Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:07 PM ET, 12/21/2010

FCC passes first net neutrality rules

By Cecilia Kang

update: 3:23 p.m. with statement of support from President Obama, plans for Congressional hearings from House Republicans.

The Federal Communications Commission voted Tuesday to approve its first ever Internet access regulation, which ensures unimpeded access to any legal Web content for home Internet users.

The FCC's three Democratic members made up a majority of votes in favor of the so-called net neutrality regulation, which was introduced more than a year ago by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

The rules have sparked intense debate and lobbying over whether such legislation is needed, and are likely to face a legal challenge. Genachowski has argued that Internet access rules would protect companies just starting out on the Web, as well as consumers who are increasingly relying on the Internet for news, entertainment and communications.

The agency's two Republican members voted against the rules, showing support for Internet service providers who say the regulations will impede their ability to create new business plans to expand their broadband networks and boost speed.

Genachowski said the measure represents a compromise between industry and consumer interests.

"I reject both extremes in favor of a strong and sensible framework -- one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment," Genachowski said.

The same provisions do not apply as strongly to cellphone users because the agency voted to keep wireless networks generally free of rules preventing the blocking and slowing of Web traffic.

The net neutrality measure is the federal government's first move to regulate broadband access. Questions remain, however, over whether the agency has the legal right to serve as the nation's watchdog over Internet access. Last spring, a federal appeals court said the FCC overstepped its authority by sanctioning Comcast for blocking access to users of BitTorrent's peer-to-peer sharing application.

The rules are sure to face a court challenge and have prompted opposition from Republican lawmakers, who plan to tackle the regulation through Congressional action.

Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.) said they would summon Genachowski for hearings on whether the agency has authority to pursue such rules. They, along with Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), said the move was a "power grab" and that legislation would be introduced to overthrow the regulations. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) said she will move to withdraw funds appropriated to the FCC to execute the rules.

"We are going to be exploring every option to reverse this order. This will be one of our first hearings we will embark on in the next Congress," said Upton, incoming chairman of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee.

And on the other side, consumer groups aren't happy, either. Public interest groups have said they will consider filing suit against the rules that they fought to enact, asserting that the regulation doesn't go far enough to protect consumers.

"We asked for three changes, primarily that rules governing wireless services be strengthened," said Gigi Sohn, president of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. "The changes would have made the FCC’s action much stronger without disturbing the framework Chairman Genachowski put forward. It is unfortunate he chose not to adopt them."

Democratic commissioners Michael J. Copps and Mignon Clyburn agreed that the rules fell short but said they were willing to back the government's first step toward overseeing Internet access.

Copps said he considered opposing the measure but instead chose between the better of two bad options: weak rules or no rules at all. He said the FCC should redefine broadband as a telecom service to protect the regulations from constant court battles. The FCC is considering such a proposal by Genachowski.

"To be clear, we do not anchor ourselves on what I believe to be the best legal framework," Copps said. "Nor have we crafted rules as strong as I would have liked. But, with today’s action, we do nonetheless appear to steer ourselves back toward a better course."

The vote's success fulfills a promise that Genachowski made at the start of his tenure in fall 2009 to preserve open Internet access.

President Obama issued a statement in support of the new regulations:

Today’s decision will help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet while encouraging innovation, protecting consumer choice, and defending free speech. Throughout this process, parties on all sides of this issue – from consumer groups to technology companies to broadband providers – came together to make their voices heard. This decision is an important component of our overall strategy to advance American innovation, economic growth and job creation.

Related stories:
FCC set to approve net neutrality rules

Stay Tuned: future of TV to be resolved by FCC

By Cecilia Kang  | December 21, 2010; 1:07 PM ET
Categories:  AT&T, Broadband, Comcast, Consumers, FCC, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Net Neutrality, Online Video, Verizon  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Circuit: FCC vote, Internet TV, Google vs. Connecticut
Next: Apple co-founder Wozniak: new rules not enough

Comments

As usual, Cecilia Kang - Google's Reporter and Lobbyist at The Post - provides predictably biased coverage. Gives Copps the last word and falsely characterizes Google lobbying shops as "consumer groups." But perhaps now that the regulations for which she has lobbied have been passed, Ms. Kang can be removed from her position at The Post and take the job at Google for which she is obviously bucking.

Posted by: LBrettGlass | December 21, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

This is pretty interesting to say the least...I can't help but think that with the Government involved, seeking control, that this will end up a mess. They don't exactly have a great track record.

Posted by: chipgiii | December 21, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Julius Genachowski is Wesley Mouch.

Posted by: MattPrior | December 21, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone at the FCC ever think about asking the people about this. Instead they circumvent the lawmaking part of OUR government.
Best regards to Stalin.

Posted by: rgn1952 | December 21, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

In related news, the FDA has announced that it would like to regulate NASCAR.

Posted by: davidholt123@comcast.net | December 21, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I feel as though this would be great for us consumers! It's about time. I read an interesting article that went into depth about how this actually affects us on Gather. Check it out: http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978819946

Posted by: EISCV | December 21, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Wow: in a short 2 months we learn that every American is a potential terrorist, that the Gov't can now track all of our credit card purchases without a warrant, that all potential travelers can be legally sexually molested (even though full cavity searches are the only true preventative measure), and that the Net now needs to be regulated (monitored?) presumably for "fairness" but more likely to determine all those "potential terrorists" and seditious web sites.

Welcome to incremental fascism. Will SEIU now be wearing brown shirts instead of purple ones?

Posted by: apberusdisvet | December 21, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Julius Genachowski didn't learn from the Courts so he wants to now take on Darrell Issa's committee.

If I build an infrastructure, I own it, not the FCC.

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | December 21, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

What is wrong with regulations that "ensures unimpeded access to any legal Web content for home Internet users?" This doesn't sound like Stalin to me. Why should a person's ISP, for example, be able to block access to any Web site they chose?

Posted by: ptgrunner | December 21, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Oh, boy. "I reject both extremes in favor of a strong and sensible framework -- one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment," Genachowski said.

Of course, Julius, the author, thinks his own child is "sensible," and he can't wait to clamp down with "strong" sanctions.

So now private Comcast can't force its will on private BitTorrent -- but the FCC can manage EVERYTHING. Great: we've got Big Brother's censureship -- if that's not bad enough, can a tax to finance the new bureaucracy be far behind?

Posted by: TimKern | December 21, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

This is a great day for consumers. There are some misleading and just wrong comments here. The big telecoms, such as Comcast and Verizon, wanted to be able to charge content providers for equal access to their customers. If the content provider, such as Google, doesn't pay then when a customer tries to browse over to Google the customer's connection slows almost to a halt. Then, in turn, they wanted to meter their customers and charge different rates for data usage, similar to cell phone calling plans. This ruling will ensure that all consumers can access all legal content at the same data rates and at a common charge.

BTW, rgn1952, the FCC had a public comment period earlier this year. Because of the volume of public input it received, it extended the original deadline in March to April. You snooze, you lose.

Posted by: hisroc | December 21, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"You would have thought that SOMEone in D.C. would have been listening to the intensely angry populace, at least by late 2010."

