Chairman Julius Genachowski is moving forward as rapidly as he dares to add the Federal Communications Commission to the growing list of federal agencies used by President Obama to enforce a radical agenda opposed by the Democratic Congress and an overwhelming majority of voters. Genachowski recently unveiled a revised draft of his 2009 "net neutrality" proposal that would put the Internet under a New Deal-era communications bureaucracy. Under the guise of protecting consumers from being forced to pay for varying levels of delivery access and speed, Genachowski proposes to drag the Internet under the same regulatory authority that puts the FCC in charge of radio, telephone and television broadcasting.
Internet Service Providers would be barred from charging multiple rates to different customers, as well as from denying selected applications and services access to their networks. The proposal also contains vague mentions of new "incentives" to ISPs to expand their networks to insure equal access to the Internet. Virtually all major ISPs oppose the proposal, while it is favored by radical political activists masquerading as consumer advocates, some liberal members of Congress, and federal bureaucrats who never miss an opportunity to justify bigger budgets and staffs.
Genachowski says his proposal will make the FCC "the cop on the beat," bringing justice and fairness to the Internet on behalf of consumers. The cop is needed, he argues, because too often ISPs have "prevented consumers from using the applications of their choice. The framework is designed to guard against these risks while protecting the needs and interests of providers." In other words, Genachowski is from the government and he is here to help us.
In fact, Genachowski does not have the authority to regulate the Internet. Making his agency the cop on the digital beat would be like sending a Department of Agriculture meat inspector to arrest a college admissions director for charging out-of-state students more than those who live in-state.
Read more at the Washington Examiner
Internet Service Providers would be barred from charging multiple rates to different customers, as well as from denying selected applications and services access to their networks. The proposal also contains vague mentions of new "incentives" to ISPs to expand their networks to insure equal access to the Internet. Virtually all major ISPs oppose the proposal, while it is favored by radical political activists masquerading as consumer advocates, some liberal members of Congress, and federal bureaucrats who never miss an opportunity to justify bigger budgets and staffs.
Genachowski says his proposal will make the FCC "the cop on the beat," bringing justice and fairness to the Internet on behalf of consumers. The cop is needed, he argues, because too often ISPs have "prevented consumers from using the applications of their choice. The framework is designed to guard against these risks while protecting the needs and interests of providers." In other words, Genachowski is from the government and he is here to help us.
In fact, Genachowski does not have the authority to regulate the Internet. Making his agency the cop on the digital beat would be like sending a Department of Agriculture meat inspector to arrest a college admissions director for charging out-of-state students more than those who live in-state.
Read more at the Washington Examiner
2 comments:
They cannot allow us to continue with the free and easy exchange of information on the internet.
The government's stability itself is at risk. The internet must be controlled!
Once people learn the truth about America, they will demand an end to the evil and corrupt government which takes half of our money through taxation in order to kill innocent people around the globe.
anonymous of course
Its about money and control. Too many ideas the government just can't stand are openly and freely discussed and bantered about on the Internet..we can't have any of THAT can we? What would the world become if the government of a (less and less) free nation allowed its citizens to speak freely? To exchange information without control? And do you think there won't be some kind of tax or fee associated with this "control"? Think of the BILLIONS that would flow into government coffers. This "freedom" crap has got to come to an end. Soon. Or else we are going to have, well, uh,....freedom.
Post a Comment