FCC Commissioner Warns Federal Government Will Regulate Internet Content

[rangerrebew]

 

FCC Commissioner Warns Federal Government Will Regulate Internet Content

05.06.2015 | Alicia Powe | 0

 
FEC Chairman Worried Conservative Sites Are Targeted By The Government

 

A Federal Communications Commission (FCC) member is warning that “net neutrality” rules and regulations could expand to include content.




FCC commissioner, Ajit Pai, told the annual Right Online conference in Washington, D.C., on Saturday that regulators see the political speech on the internet as inherently “dangerous”and will seek to regulate content in the near future to ensure that the ideas available on the web are “balanced.”

“The First Amendment means not just the cold parchment that’s in the Constitution. It’s an ongoing cultural commitment, and I sense that among a substantial number of Americans and a disturbing number of regulators here in Washington that online speech is [considered] a dangerous brave new world that needs to be regulated,” Pai said.

The new net neutrality regulations, passed by the Democratic-controlled FCC at the end of February, will take effect on June 12 and will reclassify broadband Internet providers as public utilities and command broadband companies not to block online traffic. Pai, however, foresees the federal government controlling website content as well in the future.

Pai co-authored an editorial with former FEC Chairman Lee Goodman in February that warned of efforts by those agencies to regulate content online.

“I could easily see this migrating to the direction of content,” he said. “What you’re seeing now is an impulse not just to regulate the roads over which traffic goes, but the traffic itself.”

Pai, one of two Republicans on the 5-member commission, said he anticipates that, as a result of net neutrality regulations, federal regulators will attempt to control political websites – such as the Drudge Report – through the FCC or Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

“Is it unthinkable that some government agency would say the marketplace of ideas is too fraught with dissonance,” he said, “that everything from the Drudge Report to Fox News is playing unfairly in the online political speech sandbox? I don’t think so.”

Pai said that he and his family had been harassed because of the positions he has taken on the commission.

“I can tell you it has not been an easy couple of months personally,” he said. “My address has been publicly released. My wife’s name, my kids’ names, my kids’ birthdays, my phone number, all kinds of threats [have come] online.”

Read more at http://dailysurge.com/2015/05/fcc-commissioner-warns-federal-government-will-regulate-internet-content/

[flowers]

The new net neutrality regulations, passed by the Democratic-controlled FCC at the end of February, will take effect on June 12

[Dexter]

It's so very important that people understand what net neutrality actually is. The internet has always, always operated under net neutrality. The regulations simply gave more permanence to that. Removing net neutrality would allow big money and the government to take over and prioritize what you have access to on the internet. That will lead to the censorship of information. I greatly encourage all of you to really study this issue so you can have an informed opinion about it.

[aligncare]

Okay, Dex. For the sake of argument let's concede your point about net neutrality. Now answer this. What part of 'FCC commissioner warns Federal government will regulate Internet content' don't you understand?

They tried to squash conservative talk radio about a decade ago using equal time regulations carried over from television. What makes you think they won't try the same with the internet?

[Dexter]

Okay, Dex. For the sake of argument let's concede your point about net neutrality. Now answer this. What part of 'FCC commissioner warns Federal government will regulate Internet content' don't you understand?

They tried to squash conservative talk radio about a decade ago using equal time regulations carried over from television. What makes you think they won't try the same with the internet?

If they try to pass regulations that would censor or limit what information we have access to we should fight against that. I just wanted to make it clear that removing net neutrality is not how you fight against internet censorship. Removing net neutrality is how you get to that point faster.

[aligncare]

Yielding any ground to federal government regulation of the Internet will hasten content censorship. Founders of this country understood this very basic concept of the evolution of government power.

[Dexter]

Yielding any ground to federal government regulation of the Internet will hasten content censorship. Founders of this country understood this very basic concept of government evolution.

Maintaining net neutrality is not yielding ground to the federal government because net neutrality is how the internet has always worked. Removing net neutrality is what would change the internet and give more power to the government. I am completely against any and all regulations that would help the government control the internet.

[aligncare]

Maybe I'm just dense, but how do the regulations recently passed by the FCC on a previously unregulated medium — the internet — not qualify as regulation of the Internet and thus represent a toe hold for the federal government for further regulations ??

[Dexter]

Maybe I'm just dense, but how do the regulations recently passed by the FCC on a previously unregulated medium — the internet — not qualify as regulation of the Internet and thus represent a toe hold for the federal government for further regulations ??

Can you point out a regulation that was passed that will hinder our ability to access information on the internet? The cable companies have been lobbying to get rid of net neutrality for years so they can take over the internet. The FCC regulations were an attempt to keep them from doing that. Yes, they created regulations, but those regulations will make it harder to censor the internet, not easier. Why should we assume they would do a 180 and start passing regulations that completely contradict what they were trying to do?

[240B]

Okay, Dex. For the sake of argument let's concede your point about net neutrality. Now answer this. What part of 'FCC commissioner warns Federal government will regulate Internet content' don't you understand?

They tried to squash conservative talk radio about a decade ago using equal time regulations carried over from television. What makes you think they won't try the same with the internet?

Regardless of what they say, content control is the ultimate goal. This site, along with FR, Drudge, and many other will all be on the chopping block, Whereas, DU, Kos, and Huffington will be untouched.

It's coming. The only real question is how long it will take. We are heading for an Orwellian society and both parties are involved. