This Page

has been moved to new address

FCC: Wanting To CONTROL & LIMIT Your Free Speech On The Internet

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Bloviating Zeppelin: FCC: Wanting To CONTROL & LIMIT Your Free Speech On The Internet

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Monday, December 20, 2010

FCC: Wanting To CONTROL & LIMIT Your Free Speech On The Internet

Tuesday -- tomorrow -- will be the day.

Robert McDowell, in his Wall Street Journal article entitled "The FCC's Threat To Internet Freedom" writes:

Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.

Further, Mr McDowell asks: "what really demands repair"?

Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.

And there you initially have it: various entities and governments -- the United States included -- hate that the internet isn't controlled and regulated to the nth-degree. They hate that it can't be halted or taxed or censored at the flick of a switch.

And how's this for a "power grab" by my logical extension:

Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a "choice" between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC's action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of "reasonable" network management for years to come. How's that for regulatory certainty?

To date, the FCC hasn't ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

"Heavy-handed" indeed -- way too kind, in my estimation.

I myself dislike WikiLeaks and Assange. You've read that numerous times, here on BZ. But never have I advocated the systemic shutdown or limitation of the internet. I want the sources, the leaks, identified and handled themselves, individually.

This is my Libertarian Streak coming out: yes, I'm sure there are many people who don't care for the freedom of the internet. It's the freedom to access porn -- a huge industry. It's the freedom to waste time -- ask management at work. It's the freedom to write things people may not care to read about themselves -- ask Bill O'Reilly. It's the freedom to put one's entire life up to display and scrutiny -- ask people who register on Facebook, etc.

But it's freedom. It's the freedom to communicate how or what or why one wishes, when one wishes. It's one roadway that many wish didn't exist where, every once in a while or -- more accurately, much of the time -- facts get transmitted that various individuals and organizations don't care for you to know.

It's freedom of choice. The internet is a tool and, like many tools, it can be used wisely or it can be abused. A baseball bat can hit a home run, or it can kill a human being. Therefore, baseball bats need to be severely regulated with a concomitant tax placed on them, or eliminated outright.

It's censorship, plain and simple. It's outright, naked regulation and control of speech. The FCC is deciding, by itself, to ignore the courts and make its own grab for power.

And it's wrong.

Domino Theory applied to freedom? Am I out of line?



Blogger TexasFred said...

This is our official submission:

“We the People” do not want “net neutrality”!
The internet is the only place where all may express their views without censorship. If someone does not like what the author has written they can leave that site and find one that espouses their views. For the government or a government appointed agency to impose or restrict open dialogue and/or free speech is a direct violation or our 1st Amendment rights.

Please remember that our Creator gives us rights and we “ENTRUST” some of these rights to the government to preserve; NOT remove. Free Speech is a natural right but access to the internet is NOT A NATURAL RIGHT, Civil or otherwise. Access to the internet may be obtained in our RIGHT TO PURSUE HAPPINESS, but it is NOT a guaranteed right.

Commissioner Copps has stated in an interview to the BBC that America” is not producing as much news” and “there is no oversight of the media”; oh, and perhaps there should be a “public value test”.


If We the People do not like what is being said we will change the channel or the station. If there are fewer viewers or listeners then they (the stations) will go out of business. That is the way the free market works!

In his latest rant Rev. Al Sharpton wants the FCC to take Rush Limbaugh off the public airwaves because he (Sharpton) is offended by what Rush says. If Mr. Sharpton is offended, then he too can change the channel or station.

Any action by the FCC to infringe on our 1st Amendment rights is mirroring dictatorial actions imposed by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela!

The members of the Rowlett Texas TEA Party

CC: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Senator John Cornyn
Representatives Ralph Hall
Sam Johnson
Jeb Hensarling

Mon Dec 20, 02:31:00 PM PST  
Blogger Well Seasoned Fool said...

It is always the drones way; a solution in search of a problem. If they were looking for problems in search of a solution, they would be producers, not drones.

Mon Dec 20, 03:49:00 PM PST  
Blogger Old NFO said...

Actually, the Dems are the ones pushing this one... Let's HOPE somebody up there has the balls to say no!

Mon Dec 20, 04:51:00 PM PST  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

TF, I wrote earlier about the so-called "public values test."

And it's NOT about the public, nor is it about VALUES.

It's, as you already know, about enabling Leftism.

God bless ya, Mister!

WSF: as I quantify it -- parasites and hosts. And we're running OUT of hosts.

NFO: let us HOPE. . .


Mon Dec 20, 05:45:00 PM PST  
Blogger Comrades In Arms said...

Comrade there is NO worse part of "censorship"

Tue Dec 21, 03:48:00 AM PST  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home