FCC to Vote on Internet Regulation Plan Despite Economic Warnings

[Gerald]

Lawmakers are on high alert as the Federal Communications Commission prepares to vote on a plan to regulate the Internet despite warnings that it could choke industry investment and hurt the economy as a whole. The five-member commission plans to unveil, and vote on, the so-called "net neutrality" proposal on Tuesday.Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been saying for months that Congress, not the Obama administration, should take the lead role in deciding whether and how much to police the web. But despite a brief backing-off earlier in the year, the FCC has pushed ahead with its new regulatory plan.

The FCC proposal is viewed as a major breakthrough, for better or worse, for Internet oversight. And if the plan passes, it could trigger a nasty showdown with Congress next year.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/20/fcc-vote-internet-regulation-plan-despite-economic-warnings/


Note: Published December 20, 2010

[Platapus]

I am not quite following how the passing of the Net Neutrality Act will result in jobs lost. Perhaps no new jobs or less new jobs, but jobs lost.

I wonder if this is just waiving an emotional red flag.

Net neutrality is a complicated concept and I can see the validity of both sides. I guess I am neutral about net neutrality. (thank you, I will be here all week)

But loss of jobs might be stretching it. Any change in regulatory matters "can" result in loss of jobs if you drill down far enough.

Not that I am intimating that a politician would ever use emotional terms as a way to manipulate public option. :nope: No, that would be wrong.

[Ducimus]

The net-neutrality plan itself is far more limited, despite concerns about where it could lead. The proposal aims to prevent service providers from discriminating against websites and companies using their networks. In other words, it is meant to ensure companies like Verizon or Comcast can't block or slow access to certain websites while giving favorable treatment to others.

Personally, i fail to see how this is a bad thing.

[Gerald]

It seems like there is any substance to it, the question is well how far down they will dig into this ....

[the_tyrant]

What jobs will be lost?

From what happened when china tightened up its internet regulations, i believe that the following jobs will be created:
triple the number of moderators(many of them are actually paid professionals who are on the forums they moderate 8 hours a day)
Internet commentators
triple the amount of internet police
increased spending on internet security


i can't see how jobs will be lost

[Gerald]

Since you mentioned China as an example, and their top-down regulation of the Internet, the whole country is a great firewall alone is a major limitation for itself, this will not happen in the U.S. but still a blow to freedom,but some jobs will not disappear, rather the opposite.

[GoldenRivet]

Boo hiss man!

no regulation on free information!

:stare:

[Ducimus]

You know... sorta related, but i gotta say; the movie quote , "The matrix has you..." has a very real meaning when you realize that both your paycheck from work, and your entertainment at home, both stem from the internet. The day i realized that, I wasn't sure to laugh or cry.

[Betonov]

Boo hiss man!

no regulation on free information!

:stare:

Yeah !!! Media is bought, the internet is the only free source of unbiassed information (if you know how to dig trough junk). ******* the politican sweet talk, any law is writen so it can be abused when their political asses are in danger

[Penguin]

Personally, i fail to see how this is a bad thing.
Ususally bitter pills are sugar-coated.
While I was looking for the proposal, wondering why I couldn't find it, I found this (good) comment: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/1220/FCC-and-Internet-broadband-Why-a-rush-to-regulate
With so much competition, freedom, and fluidity in the Web universe, it’s hard to believe the Federal Communications Commission may vote Tuesday on a largely secret proposal to impose tough strictures on the Internet.
secret proposal doen't sound good...
now I know why I couldn't find the proposal, even on the FCC site...

Here is a describtion of the rules they try to propose:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/fcc-proposes-network-neutrality-rules-and-big-exemptions.ars


Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
This may sound ok on the first read, but the second half makes my stomach ache. For example this could lead that encryption could be made illegal...:nope:


Yeah !!! Media is bought, the internet is the only free source of unbiassed information (if you know how to dig trough junk). ******* the politican sweet talk, any law is writen so it can be abused when their political asses are in danger

Yup, but I like to differ: Any idiot can make a photo with his cam phone, write something under it and put it up on the web. Who of us has the resources to work on a story for several months, do the research, try to include several pov's, etc? This is what the quality media used to do, and some of it still do. The paper, which I cited before (CSM), was one of the few US newspapers that had their own net of correspondents and did not only copy agency news - a "journalism" which is common today.

[Wolfehunter]

secret proposal doen't sound good...
now I know why I couldn't find the proposal, even on the FCC site...

Here is a describtion of the rules they try to propose:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/fcc-proposes-network-neutrality-rules-and-big-exemptions.ars
.

Aren't there laws that address these issues already? Why are they making similar laws on top of similar laws?

Or is this net neutrality a forced by the US onto other nations to comply with networks? I though ACTA was for that?

From what I read above article its not a neutral law but an aggressive one to eliminate whats left of our semi free net.

I just love how they twist words... or are vague in the details...:nope: