troops overseas whose lives he has endangered with ridiculous Rules of Engagement and his illegal wars. Rest assured that very selective censorship in a great many areas will be the order of the day if he gets his way.
Ask Marion: On Thursday 01.15.15 the White House said legislation was not necessary to settle the "net neutrality" rules issue because the Federal Communications Commission had the authority to write them. And President Obama’s rallying cry this past week has been… ‘Everyone deserves free Internet’. Beware of politicians bearing free gifts!!!
Quick Background:
What actually is at immediate stake here is what rules should govern how Internet service providers (ISPs) manage web traffic on their networks to ensure they treat all Internet content fairly. At the heart of the latest phase in the debate over the rules is what legal authority should guide those regulations.
Obama is urging the FCC to regulate ISPs more strictly under a section of communications law known as Title II, treating them more like public utilities. The broadband companies adamantly oppose this plan, saying the added regulatory burden would reduce investment and stifle innovation in their industry.
The Republican chairmen of the Senate and House commerce committees, John Thune and Fred Upton, have been working to strike a legislative deal with Democrats that would adopt some of the same net neutrality principles but without resorting to Title II.
Late on Wednesday, Thune released a list of the net neutrality principles he would pursue, which closely echoed Obama's, such as bans on blocking or throttling of websites.
While some Republicans have also sought a delay in the FCC's vote to establish new net neutrality rules, planned for February 26th, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has indicated no interest in a change or delay.
"Chairman Wheeler believes it is important to move forward as quickly as possible to protect consumers, innovation and competition online," FCC spokeswoman Kim Hart said in a statement.
Evoking net-neutrality and expanding the scope and power the FCC has been on the Obama administrations' radar since day one and now that they are in their final two years, the administration has entered their complete lawless phase. So controlling communication is high on their agenda. It is all about control and these changes are just the tip of the iceberg. Censorship; monitoring newsrooms; and taking control of every aspect of communication… newspapers, radio, TV, Internet, news outlets, textbooks, movies, even art, plus the services that support them have been on Obama’s list since 2009, when both minority groups and Democrats questioned net neutrality.
The Republicans in Congress are in favor of a net neutrality law as long as the federal government doesn’t handle it, so are trying to drum up support for a bill that would counter the FCC's upcoming new rules. But after the Obama administration's comments getting Democrats on board could be difficult.
The proposed bill attempts to offer a compromise between hard-line opponents of net neutrality and the larger changes preferred by President Obama and many progressive activists. It would modify the Communications Act of 1934, adding the basic elements of the FCC's "open internet" plan. That includes the following major points:
The proposed bill attempts to offer a compromise between hard-line opponents of net neutrality and the larger changes preferred by President Obama and many progressive activists. It would modify the Communications Act of 1934, adding the basic elements of the FCC's "open internet" plan. That includes the following major points:
No blocking of lawful services on a network
No prohibiting the use of non-harmful devices
No traffic throttling — except for "reasonable network management," it would be illegal to slow or degrade any site or service
No paid prioritization
Transparency requirements for ISPs
Much of the language for this bill was lifted directly from the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Order, which was thrown out in court last year?!? It includes less-than-ideal exceptions for network management and "specialized services" like VoIP, but it settles a major point of contention in Wheeler's proposal by banning paid prioritization, which would have allowed ISPs to offer faster service for companies that paid more. In some ways, it's exactly what net neutrality supporters have been asking for, although the advocacy group Public Knowledge has expressed concerns about how strong its protections would be in practice.
A crucial point is that the bill adds all of this to Title I of the Communications Act, classifying broadband as an "information service." Title I services are regulated more lightly than Title II "common carriers" like telephone companies. The last FCC net neutrality framework plan was struck down because it came too close to making rules that only Title II allows:
"In terms of legislation, we don’t believe it’s necessary given that the FCC has the authorities that it needs under Title II," said a White House official. "However, we always remain open to working with anyone who shares the president's goal of fully preserving a free and open internet now and into the future."
Of course in reality, preserving a free and open Internet is the opposite of the this administration’s goal and we all should have learned by know that anything regulated and run by the government makes it and us less free. In fact, in March of 2014 ICANN and the US government announced their intention to relinquish control of the Internet to the UN by 2015, so there is much more to this plan than just a few rule changes! Anything turned over to the United Nations brings us just us one step closer to globalization and the ruling elite’s goal of a New World Order which will definitely make us all less free.
Everyone deserves free Internet. Sounds good until you remember… you can’t have both freedom of speech and big government that controls the media… It is a choice!! And it not only won’t be free, it will more expensive for everyone. We (you) will all be paying for everyone’s Internet service plus the government bureaucracy that will run it.
Pay attention America, if government controls the media… TV, radio, the Internet… your free speech stops and the attempt to take over media and your information will be even easier and more blatant than it already is…
My feeling, like always, is less government involvement is always best!
Well, there you have it!
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks' nominees for Weasel of the Week!
And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.
It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.
And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?
No comments:
Post a Comment