At least, that's what historians will say after the revolution.

oh -- can I say that? --

Posted by: TimKern | December 21, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

All this decision does is guarantee that a few established internet giants have to play fair and can't stifle innovation.

It's a plus to anyone who values consumer rights on the internet. Why should Comcast or Verizon or any company be able to shut off access to anything or throttle access to protect their own selfish interests?

Stalin would have been on the side of the monopolies and would have dispised the regulation. Open your eyes and read what this regulation actually does.

Posted by: TomMiller1 | December 21, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

In related news, the FDA has announced that it would like to regulate NASCAR.

Posted by: davidholt123@comcast.net

Really? I thought that would be a department of transportation position.

Posted by: Falling4Ever | December 21, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Better write something before it gets banned... The argument is better a bad rule than no rule....maybe banning bad spelling should be taken up by the fcc....this rule what ever it is is the same group that brought us a bad universal health care bill which was better than no bill at all....

thats good....ban the internet...

Posted by: robinhood2 | December 21, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse


FCC HAS NO JURISDICTION....PERIOD.

FCC HAS NO BUSINESS REGULATING THE I-NET....PERIOD.

BUTT OUT....FCC.

Posted by: NOTINFL | December 21, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

And next, for you stupid consumers, we get the 2013 CAFE standards. Excuse me while I check the lots for a new muscle car
which will be extinct in two years.

Can I have one nanny? Can I?

Posted by: BluePelican | December 21, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

A first "step" to "net neutrality"? Let's parody that old Abbott & Costello routine to see where we're going: "Net Neutrality! Slowly we turned, step by step, inch by inch, to government controlled speech! The first step is to punish net "Providers," then the next step to punish blasphemers of Islam, then mockers of gays in the military, then bloggers who call Janet Napolitano a frumpy butch, then the next step...." Don't worry, people. Your turn is next. Censorship by the back door, to save you from all those "providers."

Posted by: skeen66 | December 21, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Hey! Don't worry! We Republicans are going to undo this in January. We're sick and tired of agencies deciding our lives. I'm tired of being regulated to death. We're retaking this country and we're turning back the clock in a good way!

Posted by: georges2 | December 21, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Most comments above come from conservative people who love to be conservative. No thinking needed.

Posted by: rolandberger | December 21, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

TimKern,

Right, lets have a revolution and get rid of all government regulation. Then Verizon can knock out all the smaller telecoms where you live and charge you want ever they want for telephone service. Plus, they can block you from calling Sprint subscribers in other parts of the country and block them from calling you unless Sprint pays them an access fee.

You would be screaming bloody murder for some government regulation.

Posted by: hisroc | December 21, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

The new congress will deal with the FCC...It's time to neuter the FCC. It's long overdue. It's on the new Congressional docket. stay tuned...

Posted by: charko825 | December 21, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

One step closer to fascism! Health care, Bank Bailouts, Auto bailout, "Food Safety," now "Net Neutrality." Another superb job by the Washington Post parroting the official government press release without question like good bobbleheads. Down the slippery slope we go!

Posted by: TonyTU88 | December 21, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Lots of dumb ideology on display here: "Slowly we turned, step by step, inch by inch, to government controlled speech!"

Net neutrality is all about NOT impeding speech. It means that the telecom giants (yes they are telecom) can't filter out access to sites that don't pay them enough or whatever arbitrary reason they want.

Posted by: bystander3 | December 21, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Gee what a surprise. Democrats stand up for the people.

republicons whine that businesses won't be able to rip us off for using a technology that was developed using our own money.

Posted by: John1263 | December 21, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

hisroc,

Apparently you don't realize that Big Business and Big Government are in collusion with each other! Big corporations love to use the coercive violence of the state to meet their needs. Whenever they feel threatened by an up-and-coming competitor, they beg for "regulation" usually in the name of safety, or "fairness." In reality, they just want to regulate that competitor out of business!

Posted by: TonyTU88 | December 21, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Whether the regulations issued by the FFC are sensible is a matter of debate. What should not be a matter of debate is that sensible regulation is needed, otherwise the law of the jungle will prevail. Anybody who believes that civil society can exist without rules should try to live in Somalia.

Posted by: serban1 | December 21, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Ooo. Big surprise. The Republicans voted in favor of the corporations and against net neutrality. Have to tell you folks...those Republicans aren't working for US, they are working for Corporate America...not our America.

Posted by: blosmurph | December 21, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Nothing new here. A sensible compromise is reached. Republicans want to thwart the law because it does not favorite their corporate pals.
So the thugs will "not fund" or legislate the bill out of existence.
Any pretense of governing by the corporate thugs is fast fading.

Posted by: easysoul | December 21, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Uh, no "hisroc." You've got that backwards. Big corporations ARE the government, and they use the willing U.S.representatives they OWN to make sure they keep a stranglehold on the rights of the "little people." Wake up!

Posted by: blosmurph | December 21, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

FCC, donkeycrats, Obama = yahoos, a somewhat phonetic way of pronouncing a similar sounding word which begins with the letter "a".

Posted by: apdseal | December 21, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Uh, no "hisroc." You've got that backwards. Big corporations ARE the government, and they use the willing U.S.representatives they OWN to make sure they keep a stranglehold on the rights of the "little people." Wake up!

Posted by: blosmurph | December 21, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

WE paid for the internet. WE keep it working. Why should WE now allow corporations to rip us off for something WE created and developed? Why would anyone want to allow mega corporations to crush entrepreneurs? Unless you are a fool/republicon.

Posted by: John1263 | December 21, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Republican or Democrat, I can't see how any consumer would want their ISP to have the authority to slow down or block some net traffic and/or give priority to other net traffic. Yes, this is regulation, but it prevents private companies from making it difficult to get certain information. What if you ISP had decided to block or slow your access to precious FOX new videos?

Posted by: PersonL | December 21, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Beware......

...which ensures unimpeded access to any LEGAL Web content for home Internet users....

And who decides? Government censorship of the internet has just arrived. Happy now?

Posted by: wesatch | December 21, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

A loss for the corporate citizens, but their protectors will set the leislative agenda in 2011. So the rights of our corporate citizens could be righted by the right. Right!

Posted by: whocares666 | December 21, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Just in time for Obama's 2012 election campaign messages to flow freely and others to be hindered somehow - bank on it. OOPs, should not have used the word bank - it is a dirty on to Obama and his cronies.

Posted by: apdseal | December 21, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

did glen beck and heinity change the term from socialism to fascism this week? Is that the new talking point? Since even the dimmest of the dim now realize that "socialist" is as far from the truth as could be you righties pull some other ominous sounding ideology that most people have not thought about since 11th grade socisl studies and start throwing it around as if it has any meaning.

And what is "facistic" about not allowing Comcast or Verizon to STOP you from getting you content you want? This is the polar opposite of fascism. As Mousolinninsaid, fascism is corporatism. The republicon stance on this is the fascist stance. Allowing corporations to treat the people as serfs and using the power of the state to make that so. THAT is fascism.

Posted by: John1263 | December 21, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Goodbye First Amendment!

LOL to all the sheeple who think this is a good thing. Just wait until the government starts to block all of your favorite websites because they contain "subversive" material that the Regime doesn't like.

