At stake is what rules should govern how Internet service providers (ISPs) manage web traffic on their networks to ensure they treat all Internet content fairly. At the heart of the latest phase in the debate over the rules is what legal authority should guide regulations.
Obama has urged the FCC to regulate ISPs more strictly under a section of communications law known as Title II, which would treat them more like public utilities. Broadband companies adamantly oppose the plan, saying the added regulatory burden would reduce investment and stifle innovation.
Republican chairmen of the Senate and House commerce committees, John Thune and Fred Upton, have been working to strike a legislative deal with Democrats that would adopt some of the same net neutrality principles but without resorting to Title II.
Late on Wednesday, Thune released a list of the net neutrality principles he would pursue, which closely echoed Obama’s, such as bans on blocking or throttling of websites.
Some Republicans have also sought a delay in the FCC’s vote to establish new net neutrality rules, now planned for Feb. 26. But FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has indicated no interest in such a change.
More at Reuters
This is frightening because it means one thing- taxes.
Worse than possible taxes, are possible amendment to the bill creating a net version of the old, Leftist “Fairness Doctrine” used to stifle speech.
Apparently many people still haven’t figured out that Net Neutrality is all about protecting competition and innovation, not to mention the public’s best interests. Most likely this is because a number of monolithic corporate players in the telecom industry have spent huge sums of money on a campaign designed to confuse the public on that very point.
@Greg:
Greg
Remember “You can keep your doctor and your plan”? Obama is a stinking LIAR. When he gets involved it’s about taxes, regulation and redistribution. Nothing else.
obama has very thin skin. Well he is a marcussist. Regardless The only reason the truth about barry is coming out is because of the internet. If he gets his way, sites like this will be gone and the people who post will be punished.
Read the history of hitler. Take out hitler’s name and replace it with barry’s name. The similarities are down right scary
@Greg: Actually Greg, this is all about control. Look at how the student loan amounts have ballooned out of control. Everything this administration has touched has turned to horse manure.
@Greg:
You are sooooo trusting of politicians. It is you who do not understand what it is about. From the start it’s the camel’s nose under the circus tent.
@Mully, #6:
I am not trusting of politicians. I made myself aware of what the Net Neutrality debate is about. I know perfectly well what will likely happen if internet service providers are allowed to charge differing rates for the same amounts of data transmission.
I pay $49.95 per year for long distance internet phone service using MagicJack. Is it likely that my cable service provider will continue charging MagicJack the same data transmission rates, when their own competing internet telephone service costs $49.99 per month?
That same situation will apply to all sorts of competing services. Online movie rentals, for example.
What’s the logic of putting the foxes in charge of the hen house? (Unless you’re on the side of the foxes, of course.) Why should trucks carrying identical weights of freight on a tollway be charged differing amounts, depending upon who owns the truck and what the cargo in the trailer is?
Where we differ in our thoughts on government is my belief that the government generally works for the people. If government doesn’t regulate and mediate, the people are entirely at the mercy of profit-oriented entities. Assuming that corporate America will always play fairly in the absence of a referee is a very big assumption. Government of course does have its own agenda, but voters still have a say in that—although the increasing empowerment of corporate money in politics is definitely clearly eroding that say.