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This discussion has been archived.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, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:34AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:34AM (#152392)

    The day the net was nationalized

    That's not what happened.

    I posted here that it was a dark day

    It was sunny here. If you're being metaphorical, you were very most likely wrong.

    the three hundred some odd pages of rules that I knew about then, but you idiots said I was a nutcase for talking about

    You're an idiot and a nutcase because there were links all over the net explaining that there were single-digit pages of actual legislation and the rest was to have been background info and justification. If you didn't know about those then you were intentionally misinformed / uninformed; likely to suit your political biases.

    Anything the government does tends to be bad

    Anything anyone or anything does tends to be bad. "90% of _x_ is crap" is fairly true. Not sure why you single out government. Oh, right - once again, your juvenile political bias.

    And pretty much everything with Obama's stench on it triple bad.

    Yep, my previous statement confirmed, and I don't even care for everything Obama's done by a long shot.

    If it was a good thing they would be bragging and proudly publishing the new rules.

    I'm not even American and I'm aware that the document will be posted to the Federal Register (or something similarly named) and that this is standard procedure. You're one hell of a dumb fuck to not know this yourself since you pretend to be so informed on the topic.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Insightful=2, Informative=2, Underrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5