Posted by: TonyTU88 | December 21, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

As any free thinking person should realize,this is nothing but a takeover of our internet by radical liberals(communists)who cannot stand the thought that they didn't have their grubby little beaters on a piece of our freedom. Look for all conservative content to be attacked,and also for the revival of the Fairness Doctrine.

Posted by: mcap52 | December 21, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

not to worry, look what happen to cable bills 20 years after the cable compnnies were deregulated........

competition is just everywhere!

Posted by: wesatch | December 21, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Why don't republicans want all americans to have the same access to the Internet. Why are they against freedom of speech?

Posted by: sux123 | December 21, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

GOP want to turn America into China where big shots can block content or slow down your access to any sites they want.

Posted by: sux123 | December 21, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

This is just one more attempt for liberal elitist government burocrats to control every aspect of our lives. They think that they are the only ones who know what is best for us.
This is not over and in January when congress reconvenes

Posted by: brooklynborn1 | December 21, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

wow, most of the comments here are uninformed, knee jerk reactionary statements, with little or no clue as to what the fight for net neutrality is really about. don't worry you will still be able to get your pr0n. These are just the first steps to ensure that Comcast and other media giants can't claim the internet as "theirs" and start prioritizing content and access. If you don't know what I am talking about, you don't know what is being discussed here. So just go back to calling President Obama Stalin and stick your head back in the quicksand you call Faux Nooz.

Posted by: pete1013 | December 21, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

If the US and the FCC were serious about CLEANING UP THE INTERNET then it is ONLY a matter of changing the way the network extension is used.
The problem is phone companies all conservative in the day time are making billions off porn and software always a step behind cannot sort out all the junk form the good content. Google should allow filtering to be the default and not tied to cookies. So that when it is chosen it would not revert back to no filtering.
THE EASIEST and SIMPLE WAY, (granted the FCC is serving money and not the people) Is this
For most content, use DOT COM for non profits
use DOT ORG for government use DOT GOV and for adult and x rated content use DOT XXX or call it ADL.
In any case a separate DOT EXTENSION for adult content would allow PARENTS and employers to BLOCK any sites with that type of content.
The hypocrisy is the FCC wants the immoral sites to have access to you and they do not want you to be able to block their access by choice.
In theory DOT EXTENSION could be a way to further categorize the INTERNET and by doing that it would give people control over what they have to look at and not have the control be in the hands of the advertisers and porn sites and hate sites, for that matter their could be a DOT POL for politics.
Amazing how at late night the porn ads are all run by and owned by the phone companies and yet in the day time these same executives all act like good little 700 club boys.
Use DOT EXTENSION TO CLEAN UP THE NET and that would also limit virus attacks as most spread by porn and religious sites,
A little common sense is needed by the FCC woul are more in bed with the problem than in tune to the solution.

Posted by: iseasygoing | December 21, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

This is NOT CENSORSHIP! In fact, it is exactly the opposite of censorship. The rules state that the ISPs cannot block traffic. In other words, the Internet remains open and big ISPs cannot pick and choose which content that they will block and/or throttle. The reasons that the ISPs want to do this is quite obvious; they want to favor their content and the content of their partners and restrain their competition. I wonder how the conservative folks who have commented on this would feel if some left-leaning ISP was to block traffic from the Fox New, NewsMax, Red State, or the Weekly Standard.

Frankly, the solution to this problem is obvious. Simply implement bandwidth usage-based charges to the end user. Don't throttle or block anything but charge the biggest bandwidth users the biggest fees. Isn't this what we do with our other utilities, i.e. electricity, gas, and water? Surely the free market believers cannot disagree with this policy.

The Internet has shown that it can be a great driver of innovation and commerce. Don't freeze out startups by requiring fees to cross a network. As the startups gain users, the users themselves will pay for access to the site if we implement bandwdth usage-based pricing.

I agree with the Democrats on the commission that the rules don't go far enough to protect competition and free speech. We must assure an open Internet to foster innovation and competition. Let those who use the bandwidth pay for the bandwidth regardless of the content that they access.

Posted by: hakngolfer1 | December 21, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

So exactly who are we going to 'neutralize' or is that 'neuter?' I suppose Rush comes first, then Beck then who - YOU, ME? Once they start these shenanigans, they will never stop. More Big Brother in your business and mine.

I suppose they'll need another huge agency with many, many high paid employees just chomping at their respective bits to 'take care of us'. Bosh! Let us take care of ourselves.

Posted by: snoocks2 | December 21, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

So exactly who are we going to 'neutralize' or is that 'neuter?' I suppose Rush comes first, then Beck then who - YOU, ME? Once they start these shenanigans, they will never stop. More Big Brother in your business and mine.

I suppose they'll need another huge agency with many, many high paid employees just chomping at their respective bits to 'take care of us'.

Bosh! Let us take care of ourselves.

Posted by: snoocks2 | December 21, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"Did anyone at the FCC ever think about asking the people about this. Instead they circumvent the lawmaking part of OUR government.
Best regards to Stalin."
--------------------------------

The regulations are certainly not perfect, but the fact remains that the FCC didn't circumvent anything or anybody. They called for public comment and considered the comments in their decisionmaking.

Further, Congress doesn't have the expertise or time to deal with many of the issues involved. Lastly, those calling this a government takeover or speech or a first step toward totalitarianism do not undersand the purpose of these regulations. The primary purpose is to promote freedom of speech and access to speech and commerce on the part of consumers, buy preventing the providers from charging for access to each individual site or feature.

Posted by: mightysparrow | December 21, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

"Did anyone at the FCC ever think about asking the people about this. Instead they circumvent the lawmaking part of OUR government.
Best regards to Stalin."
--------------------------------

The regulations are certainly not perfect, but the fact remains that the FCC didn't circumvent anything or anybody. They called for public comment and considered the comments in their decisionmaking.

Further, Congress doesn't have the expertise or time to deal with many of the issues involved. Lastly, those calling this a government takeover or speech or a first step toward totalitarianism do not undersand the purpose of these regulations.

The primary purpose is to promote freedom of speech and access to speech and commerce on the part of consumers, by preventing the providers from charging for access to each individual site or feature.

Posted by: mightysparrow | December 21, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

If this doesn't show how republicans are in the back pockets of the ISPs, and that they are hostile to consumers, I don't know what would.

The companies who provide Internet services are too easily inclined to exercise monopoly control over their networks. And they want to charge us to use various Internet services, from Facebook to Netflix (which competes with their own VOD services that are grossly overpriced) they see all sorts of ways to increase the blood they're squeezing from the proverbial Internet turnip.

Thanks Republicans for reminding us just how consumer-hostile you are. And just how much you worship the all-mighty dollar at the expense of every other value that people hold.

Any republican or democrat who supports any legislation to overturn these meager changes to the rules (the FCC copped out on Wireless - which means a lot of people and businesses are going to be hurt by greedy telcos).

If you want to destroy the Internet, just follow the Republican way of things. As ISP profits rise and their infrastructure costs go down, they are grabbing for more and more profits, all the while whining about how bad they have it.

Hypocrites. Liars.

