FCC commissioner: Get ready for a government takeover of the Internet...

[Wilikon]

... and lots and lots of new taxes:



First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated
monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.


http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

[KonstantinosM]

... and lots and lots of new taxes:



First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated
monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.


http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

The US is far behind the times in regards to the Internet.

This is a political victory for a free and open Internet.

I'm not sure whether this is bait or not.

[grendel25]

The FCC is overran with former CEOs of big cable companies and they don't have our best interest in mind.  They only want to see bigger profits at the detriment of the internet user experience.  Thank god for the POTUS doing the right thing.

[Wilikon]

Networks Barely Cover Obama’s Internet Regulations



The government may implement new regulations over the Internet that could cost the economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Despite the potentially large impact of these regulations, the broadcast news networks have barely covered the issue in the almost three months since President Barack Obama announced his support for rules to achieve "net neutrality" and a "free and open Internet."

Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Tom Wheeler said on February 4 that he backed Obama’s plan to reclassify the Internet as a public utility under the government agency’s Title II authority. FCC commissioner Ajit Pai said in a press release on February 6 that the plan "marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet." Even a liberal think tank predicted that these regulations could cost American households $156 in new fees.

Despite its importance, the broadcast news networks’ morning and evening shows dedicated only 3 minutes, 38 seconds of coverage to these potential regulations over the Internet since Obama’s announcement November 10, 2014 through February 9, 2015. They almost entirely ignored opposition to the plan. By way of contrast, the networks spent 67 minutes, 49 seconds covering the "Deflategate" scandal during less than one week in January, nearly 19 times more than net neutrality over a period of almost three months.

Phil Kerpen, President of American Commitment, told MRC Business, "There has been almost no coverage of the president strong-arming what is supposed to be an independent agency, or the highly questionable policy he has proposed that would reverse the past two decades of Internet policy and install a heavy-handed regulate-and-tax alternative."

When they did cover the issue, the networks were almost entirely uncritical in their reporting. On November 11, CBS's "This Morning" co-host Gayle King echoed the White House’s talking points, saying that Obama wanted the FCC "to adopt tough rules to protect a free and open internet."

Gayle said that "broadband service providers want to charge higher fees" for Internet access, which could "result in the blocking or slowing down of content for some." Yet, she failed to explain how the president’s proposal would improve this situation or describe the plan’s potential costs.

ABC News only mentioned the proposed regulations once during a segment on "World News" January 20. While previewing the State of the Union address, chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl vaguely referenced that Obama wanted to expand "faster, cheaper Internet access" for the "middle class."

Segments on the other networks also brought up the proposal only in passing. On "Nightly News" December 19, 2014, NBC's senior White House correspondent Chris Jansing highlighted "immigration, climate change and internet regulations" as policies on which Obama was "pushing the limits of his executive authority" and "defying newly empowered Republicans." Jansing did not say how or why Republicans disagreed with the president on any of these policies.

The only instance when the networks actually explained opposition to Obama's plan occurred during a news brief on "Nightly News" November 10, 2014. Anchor Brian Williams said, "Many Republicans said publically today if the president has his way, it would hurt innovation and job growth." Williams did not expand on this statement.

Although the networks avoided airing dissenting opinions, critics have long said that giving the FCC greater control over the Internet could have severe impacts on freedom of speech and the economy. Former FCC commissioner Robert M. McDowell said that "FCC 'oversight of the political process' through more Internet regulations sounds eerily like political speech controls," in an op-ed for The Washington Post on July 14, 2014.

The liberal Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) predicted that households could pay an additional $156 in fees to federal, state, and local governments if regulators reclassified the internet as a public utility in a report released December, 2014. Revenue from these fees would total $15 billion per year, according to PPI.

Reclassifying the internet as a public utility to achieve net neutrality might also negatively impact broadband Internet service providers (ISPs). This move "could put as many as 174,000 broadband related jobs at risk by the end of this decade," according to the conservative think tank American Action Forum.

The regulation could reduce investments in ISPs by $45.4 billion by 2019, according to a report by the economic consulting firm Sonecon. The report was co-authored by Sonecon chairman Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, who said he was an economic advisor to every Democratic candidate since President Bill Clinton, including Obama.


In addition to negative impacts of the plan on the economy and society, FCC commissioner Ajit Pai criticized the agency’s lack of transparency. Wheeler circulated the administration’s 332-page plan to members of the commission, but Pai said in his press release that he was "disappointed that the plan will not be released publicly." He argued that the "FCC should be as open and transparent as the Internet itself and post the entire document on its website."

