Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Senate Upholds Internet Regulation Rules

November 11, 2011 by  

Senate Upholds Internet Regulation Rules

On Thursday, the Senate rejected a bill that would repeal the Federal Communication Commission’s net neutrality rules.

According to The Hill, the measure passed the House in April, but failed in the Senate on a vote of 52-46. It needed 51 votes to pass and was not subject to a filibuster.

The FCC’s net-neutrality regulations are aimed at preventing Internet service providers from slowing down or speeding up access to websites, and they ban wireless carriers from blocking lawful websites or applications that compete with their services.

Supporters of the rules believe they preserve competition on the Internet, while those against them say they represent government attempts to regulate the Internet. President Barack Obama said he would have vetoed legislation that struck down the neutrality laws.

Though there are several lawsuits challenging the FCC’s ability to intervene in Internet communication (including one lawsuit filed by Verizon), the rules are scheduled to take effect on Nov. 20.

 

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Senate Upholds Internet Regulation Rules”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • s c

    I want to hear from big government-loving utopians who monitor this website. If it’s safe to assume that they’re at least “thinking” about this topic, I want to know what’s going on between their ears.

    • http://personallibertydigest Lyle McDaniel

      s.c. What gave the impression they had anything between their ears?

      • USAF VET

        In their Big Brother utopian way, the have a total vacuum in there.

        • Average Joe

          Careful, they will be asking for more money to investigate “Space Exploration”….and considering how many elected officials we have in this nation….that’s a lot of “Space” to cover….and much money will be needed. ;)

  • DanB

    I know of some in IT that think is great. But how many real people truly need to force an ISP to offer maximum bandwidth without paying for it? To regulate other peoples traffic to optimize their own?

    By the way, I am a hobbyist turned IT pro. Have been in IT for about 3 to 6 years depending on how you reckon it. And I oppose net neutrality. The pessimist in me knew it was going to happen because it favors the politicians and big government…. And the IT pros were for it will eventually get a rude awakening that this was a rotten bill of goods. But they don’t see it know, so I doubt they’ll see it until it far far too late and they find that they have no liberty left. Personally, I think if they really want that great ISP bandwidth then they should PAY FOR IT. That is the advantage of the free market. If you are willing to pay enough, there may be someone willing to offer it.

    • Sten

      Customers are paying for the bandwith, as are the content providers. This isn’t saying that the ISPs have to provide ‘maximum bandwidth’ (whatever you mean by that) – they can provide whatever bandwith the customer is paying for. But within that bandwidth, Time Warner Cable (as an example) cannot throttle connections going to personalliberty.com, while allowing cnn.com to travel unimpeded. With the content providers increasing their control of the content delivery, this is a growing concern, and Comcast has been at the forefront of interfering with customers use of the bandwidth they are paying for.

      BTW, DanB, welcome to the field. However, if you had the perspective of another 20 years in the industry perhaps you’d understand the changes the monster ISPs are working to impose.

      • Greg T

        At least I can leave Comcast for another provider. We do not have the same choice when the federals take over.

      • DaveH

        Start your own ISP, Sten, and show us how it’s done.
        Free Markets always trump Government-controlled Markets.
        Free Markets please consumers. Unfree markets please Crony Capitalists and the bought-and-paid-for Politicians.
        All the political jawboning in the world fails when put to the Free Market test. That’s why the countries at the bottom of this list (Biggest Governments) have crap economies:
        http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

    • Robert Smith

      DanB seems to be confusing net neutrality with capitalism and compitition. Let’s watch: ” I think if they really want that great ISP bandwidth then they should PAY FOR IT.”

      I agree. But I want ALL the bandwidth I pay for ALL the time. If I have Comcast as a net supplier I want to watch Netflix, not the Comcast movies. If I know it up front I’ll have to pay more for Netflix bandwith than Comcast movies I’ll find another provider.

