FCC Confronted with Congressional Regulation

[admin]

Forces are at work to clamp down on the FCC's ability to regulate and tax the Internet. After putting up with no less than three revisions to how it can tax and control the domestic Internet, Congressmen Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, said he would soon introduce a bill that would reform the FCC and guard against unnecessary taxation and regulation of the Internet and other media services.

Discuss "FCC Confronted with Congressional Regulation" here. Read the article.

 

[zhimbo]

If the FCC is cut out, well, then bye-bye net neutraility. Congress is too much in the thrall of corporate power to toe the line on that.

In fact, I've seen the arguments against net neutrality explicitly stated in terms of "regulation". I've seen it so much that it's hard for me not to read this article as a coded attack against net neutrality. No, I don't think that's what this article is...but I DO think that's the whole point of this move by DeMint. This isn't some "white hat" move on his part. For proof, look at the supporting quotes listed for DeMint: Verizon! Comcast! AT&T!

What, no Electronic Frontier Foundation? No public interest groups?

 

[Alittlemonster]

It's not what it appears

What Ubama is trying to do is not "net neutrality", it's a way to control the content of the Internet. Net Neutrality was never about allowing the little guy to thrive in the face of fierce control by the Net giants, it was strictly about control of content, and it is about "His" control, as "He" determines what will be controlled (like the opposition). With Ubama you must first realize what will be accomplished, what is the reason behind the action. Never take any thing at face value.

This is typical Progressive thinking (read that as Communist or Socialist) from the 1920's era based on Marxist teaching from 1860s. The FCC is being controlled in order to control the Internet, and just who do you think will set the standards? Certainly not the FCC.

 

[gene]

What Ubama is trying to do is not "net neutrality", it's a way to control the content of the Internet. Net Neutrality was never about allowing the little guy to thrive in the face of fierce control by the Net giants, it was strictly about control of content, and it is about "His" control, as "He" determines what will be controlled (like the opposition). With Ubama you must first realize what will be accomplished, what is the reason behind the action. Never take any thing at face value.

This is typical Progressive thinking (read that as Communist or Socialist) from the 1920's era based on Marxist teaching from 1860s. The FCC is being controlled in order to control the Internet, and just who do you think will set the standards? Certainly not the FCC.

Let's restrict the political mudslinging to the steam vent please. There are plenty of other websites to bash Obama or whatever elected official is in office at the time.

 

[Rickster71]

Politics aside, I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water with regards to post #3.

I quoted the two best points (below), IMO.

Never take any thing at face value.

The FCC is being controlled in order to control the Internet, and just who do you think will set the standards? Certainly not the FCC.

 

[majorloser]

Gene,

Is there anyway to change the color of the quoted text? That orange/yellow is tough to read for us with older eyes.

 

[sholling]

Let's restrict the political mudslinging to the steam vent please. There are plenty of other websites to bash Obama or whatever elected official is in office at the time.

Gene I respectfully submit that this entire thread should be in the Steam Vent. It's a political thread discussing a tug of war between the political goals of the administration and the political goals of congress. The discussion can only go downhill. The best thing to do is move the thread.

 

[Wayde Robson]

This is typical Progressive thinking (read that as Communist or Socialist) from the 1920's era based on Marxist teaching from 1860s. The FCC is being controlled in order to control the Internet, and just who do you think will set the standards? Certainly not the FCC.

Wow.

Life must be so simple when you got it all figgured out.

 

[Audioholics]

The point of the article, net neutrality aside - which I guess is a valid point that isn't specifically discussed, but is inferred - is that the FCC should not be able to make "rules" that effectively tax consumers in ways they were not formerly.

Any time a department attempts to grow itself legislatively to have more powers, I take issue and feel there should be greater care taken for the process. Right now the FCC has FAR exceeded its original mandate - and it wants to go further.

This isn't really a situation in which I think party affiliation has anything to bear.

PS. Be very afraid any time legislation gets a moniker like "net neutrality"... just imagine "anti baby seal clubbing power commission" or "responsible drilling initiative" and imagine if you'd have any idea what the law or bill would actually be about.

 

[Alittlemonster]

Mud Slinging?

