Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:11AM   Printer-friendly
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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:20AM

    And it was pretty much fact-free [thenewstalkers.com]. It was filled with unverified statements and unsubstantiated claims by those who opposed the FCC's decision.

    The most amusing part was the claim they make about "1930's era regulations." Which may seem reasonable if you just look at the name of the law giving the FCC its authority: Communications Act of 1934 [wikipedia.org]. What no one mentions is that that act has been amended numerous times, most recently in 1999.

    It's a shame we can't use moderation on articles outside of SN. This one could really use a '-1 troll'.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Ryuugami on Tuesday March 03 2015, @10:19AM

    by Ryuugami (2925) on Tuesday March 03 2015, @10:19AM (#152419)

    The most amusing part was the claim they make about "1930's era regulations."

    Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's one thing in particular that's been bugging me with that rhetoric:
    aren't they currently regulated under Title I... of those same "antiquated" regulations?

    --
    If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
    • (Score: 2) by paulej72 on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:56PM

      by paulej72 (58) on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:56PM (#152524) Journal
      Yes, and telephone industry is under Title II already and they are not falling apart.
      --
      Team Leader for SN Development