Pai tweeted a picture of the plan on January 6, writing that "I wish the public could see what's inside."

Last year, Pai called out the FCC for undertaking the controversial Critical Information Needs (CIN) study. He warned in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on February 10, 2014, that through this study, the FCC had "proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country." Although the FCC ultimately killed CIN, Pai drew a parallel with "the FCC’s now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, which began in 1949 and required equal time for contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues."

As they did with the current proposed Internet regulations, the networks ignored the FCC's threat to investigate television and radio newsrooms across the country.

Methodology: MRC Business examined the stories during morning and evening shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC from November 10, 2014, through February 8, 2015 that mentioned “Internet” and “Obama,” “Federal Communications Commission,” or “FCC.” The time spent discussing President Obama’s proposal in the ten resulting stories was 3 minutes, 38 seconds.



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joseph-rossell/2015/02/09/nets-barely-cover-obamas-internet-regulations


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are rich, $156 of more taxes is nothing. If you are poor then...

[Wilikon]

Ajit Pai, the sole Republican Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), inferred in a Tweet that President Barack Obama’s secret, 332-page “Net Neutrality” document is a scheme for federal micro-managing of the Internet to extract billions in new taxes from consumers and again enforce progressives’ idea of honest, equitable, and balanced content fairness.


FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler recently acknowledged that the two Democrats on the commission had decided to avoid Congressional input regarding the Internet by adopting President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1934 Communications Act to regulate the Internet with the same federal control as the old AT&T customer monopoly. To make sure that libertarian advocates would remain in the dark, Wheeler “embargoed” release of any of the specifics in the new administrative “policy” that will act as law.

The FCC legislation that was passed eighty-one years ago by the most leftist Congress in American history to ban companies from participating in “unjust or unreasonable discrimination” when providing phone services to customers.

But in 1949, the Democrat-dominated Commission implemented the “Fairness Doctrine” that required holders of media broadcast licenses to present “issues of public importance” in a manner that is “honest, equitable, and balanced” in the “Commission’s view. It would take 39 years before a conservative Congress could overturn a policy that hijacked the mainstream media to kowtow to liberals or face loss of their licenses.

If the Internet economy was a country, it would rank fifth, behind only the U.S., China, Japan, and India. Economic activity on the Internet totals $4.2 trillion, and almost half of the earth’s 7 billion people are already connected to the Web.

Ajit Pai’s description of “President Obama’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet” sounds Orwellian. He tweeted a picture of himself holding the 332-page plan just below a picture of a smiling Barack Obama with a comment, “I wish the public could see what’s inside.” The implication depicted Obama as George Orwell’s “Big Brother.”

Pai also released a statement: “President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works,” he said. “The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband… These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.”

Pai had previously observed that he was concerned about the plan would hinder broadband investment, slow network speed and expansion, limit outgrowth to rural areas of the country, and reduce Internet service provider (ISP) competition.

“The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market,” Pai said. “As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get.”

Pai’s confrontational comments came after FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler penned an op-ed in Wired Magazine detailing his spin on the core aspects of the Democrat’s desire to lump ISPs under the amended Title II of the 1996 Telecommunications Act — which was used to break-up the AT&T telephone monopoly into four regional Bell companies at the dawn of the digital age.

“Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC,” Wheeler wrote on Wednesday. “These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services.”

Pai responded that the “Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation” during the Obama Administration. On January 14, 2014, the D.C. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals struck down most of the FCC’s November 2011 net neutrality rules. The Appellate Court vacated the FCC’s “anti-discrimination” and “anti-blocking” as essentially discriminatory and blocking in an attempt to again give the FCC political appointees the power to dictate what they believe is honest, equitable, and balanced.

Pai said that after a year of debates responding to the courts twice striking down FCC efforts to regulate the Internet, “There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.”

Pai promised he would make further comments as he reviews the plan himself in the next two weeks in the run-up to the FCC’s public vote on February 26. He has blamed the two Democrat Commissioners’ for their dismissal of any negotiations with Congressional Republicans in setting the “basic rules” governing Internet access.