I'd hardly call that mudslinging Gene. It was an explanation and the truth. I don't stand on anything that is Politically Correct. Mudslinging is when I start calling you or the Obama Admininistration names and making accusations without foundation. That is mudlslinging! If the content is not correct, then correct it. If you can't, then it isn't mudslinging. Perhaps it is time to wake up, becuz this very website, by publising the amply political artice that is being commented on, is the target under what is happening to the FCC. Before you know it, you won't be able to publish what you just did. Be careful what you argue about, becuz I have spent years studing this man, even before he won the Presidency, I know who is, what he is and what he stands for. As Stalin once said, the Capitalist will sell you the rope that is used to hang him. In orther words, be careful about stifling or censoring anything concerning free speech.

Let's look at it like this. Several years ago, I found that my local cable company (name is being withheld to prevent mudslinging) was not broadcasting in stereo. Now, the FCC clearly stated in the CFRs that whatever any local station was broadcasting over the air must be provided unchanged to the consumer via cable (and satelite for that matter). In fact, there was a notice on the billing that stated all enquiries should be addressed to the local Franchising Authority...call this number XXX-XXXX. Called that number, got the cable company and not the Franchising Authority and they promplty told me that if I wanted stereo sound I would have to get the "Box". That was not an answer, but who was the Franchising Authority, becuz that number didn't reach him or her or the agency. Took some time, but managed to get a very interesting person within the FCC who promplty told me (we spoke for hours about what was going on in the FCC, and one of those was Net Neutrality which was a concern even back then) that during the Clinton Administration, the FCC was successfully muffled by lobyists, so that even if a consumer reported a breach of the CFRs by the cable company, there was nothing the FCC could do about it. I had to find the Franchising Authority and the cable company didn't have to tell me who it was. It took hours of calling and finally, guess who...The City Attorney was the Franchising Authority and he had no idea that the cable company wasn't providing the stereo signal as per regulation. He thought the sound was normal. I explained how the 4 local TV stations were providing it to the cable company, but signal was being stopped at the receiving station and not being furnished. Why? Becuz, it costs more money to provide the signal in stereo or 5.1, even if it was a violation of the CFRs. They were saving some bucks worth of electricity and equipment and were able to rent out more boxes. The City Attorney investigated, found it was true and promptly fixed that problem. I, and the entire city area of several hundred thousand cable customers were finally furnished a stereo signal on about 60 TV channels. Took only a few days to have it all turned on, plus the company had to dust off all that unused equipment.

There ws no admission by the cable company, none by anyone about what was going on, and the FCC was powerless to do anything about it. The various communication companies and other interested parties are slowly pulling the teeth from the FCC, to stop them from interfering with this sort of thing. Regulations are such pesky things, aren't they?

So, what do you want to do, have an intelligent discussion without resorting to accusations of mudslinging...? Afterall, you guys came up with the article and I'm only commenting on it and doing it without mudslinging. Seems to me that we did much more to Monster Cable some time ago than I just did with that article. Peace?

 

[gene]

I'd hardly call that mudslinging Gene. It was an explanation and the truth. I don't stand on anything that is Politically Correct. Mudslinging is when I start calling you or the Obama Admininistration names and making accusations without foundation. That is mudlslinging! If the content is not correct, then correct it. If you can't, then it isn't mudslinging. Perhaps it is time to wake up, becuz this very website, by publising the amply political artice that is being commented on, is the target under what is happening to the FCC. Before you know it, you won't be able to publish what you just did. Be careful what you argue about, becuz I have spent years studing this man, even before he won the Presidency, I know who is, what he is and what he stands for. As Stalin once said, the Capitalist will sell you the rope that is used to hang him. In orther words, be careful about stifling or censoring anything concerning free speech.

Calling Obama Ubama and relating him to communism is mudslinging as far as I am concerned. During the Bush administration, the FCC created some of the largest fines the industry ever saw attacking free speech on the radio for talk shows like Stern and Bubba. One could have connected the same dots against the Bush administration then as you are doing now with Obama.

My request is simple, leave the political rhetoric about whatever president is in office out of these threads and discuss the issues brought up in the article. I don't have time or desire to police this thread and in case you missed it, our forums are moderated with rules in place against such behavior.

I agree with the mods on this site and will move this thread to the steam vent.

 

[zhimbo]

PS. Be very afraid any time legislation gets a moniker like "net neutrality"... just imagine "anti baby seal clubbing power commission" or "responsible drilling initiative" and imagine if you'd have any idea what the law or bill would actually be about.

I dunno. I'd be pretty hard pressed to come up with a more boring, less emotionally charged phrase than "net neutrality". Maybe "Plastic spoon" or "beige socks".