Those are the kindest words they deserve to have applied to them. (Along with the plutocrat-worshiping republicans.)

Posted by: leicaman | December 21, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

The "Net Neutrality" rules are good for consumers, and should mean the rate your ISP charges you for connectivity should remain unchanged. The FCC ruling has NOTHING to do with regulating content.

Posted by: jobro1 | December 21, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Much more so than with other political topics, conservatives posting to this thread clearly have a very limited grasp of the topic at hand. Many seem not to understand what "net neutrality" is on a basic level.

The only "regulating" the government does under net neutrality is to prevent corporations from controlling which content reaches you faster.

The internet (which is already "net neutral" for the most part) is really the only truly free market out there, a Wild West of innovation and entrepreneurship.

Net neutrality protects small businesses and consumers by preventing companies from slowing down certain content and giving faster speeds to content THEY want you to view. It allows individual entrepreneurs and start-ups on a level playing field, and for larger corporations to compete FAIRLY with each other.

For example, Comcast can't block or slow down your ability to look at RCN's website. Without net neutrality, they could certainly do something like that.

What if you want to watch FOX News content online, but your ISP is Comcast, a company connected with NBC and, of course, MSNBC? Without net neutrality, Comcast could prioritize MSNBC and slow down access to or even block FOX News.

Do you get it, yet? This has nothing to do with the government regulating legal content. It's about making sure NO ONE regulates it. It's about guaranteeing that you are paying your ISP for internet ACCESS, not THEIR VERSION of the damn INTERNET.

Unless you want RCN turning off FarmVille because FarmTown paid them more money, or for you to pay extra to get foxnews.com at the same speed as msnbc.com, then you should support net neutrality.

Posted by: TalmidiOrha | December 21, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

snoocks2 , you write:

"So exactly who are we going to 'neutralize' or is that 'neuter?' I suppose Rush comes first, then Beck then who - YOU, ME? Once they start these shenanigans, they will never stop. More Big Brother in your business and mine."

You're missing the point of what 'net neutrality' means.

Posted by: jobro1 | December 21, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

This is pretty interesting to say the least...I can't help but think that with the Government involved, seeking control, that this will end up a mess. They don't exactly have a great track record.

Posted by: chipgiii | December 21, 2010 1:22 PM
=================

Those banking and commerce regulations we had in place since The Great Depression were working pretty good until my GOP decided we didnt' need them anymore. Then look what happened. Another economic depression in less than 10 years from the point of deregulation.

When I paid for Comcast service they didn't tell me that my 15mbps only applied to certain websites and not others.

Give me what I paid for. I want the full 15mbps capability to every website I hit, or prorate my bill.

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | December 21, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

The only way Fascism can gain ground in the U.S.A. is by We The People doing nothing. This so-called "network neutrality" rule is a long, long way from Fascism. When/If the FCC gets funding for armed enforcement and armed FCC Agents pay me a visit within an hour if I call Richard Trumka a lowlife thug and his AFSCME membership a bunch of lard-butt do-nothing petty bureaucrats, then it's gettin' to be live-ammo time. But for now, I'm content to allow the unionized FCC Bureaucrats and the Boardroom Snakes @ AT&T duke it out while I surf the 'net commenting on whatever I like--or not.

Posted by: ironmule | December 21, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Unless you want RCN turning off FarmVille because FarmTown paid them more money, or for you to pay extra to get foxnews.com at the same speed as msnbc.com, then you should support net neutrality.

Posted by: TalmidiOrha | December 21, 2010 3:17 PM
===============

where's the 'like' button on this thing?

LIKE!

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | December 21, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Our beloved internet has been neutral since its inception. The government is not trying to impose restrictive regulations, but to protect that neutrality. Without that protection, service providers will add new access fees for preferred content (like streaming video), which will have two negative effects. 1) It will add a cost burden to small internet start-ups which keep them out while protecting large, established companies. 2) It reduces the incentive for service providers to increase the capacity of their networks. Rather than increasing bandwidth, they will actually profit more from restricting bandwith while charging a premium for preferred content. So please support this!! This is not big government gone wild, but actually an effort to protect an open and free market from becoming stunted by monopolistic service providers.

Posted by: drabname | December 21, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Well gee, would you rather have government regulators telling the internet providers that they have to be neutral or Comcast telling you what content you can see?

The government is not regulating what content you can see. It is telling the private companies that they cannot control what content you see. In many areas you do not have a choice of broadband providers. There is one monopoly.

Do you want Comcast for example, to have the ability to decide where we do our online shopping, where we get our news, which blogs we're allowed to read.

Or would you rather have government regulators say its our choice. The consumer gets to pick and choose.

After all, the internet was developed by the US government. Shouldn't the government get to regulate it instead of private enterprise.

Posted by: jesther | December 21, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"Net neutrality" is only regulation in the same sense that "free speech" is regulation.

The First Amendment essentially says that your choice in what to believe or express won't/shouldn't be infringed upon.

Net neutrality essentially says that your choice in which content to choose to consume and which applications you choose to use won't/shouldn't be infringed upon.

And no one here is calling the First Amendment "communist"/"fascist" simply because it regulates authority over a particular matter.

Are they?

Posted by: TalmidiOrha | December 21, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

What constitution? Further proof that the federal government is wildly out of control. The FCC assumes the power to regulate as legislator, judge, and executioner with out one elected representative having a say.

If this is not grounds for revolution, what is?

Posted by: rwyoung | December 21, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

The Obama administration is the most tyrannical regime in American history.


This will be overturned just like everything this Socialist government is doing.

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | December 21, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

@rwyoung You clearly have no idea what net neutrality even is if you think it's grounds for a revolution.

Yeah, I too want to pick up a rifle and fight the government of their fascist attempt to allow me to view the content of my choice and use the applications of my choice when surfing the web.

In the REAL America, Comcast and AT&T tell me what to read, watch, and use while online. Anything short of that, and I believe gun violence against the government is the only solution.

*rolls eyes*

Posted by: TalmidiOrha | December 21, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Without net neutrality, Comcast and Verizon can squeeze out competition like Vonage and then raise the prices when you no longer have a choice.

They can disable Skype on their network and force you to use their videophone service.

Net Neutrality is a consumer protection and I am appalled once again that my GOP is standing firmly in the pockets of big business at the expense of American ingenuity.

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | December 21, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama's czars at work controlling us all. Say hi to Van Jones.

This can be undone if need be.

Posted by: fury60 | December 21, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

So NOW, can I get my static IP?

Posted by: jdr99 | December 21, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

So NOW, can I get my static IP?

Posted by: jdr99 | December 21, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

So these Republicans "first order or business" will be beat up the FCC chairman and fight to eliminate of weaken (or defund- which is the ultimate minority hypocracy) yet another consumer protection law...

I thought their 'first order of business' was supposed to be something about jobs...

Unless having several 'competing' internets which aren't connected and which must all be searched in order to find anything OR one monopoly controlled internet which only finds what it's owners want you to find is a good idea then some regulation is in order. If you don't like net 'neutrality' then move to China. :)

Posted by: johnw2k | December 21, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Remind me again, Obama was the democratic one right?