As Breitbart has highlighted before, turning the Internet into a “telephone service” would “empower an intrusive public sector that thrives on high taxes, heavy-handed controls and the status quo.”


http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/02/09/republican-fcc-member-warns-net-neutrality-is-not-neutral/

[Wilikon]

Dems on FEC open to new regs on donors, Internet



Claiming that thousands of public comments condemning “dark money” in politics can’t be ignored, the Democrat-chaired Federal Election Commission on Wednesday appeared ready to open the door to new regulations on donors, bloggers and others who use the Internet to influence policy and campaigns.

During a broad FEC hearing to discuss a recent Supreme Court decision that eliminated some donor limits, proponents encouraged the agency to draw up new funding disclosure rules and require even third-party internet-based groups to reveal donors, a move that would extinguish a 2006 decision to keep the agency’s hands off the Internet.

Noting the 32,000 public comments that came into the FEC in advance of the hearing, Democratic Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub said, “75 percent thought that we need to do more about money in politics, particularly in the area of disclosure. And I think that's something that we can't ignore.”

But a former Republican FEC chairman said in his testimony that if the agency moves to regulate the Internet, including news voices like the Drudge Report as GOP commissioners have warned, many thousands more comments will flood in in opposition of regulation.

“If you produce a rule that says we are going to start regulating this stuff, including the internet and so on, I think you will see a lot more than 32,000 comments come in and I don't think staff will analyze them and find that 75 percent are favorable to more regulation,” said Bradley Smith, now with the Center for Competitive Politics.

Democratic Chairwoman Ann Ravel, who called the hearing, has said she wants to regulate politicking on the Internet, though she has pulled back amid a public outcry, especially among conservatives who see her move as a bid to silence center-right websites and Internet based conservative groups and news sites.

However, two groups, including the League of Women Voters, said they support more disclosure by those who use the Internet to influence campaigns and policy.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-open-to-new-regs-on-donors-internet/article/2560099




--------------------------------------------------
LA Supermarket Found Selling Whole Raccoon In Frozen Foods Section. Whaaaat? Only in CA can you get WHOLE raccoon. http://yhst-46145187252911.stores.yahoo.net/rameprofusa.html

 

[jaysabi]

... and lots and lots of new taxes:



First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated
monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.


http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

The US is far behind the times in regards to the Internet.

This is a political victory for a free and open Internet.

I'm not sure whether this is bait or not.

It's classic bait, a bunch of fear mongering without specifics. Notice if you click through to the source, and read the whole thing, Mr. Pai's letter states that he will provide specifics about why this plan is so terrible at a later time. (OP truncated that part of the letter, he was too busy reposting all the non-specific talking points.) All this letter was meant to do was rile up the base.

Let me know when Mr. Pai posts something substantive, not a bunch of conclusions without the evidence to support them.

[Chef Ramsay]

They would love to get their hands on our internet to be able to further restrict liberties and the ability to navigate certain websites that aren't glowing of the state and shelling out information to help the public to see the light. The corporations will make more money and I bet they're actively involved in pushing for this. If I heard correctly, I don't even think the bill to pass this is available to the public to try and limit the inevitable rally against this. 2 similar bills have already been shot down when public opinion became overwhelming which is weird since the same amount of public outrage happened over the banker bailouts yet those still passed. I'm sure Rand Paul will lead the charge against this one or be actively involved because this is an easy populist issue to act on.

[Wilikon]

... and lots and lots of new taxes:



First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated
monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.


http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

The US is far behind the times in regards to the Internet.

This is a political victory for a free and open Internet.

I'm not sure whether this is bait or not.

It's classic bait, a bunch of fear mongering without specifics. Notice if you click through to the source, and read the whole thing, Mr. Pai's letter states that he will provide specifics about why this plan is so terrible at a later time. (OP truncated that part of the letter, he was too busy reposting all the non-specific talking points.) All this letter was meant to do was rile up the base.

Let me know when Mr. Pai posts something substantive, not a bunch of conclusions without the evidence to support them.

If mr. pai or myself are trying to lie to anyone, why can't the FCC and the people behind those 332 pages be upfront and let anyone read those pages? PDF please, with a search function, not 332 pages of paper toilet scanned at 72 dpi, saved as docx...

I understand, for some, the government can do no wrong. Ever. Unlike happy people posting links of news on their favorite forum, links anyone can read to the fullest by checking the whole article themselves.

Posting a part of a website here is wrong and bad. Letting the government change the whole entire internet, in secret and forever, is good.

I guess some of us already read those 332 pages and know in advance to distrust Wilikon and mr. pai. That is a huge amount of faith on 332 pages called "net neutrality", doublespeak 101...