      Rob

  • CP

    For DanB:

    So if you can’t afford ten gigabites of bandwidth to get your message heard, you should just keep your mouth shut? Or is this more a deal of IF you can buy your way into office, via highspeed internet, then fine and dandy. If you have the money, no one should be allowed to compete with you if they can’t match your expenses? Now YOU sound like a good Rockefeller, if you don’t own it already, buy it or destroy it. That way everybody has to come to you for the product you have to sell.

    • DaveH

      And you sound like a good party member, Comrade.
      Show me a single instance where Government intrusion into the Marketplace has resulted in lower prices.
      Do yourself a favor, CP, read this book and learn something about Capitalism and its alternative (Socialism):
      http://mises.org/store/How-Capitalism-Saved-America-P260.aspx

      • Robert Smith

        David H. asks: “Show me a single instance where Government intrusion into the Marketplace has resulted in lower prices.”

        Utilities. They used to be a rock solid service for everyone. As an investment they were also rock solid.

        Then they were deregulated and consumers get to work through a “service provider” who can charge what they want when they want.

        We got Enron and a bunch of other thieves milking the public.

        Rob

  • http://charter howe

    When ever govt is involved in anything it gets partisan and really screwed up. I don’t think its very wise to keep allowing the govt to do everything for us or we reach a point of becoming slaves.

  • death to non believers

    we need more regulations from the fcc, epa, dept of energy, fema, fda, and most of the other useless government agencies. they make great decisions. anytime our govt comes up with some new regulations, we loose a freedom.

    • Robert Smith

      From death: “anytime our govt comes up with some new regulations, we loose a freedom.”

      Really? And how’s that local AM and FM radio going for you? Without the FCC you would only have the biggest corporations with the biggest transmitters crushing the bandwidth battling for ears. At least with regulation in power and frequency you get many many channels and you can choose what to listen to.

      Not all regulations are bad if you look at what needs to be done.

      We really don’t want to have your medical monitoring equipment screwed up by a taxi cab dispatcher. That’s what the FCC prevents.

      Rob

  • Emoke

    This kind of rule is what put the private railroads out of business. A law was passed that did not allow railroads to charge different prices to different customers. That’s free enterprise for you isn’t it? The government has no business getting involved in businesses. If a service or product is lucrative other people will develope businesses in it and inovate driving the price down. Once the government steps in either making barriers to entry prohibitive to protect the existing businesses (crony capitalism) or save the public from their service providers (regulations) the smart money will hesitate to inovate in that field.

    The government needs to learn its place and that is not in our pockets or micromanaging the people. They are supposed to be serving us not ruling us.

  • JeffH

    GOD BLESS OUR BRAVE VETRANS!

    It is a shame that a chosen few can control the life and death of our military men and women with nothing more than the lust for power under the guise of politically motivated rhetoric about democracy and freedom, greed and the simple stroke of a pen to keep us in a perpetual state of war.

    Veterans Day Montage – American Anthem
    Norah Jones – Tribute to my late father who served in Vietnam and to all who’ve served in the U.S. Military… Past and Present

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B81kW814qA&feature=related

    Reply

    • Angel Wannabe

      Hear Hear Jeffh!__God Bless and Thank You to ALL of our Armed Service Men and Women!__and to my Dad, his three Brothers and a wonderful old Gent, & Dear Friend, Jack Shoemaker, for your Service in WWII.
      (sadly all deceased),

      • Joe H.

        angel Wannabe,
        And to three that I considered friends. Henry E McCulough, Ricky Ray roe, and Yazzie!!! Two have passed and the third I’m not sure of!!! May God Bless them all!!!

    • http://personallibertydigest not fooled

      God bless the veterans of this great country.I feel your pain jeff.I feel the same way you do.GOD BLESS

    • http://naver samurai

      Well said, fellow patriot. Let’s also not forget those that died or did not come home. They are not forgotten. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Lastmanstanding

        Samurai…Everyday my flags fly. The American Flag, POW-MIA below her and finally…Don’t Tread on Me. On a windy day they are visible to all for quite a distance.

