Net Neutrality

[nightmare]

It sounds like this ruling will protect corporations from other corporations but does nothing to help the average citizen. Remind me where those commissioners used to work?

[mojo84]

It sounds like this ruling will protect corporations from other corporations but does nothing to help the average citizen. Remind me where those commissioners used to work?

Here you go. http://www.fcc.gov/leadership" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Only one of the five came from private industry. The chairman is a former entrepreneur that started up internet and other telecommunications companies. The others are career government employees.

[TVegas]

What some don't understand is once government gets their hands into something, even if it is initially beneficial, they normally don't stop there. Another thing done don't understand is that bills and rules are given favorable sounding names but actually do the opposite or much more than what the name implies.

What many understand and is concerned about is that "net neutrality" is just the beginning of much more to come. It's probably hidden in those three hundred pages. Some are easily lulled into thinking those in government are there to look out for us.

By the way, the 1st Amendment is to keep the government from suppressing or limiting free speech. It has nothing to do with private companies throttling internet bandwidth.

You are correct, keeping the government from suppressing or limiting free speech is exactly what the 1st Amendment is for. What you are missing is that it also gives the government the ability to ensure the right to free speech. That is why I see the similarity between the 1st Amendment and the concept of net neutrality. Throttling internet bandwidth would effectively suppress and limit access to certain websites. ISPs could limit our access to this very forum if they desired. While not exactly a 1st Amendment issue, it is extremely similar in concept.

[mojo84]

What some don't understand is once government gets their hands into something, even if it is initially beneficial, they normally don't stop there. Another thing done don't understand is that bills and rules are given favorable sounding names but actually do the opposite or much more than what the name implies.

What many understand and is concerned about is that "net neutrality" is just the beginning of much more to come. It's probably hidden in those three hundred pages. Some are easily lulled into thinking those in government are there to look out for us.

By the way, the 1st Amendment is to keep the government from suppressing or limiting free speech. It has nothing to do with private companies throttling internet bandwidth.

You are correct, keeping the government from suppressing or limiting free speech is exactly what the 1st Amendment is for. What you are missing is that it also gives the government the ability to ensure the right to free speech. That is why I see the similarity between the 1st Amendment and the concept of net neutrality. Throttling internet bandwidth would effectively suppress and limit access to certain websites. ISPs could limit our access to this very forum if they desired. While not exactly a 1st Amendment issue, it is extremely similar in concept.

In this case, I think your argument is best supported by other than the 1st Amendment.

[eureka40]

Speaking on WMAL this morning former US Atty and high powered DC lawyer Joe DiGenova said the FCC Net Neutrality rules will never come to be since they will never survive a court challenge. He added that "standing will never be an issue."

[mojo84]

Speaking on WMAL this morning former US Atty and high powered DC lawyer Joe DiGenova said the FCC Net Neutrality rules will never come to be since they will never survive a court challenge. He added that "standing will never be an issue."

How much damage will be done while it works its way through the courts? The administration has figured out they can get their way while the courts try to sort out wrists legal and not.

[cb1000rider]

Speaking on WMAL this morning former US Atty and high powered DC lawyer Joe DiGenova said the FCC Net Neutrality rules will never come to be since they will never survive a court challenge. He added that "standing will never be an issue."

I don't believe that. I mean I believe it at face value - how can you force a policy into what is essentially private property? But then I think back to when the government forced carriers to open up phone lines to several long distance service providers, regardless of who owned the lines.. It certainly could happen.