Southeastern NC's Political & Economic Opinion Arena
Call to Action #6547734 - NET NEUTRALITY
Phil Kerpen, Americans for Prosperity VP & Chairman of the Internet Freedom Coalition has sent an alert that the FCC published its net neutrality order in the Federal Register last week, stating that effective November 20 the federal government will begin regulating the Internet.
Americans didn't want this. Congress rejected it decisively -- it only had 27 sponsors last year. The courts rejected it -- they said the FCC did not have the power to do this. And voters rejectedit, defeating all 95 of the candidates who campaigned on the issue. That's right a perfect zero for 95.
But unless the Senate votes to overturn this order before it takes effect November 20, we will start down the path to a government regulated and government controlled Internet.
Under a special procedure called the Congressional Review Act, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is committed to forcing a Senate vote. Harry Reid can't keep this off the floor, and it can't be filibustered. We'll need 51 votes to succeed.
This is a key test. Will the Senate stand up to one of Obama's power grabs, or will they sit on their hands? And if they sit on their hands, why should voters re-elect legislators who refuse to legislate? They are becoming irrelevant by agencies that over reach and czars that are appointed without the Senate’s “advise & consent”.
Congress must act to protect the free-market, hands-off approach that has allowed the Internet to succeed. That means stopping the FCC's so-called "open Internet" or "net neutrality" rules. Contact your Senators & ask your out-of-state contacts to do the same.
Phone Fax
For NC: Sen. Richard Burr (R) 202-224-3154 202-228-2981
Sen. Kay Hagan (D) 202-224-6342 202-228-2563
For SC: Sen. Jim DeMint (R) 202-224-6121 202-228-5143
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) 202-224-5972 202-224-3808
OR USE THE LINK PROVIDED BY AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY:
Ask them to support Senator Hutchison’s S.J.Res.6 and Representative Walden’s H.J.Res.37, efforts under the Congressional Review Act to overturn the rule.
The arguments made by advocates of such regulations have been proven false by nearly a decade of experience since their concerns were first raised. The Internet is a remarkable free market success story, and the vast majority of Internet users are not clamoring for regulation.
Please do not allow the FCC to distort the law and take extreme measures to seize regulatory control of the Internet. I urge you to do everything necessary to stop the FCC, overturn these regulations, and protect the free-market Internet.
Views: 46
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Zach Attack on -
NET NEUTRALITY is about keeping the internet free from Service providers discriminating against lower paying customers. It is being pursued to ensure all users of the internet get the best quality service, not just high dollar paying subscribers. This is what government is suppose to do: keeping businesses from monopolizing their services. "
"Congress must act to protect the free-market, hands-off approach that has allowed the Internet to succeed." ... the internet was invented and promoted by government actions as well as by individuals and private businesses. It is a public infrastructure that must be maintained and opened to all citizens.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben McCoy on -
Your response is pretty much the canned synopsis of what the powers that be are telling everyone it is about. However, I would encourage you to read it in depth. This is a pay to play scam of enormous proportions. Providers who don't pony up the huge fees to the government get a limited bandwidth with which to operate. Whoever gave the government totalitarian control over the internet? And why do people pretend that the state is some morally superior entity that has the right to claim control over everything and dole it out as it sees fit? It's another form of redistribution of resources by force.
-
Permalink Reply by Zach Attack on
-
My response was my understanding and reading of the proposed FCC regulation, not some government generated synopsis. I did not say anything about a state being morally superior. My belief is that government is not inherently evil and that in a democratic republic we are all part of the government. The Free Market is not where I put my trust in keeping the internet open to all citizens equally. Allowing service providers to regulate and restrict access, speeds and service quality to higher paying customers to a public infrastructure is commercializing one of the most democratic tools ever invented.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben McCoy on
-
Right - but you are speaking just from one side of the issue - that being you or I as customers of an internet provider getting lower quality for not paying a premium; that may be valid, but there are other more nefarious issues within this regulation.
This guy explains it better than I can:
"Senator Al Franken, at the Netroots Nation conference in late July, talked about a dystopian future without Net neutrality: "How long do you think it will take before the Fox News website loads five times faster than Daily Kos?" Hopefully, this will happen right away. Fox News should load 20 times faster than Daily Kos, because far more people read it. It's better for society that millions of people get someplace a little faster while the relatively few Daily Kos readers wait a few seconds. This is why not all roads are the same width. And more people go to the Fox News site because it's got tons of people reporting, balancing and fairing, whereas two of the contributing editors at Daily Kos are named DarkSyde and Angry Mouse.
Bandwidth is an increasingly limited resource, and we've got to figure out a better way to allocate it. You're grateful that your cell-phone carrier nonneutrally allows 911 calls through first, phone calls second (so they don't break up), instant messages next and Web searches last. But because some people hog bandwidth by pirating movies all day, we don't have doctors supervising real-time surgeries online, video calls that don't look like dispatches from the Mir space station or decent real-time video games."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2013832,00.html
-
Permalink Reply by Zach Attack on
-
I can only speak from the side of an issue I believe is right. This article makes a point for allowing higher traffic websites more bandwidth, but I do not see how it makes a case for the "nefarious issues" you describe. Now, I would allow for these major sites to have access to bigger bandwidths, just like our roads are expanded to accommodate higher car traffic areas. However, as with all public infrastructure, the people need a voice in those decisions and a set standard of access must be maintained to all users.
-
Permalink Reply by Lee on -
Franken is right. That's exactly what's going to happen as soon as it goes through. If you pay more to net companies your site will be faster for people. The phone and cable companies have already been wanting this for a few years now. Want to stream a movie, pay more, run a small relatively unknown website without getting phone modem speeds on access, pay more...
I'm already seeing that happen to my website since it's not real big and only gets about 350 hits a day on average (it has had as many as 15,000 hits a day though) . I've noticed a slowdown when trying to load it and it doesn't matter what time of day I try it and I my site has #1 results on the big search engines on a couple of different subjects. Doesn't make any difference.
Nothing new here, just plain old corporate greed functioning as usual. Companies are already limiting speed on some services and have been doing it for a while now. I've seen my cable company do it to me a number of times when uploading and downloading stuff from my website. When 4g wireless hits everywhere you are going to see a lot more of it whether congress or the fcc does anything or not.
I'm sorry but I don't agree that they should get more bandwidth unless they pay for it above and beyond what should be normal for everyone. That used to be called buying extra T1 lines but the name of them have been changed lately and I don't know what they are called now. I should not have to settle for low bandwidth just because they are more popular. They can afford to pay more for high bandwidth over an above what should be a basic standard for everyone. In that case they can have more, no problem.
© 2012 Created by Ben McCoy.
Powered by 
.