        “don’t go down without on helluva fight”

  • Buck

    Thats is because the senate is controlled by the demon rats and Harry ” the simpleminded ” Reid . They all need replaced desparately , then we can go about fixing things .

  • http://None George H. Ditmore

    I beleive that Harry Reid in not presenting the proposed bills to the senate has done more to purposely destroy the “American” way than even Obama! If he was taking orders from the “guilty” one, he should be very ashamed of himself! That he is not ashamed shows the quality of his character!

  • reckless1

    Control…control….control….of every aspect of our lives. What ever happened to the over-the-air shut down that was suppose to happen on 11/9? Does anyone really believe it was going to get by the Senate and go to Obama. Obama would have been made to a choice. Just like the oil pipeline he squashed today. A complete jobs killer. He had to make a choice. Progressive enviromentalists or the people. He knows he has the unions in his pocket so jobs for them go on the back burner. Need to please the enviromentalists for the votes. Nothing gets by this as..ole, nothing.

  • Raife

    First, before the inevitable purveyors of red-herrings descend, I have worked in the IT industry for decades, and, I am a strong supporter of “Net Neutrality” (having fought for it for years). In fact, I fully support Federal legislation which would directly enact the principles of un-monitored, un-censored, and un-manipulated, citizen-Internet-access. The Federal Legislature (the Congress, and the Senate) does have the authority (and responsibility) to insure this freedom, since, Internet-providers, effectively, operate as Government-sponsored general communications-monopolies. The Internet (and Internet Service Providers) should function like a phone-company [a "Common Carrier"] (simply providing access and services). They [ISPs] should not operate like a cable-company (moderating, monitoring, blocking, “throttling”, and controlling, customer data-flow, and use).

    However, the FCC’s actions in this matter are a complete charade. First, the FCC’s “neutrality guidelines” actually, specifically, allow all of the worst elements of consumer-abuse which prompted the public outcry for “Net Neutrality” in the first place. Under the FCCs “regulatory guidelines” ISPs will actually, very specifically, be allowed to monitor, intercept, slow-down, or flatly block any, and all, data traveling across their networks… as long as they [the ISP] make the unverifiable claim that they were merely “managing data traffic”, or were trying to prevent some vaguely-described illicit activity, such as… say… alleged, “copyright infringement”.

    However, the FCC does not, and must not, have the authority to regulate (via bureaucratic fiat) the private communications traveling through “common carriers” (the way the FCC arbitrarily regulates the “content” of broadcast media, such as commercial TV and radio). And, this entirely-false claim that the FCC is actually attempting to insure “Net Neutrality”, is nothing more than a smokescreen (red-herring) to cover-up the expansion of an, unchecked, “regulatory” body [the FCC] over the Internet, itself.

    “Net-Neutrality” must be established and protected, but, by law (which functions under the checks-and-balances of Constitutionally-instituted government, and public-control)… -not- by capricious, arbitrary, politically-appointed, bureaucratic-regulation (operating outside of any true public oversight, or control).

    Put bluntly, the FCC is -not- trying to protect citizens/consumers (read the actual FCC “Net-neutrality regulations”). The FCC is merely -using- “net-neutrality” as a thinly-veiled excuse to, un-Constitutionally, create a precedent which justifies their “regulatory” power over the Internet (…as though, the Internet were a nationalized, state-resource… instead of the direct, citizen-to-citizen, communications medium that it actually is).

    • Robert Smith

      From Benjamin: “(the way the FCC arbitrarily regulates the “content” of broadcast media, such as commercial TV and radio).”

      Yet it was extreme right wing nuts (on point the AFA, American Family Association) who generated the objection to the “wardrobe falfunction” of Janet Jackson.

      Whatever happened to changing the channel, or explaining to kids that they shouldn’t watch some things?

