You Asked for It, So What Did you Actually Get in Title II

[n_huffhines]

I was adamantly opposed to net neutrality, but I had no idea it would be this bad from the get go. Surprise! The people that put their trust in government couldn't have been more wrong.

300 pages of regulation.THE STARTING POINT is already more than you asked for. I warned you all. You ruined my internet. You deserve to burn in hell.

Both ObamaCare and “Obamanet” submit huge industries to complex regulations. Their supporters say the new rules had to be passed before anyone could read them. But at least ObamaCare claimed it would solve long-standing problems. Obamanet promises to fix an Internet that isn’t broken.

The permissionless Internet, which allows anyone to introduce a website, app or device without government review, ends this week.

No one, including the bullied FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, thought the agency would go this far. The big politicization came when President Obama in November demanded that the supposedly independent FCC apply the agency’s most extreme regulation to the Internet.

The Supreme Court has ruled that if the FCC applies Title II to the Internet, all uses of telecommunications will have to pass the “just and reasonable” test. Bureaucrats can review the fairness of Google ’s search results, Facebook ’s news feeds and news sites’ links to one another and to advertisers. BlackBerry is already lobbying the FCC to force Apple and Netflix to offer apps for BlackBerry’s unpopular phones.

AT&T has decades of experience leveraging FCC regulations to stop competition. Last week AT&T announced a high-speed broadband plan that charges an extra $29 a month to people who don’t want to be tracked for online advertising. New competitor Google Fiber can offer low-cost broadband only because it also earns revenues from online advertising. In other words, AT&T has already built a case against Google Fiber that Google’s cross-subsidization from advertising is not “just and reasonable.”

L. Gordon Crovitz: From Internet to Obamanet - WSJ

 

[Weezy]

I'm not sure anybody was asking for Title II. I'm for doing what they were already before they lost the lawsuit against Verizon.

That being said, if I did support Title II, I'd argue that this article takes an extremist viewpoint by turning how regulations "could" be enforced by his interpretation away from how Wheeler has stated only a limited portion of Title II would be applied.

 

[n_huffhines]

From the very start, opponents of net neutrality told supporters that this is exactly what they would get. I know they didn't want it, but that's not an excuse at this point. They plugged their ears and said "la la la" when I told them that in practical terms that this is what they were asking for, because this would invariably be the result.

 

[Weezy]

So you can't ask for something reasonable? We should all just succumb to shutting our mouths or asking for title II?

Regardless, I think the article is assuming that title II will be applied to content and not broadband. And nothing has happened yet, so you are not "right." If it is only applied to broadband service as described by the FCC, then the only thing that would change are speeds/prices. Content, as described in the article, would not. I'm not making a statement of either/or will happen. Just saying that you and the WSJ are jumping the gun.

 

[n_huffhines]

So you can't ask for something reasonable?

What's reasonable about asking for government to make the market fair? It's a subjective ideal and it's absurd to think they can accomplish that. They have a long history of overstepping their bounds and failing miserably at delivering what they set out to do.

So the answer to your question is no. You can't ask for something reasonable. You won't get it.

 

[Weezy]

Also:

8. Will Feb. 26 mark the end of this battle?
Sadly, no. Lawsuits are sure to follow. The major broadband operators in the US, including AT&T, Verizon and some cable operators, have already said they'll likely file a legal challenge to the Title II approach.

Republicans in Congress have also already crafted legislation that codifies the basic Net neutrality rules everyone agrees on but would strip the FCC of its authority to regulate the Internet. Some experts expect the Republican legislation to pass. But if it does, that legislation will surely get vetoed by President Obama, who is a big supporter of the FCC's Net neutrality rules and reclassification of broadband as a Title II service.

But while the battle may rage on in the courts, this latest chapter in the Net neutrality debate will conclude once the FCC votes to adopt this latest set of rules.

Net Fix: 8 burning questions about Net neutrality - CNET

I got a nickel that says whatever legislation congress passes is loaded with other crap.

 

[n_huffhines]

Regardless, I think the article is assuming that title II will be applied to content and not broadband. And nothing has happened yet, so you are not "right." If it is only applied to broadband service as described by the FCC, then the only thing that would change are speeds/prices. Content, as described in the article, would not. I'm not making a statement of either/or will happen. Just saying that you and the WSJ are jumping the gun.

Let's see, I've heard a phrase like "just and reasonable" before, and it enables government to do everything under the sun. Hmmm...what was that statement?...oh yeah, "necessary and proper".

Regulators and lawmakers weren't born yesterday. They know what they can do with that sort of broad phrasing.

 

[Weezy]

We had a set of rule in place that were just fine. Verizon sued, and won because broadband was classified as Title I. So they switch to Title II. It's not some insane notion to suggest that government just wants to enforce the open order regulations. If congress wants to pass legislation that addresses only this (and not attach immigration to it), then do it, and make the president veto it. They will not.

 

[volinbham]

The language the FCC used to describe the proposal and the Supreme Court interpretation described in the OP article are terrible blows to the freedom of the Internet. It was only a matter of time I guess.

 

[volinbham]

The mere fact that the 300 page proposal is being kept secret from the public ought to raise all sorts of red flags.

 

[davethevol]

The mere fact that the 300 page proposal is being kept secret from the public ought to raise all sorts of red flags.

It's like Obamacare all over again.

 

[theFallGuy]

It's like Obamacare all over again.

they are counting on the ignorance of the people. again.

 

[theFallGuy]

National Review

 

[n_huffhines]

LOL, I have been posting on FB about Net Neutrality for a year, and only a couple people ever interact with the posts. I share a WSJ article that calls it Obamanet and it gets all kinds of interaction, including multiple shares.

I gotta learn to spin stuff better.

 

[golfballs]

I'm with you Huff. Mad as hell

 

[DC_Vol]

100% with huff as well. I'll never understand people who willingly want to hand over more control to nanny state in Washington. Like sheep marching to slaughter. Fools, all of you.

 

[myrobbins7]

100% with huff as well. I'll never understand people who willingly want to hand over more control to nanny state in Washington. Like sheep marching to slaughter. Fools, all of you.

This!

 

[Carl Pickens]

What's reasonable about asking for government to make the market fair? It's a subjective ideal and it's absurd to think they can accomplish that. They have a long history of overstepping their bounds and failing miserably at delivering what they set out to do.

So the answer to your question is no. You can't ask for something reasonable. You won't get it.

Just like obamacare ...... This is an overreaching POS

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

When the internet is against the law, only outlaws will have the internet.

 

[n_huffhines]

Just like obamacare ...... This is an overreaching POS

He can't do it without the Rs.

 

[theFallGuy]

LOL, I have been posting on FB about Net Neutrality for a year, and only a couple people ever interact with the posts. I share a WSJ article that calls it Obamanet and it gets all kinds of interaction, including multiple shares.

I gotta learn to spin stuff better.

My liberal FB friends were too busy rah-rahing the Keystone Pipeline veto like cancer was cured

 

[joevol320]

yep, you'll need some certificate to start a website and it's content they disagree with, you'll never get the authority to start it.

Obama truly hates the freedoms that he enjoys.

He who controls the medium, controls the message.

 

[joevol320]

He can't do it without the Rs.

if it falls under the FCC congress can't do much accept create a law undoing it, but with these guys in office it's not going to happen.

 

[AirVol]

Liberal philanthropist George Soros and the Ford Foundation have
lavished groups supporting the administration’s “net neutrality” (really Obamanet)
agenda, donating $196 million and landing proponents on the White House
staff.

 

[joevol320]

soros knows that when the government controls the net, so do the major money donors for the dems.