Posted by: charlie-Imac | December 21, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

To all those who would have no rules.

When your company is frozen out of providing services to its customers because internet providers are giving their own interests a sweet heart deal. When your application is blocked because the internet provider doesn't like it for some poorly explained reason (see Apple's APP store). When your job is lost because of just plain unfair competition.

When one of the above or other such unfair practice hits you DO NOT complain. Its only what you asked for.

Posted by: kdjkdj | December 21, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

The real key to "net neutrality" is that it was a policy consciously, explicitly and deliberately concocted as a plausibly acceptable (to the public) means of circumventing the First Amendment and private property rights of internet providers via a rationalization for regulatory oversight of the web.

What was the purpose of the regulation? Deeper than censorship. Like the TSA, it's primarily about asserting control, as such. I wouldn't be surprised that the stated "for your eyes only" rationalization within the government was to gain easier access for police and intel agencies to web communications, not just for monitering but for interrupting and re-directing, in light of the Warshak appellate court decision, but the fundamental is still that net neutrality was invented out of whole cloth as an excuse to claim a government "right" to apply regulations to the web with "oversight". Ie, as a means of control, ie, thuggery that will for sure be under control of politicians to play favorites, but guaranteed, it will eventually be much worse than that.

This so much bigger than free speech. It's about full-scale control of everything people see and hear. I was watching a video last night that showed how people in North Korea have a box in every home that broadcasts propaganda 24/7 that you *must* listen to. You can turn it down, but not off. That is what these SOBs are attempting, in effect. If there was reason to have Obama tried for treason and stood up against a wall for the same fate as Nicolai Ceausescu, this is it, but in truth, unfortunately there are probably plenty of Republicans all for it for the same reasons. Our political parties have completely abandoned us in their pursuit of power.

Note the standard Obama/Left tactic of simply ignoring a court decision, as they did when they shut down oil drilling in the Gulf. They are doing it again, now, in the case of "Net neutrality". Expect more in regard to the Health Care Act. Where are the consequences to them? None. No one challenges them. If this becomes established as a precedent, the courts will be meaningless and we, as a nation, are doomed.

We desperately need to start throwing politicians in prison for gross and willful indifference to the Constitution. Like in the movie "Groundhog Day" (not to be trivial), when there are *no* consequences, they will do whatever they damned well please. (Look at Chavez in Venezuela -- no consequences, and now he officially rules by decree.) Politicians need to fear the consequences--and I mean "fear" -- or they will do whatever they want. Not just a slap on the hands, but real prison time with a 600 lb bunkmate and forfeiture of all assets, etc.

And all of you who endorse and applaud this move by the FCC to shut your mouthes and control your thinkng, I'll paraphrase Francisco d'Anconia's farewell message to a looted country in Atlas Shrugged: "Brother, you asked for it!"

Posted by: skeen66 | December 21, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

what a shocker: weak regulations and republicans favoring the giant corporate trolls over public interest and the american consumer. this is another example of the detestable decision to treat corporations as human beings. republicans only fight for you if your name is followed by LLC, INC or LTD.

Posted by: countdown2009 | December 21, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Yep just another thing the Government has got its hands on.......and don't think that it just has to do with the Search Engines. Im sure Radio (FCC) is coming next. Just another step on the way to the USSA. Who will be the next Reagan in 2012.......I can see the Executive Order Reversals going now........

Posted by: progrills | December 21, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

This is precedent.
The FCC has enacted these "weak" rules to establish its authority over the web.
Once that is established, expect the Socialist Genokowski to begin regulating content, and introducing a backdoor "Fairness Doctrine."

Posted by: ScottinVA | December 21, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Of course the GOP would side with business interests over everyday Americans. Have we come to expect nothing less?

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | December 21, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

The Obama administration is the most tyrannical regime in American history.


This will be overturned just like everything this Socialist government is doing.

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | December 21, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

_____________________________

this is the most ludricous overblown horse manure i've ever seen posted in the entire world history of the internets.

uhhh, what's a socialist mommy?

americans are so depressingly stupid. they consistently fight against policies THAT BENEFIT THEM!!! and consistently vote against their best interest because some goon on the radio or picture tube convinces them so.... corporate america thanks you every day for your dimwittedness

Posted by: countdown2009 | December 21, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Marvelous, The government has now stuck it's fat hairy nose into the internet. As everything that they have ever touched has been screwed up by them, someone had better start working on an alternative to the internet. What we need is to cut out about 75% of government jobs. The Fed needs to protect us from dangers to the country from external sources and they need to keep their noses out of our day to day lives and let the states take care of internal issues. And besides that who the he-- gave the FCC authority to just take upon themselves to rule the internet?? I think we need to pass an FCC neutrality rule.

Posted by: 2012anewstart | December 21, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

skeen66, progrills, ScottinVA,

Really, you guys, do have any idea what the FCC ruling actually entails? Or are you just assuming (wrongly) that this is some sort of Orwellian 'Big Brother' law? Do yourselves a favor and read up on it before passing judgment.

Posted by: jobro1 | December 21, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I've already had my say so I'll keep this short.

It amazes me just how many people comment on something that they obviously haven't researched and do not understand, with knee-jerk reactions, spewing such labels as socialist and communist. The bottom line? If the anyone connected with the Obama administration did it then they are against it!

I wonder how many of these posters would take the opposite position if the Bush administration had crafted the same decision? I'd bet that it would be at least 80% of them! Partisanship sucks regardless of which side you are on.

Posted by: hakngolfer1 | December 21, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Agreed. Those who think this law is Orwellian or fascist or... whatever.

Please, please just do some reading first. You sound ridiculous.

This "regulation" is nothing more than codifying the status quo for the protection of consumers and small entrepreneurs.

Far from a regulation seeking to control content, its a regulation that seeks to PREVENT content control.

A cursory glance at even the most basic of education materials on the topic would fill you in on these tidbits.

Seriously, seriously ridiculous things being said in here.

Posted by: TalmidiOrha | December 21, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

By the way, since when does the FCC have the authority to write laws? Isn't that Congressional domain?

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | December 21, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

"Welcome to incremental fascism."

Yes, just like the incremental fascism that forces corporations to not dump (too many) toxins in your drinking water, that forces cars to come with basic safety measures, that forces employers to pay a minimum wage, and that forces you to obey traffic laws when driving! What kind of freedom do we have if we don't have the freedom to step all over everyone else's feet?

Posted by: jeffwacker | December 21, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Fascism,Communism and Marxism have finally joined together as the ISM family of Dictators and the Tator family!

Everybody knows this was done by the Elitist Globalists to Quash Free Speech!

If they want a return to Feudalism, then give it to them, I say as Gerald Celente says and King Henry used to say, "Off with Their heads!

Posted by: PaulRevere4 | December 21, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Here is a handy overview of network neutrality. Timothy Berners-Lee is for it and the www is his baby. Keep on scrollin' y'all! http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~raylin/whatisnetneutrality.htm

Posted by: ironmule | December 21, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

@FormerDemocrat They don't. They're a regulatory agency.

Why don't you read a book? If you think that Congress hashes out the details of even half the legislation they pass, you're in for some fun surprises.