      BTW, do you know what the youngest of kids thought when Janet was hanging out? It’s time for LUNCH! What do they really need “protection” for?

      Rob

      • Raife

        Uh… so, your rambling, non-sequitur, had what exactly to do with my post..???

        I’m sorry… along with my fervent assertion that we absolutely need “Net-Neutrality”… implemented in law…

        I am detailing exactly why a politically-appointed bureaucracy (the FCC… no matter who is in charge of any, particular, administration) does not, and must not, be allowed to arbitrarily extend its “regulatory” powers over basic freedoms, and public communications mediums… without Constitutional-justification, legislative-input, public- oversight, and citizen-redress. So, I am finding it hard to see any point, rational-association, or logical counter-point, in your response to my post… what-so-ever.

  • Mutantone

    Obama would have “vetoed the bill any way” it scars me to think that he has the ability to now cut off the radios and TVs using the emergency broadcast and now the internet as well. Talk about an ability to black out all news and information. I am worried that he is getting ready to declare martial law at the onset of more violence from the “Occupiers” that he had his adviser tell them to get more “Militant” and with in days violence broke out in Oakland he is backing them and their demands to spread the wealth, to make the USA into a Socialist nation and has the backing of all the Communist-Marxist in congress to do so. He scares me because he will not follow the Constitution and does not think the American public knows what is best for itself as well as he does.

    • s c

      Mutantone, there are many ways to look at Obummer and draw conclusions concerning his behavior and his fitness to be in the W H (in ANY capacity). I believe two angles tell us basically what we need to know about America’s latest ‘Savior.’
      First, his love of executive orders borders on schizophrenia. Second, any “PREZ” who bypasses Congress the way he does is impeachment/firing squad material. Third, because this poser/LIAR ignores the Constitution [that piece of paper that such people HATE and want to see destroyed], only a dyed-in-the-wool whore/traitor would find a reason to support him – let alone vote for him.
      Long before the next election rolls around, we’ll have a master list of all the DOCUMENTED reasons why we can’t afford to have someone like The Appointed Kenyan [Manchurian Candidate] and Nation-Destroyer in the White House.
      Being a job-destroyer and a Ponzi scheme con artist should be enough to outrage ANY citizen who demands on true leadership in Washington.

    • Robert Smith

      From Mutantone: “Obama would have “vetoed the bill any way” it scars me to think that he has the ability to now cut off the radios and TVs using the emergency broadcast…”

      Absolutely FALSE.

      Participation in EAS is controlled at each TV or radio control room. They can choose to participate or not.

      Rob

  • Benjamin

    The ability of our government to interrupt all Radio and Television transmissions (via the Emergency Broadcasting Service),added with the FCC’s Unconstitutional Net Neutrality,Trusted User Internet ID Rules and PARASITE regulations, gives this Administration UNFETTERED control of all means of Electronic Communications. This is a primary military tactic of every invader going into a country. It prevents the civilian population from reacting or uniting to counter the threat until it’s much too late. Afterwards all communications (including hardcopy Newspapers) are used for the invading forces propaganda and indoctrination agendas (by censoring all opinions and news reports detrimental to the invader’s agenda). All the Classic Signs of a Police State, Violating America’s First Amendment Freedoms. NO ADMINISTRATION NEEDS THIS KIND OF POWER! THE POSSIBILITY OF “MISUSE” VS. “SAFETY” IS NOT SOMETHING TO BE GIVING THE BENEFIT OF A DOUBT ABOUT!!!

  • Robert Smith

    Hi Benjamin. You say: “The ability of our government to interrupt all Radio and Television transmissions (via the Emergency Broadcasting Service)”

    This is NOTHING new. It goes back to the old Conelrad days along with “clear channel” stations.

    If there is a national emergency I want to know about it. If I don’t have time to take shelter from a tornado or nuke I’m gonna blame you.

    Rob

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.