Obama's Plan to Regulate the Internet is 332 Pages. The Public Can't Read It!

[OptimusPrime]

STATEMENT OF FCC COMMISSIONER AJIT PAION PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLAN TO REGULATE THE INTERNET

Last night, Chairman Wheeler provided his fellow Commissioners with President Obama’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I am disappointed that the plan will not be released publicly. The FCC should be as open and transparent as the Internet itself and post the entire document on its website.Instead, it looks like the FCC will have to pass the President’s plan before the American people will be able to find out what’s really in it.

In the coming days, I look forward to continuing to study the plan in detail. Based on my initial examination, however, several points are apparent.

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 forAmerican 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 2 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://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0206/DOC-331907A1.pdf

I'm going to need gourimoko's input on if it's possible to hide from these scum monitoring the internet. What a great day. The government isn't involved in enough of our lives these days. It's good to see them take initiative and let us know they are always there. Always.

 

[FiveThous]

This is my worst nightmare. If this happens I may have to consider ridding myself of the internet at home/cell.

 

[OptimusPrime]

You knew it was coming. They will be everywhere and control everything.

 

[bob2the2nd]

this is a step towards net neutrality. this is absolute and total sensationalism at its best.

it will keep comcast/verizon/whomever from controlling the internet, and keep it in its current form. as opposed to more like cable packing where you have to pick and choose which channels (websites) you can visit.

for any of you that like the internet in its current form this is you a huge win for you. for those of you that are CEOs of internet providers its a kick in the nuts.

 

[OptimusPrime]

No thanks. We need state and local governments to stop preventing competition. That solves all problems. We need the federal government to stay the fuck out of it for once.

 

[Sumac13]

Yeah, each town and state having its own laws governing internet traffic passing through its political boundaries. Just how exactly will that work? Please explain.

 

[OptimusPrime]

No one needs to govern internet traffic. How ridiculous is that? Local and state governments have regulations that restrict entry into the business, preventing competition. Get them out of the way and you can have the type of lower cost, higher innovation that we have always enjoyed in this country when we had free market competition.

 

[Maximus]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnY3roP-oJI&feature=youtu.be

 

[Maximus]

You have to let them pass Obamanet to see what's in Obamanet. This will be a fucking disaster.



FCC chief pressed to release net neutrality rules
Mike Snider, USA TODAY6:28 p.m. EST February 23, 2015
264TWEET 2LINKEDIN 20COMMENTEMAILMORE
A key Republican lawmaker in Congress called for Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler to make proposed net neutrality regulations public before a planned Thursday vote on the measure.

In the latest wrinkle in the Republicans' battle to quash Wheeler's proposals, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who's also the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, sent a letter today to Wheeler, questioning whether the FCC has been "independent, fair and transparent" in crafting the rules to protect content on the Internet.

"Although arguably one of the most sweeping new rules in the commission's history, the process was conducted without using many of the tools at the chairman's disposal to ensure transparency and public review," he said.

Chaffetz urged Wheeler to publicly release the 332-page draft order that was given to the other four commissioners nearly three weeks ago and appear at a House Oversight hearing Wednesday before a vote at the FCC's monthly meeting Thursday.

Also today, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly too asked for Wheeler to release the proposal to the public and postpone the Thursday vote to allow for 30 days of public comment.


USA TODAY

FCC chief delivers details on his net neutrality strategy


Sides have been drawn over how Wheeler has crafted the new rules. He based the legal authority of his proposal on parts of both the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Consumer advocates supported the use of Title II of The Communications Act to regulate ISPs as if the Net were a utility, as is traditional telephone service. But critics say that could give the FCC too much regulatory power.

Originally, Wheeler had planned a different approach, but changed his strategy. His announcement of that shift came after President Obama in November called for tough net neutrality rules based on Title II.

Since then, two congressional committee chairmen have asked Wheeler and the FCC whether Obama exerted undue influence on the process. And draft congressional legislation proposes a measure that supporters say would be less intrusive because it doesn't rely on Title II, but would still ban ISPs from blocking or deliberately slowing content, as well as prohibiting paid prioritization for fast lanes.


USA TODAY

Official: FCC chief should release net neutrality plan


Earlier this month, FCC commissioner Pai called for Wheeler to make the net neutrality proposal public. "With the future of the entire Internet at stake, it is imperative that the FCC get this right," he and O'Rielly said in their statement today. "And to do that, we must live up to the highest standards of transparency."

In his response to an earlier congressional request to make the proposals public, Wheeler said the FCC had received more than 4 million comments and held six public roundtables. Releasing the rules before the commission votes runs contrary to how federal agencies work, he said. "If decades of precedent are to be changed, then there must be an opportunity for thoughtful review in the lead up to any change," Wheeler wrote.

Kim Hart, press secretary to the FCC chairman, said that "the chairman has seriously considered all input he has received on this important matter, including feedback from his FCC colleagues."

There is precedence for the FCC chairman to make rules public, the commissioners and Rep. Chaffetz said. In 2007, then-chairman Kevin Martin released to the public new media ownership rules and the entire FCC testified in a House hearing prior tothe final vote in December.

