SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the it-takes-300-pages-to-redefine-neutrality dept.
The bloom may have already fallen off the Net Neutrality rose. As reported yesterday in the Wall Street Journal (paywalled):
When Google's Eric Schmidt called White House officials a few weeks ago to oppose President Obama's demand that the Internet be regulated as a utility, they told him to buzz off. The chairman of the company that led lobbying for "net neutrality" learned the Obama plan made in its name instead micromanages the Internet.
Mr. Schmidt is not the only liberal mugged by the reality of Obamanet, approved on party lines last week by the Federal Communications Commission. The 300-plus pages of regulations remain secret, but as details leak out, liberals have joined the opposition to ending the Internet as we know it.
It seems as though, in their zeal to "stick it" to the ISPs, most proponents didn't consider that when you allow 3 unelected people to issue rulings on something as large and ubiquitous as the Internet, bad things can happen:
Until Congress or the courts block Obamanet, expect less innovation. During a TechFreedom conference last week, dissenting FCC commissioner Ajit Pai asked: "If you were an entrepreneur trying to make a splash in a marketplace that's already competitive, how are you going to differentiate yourself if you have to build into your equation whether or not regulatory permission is going to be forthcoming from the FCC? According to this, permissionless innovation is a thing of the past."
The other dissenting Republican commissioner, Michael O'Rielly, warned: "When you see this document, it's worse than you imagine." The FCC has no estimate on when it will make the rules public.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:33AM
It'll have to get really bad before it matches how gamed the system is currently.
On the plus side, that same day that they switched the classification, the FCC also trumped those unfair state laws you've heard about.
FCC Overturns State Laws That Protect ISPs From Local Competition [wilsontimes.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @03:51PM
It'll have to get really bad before it matches how gamed the system is currently.
The government infringing upon free speech rights and regulating content is unconstitutional and therefore would be worse if such a thing is happening.
This isn't an either/or scenario, anyway; reject the government's plan to obtain powers it shouldn't have, and accept powers that are okay for it to have.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:10PM
The government infringing upon free speech rights and regulating content is unconstitutional and therefore would be worse if such a thing is happening.
This isn't an either/or scenario, anyway; reject the government's plan to obtain powers it shouldn't have, and accept powers that are okay for it to have
Please point me at the place in the Communications Act of 1934 As Amended [fcc.gov] where the FCC has the authority to "infringe upon free speech rights" or "regulate content". Perhaps I missed that part of the law?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nobuddy on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:28PM
You can't hit people like this with facts and data. It is foreign to them and evokes a fight or flight reflex.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:48PM
Businesses are already doing that. At least there are laws in place, known as the Constitution, to prevent the government from doing that. That the government has been rogue and acting above the law for quite a while is another matter entirely.