 

[Wilikon]

FCC Commish: "This Is A Massive Power Grab, Government At Its Worst"


Listen to Mark’s interview with FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai to discuss Obama’s proposal to regulate the Internet:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?pt=FCC+Commish%3A+%22This+Is+A+Massive+Power+Grab%2C+Government+At+Its+Worst%22&id=13251&is_corp=0

[Wilikon]

So 3 human beings, picked up (not elected) by a president will decide the fate of the whole US internet. Bitcoin is cash for the internet. Bitcoin is free speech. I am glad they won't touch this technology.

I believe a lot of people will be surprised coming next month when finally going through the details of those 332 pages, in searchable PDF format I hope.

[darkota]

Why did we vote Barack into office again?? This guy has done nothing good so far and now wants to form a monopoly on the American internet...America is being put to shame.

[jaysabi]

... and lots and lots of new taxes:



First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated
monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.


http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

The US is far behind the times in regards to the Internet.

This is a political victory for a free and open Internet.

I'm not sure whether this is bait or not.

It's classic bait, a bunch of fear mongering without specifics. Notice if you click through to the source, and read the whole thing, Mr. Pai's letter states that he will provide specifics about why this plan is so terrible at a later time. (OP truncated that part of the letter, he was too busy reposting all the non-specific talking points.) All this letter was meant to do was rile up the base.

Let me know when Mr. Pai posts something substantive, not a bunch of conclusions without the evidence to support them.

If mr. pai or myself are trying to lie to anyone, why can't the FCC and the people behind those 332 pages be upfront and let anyone read those pages? PDF please, with a search function, not 332 pages of paper toilet scanned at 72 dpi, saved as docx...

I understand, for some, the government can do no wrong. Ever. Unlike happy people posting links of news on their favorite forum, links anyone can read to the fullest by checking the whole article themselves.

Posting a part of a website here is wrong and bad. Letting the government change the whole entire internet, in secret and forever, is good.

I guess some of us already read those 332 pages and know in advance to distrust Wilikon and mr. pai. That is a huge amount of faith on 332 pages called "net neutrality", doublespeak 101...


 

No, some of us read a bunch of conclusions and ask for the reasoning that lead to those conclusions so we can evaluate the merits of the conclusion for ourselves. When they are not provided, then those of us with the ability to think independently dismiss it a useless rhetoric. Mr. Pai's letter is rich in rhetoric and absent of information and reasoning that leads to his conclusions. Apparently, he hasn't had time yet to post anything substantive about why the plan is so terrible, only that it is. I've only come to distrust what you post because it's absent of critical thought. You're a fine parrot for conservative talking points, but you rarely provide anything that justifies the conclusions in the things you post. Rhetoric is what gets politicians elected, so it's very useful to have drones who just repeat that stuff without questioning it. You always seem to mistake that a critique of your rote dissemination of rhetoric is acceptance of the counterpoint, and it's not. The critique of the lack of substance of Mr. Pai's letter is the embodiment of this. He's provided no reasoning or evidence to support his conclusions, and until he does, it's impossible to either agree or disagree with any degree of informed opinion to the conclusions he has presented. Since his letter provides nothing substantive, it's useless rhetoric. I'll be waiting for him to give us the promised details which ostensibly will support his conclusions, so I can at that time determine whether they are justified conclusions or not.

[RodeoX]

On a related note black is now white, peace is now war, and up should only be referred to as down. Be sure to download your new-speak dictionary from your benevolent father, Comcast.

[jaysabi]

So 3 human beings, picked up (not elected) by a president will decide the fate of the whole US internet.

Five human beings picked by the president and confirmed by the senate. But, details...

[Wilikon]

... and lots and lots of new taxes:



First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated
monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.


http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

The US is far behind the times in regards to the Internet.

This is a political victory for a free and open Internet.

I'm not sure whether this is bait or not.

It's classic bait, a bunch of fear mongering without specifics. Notice if you click through to the source, and read the whole thing, Mr. Pai's letter states that he will provide specifics about why this plan is so terrible at a later time. (OP truncated that part of the letter, he was too busy reposting all the non-specific talking points.) All this letter was meant to do was rile up the base.

Let me know when Mr. Pai posts something substantive, not a bunch of conclusions without the evidence to support them.

If mr. pai or myself are trying to lie to anyone, why can't the FCC and the people behind those 332 pages be upfront and let anyone read those pages? PDF please, with a search function, not 332 pages of paper toilet scanned at 72 dpi, saved as docx...