A senator who supported the FCC's postponement back then, Chaffetz notes, was then-senator Barack Obama. "He specifically noted while a certain proposal 'may pass the muster of a federal court, Congress and the public have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound policy. And the commission has the responsibility to defend any new proposal in public discourse and debate,'" Chaffetz said citing the original letter sent by Sen. Obama to Martin.

Follow Mike Snider on Twitter: @MikeSnider

 

[Maximus]

TECH

Senator Barack Obama, R, (D-IL) speaks at a Senate Rules Committee hearing on overhauling lobbying on Capitol Hill in Washington, February 8, 2006. Also seated with Obama to offer their views on reform are Sen. John McCain, L, (R-AZ) and Sen. Norm Coleman, C, (R-MN). REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque - RTR15ZW6
Senator Obama: ‘Irresponsible’ For FCC To Vote On Rules Unreleased To The Public
6:39 PM 02/23/2015

• • 
    

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler on Monday again declined to publicly release his aggressive net neutrality proposal prior to a vote, despite the fact that the process of adopting such rules — which line up perfectly with those called for by President Obama in 2014 — was described as “irresponsible” by Sen. Obama in 2007.

In a Monday letter from House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz to Wheeler lamenting his decline to appear before the committee and testify on any influence the White House may have had over the rules, Chaffetz pointed out that during his tenure in Congress, the president himself criticized the agency’s process of adopting new regulations prior to their public disclosure.

“At a September 2007 public hearing in Chicago, Senator Obama submitted a statement that he ‘strongly requested’ the FCC ‘put out any changes that they intend to vote on in a new notice of proposed rulemaking,’” Chaffetz wrote.

A month after his September 2007 statement, Sen. Obama submitted a letter to then-FCC Chairman Kevin Martin arguing that the “proposed timeline and process” used by the agency to adopt rules are “irresponsible,” noting that while a specific proposal “may pass the muster of a federal court, Congress and the public have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound policy.”

“And the commission has the responsibility to defend any new proposal in public discourse and debate,” Obama said.

One month later, Obama co-sponsored bipartisan legislation requiring the FCC to open a 90-day window for comment on new rules prior to a commission vote for implementation.

The committee has sent Wheeler repeated requests for communications between his agency and the White House over net neutrality since early February when Wheeler announced the plan, which includes regulating Internet service providers as public utilities, forcing them to adhere to government standards for speed and pricing. (RELATED: House Oversight Committee Demands FCC Turn Over Unredacted Net Neutrality Emails With White House)

Wheeler’s proposal contains all of the elements called for by President Obama in November, prompting one fellow FCC commissioner to dub the plan “President Obama’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet,” and draw the attention of the Oversight Committee and several other congressional committee investigations. (RELATED: Republican FCC Commissioner Slams ‘Obama’s 332-Page Plan To Regulate The Internet’)

Republican FCC Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly on Monday petitioned Wheeler to release his net neutrality proposal to the public, and delay the commission’s Thursday vote on the measure for 30 days, during which the commission would receive and review public comment.


“With the future of the entire Internet at stake, it is imperative that the FCC get this right,” the commissioners said.

Wheeler declined the request in a tweet, citing the millions of comments the FCC received over net in 2014 — prior to announcing his net neutrality intentions — as comment enough.

“It’s time to act,” Wheeler said.

 

[Maximus]

FCC Chair Refuses to Testify before Congress ahead of Net Neutrality

by ANDREW JOHNSON
February 25, 2015 10:19 AM

Two prominent House committee chairs are “deeply disappointed” in Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler for refusing to testify before Congress as “the future of the Internet is at stake.”

Wheeler’s refusal to go before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday comes on the eve of the FCC’s vote on new Internet regulations pertaining to net neutrality. The committee’s chairman, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), and Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton (R., Mich.) criticized Wheeler and the administration for lacking transparency on the issue.

“So long as the chairman continues to insist on secrecy, we will continue calling for more transparency and accountability at the commission,” Chaffetz and Upton said in a statement. “Chairman Wheeler and the FCC are not above Congress.”

The vote on the new Internet regulations is scheduled for Thursday. The FCC’s two Republican commissioners have asked Wheeler to delay the vote to allow more time for review. The changes would allow the commission to regulate the Internet like a public utility, setting new standards that require the provision of equal access to all online content.

 

[Maximus]

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai: Net Neutrality is a "Solution That Won't Work to a Problem That Doesn't Exist"
Nick Gillespie & Todd Krainin | February 25, 2015

Net Neutrality is "a solution that won't work to a problem that doesn't exist," says Ajit Pai, a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Pai is an outspoken opponent of expanding government control of the internet, including FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's plan to regulate Internet Service Providers (ISPs) under the same Title II rules that are used to govern telephone-service providers as public utilities. Under current FCC regulations, ISPs are considered providers of "information services" and subject to essentially no federal regulation.

