Tech | December 20, 2010 | 40 comments

New FCC Rules Screw Young People

The FCC's new "compromise" on Net Neutrality allows companies to block wireless content (most often used by young people) but prohibits content-blocking over cable networks (more often used by older people with more political clout). An entire generation is being groomed to accept censorship.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/business/media/21fcc.html
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Geek Out Culture
  2. tags:
    Internet content Access blocking 1 more
  3.     
    |

40 comments // New FCC Rules Screw Young People

  • Paratus
    • -1
      Paratus  
    • Another victory for the MOveOn, Soros bunch. The so-called Fairness Doctrine may have been unable to pass even given the liberals on the Hill but under the guise of "net neutrality" the idiots ate it with a spoon. The successful demonizing of any company, lead by the moron in chief in the White HOuse, has lead to more and more government control of us. Thanks.

    • 1 year ago
  • Progresshiv
  • artemis6
    • 0
      artemis6  
    • It seems to me ANYONE that wants to use wireless ( that would include me , an oldish female ) is totally screwed . NOW well have to find a completely different way to actually interact , because people like comcast and at&t have and intend to ever more corrupt and poison this one .

    • 1 year ago
  • CCorsair
  • NickerBocker09
    • 0
      NickerBocker09  
    • I dont like the FCC, however, I was under the impression this net neutrality was a good thing. Maybe someone can explain it? Because it all sounds jumbled and shit. I thought this was done so that internet providers cant block anything. So that you dont need a bunch of money in order to get as much information as someone with a bunch of money.

    • 1 year ago
  • Progresshiv
    • +3
      Progresshiv  
    • Image
    • NickerBocker09:

      The straight story from CREDO:

      "They're calling it net neutrality, but it isn't.

      Despite what you may have read in the headlines, the rules passed by the FCC today amount to nothing more than a cynical ploy by Democrats to claim a victory on net neutrality while actually caving on real protections for consumers.

      Make no mistake, AT&T lobbyists pre-approved this proposal, which means consumers lost and Big Telecom won.

      Net neutrality is a principle that says that Internet users, not Internet service providers (ISPs), should be in control. It ensures that Internet service providers can't speed up, slow down, or block Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination.

      Yet today the FCC, let by Obama-appointee Julius Genachowski and cheered on by the White House, voted to adopt rules that will enshrine in federal regulations for the first time the ability of AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and other ISPs to discriminate between sources and types of content. And despite the fact that there is only one Internet, the rules also largely exempt cell phones and wireless devices from what meager protections the rules afford....

      ...After a federal court ruled that unless the FCC reversed the Bush-era decision to deregulate broadband the FCC couldn't enforce net neutrality rules, Genachowski tested the waters with a proposal to reregulate (or in the jargon of the FCC "reclassify") broadband. Genachowski himself said that, according to the FCC General Counsel, pushing ahead with policies without reregulating broadband would be unwise given the tenuous legal footing the FCC would find itself in. In fact, Genachowski said:

      "...continuing to pursue policies with respect to broadband Internet access [without reclassifying broadband] has a serious risk of failure in court. It would involve a protracted, piecemeal approach to defending essential policy initiatives designed to protect consumers, promote competition, extend broadband to all Americans, pursue necessary public safety measures, and preserve the free and open Internet. The concern is that this path would lead the Commission straight back to its current uncertain situation-and years will have passed without actually implementing the key policies needed to improve broadband in America and enhance economic growth and broad opportunity for all Americans."

      But the Chairman changed his tune after he unsurprisingly came under pressure from the telecom giants.

      From what we can gather, one of the decisive moments came when 74 Democrats signed a letter to the FCC warning Genachowski not to reclassify broadband. The letter, which was promoted by telecom lobbyists, cleverly included language to support Congressional action to address the issue of net neutrality. But given that Congress was demonstrably beholden to the telecom lobbyists, and with the Republicans threatening the FCC outright, the subtext was clear. No FCC action on reclassification meant no viable chance to implement real net neutrality rules.

      Chairman Genachowski was quickly cowed by political pressure and signaled an unwillingness to reclassify broadband. And rather than trying to give us net neutrality protections, he has instead sought to find a way of cynically passing something he can claim is net neutrality, when it's nothing of the sort.

      In the end, there is no way to paint this decision today as anything less than a defeat for net neutrality advocates and for our democracy.

      The lack of political will to confront the telecommunications giants effectively gave these oligarchic interests a veto over the rules that govern their behavior. In this way the narrow interests of a few powerful and wealthy corporations were prioritized over the public good and the literally millions of people who spoke out and demanded that the FCC protect our free and open Internet.

      This is a clear example of industry capture of a regulatory body, and a damning indictment of government institutions that are supposed to regulate — not be run by — corporate interests.

      Here are four things you can do now to fight the corporate interests that gave birth to this situation we find ourselves in:

      1) Read and share this blog post by our friends at Progressive Campaign Change Committee with three things everyone needs to know about Chairman Genachowski's fake net neutrality rules.

      http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=6734&id=14068-1563679-dswStOx&t=1

      2) Tell the FCC to at least oppose the increased consolidation of our media by opposing the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal.

      http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=6735&id=14068-1563679-dswStOx&t=2

      3) Harry Reid's new chief of staff is a former telecom lobbyist and contributor to Republican causes. Tell Reid to fire him.

      http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=6736&id=14068-1563679-dswStOx&t=3

      4) Lastly, one senator fought to the end — Sen. Al Franken. Click here to join us in thanking him for standing up for net neutrality:

      http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=6737&id=14068-1563679-dswStOx&t=4

    • 1 year ago
  • remanns
  • NickerBocker09
  • Progresshiv
  • cclark_productions
  • remanns
    • +2
      remanns  
    • Franken -

      “Maybe you like Google Maps. Well, tough,” Mr. Franken said on Saturday on the Senate floor. “If the F.C.C. passes this weak rule, Verizon will be able to cut off access to the Google Maps app on your phone and force you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it is not as good. And even if they charge money, when Google Maps is free.”