 

[Alittlemonster]

Clint I agree with you

You and I are discussing two sides of the same coin. I think you summed up what I was trying to state, better than I did. While more legislation is being heaped upon the FCC, that legislation (let's really call it what they are....regulations to enforce) are there to remove the teeth from the FCC and stop it from working the way it is presently working, then prevent it from "interfering" with future changes or legislation, but it also increases the control of the FCC over such things as the Internet, but to what purpose and who will provide the decision making process and for what reason are questions that need to be asked. Taxation is a method of control. Anything a government wants to control legally, is generally done by taxation. For instance, what is the biggest argument used for the legalization of drugs? IT CAN BE TAXED! And , the proponents always add: controlled.

I agree, anything that makes a government agency larger needs to be stopped and anything that advocates more taxes (to what purpose does the Internet need to be taxed? Is if for "control"?) needs to be analyzed and fought against.

 

[Chu Gai]

Gene, what do you think of this article, http://www.audioxpress.com/audiobytz/the_ftcs_modest_proposal.htm that makes mention of the FTC being used to raise funds for certain purposes by taxing consumer electronics?

 

[cwall99]

You know, I'm not too sure of where I stand on the whole concept of net neutrality. I've done some reading just to get a grip on the whole definition thing.

But I know one thing: after watching the free fall of the economy due to all sorts of bizarre financial practices propagated by financial services firms and watching the impact of the BP oil rig disaster that was caused, largely, by the regulators being in bed (literally it seems) with the organizations they're supposed to regulate, I feel pretty confident that letting corporations and "the market" rule things is just asking for disaster.

Here Fox. You guard the hen-house.

I distrust the government, but I distrust business even more.

 

[Audioholics]

I dunno. I'd be pretty hard pressed to come up with a more boring, less emotionally charged phrase than "net neutrality". Maybe "Plastic spoon" or "beige socks".

I think I may have used bad examples... Where I was going was the point of "who doesn't agree with xxx"

Everyone wants net neutrality, right? Everyone wants responsible drilling... nobody likes clubbing baby seals.... it wasn't that the name evoked emotion, it's that these names immediately put you on one side or the other, before they give you the meat of their contents.

 

[gene]

Gene, what do you think of this article, http://www.audioxpress.com/audiobytz...t_proposal.htm that makes mention of the FTC being used to raise funds for certain purposes by taxing consumer electronics?

I think that would be devastating to our industry. Consumers don't want cost increases in products which likely means manufacturers would have to offset the tax by reducing product cost to hit a certain price points.

There are better things to tax to generate revenues. For example, I say legalize Marijuana and tax it. I don't smoke it but I don't think it should be illegal either.

 

[MapleSyrup]

ZHIMBO & Littlemonster

If the FCC is cut out, well, then bye-bye net neutraility. Congress is too much in the thrall of corporate power to toe the line on that.

In fact, I've seen the arguments against net neutrality explicitly stated in terms of "regulation". I've seen it so much that it's hard for me not to read this article as a coded attack against net neutrality. No, I don't think that's what this article is...but I DO think that's the whole point of this move by DeMint. This isn't some "white hat" move on his part. For proof, look at the supporting quotes listed for DeMint: Verizon! Comcast! AT&T!

What, no Electronic Frontier Foundation? No public interest groups?

DeMint yet again proves what I like about him. Net Neutrality is all about government regulating a private industry. So much information is available via the internet that controlling it salivates many a politician. And if you don't think huge corporations like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google (I think) is behind Net Neutrality I think you spend your days in an isolated desert.
_________________________________________________________________
Monster;

Without furthering the political attacks (there's better forums than this one for that - and it is up to Gene to set the standard) I completely agree that this administration, following a long line of progressive thinking, would like nothing more than to control yet another industry. The consequences would be horrible.

 

[MapleSyrup]

There are better things to tax to generate revenues. For example, I say legalize Marijuana and tax it. I don't smoke it but I don't think it should be illegal either.

Gene's done it. He's come out of the closet as a full fledged liberaltarian.

(Take it in stride I meant humor in my comment, nothing condescending. Delete this post if if you want).

 

[MapleSyrup]

cwall

I distrust the government, but I distrust business even more.

And yet all your home theater gear seems to have come from businesses. Hmmmmmm.

BP wrote the cap and trade bill the Senate took up earlier this year. They're definitely in bed with the regulators. But the reason they're out there drilling a mile underwater is because too many people forbid drilling close to shore and on land. Controlling spills is a snap in these conditions. Also, big spills ocurr every ten years or so. People naturally want to automatically blame someone or something off the bat and that's not always the best course fo action.