He is also sharply critical of President Barack Obama's very public push to influence policy at the FCC, which is technically an independent agency. Last year, it was widely believed that Wheeler, a former head of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, would not push for Title II. Pai calls the president's actions—which included "creating a YouTube video of with very specific prescriptions as to what this agency should do"—unprecedented in his experience. Coupled with the fact that "the agency suddenly chang[ed]course from where it was to mimic the president’s plan," says Pai, "suggests that the independence of the agency has been compromised to some extent."

The FCC is scheduled to vote Thursday, February 26 on Wheeler's plan.

Pai explains his opposition to Title II reclassification to Reason's Nick Gillespie. Citing independent studies of American competitiveness and booming investment in telecommunications infrastructure compared to Europe, Pai argues that consumers are thriving and the market is doing its job.

Regulating the internet like a utility company, says Pai, will threaten the kind of innovation we've taken for granted over the past 20 years. "Do you trust the federal government to make the Internet ecosystem more vibrant than it is today?" Pai asks. "Can you think of any regulated utility like the electric company or water company that is as innovative as the Internet?"

 

[Maximus]

February 25, 2015, 06:30 am
Is the FCC lawless?

By Randolph J. May, contributor

This Thursday, Feb. 26, will be a fateful day for the future of the Internet. In the nearly 40 years that I have been involved in communications law and policy, including serving as the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) associate general counsel, this action, without a doubt, is one of the agency's most misguided.

The sad reality is that, without any convincing evidence of market failure and consumer harm, the FCC is poised, on a 3-2 party-line vote, to expand its control over Internet providers in ways that threaten the Internet's future growth and vibrancy.

Here is the nub of the matter: By choosing to regulate Internet providers as old-fashioned public utilities in order to enforce "neutrality" mandates, the commission will discourage private-sector investment and innovation for many years to come, if only as a result of the litigation that will be spawned and the uncertainty that will be created. And the new government mandates inevitably will lead to even more than the usual special interest pleading at the FCC, as Internet companies try to advantage themselves and disadvantage their competitors by seeking favored regulatory treatment.

From all indications, the FCC contemplates that the new rules will be sufficiently burdensome and costly — and sufficiently ambiguous — that affected parties will be invited to seek exemptions from the new mandates through "waiver" requests or other administrative mechanisms.


But this likely flood of waiver requests should raise serious questions concerning the lawfulness of the agency's mode of operating. As Philip Hamburger discusses in his book, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?, one of our Founders' objectives was to control, if not eliminate, what in England was known as the "dispensing" power. Simply put, the dispensing power — which is much discussed in English constitutional history — was a form of exercise of royal prerogative under which the king could excuse himself or his favored subjects from complying with particular laws enacted by Parliament. As Hamburger explains, today's administrative agencies, in essence, have resurrected the dispensing power by the way they so often use waivers to grant favored treatment.

Here is the way Hamburger puts it:

After administrators adopt a burdensome rule, they sometimes write letters to favored persons telling them that, notwithstanding the rule, they need not comply. In other words, the return of extralegal legislation has been accompanied by the return of the dispensing power, this time under the rubric of 'waivers.'

And then he goes to the heart of the matter:

Like dispensations, waivers go far beyond the usual administrative usurpation of legislative or judicial power, for they do not involve lawmaking or adjudication, let alone executive force. On the contrary, they are a fourth power — one carefully not recognized by the Constitution.

Now, seeking and receiving waivers of FCC rules (regardless of the precise name applied to such administrative dispensations) is an established part of the commission's practice. In some instances, such waivers, in light of unique circumstances or special hardships, are no doubt justified. But I am convinced that under the new Internet regulations about to be adopted by the commission, we are likely to witness the exercise of the agency's dispensing power — this power the Founders wished to eliminate — in ways, and to an extent, that accepted rule of law norms will be called into serious question.

As the agency gains even more control over various participants in the Internet marketplace, pressures will increase for it to use its dispensing power to grant this or that company (or particular market segment) favored treatment. The commission already has announced it will adopt a so-called "good conduct" rule to assess Internet providers' practices. Under such an inherently vague standard, the agency necessarily will be granting dispensations to some firms and not others based on the exercise of discretion untethered to any intelligible standard in any law enacted by Congress.

Unless the FCC's new Internet regulations are reversed by Congress or the courts, I predict that soon enough, channeling Professor Hamburger, more and more of us will be asking: "Is the FCC lawless?"

May is president of the Free State Foundation, an independent free market-oriented think tank located in Rockville, Md.

 

[AZ_]

With internet services being so unregulated now, one has to wonder why the US lags so far behind other countries in internet speed.

Curious as to what would actually change if this goes through, as opposed to generalizations and fear-mongering the many articles posted have shown.

 

[OptimusPrime]

With internet services being so unregulated now, one has to wonder why the US lags so far behind other countries in internet speed.

They aren't unregulated. They are regulated at the state level. If they were unregulated the rest of the world would lag behind us and our internet bills would be a third of what they are now.

I'm just beside myself over this kind of ignorance. What on earth makes you think they are unregulated? Where I live if I want internet service it's either Time Warner or AT&T (excluding phone data plans obviously, I'm talking home internet service). With what they fucking charge, you don't think another company would come in and undercut them if they were legally allowed?