    • 1 year ago
  • Progresshiv
  • curtisreed
    • +3
      curtisreed  
    • Here at last is a topic with which I agree with the liberals. I don't want this F*ing government getting involved and trying to regulate and control the internet. Get your dirty, greedy, corrupt political hands off the internet.

      I don't want or need F*ing government help keeping my kids away from porn or monitoring what I look at or search for or who I talk with.

      Damned government just can't let anything exist without them taxing it and regulating it to death.

    • 1 year ago
  • Progresshiv
    • +4
      Progresshiv  
    • curtisreed:

      curtisreed,
      I know we don't agree on much, and this may end up being something else I annoy you with: it's not "the government" that wants to control bandwidth and content; it's the ISPs like Comcast that want to bleed us dry for transmitting files across their systems. In this case the government (in the form of the FCC) has rolled over like a whipped dog for these companies, because the ISPs own the Congress, lock, stock, and barrel. I agree with you that we need to stop this blatant takeover of the only remaining unbiased form of information sharing, but I suggest that we need to do it by hitting these gluttonous companies where it hurts: in their pocketbooks. And we need to reform the campaign finance laws so that the mega-companies can't just buy the damned Congress.

    • 1 year ago
  • CarlosIsDown
    • +2
      CarlosIsDown  
    • curtisreed:

      Actually, the FCC, the Government was telling corporations "TREAT ALL TRAFFIC THE SAME!" But your corporate buddies where all like "I dun wanna!" So your enemies at the government were all like. "Ok, ok, I'm sorry," and got on their knees for their corporate masters.

    • 1 year ago
  • Paratus
    • 0
      Paratus  
    • Progresshiv:

      I agreee with curtisreed. Although it is the result of lobbying by the ISP's why did the government bend over for them? It takes two to tango. The ISP's may want to maximize their market clout and income but in this case the government is saying go ahead. Who is worse? Sounds like a chicken and egg controversy. Instead of "hitting these gluttonous companies where it hurts" how about we replace the government minions. Unless direct investment and competition forces the gluttonous companies to change, not to likely given the capital required, it is easier to replace the people permitting this behavior in the first place.
      Oh, while we are reforming the campaign finance laws we need to address the ease that people like George Soros can influence government policy. Same problem.

    • 1 year ago
  • Progresshiv
    • 0
      Progresshiv  
    • Paratus:

      Yes, the "government minions" are corrupt, but how do we replace them with ethical, impartial people when all public offices seem to be for sale to the highest bidder, when both chicken AND egg are rotten? Neither so-called major political party is ethical, and the new lords of wealth play our legislators as if they were pieces in a global chess game. I t seems to me that the common folk- wage earners- must stop allowing themselves to be used as pawns in the game. Unless and until that happens, no amount of blogging discussion will change what's happening.

    • 1 year ago
  • Saladin
    • +3
      Saladin  
    • This is a huge problem and something we should definitely pay attention to.

      This is the first major defeat for net neutrality. The internet will cease to be relevant or innovative at all if shit like this continues.

    • 1 year ago
  • Progresshiv
  • littlwarrior
  • bailey78
  • littlwarrior
  • bailey78
    • +2
      bailey78  
    • littlwarrior:

      and that is just what they want. they want to dumb us down so we are easier to control. they fear us in a way that most are unaware of. A educated person is harder to deal with because they ask questions and demand answers that are not just dribble.

    • 1 year ago
  • lucidlyacting56
    • +5
      lucidlyacting56  
    • "Net neutrality, broadly speaking, is an effort to ensure equal access to Web sites and cutting-edge online services. "

      you have to be kidding me. This is what there saying to push this through?

    • 1 year ago
  • Progresshiv
  • lucidlyacting56
    • +3
      lucidlyacting56  
    • Progresshiv:

      What's really sad is the fact that most Americans will take this for what they say it is. They will not know the truth until they try to go to wikileaks or some other controversial website, and find out they are blocked. It's amazing how twisted the gov. really is. Sad, just sad.

    • 1 year ago
  • Progresshiv
  • Starchild
  • bailey78
  • FtheBULLSHT
    • +3
      FtheBULLSHT  
    • "He said he wanted to ensure that the Internet “doesn’t travel down the same road of special interest consolidation and gate-keeper control that other media and telecommunications industries — radio, television, film and cable — have traveled.”

      Isn't giving Verizon the power to block Google Maps "gate-keeper control?"

    • 1 year ago
  • Progresshiv
  • Incredulous
    • +4
      Incredulous  
    • My money is on the young...I don't believe they will just stand back and take this kind of censorship. They are the innovators, creators, and most resourceful when it comes to wireless and internet usage...if they make the FCC hear their voices, and I believe they will, the FCC will listen.

    • 1 year ago
  • bailey78
  • Incredulous
  • bailey78
  • Dagum
    • +7
      Dagum  
    • You are good man posting this and looking out for us young folks with no power. Nobody else seems to care.

    • 1 year ago
  • Progresshiv
    • +7
      Progresshiv  
    • Dagum:

      I was young once, and I got sick and tired of older people (who had wealth and political power) acting as if they owned the planet, especially when I could see that they didn't know jack about how to live. It's time for young folks to assert their right to a decent future, because no geezers are going to step aside willingly.

    • 1 year ago
  • Incredulous
  • Progresshiv
  • bailey78
Progresshiv
more from Tech:

top videos