Thread: Net Neutrality on FCC's Plate

Net neutrality' now on FCC's plate
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 10/27/2009 8:00:00 AMBookmark and

The FCC has voted to craft "net neutrality" rules -- a move applauded by some and criticized by others.



In an alleged attempt to protect free speech on the Internet and prevent Internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a tier system for broadband use, the FCC has decided to craft rules and regulations to guide ISPs. Once the rules are crafted, they will be posted for public comment and a final decision will not be handed down until early next year.

Over the weekend FCC chairman Julius Genachowski stated that the rule-making process is not designed to put the Commission in charge of regulating the Internet. "[W]e will be getting a lot of public input on what are fair, common-sense rules of the road to ensure that any small business, any entrepreneur, any speaker engaging in a lawful activity can have access to the Internet and the ability to reach an audience," he told BusinessWeek.

James Gattuso (Heritage Foundation)However, the proposed rules are already meeting criticism. James Gattuso, a senior fellow in regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation, says the FCC's move does not bode well for the Internet.

"I think it is bad. It's certainly a very dangerous step," he states. "It's the first step towards federal regulation of the Internet itself.

"Essentially the Internet has been one of the most successful technological innovations ever seen in the history of man -- and has been so because of its relative freedom from controls," says Gattuso. "[And] I think having the government step in now to try to regulate how it is managed will threaten...that success."



Story continues below ...

What are your feelings about an agency of the U.S. gov't getting involved

in regulating content on the Internet? Vote in our poll


ISPs such as AT&T are critical of the proposed rules, while the Internet giant Google is pushing for the regulations. That development is interesting since Brian Camenker of MassResistance claims that Google engaged in censorship of his website for posting material critical of homosexuality. However, he adds that there needs to be some sort of rule that protects political free speech.

Brian Camenker"The idea of saying you cannot discriminate by political content, I think, is very important -- because if you don't do that, it's going to start happening, and it's going to start happening very badly," says Camenker.

The thought of a government agency regulating the Internet brings fear among some who believe the U.S. could become like China, where the government engages in strict Internet censorship. But Gattuso says the U.S. is a long way from that scenario.

"The Great Wall of China now is a wall protecting information from coming in from the Internet," he shares. "There is a lot to be worried about before you get to that point -- and under this proposal, any differentiation of traffic -- and everyone can see that some differentiation of traffic has to be made -- those rules have to be approved by the government."

And that, he explains, means the federal government would be deciding which speech is valuable and which is not. Gattuso contends that process will devalue the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.



http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Defau ... ?id=739448

Please "States Rights" states fight back.

All speech is valuable. And people do have the right to regulate themselves. As for ISP providers, and the websites they host, those rules should be set amongst themselves, not dictated by the feds. Just went to Google XXX sites, and the response was 55,600,000 websites with adult porn. Google asking for federal regulation will just be an excuse not to host material they do not agree with--the old "the feds made us do it" argument when someone objects to censoring.