I understand, for some, the government can do no wrong. Ever. Unlike happy people posting links of news on their favorite forum, links anyone can read to the fullest by checking the whole article themselves.

Posting a part of a website here is wrong and bad. Letting the government change the whole entire internet, in secret and forever, is good.

I guess some of us already read those 332 pages and know in advance to distrust Wilikon and mr. pai. That is a huge amount of faith on 332 pages called "net neutrality", doublespeak 101...


 

No, some of us read a bunch of conclusions and ask for the reasoning that lead to those conclusions so we can evaluate the merits of the conclusion for ourselves. When they are not provided, then those of us with the ability to think independently dismiss it a useless rhetoric. Mr. Pai's letter is rich in rhetoric and absent of information and reasoning that leads to his conclusions. Apparently, he hasn't had time yet to post anything substantive about why the plan is so terrible, only that it is. I've only come to distrust what you post because it's absent of critical thought. You're a fine parrot for conservative talking points, but you rarely provide anything that justifies the conclusions in the things you post. Rhetoric is what gets politicians elected, so it's very useful to have drones who just repeat that stuff without questioning it. You always seem to mistake that a critique of your rote dissemination of rhetoric is acceptance of the counterpoint, and it's not. The critique of the lack of substance of Mr. Pai's letter is the embodiment of this. He's provided no reasoning or evidence to support his conclusions, and until he does, it's impossible to either agree or disagree with any degree of informed opinion to the conclusions he has presented. Since his letter provides nothing substantive, it's useless rhetoric. I'll be waiting for him to give us the promised details which ostensibly will support his conclusions, so I can at that time determine whether they are justified conclusions or not.

Reader's digest version:

I know it is useful to trust the government blindly all the time. We should always reject and distrust anyone who is not locked in our political mindset, automatically. The 3 confirmed democrats, people known for their vision in IT for years in the private sector, may have found a way to make the internet a much better technological tool for all of us.

Who has time to read 332 pages anyway...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

[Wilikon]

So 3 human beings, picked up (not elected) by a president will decide the fate of the whole US internet.

Five human beings picked by the president and confirmed by the senate. But, details...

... Details that are hidden now, but in full view for all AFTER the vote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

[Wilikon]

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/64842466-b2b2-11e4-a058-00144feab7de.html#axzz3RdXftudN

[jaysabi]

... and lots and lots of new taxes:



First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated
monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.


http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

The US is far behind the times in regards to the Internet.

This is a political victory for a free and open Internet.

I'm not sure whether this is bait or not.

It's classic bait, a bunch of fear mongering without specifics. Notice if you click through to the source, and read the whole thing, Mr. Pai's letter states that he will provide specifics about why this plan is so terrible at a later time. (OP truncated that part of the letter, he was too busy reposting all the non-specific talking points.) All this letter was meant to do was rile up the base.

Let me know when Mr. Pai posts something substantive, not a bunch of conclusions without the evidence to support them.

If mr. pai or myself are trying to lie to anyone, why can't the FCC and the people behind those 332 pages be upfront and let anyone read those pages? PDF please, with a search function, not 332 pages of paper toilet scanned at 72 dpi, saved as docx...

I understand, for some, the government can do no wrong. Ever. Unlike happy people posting links of news on their favorite forum, links anyone can read to the fullest by checking the whole article themselves.

Posting a part of a website here is wrong and bad. Letting the government change the whole entire internet, in secret and forever, is good.

I guess some of us already read those 332 pages and know in advance to distrust Wilikon and mr. pai. That is a huge amount of faith on 332 pages called "net neutrality", doublespeak 101...


 

No, some of us read a bunch of conclusions and ask for the reasoning that lead to those conclusions so we can evaluate the merits of the conclusion for ourselves. When they are not provided, then those of us with the ability to think independently dismiss it a useless rhetoric. Mr. Pai's letter is rich in rhetoric and absent of information and reasoning that leads to his conclusions. Apparently, he hasn't had time yet to post anything substantive about why the plan is so terrible, only that it is. I've only come to distrust what you post because it's absent of critical thought. You're a fine parrot for conservative talking points, but you rarely provide anything that justifies the conclusions in the things you post. Rhetoric is what gets politicians elected, so it's very useful to have drones who just repeat that stuff without questioning it. You always seem to mistake that a critique of your rote dissemination of rhetoric is acceptance of the counterpoint, and it's not. The critique of the lack of substance of Mr. Pai's letter is the embodiment of this. He's provided no reasoning or evidence to support his conclusions, and until he does, it's impossible to either agree or disagree with any degree of informed opinion to the conclusions he has presented. Since his letter provides nothing substantive, it's useless rhetoric. I'll be waiting for him to give us the promised details which ostensibly will support his conclusions, so I can at that time determine whether they are justified conclusions or not.