Congress doesn't have the technical expertise to touch half of this tech stuff with a 40-foot poll.

Remember that, until recently, the late Senator Ted Stevens was the chair of the Senate committee on these matters. That should tell you all you need to know about Congress's capacity for handling such matters.

Posted by: TalmidiOrha | December 21, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

From the aforementioned website:
"Simply put, net neutrality is a network design paradigm that argues for broadband network providers to be completely detached from what information is sent over their networks. In essence, it argues that no bit of information should be prioritized over another. This principle implies that an information network such as the internet is most efficient and useful to the public when it is less focused on a particular audience and instead attentive to multiple users."

Posted by: jobro1 | December 21, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

the old saying about if it ain't broke don't fix it sure doesn't ring any bells with our own government. Since this is something Obama has pushed for since being elected it sure makes you wonder what the government will try to control next. The news shows are already reporting this will cost consumers an extra fee of course paid to the government and those guys at the fcc probably do as much work as those at the sec.

Posted by: ren51 | December 21, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

... And here's some more:
"The neutrality principle did not originate nor is it limited to the internet. Other networks that people use every day rely on this idea. Take, for example, the electric network grid. It doesn’t matter what you plug into your electrical outlets at home, they all get access to the same electricity. The fundamental rule behind this is that no discrimination exists between any devices that you plug in; they all work equally well."

Posted by: jobro1 | December 21, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

@ren51 This is a set of rules attempting to codify the status quo.

I appreciate that you're trying to be coy and clever wrapped in a sarcasm tortilla, but at least bother to get the very basics straight.

Net neutrality is literally arguing that it AIN'T BROKE, and that we need to codify the way things are before SOMEONE ELSE tries to "FIX" it.

So to criticize this as a set of rules that attempts to fix something that isn't broken is beyond stupid.

Posted by: TalmidiOrha | December 21, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

While it appears obvious that neither side in this debate received all of what they were hoping, its important to keep today’s decision in context:

* This does allow for paid prioritization.
* This does not allow government censorship.
* This does enforce–to some extent–net neutrality rules via broadband.
* This does not enforce net neutrality rules via mobile broadband.
* This is a first step towards protecting consumers.
* This is not the last step towards protecting consumers.

Read more: http://bit.ly/fxd1BU

Posted by: mlschafer | December 21, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Without net neutrality, "... consumers will be forced to pay multiple times for the same service." (from http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~raylin/whatisnetneutrality.htm)

Posted by: jobro1 | December 21, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

ScottinVA wrote:
This is precedent.
The FCC has enacted these "weak" rules to establish its authority over the web.
Once that is established, expect the Socialist Genokowski to begin regulating content, and introducing a backdoor "Fairness Doctrine."

Oh good grief! At least get up to speed on the issue before you start with your kneejerk GOP talking points reaction. This isn't about the FCC regulating content. It's about making sure that Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and others CAN'T! Taxpayers paid for the internet (the hard road upon which that content travels), independent innovative people came up with the content. But you want to turn it all over to the greedy corporate hogs so they can eliminate the competition and charge you through the nose. I've got a better idea. Walk over to the Wilson Bridge and just throw your money in the Potomac. It's kind of like what your parents did with their money for your education.

Posted by: Misty630 | December 21, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Fairness Doctrine (which I oppose).

Posted by: jobro1 | December 21, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

The "Fairness Doctrine" has nothing to do with net neutrality at all, other than that both, is some roundabout way, involve broadcast communications.

Lumping them together to get a rise out of people is so intellectually lazy it hurts the brain to read/hear.

Posted by: TalmidiOrha | December 21, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

This certainly sounds like "Pay-to-Play" all over again.
We know who is paying - do we know who is taking the money?

Posted by: Tony27 | December 21, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Our beloved internet has been neutral since its inception. The government is not trying to impose restrictive regulations, but to protect that neutrality. ...

Posted by: drabname | December 21, 2010 3:25 PM |
===================================
I want sooooo much to agree, but no. I just can't.

ARPA started it. Now we are told the choice between which commercial interest the FCC thinks is *less* trustworthy. Have we so institutionalized greed that consumer protections are "extreme" ? Amazing.

Posted by: gannon_dick | December 21, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Memo: Remember Rabbi Cooper of The Wiesenthal Center saying in 2000:

"The Web is not a debating society. It's there for marketing and advertising. We need to apply pre-Net rules: create a policy and stick to it."

Well...he influenced this guy:

From: A Talmud Ace Tackles Thorny Issue of Net Neutrality – The Jewish Daily Forward

Excerpt:

Over the next few weeks, Genachowski will discuss the plan with associates and adversaries. He needs at least two votes from the four other commissioners at a meeting set for December 21. He may have to tweak his proposal before then, and his training in talmudic reasoning could come in handy during the process. “Not to stereotype Jewishness, but he’s a questioner,” Waldman said. “He likes to probe and discuss and argue. That’s certainly part of Jewish tradition.”

Posted by: ReporterNotebook | December 21, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

In related news, the Virginia State Corporation Commission has been exposed as forcing Virginia Dominion Power to justify rate increases and new power line construction.

Civil libertarians are decrying this collusion of Big Government and Big Corporations to deny the rights of the individual citizens and some are calling for a popular revolt against government intrusion in our daily lives. "Hands off our power grid," they are protesting. "We don't need government regulating how much we have to pay Dominion Power for electricity. This is socialism and communism and Stalen would be proud!"

Morons.

Posted by: hisroc | December 21, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

great to see americans who understand the implications of this.

camel's nose... under our tent.

for all the supporters of this bill... i find unfortunate your inability to recognize the difference between a productive job and a non productive job.

best case: we pay more beurocrat salaries for no good reason.

worst case: total internet censorship, control, and tracking.

echoing peter schiff - why dont we just pay half of the country to dig a ditch and the other half to fill it back up?

the truth prevails; and that defines it.

we americans are the best and brightest, and we will prevail.

that is a certainty.

Posted by: nicholasranallo | December 21, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

From a business perspective, having to grow a network without financial gain is not very appealing. The second fear is from a security standpoint. If all content and traffic is treated as equal, then viruses, trojans, malwares and Denial of Service Attacks would all be treated with the same priority as email. As an ISP, Network Neutrality would compromise the network and add additional work and resources to resolving security issues and keeping the network up and running.

Posted by: tonyjm | December 21, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

If I build an infrastructure, I own it, not the FCC.

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | December 21, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse


Real good. Now if you then bribe congress to pass laws making it illegal for competitors to build better infrastructure you could be just like At&t and Comcast.

The rest of the world is going with fiber optics, the US is stuck with copper because fools like you think this is a liberal vs conservative, socialist vs fascist kind of argument.

At&t and Comcast have you so well fooled you don't even know it, you still go on braying your standard anti-liberal crap without bothering to think if now is the time and this is the place to do it.

What a complete and utter fool you are. Remember, it's going to take a lot longer to download your kiddie porn once At&t and Comcast own the entire congress.

