Net Neutrality vote coming up [OT]

In short: Let the FCC do its job. Right now the agency has no authority over the most important communications medium ever created.

a free market system...

Don't worry, the FCC isn't going to take your porn away.

What does it mean to "underuse" authority? Why is that a requirement?

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to approve strong net neutrality rules in a stunning decision that defies vocal, months-long opposition by telecom and cable companies and Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Democratic Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn joined Chairman Tom Wheeler to approve a rule that reclassifies consumer broadband as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act.

The FCC intends to use this new authority to ban "paid prioritization," a practice whereby Internet service providers can charge content producers a premium for giving users more reliable access to that content. The FCC also intends to ban blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. These regulations also apply to mobile access. More details about the plan are expected after vote.

"The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules," Wheeler said prior to the vote.

At the vote, Clyburn pointed out that "absent the rules we adopt today," ISPs would be "free to block, throttle, favor or discriminate ... for any user, for any reason, or for no reason at all."

FWIW The most important communication medium is speech - freedom of speech - however it gets around.

Net neutrality is one of the most important issues of our generation. The providers of the infrastructure must be required to give equal access to all users and content providers within non artificial hardware limitations.

A note from the President on net neutrality:

The FCC just voted in favor of a strong net neutrality rule to keep the Internet open and free.

That happened, in part, because millions of Americans across the country didn't just care about this issue: You stood up and made your voices heard, whether by adding your names to petitions, submitting public comments, or talking with the people you know about why this matters.

Read a special thank-you message from the President, then learn more about how we got to where we are today:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality

If you own the railroads, your steel business will always beat the competition.

Lawless: Having Been Shot Down by Federal Courts Twice In Attempting to Vote Themselves Powers Not Granted Them By Congress, Obama's FCC Violates the Law a Third Time and Once Again Pronounces Themselves Lords of the Internet
—Ace

The left has been agitating for this endlessly, and twice before -- in 2010, I think, and then again in 2014 -- the FCC acted unconstitutionally to assert power over the Internet, bequeathing upon themselves a jurisdiction never delegated to them by Congress.

In 2014, the last time a Federal Court told the FCC it was acting unconstitutionally, there were suggestions that it would try again a third time, this time by using a different tactic.

It has now in fact used that tactic. The internet is an "information service" over which the FCC has no power. So the FCC has decided, on its own authority, to declare the Internet a "telecomunications service," over which it does have authority.

Note that Congress did not make this important change in definition. An agency charged with executing the law as Congress passes it has decided that it itself would change the law.

We are no longer a democracy, and as there is no longer even a fictive consent of the governed in our laws, there no longer exists any philosophical basis for obeying the government. Now obedience is simply required by practical considerations: because they will kill or imprison you if you don't obey.

Whether this move is good or bad is besides the point. But it is, you know, as bad as you would guess.


Peter Suderman considers the possibility that this Will To Power Grab will itself be struck down in court; I suppose the odds of that are good, but I do wonder at what point people stop resisting fascist tyranny, and simply give in to it, when the out of control and frankly terrifying government demonstrates that it simply will not stop until it collects all political power into its hands.

In the meantime, though, it means that the FCC has taken an unprecedented and fear-reaching step in order to make good on one of the Obama administration's long-running political priorities--a step that solves no significant existing problem, but is instead designed largely to fend off hypothetical harms, and give the agency far more power over the Internet in the process.

As Commissioner Pai told ReasonTV, the move is a "solution that won't work to a problem that doesn't exist." It is a solution, however, that is now in place, and is sure to create some problems of its own.


What is truly shocking is the complete disdain this Administration has for the rule of law and for our constitutional processes. They understand that these are the moves of a fascist tyranny, and they're okay with that.

We no longer live in a democratic republic, in which the ordinary citizen can be said, at least constructively, to have consented to the laws which bind him; we now simply live under whatever laws the gangsters occupying our government have decided to inflict upon us.

Beginning in 2009, the American Government went to war with the people it supposedly "served;" in 2015, it won that war.
Posted by Ace at 03:11 PM Comments

Dave Kos wrote:
Here are some people - people that I'm sure none of you have ever seen before on the internet - that can help explain:

JEleazarian wrote:
OK. I've merely shown that regulation is imperfect. But I've really shown more, because both the CAB and the ICC experience show that consumers got a better deal when the regulators got out of the picture.

The benefits of rules and policies protecting an open Internet date back over a decade and must continue. Just over a year ago, the D.C. Circuit in Verizon v. FCC struck down the Commission’s 2010 conduct rules against blocking and unreasonable discrimination. But the Verizon court upheld the Commission’s finding that Internet openness drives a “virtuous cycle” in which innovations at the edges of the network enhance consumer demand, leading to expanded investments in broadband infrastructure that, in turn, spark new innovations at the edge. The Verizon court further affirmed the Commission’s conclusion that “broadband providers represent a threat to Internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment.”

Threats to Internet openness remain today. The record reflects that broadband providers hold all the tools necessary to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don’t like. The 2010 rules helped to deter such conduct while they were in effect. But, as Verizon frankly told the court at oral argument, but for the 2010 rules, it would be exploring agreements to charge certain content providers for priority service. Indeed, the wireless industry had a well-established record of trying to keep applications within a carrier-controlled “walled garden” in the early days of mobile applications. That specific practice ended when Internet Protocol (IP) created the opportunity to leap the wall. But the Commission has continued to hear concerns about other broadband provider practices involving blocking or degrading third-party applications.

Congress could not have imagined when it enacted the APA almost seventy years ago that the day would come when nearly 4 million Americans would exercise their right to comment on a proposed rulemaking. But that is what has happened in this proceeding and it is a good thing. The Commission has listened and it has learned. Its expertise has been strengthened. Public input has “improve[d] the quality of agency rulemaking by ensuring that agency regulations will be ‘tested by exposure to diverse public comment.’” There is general consensus in the record on the need for the Commission to provide certainty with clear, enforceable rules. There is also general consensus on the need to have such rules. Today the Commission, informed by all of those views, makes a decision grounded in the record. The Commission has considered the arguments, data, and input provided by the commenters, even if not in agreement with the particulars of this Order; that public input has created a robust record, enabling the Commission to adopt new rules that are clear and sustainable.

Communication has changed. Blanket advertising no longer provides viable ROI for every campaign. Big data revolutionized the way organizations identify and locate their best prospects. But data alone isn’t enough. Cambridge Analytica is building a future where every individual can have a truly personal relationship with their favorite brands and causes by showing organizations not just where people are, but what they really care about and what drives their behavior.

"There are no longer any experts except Cambridge Analytica. They were Trump's digital team who figured out how to win."