Reader's digest version:

I know it is useful to trust the government blindly all the time. We should always reject and distrust anyone who is not locked in our political mindset, automatically. The 3 confirmed democrats, people known for their vision in IT for years in the private sector, may have found a way to make the internet a much better technological tool for all of us.

Who has time to read 332 pages anyway...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

Building a strawman instead of answering a critique isn't a rebuttal. You haven't said anything relevant to counter anything I've said.

[Wilikon]

The left lifts its boot toward the free flow of information

We knew this was coming. Within the last couple of weeks, both the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission declared their intention to regulate the Internet. Fascists always explain their actions as efforts to either make something more efficient, “fair,” or to supposedly “protect” their target. Sometimes they simply lie, like saying they’re nationalizing health insurance to make it more affordable and to increase access to health care.

Now, with the feds’ latest effort, their new slogan might as well be, “If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet.” Make no mistake: The Internet is under assault and saving it is up to us.

Democrats and their liberal sycophants have been contemplating for years how best to smash the Internet. Open discussion among the great unwashed masses poses a threat to the superiorly educated and groomed establishment. First, it was the magnificence of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which made free speech on the radio impossible. President Reagan’s reversal of that Orwellian control mechanism made talk radio possible (to say nothing of the likely increase of gastrointestinal disorders among liberals).

Even prior to that massive win for the First Amendment, the left had succeeded at co-opting the legacy media by swamping the staff and reporters with ideological true believers, making newspapers and the broadcast networks nothing more than PR agencies for the leftist agenda.

Think about it: The sheeple emerging from the liberal academies around the country in the 1960s and ‘70s didn’t move to the countryside to smoke pot and raise puppies. No, they went into media. They became writers, reporters and television news anchors.

Never mind that by the 21st century, their blind partisan allegiance was destroying their industry. I’m sure they feel getting Barack Obama elected to two terms as president made it all worthwhile.

But now they want more. The left’s relevance relies on controlling the public discussion. Bill Clinton learned of the Internet’s importance when the legacy media, via Newsweek, “held the [Monica Lewinsky] story” according to Michael Isikoff, their reporter at the time, in comments reported by the Weekly Standard.

Then some guy with a website called “Drudge” made sure the American people were informed about the reckless actions of a self-obsessed president.

Newsweek? Now defunct. Drudge? More powerful than ever. And that’s the problem the feds want to fix. The Internet must be killed because it dares to keep turning on the light in a room the left prefers remain dark.

The past two weeks reveal the government’s frantic, and determined, effort to take control of the Internet. Using the pretext of “net neutrality,” that is regulating Internet service providers and the speed rate at which they provide Internet service, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler announced the FCC was claiming the power to regulate the Internet like a utility service.

This would be done to make the Internet more “fair,” of course. But the truth of the matter is it’s an excuse to essentially nationalize the Internet. The moment that’s accepted, all bets are off, and the Internet becomes, well, Newsweek.

Reinforcing the suspicion that every American should have about this unprecedented action is the fact that Mr. Wheeler is keeping the 332-page document outlining his plan secret from the American public. He released a four-page summary with major points, but refuses to release the full document to the public.

That’s right, they’re not allowing us to see it. Verge.com reports on the concern of Ajit Pai, a fellow FCC commissioner:

“The American people are being misled about President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet,” he said in a statement, suggesting that Mr. Obama had pressured Mr. Wheeler into reclassification. “Last week’s carefully managed rollout was designed to downplay the plans of a massive intrusion in the Internet economy … . I have now read the 332-page plan. It is worse than I had imagined,” said Mr. Pai. In particular, he warned that reclassifying broadband would open the door to taxes and onerous regulations, and give the FCC “broad and unprecedented discretion to micromanage the Internet.”

This was the first shot across the bow. Within a week of Mr. Wheeler’s remarkable effort to pull an “Obamacare” on the Internet, the Federal Election Commission came through with the second volley.

[...]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/16/tammy-bruce-fcc-fec-look-ruin-internet/