Posted by: eezmamata | December 21, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

The above proposition marks a drastic change to the net’s physical makeup and a sharp turning point at which the space comprising the internet – having finally been explored and conquered to its knowable extents – must be quite literally cleaved, carved up: the first sign of the end the web’s initial era of (perceived) exploratory freedom, and the beginning of a new age of hegemonical domination, the chief feature of which is the implementation of a virtual caste system.

http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2010/12/will-the-net-neutrality-regulations-fragment-the-internet/

Posted by: zoezoe123 | December 21, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse


What a crock ... an unelected division of Barry the incompetent boob Obama's executive branch "voted" to "pass" some rules.

Only Congress can pass laws. FCC will overstep their authority until they get beaten back by the courts.

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 21, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

my view is the INTERNET is a publically owned utility. Tax funds were used to create the internet (ARPA contract). Thus, the internet should provide "neutral" access to the public.

Posted by: rmorris391 | December 21, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Federal bureaucrats do not have the authority to limit free speech!

Posted by: rteske | December 21, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

You know, it's easier to convince someone they're wrong if you don't insult them. Otherwise, they tend to get defensive.

It's my understanding that the Net Neutrality laws favor consumers and content providers. Those opposed to it are the service providers (i.e. the "telecoms," such as AT&T and Verizon). The law that passed doesn't cover wireless service, so consumers still have to deal with a tiered system for cell phone service. It will, however, protect access to wired content (such as Netflix). As others have stated, the law has nothing to do with censorship of content.

Posted by: jobro1 | December 21, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"Net Neutrality"? That's a joke, right?

Perhaps congress can somehow reverse this abomination. If ATT and the cable companies are happy, that can't be good.

The net is where it is today because of real net neutrality, not some political abomination.

Posted by: John991 | December 21, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Big Brother is not waiting for the collapse of civilization but is causing it with regulations. Georg Orwell Nineteen Eight Four is coming up fast.

Posted by: xthat | December 21, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

In the early 20's there were 300 radio sations in the DC area. That was the last time the FCC ws needed. If you build a internet they will come. If the road is too small they will build. The FCC has never constructed anything, and they never will contribute.

Posted by: TJOBRIEN | December 21, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

"All this decision does is guarantee that a few established internet giants have to play fair and can't stifle innovation."

Or, as with the FDA, it'll guarantee that FCC management will have cushy jobs with those "internet giants" after they retire on your dime.

Posted by: daihbidh | December 21, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

for all the supporters of this bill... i find unfortunate your inability to recognize the difference between a productive job and a non productive job

Posted by: nicholasranallo | December 21, 2010 5:40 PM
--------

When you don't even know the difference between a Congressional bill and a set of rules enacted by a regulatory agency, why should us "supporters" of the "bill" listen to anything you have to say?

Posted by: TalmidiOrha | December 21, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Or, as with the FDA, it'll guarantee that FCC management will have cushy jobs with those "internet giants" after they retire on your dime.

Posted by: daihbidh | December 21, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse
------

Yeah, the FDA is making a ton of friends right now... *rolls eyes*

Everyone from Big Tobacco to the herbal supplement industry to Nestea wants to stick their foot in the FDA's rear right now.

Posted by: TalmidiOrha | December 21, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

To all the conservatives thinking this is a liberal/conservative issue, you might be interested to know that a number of PROMINENT conservative organizations are invested in FULL SUPPORT of net neutrality, including the Christian Coalition.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/members

Posted by: TalmidiOrha | December 21, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

So the government(FCC) grants itself the power and jurisdiction over the internet? isn't that what the house and senate are for? isn't this supposed to be voted on by the people? Nice how Obama says it will help freedom of speech..what a lie. Well if its good for China and Venezuala, its good for us too?

Posted by: JBfromFL | December 21, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

It seems the Republicans in vowing to reverse this are indicating that they do not have the public interest in mind...in fact the exact opposite...business interests are the only interests they care about...whatever happened to the 'public good'...in GOP legislators it is all about helping the corporate sector get even richer...

Posted by: kmdyson | December 21, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

This is not net neutrality. This is a sellout to big political contributors. The interests of American citizens mean nothing in Washington D.C. These rules give telecons the right to block the websites you cn get on your phone; they allow big ISPs like Verizon and Comcast to charge for access to the "fast lane;" and, they allow corporations to create "public" and "private" Internets, destroying the one Internet as we know it. Thanks FCC. Thanks Obama administration.

Posted by: chenvertjd | December 21, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Thanks President Obama for another sell-out by your administration. You are now fully engaged in complete double-talk. This is not net neutrality and you know it. This is a complete cave-in- your specialty – to the ATT’s, Verizons, Comcasts and Googles of this world. Along with the tax-cut fiasco you really are racking up quite a record as a Republican. What about a few considerations for the people who fought hard to elect you.

Posted by: jeffl240 | December 21, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

This has nothing to do with limiting your free speech! It has to do with maintaining open access to content on the Internet.

Posted by: jobro1 | December 21, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

There must be a loophole in the Constitution, that lets the FCC regulate without congressional approval. There just has to be. Isn't there? Damn!

Posted by: JBaustian | December 21, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

"The vote's success fulfills a promise that Genachowski made at the start of his tenure in fall 2009 to preserve open Internet access." Ms. Kang performs an inversion of the truth, something ordinary to propaganda. This bill is a travesty and it ends net neutrality.

Ms. Kang recently tittered on PBS's NEWS HOUR over the supposed difficulty the public has with the term "net neutrality," and she suggested it is bad terminology. It's in fact rather simple-ISP's should not be the ones determining the how, when, etc. of internet access...instead, it should be left up to each individual user.

Most citizens in the United States understand that leaving questions of who gets what and for how much up to AT&T and other obviously self interested corporations, those being very happy with this development after having paid no telling how much to see to its happening, is a very bad idea. The FCC isn't giving us more than a phony cover story of forwarding "public service" while in fact gifting corporate interests with yet another savage rip-off from "consumers," a group that more and more might more accurately be called "corporate livestock."

Posted by: terrybakee1 | December 22, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

No one mentioning the purchase of NetFlix stocks with this ruling?

I'm going to ride with my purchase for a couple to test the waters. A few other things made this a bit shaky, but hey if I didn't have it, I wouldn't do it. :)

Posted by: NativeNProud | December 22, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

The major flaw that one law professor saw was that hard wire Internet use will be user neutral. All the wireless connections will be up for grabs by the large corporations. This should not be a fight between liberals, conservatives, lefties, and righties. The only reason I can think that the hard wire use will still be protected from the corporate clutches is that the FCC surveys probably show that the older people (AKA Republicans) mostly use the home computers and would have a real political hissy if the corporations started playing games. All you young Republicans with your hand held toys with all those apps, get ready to pay a lot more. That same professor predicted a lot of legal action against the FCC, with the suggestion that they overreached Congressional authority.

Posted by: Aarky | December 22, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"my view is the INTERNET is a publically owned utility. Tax funds were used to create the internet (ARPA contract). Thus, the internet should provide "neutral" access to the public."

I agree completely with the above comment by rmorris391 previously posted. The internet is "paid for and owned by the public" and the FCC has every right (thank god) to make comment and suggest rules for it. Like what has happened with television, the corporations are attempting to take over public airwaves,as it were,as if they created it. They are making obscene amounts of money off of a public utility and now they want to control internet access for their own profit. I can only assume that the comments on this site mentioning "facism,etc" are conservative/corporate plants, paid to confuse the issue and if those comments are not from them, they are from people who have not read or given any thought to what the whole issue involves. It is simply attempting to keep the net as it is in the face of corporate interests attempting to have us pay for every click that we make on the net and controlling the choices that we now enjoy. If you want to see what some of the plans are that are floating around right now for this new corporate business model for OUR internet, check out this presentation leaked to Wired Magazine...
www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2010/12/final_slide_deck.pdf

This presentation was from Allot Communications and Openet — suppliers to large wireless companies including AT&T and Verizon. This is their vision for the business model of the future for wireless. This model for home users of the internet itself is not far behind. Is this what you REALLY want? The Net Neutrality issue simply states that things remain as they are for the foreseeable future without corporate interference. NOT government interference...Corporate takeover of your internet usage. Got it? Please read...there are thousands of pages on the net concerning this issue. We are all busy but the corporate interests and their lobbyists in Washington are counting on your being too busy to notice.

Posted by: chgo2phx | December 22, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

" Freedom of Speech" Are they bribing the Media? Why do they only wanted to give an interview to selected media station and declaring a war to "Fox News" Why? Are they hiding some evil agenda and hoping to brainwash or promote forcefully the communistic /socialized agenda in "Health Care, Anti-Terrorism, Global Economics, Labor unions, etc?
- Regime (Barack Hussein Obama Government) Moves to Control Internet. The Center for American Progress is about the opposite. They're not about American progress. And Free Press is not about a free press. So what we're doing here is neutering the Internet. It's another private industry. It's another gleaming aspect of free speech, free market, private industry, that Obama has decided to take over as a Christmas present to himself and the Democrat National Committee and to Mr. Soros. He's even beaten Hugo Chavez to the punch. Chavez is just talking about taking over the Internet in Venezuela. Obama has got it done. They want you to believe it's about search engines, making sure that every possible result gets exposure. They want to try to tell you it's about money, and it's not. Well, it is about money but not in the way that you would think when that is offered as a reason. It's about control.

Posted by: bopia | December 22, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Posted by: bopia | December 22, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Communist Party USA Reveals: We're Using the Democrat Party
Snidely Whiplash
Snidely Whiplash, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Dec 3, 2010 "Contribute content like this. Start Here."

...Not too awful long ago I wrote about the Communist Party USA and their support for many of the identical principles endorsed by the Democrat Party here in the US. I listed the various similarities but now I have some even more honest words from the Communists themselves. Joe Sims, co-editor of the Communist Party USA online magazine Peoples World states among other things "the possibility that the communists may be able to "capture' the Democratic Party entirely." Read that slowly and carefully..."the possibility that the communists may be able to "capture' the Democratic Party entirely."

Joe Sims is a proud little Commie. He goes on to brag that among other things, "heightened class and democratic struggle...all have combined to produce an unprecedented situation - and opportunity." How long have I been railing on against this Democrat Party effort to frame the current political debate as one of class? Clearly even the ones seeking to wage this struggle freely admit that is their effort and how said effort is an "opportunity" for them?

They are seeking to destroy this nation and they are using Democrats to wage class warfare, pitting imaginary groups of haves against equally imaginary underclasses. The US has no class structure at all...never has. Monarchies had them. Europe had them. China had them. India had them, but the US NEVER had them. NEVER! For anyone over 40 or so, does this sound like a good thing? Do ya remember the old time Communists?

In case ya missed it Communism is responsible for more human misery than the Nazi's ever hoped to cause and by one big, huge, massive, overwhelming, undeniable margin. Even blaming Hitler for every death in WWII in wartime Europe, the Communists, since the October Revolution in 1917, makes Hitler look like a minor schoolyard bully.

Posted by: bopia | December 22, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Communist Party USA Reveals: We're Using the Democrat Party
Snidely Whiplash
Snidely Whiplash, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Dec 3, 2010 "Contribute content like this. Start Here."

...Not too awful long ago I wrote about the Communist Party USA and their support for many of the identical principles endorsed by the Democrat Party here in the US. I listed the various similarities but now I have some
even more honest words from the Communists themselves. Joe Sims, co-editor of the Communist Party USA online magazine Peoples World states among other things "the possibility that the communists may be able to "capture' the Democratic Party entirely." Read that slowly and carefully..."the possibility that the communists may be able to "capture' the Democratic Party entirely."

Joe Sims is a proud little Commie. He goes on to brag that among other things, "heightened class and democratic struggle...all have combined to produce an unprecedented situation - and opportunity." How long have I been railing on against this Democrat Party effort to frame the current political debate as one of class? Clearly even the ones seeking to wage this struggle freely admit that is their effort and how said effort is an "opportunity" for them?

They are seeking to destroy this nation and they are using Democrats to wage class warfare, pitting imaginary groups of haves against equally imaginary underclasses. The US has no class structure at all...never has. Monarchies had them. Europe had them. China had them. India had them, but the US NEVER had them. NEVER! For anyone over 40 or so, does this sound like a good thing? Do ya remember the old time Communists?

In case ya missed it Communism is responsible for more human misery than the Nazi's ever hoped to cause and by one big, huge, massive, overwhelming, undeniable margin. Even blaming Hitler for every death in WWII in wartime Europe, the Communists, since the October Revolution in 1917, makes Hitler look like a minor schoolyard bully.

Posted by: bopia | December 22, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Unlike the previous comments, if anyone would like to read a sensible, calm and reasoned opinion concerning the issue of net neutrality, try hearing what Tim Berners-Lee has to say. And if anyone is the inventor of the internet, HE is:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=long-live-the-web

That is unless he is a commie-socialist-satanic-killer of babies-liberal anti-christ like anyone else who disagrees with the Republican party line.:>} Read it s-l-o-w-l-y and out loud so that you can understand it.

Posted by: chgo2phx | December 22, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

What is wrong with regulations that "ensures unimpeded access to any legal Web content for home Internet users?" This doesn't sound like Stalin to me. Why should a person's ISP, for example, be able to block access to any Web site they chose?
..................................
What is intrinsically WRONG with this regulation is the very ACT of deciding just Which web content is "Legal" or "Illegal". It's that simple. When GOVERNMENT imposes itself to determine Legalities they ALWAYS do so at their OWN discretion, with the Billions of dollars of the rich BACKING the Rich and already established. And Give ONE example where Government HAS stopped in terms of limits to regulation? When your OWN GOVERNMENT tells you that EVERY single American is a "Pontential Terrorist", you need to ask yourself what the very NATURE of Government is.

Posted by: Elasfar | December 22, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Unlike the previous comments, if anyone would like to read a sensible, calm and reasoned opinion concerning the issue of net neutrality, try hearing what Tim Berners-Lee has to say. And if anyone is the inventor of the internet, HE is:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=long-live-the-web
......................................
Thank you. That was indeed a very comprehensive look into the Web, it's future, it's True Nature and design, as well as those things that threaten to cause it's "disintegration" so to speak.

Posted by: Elasfar | December 22, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company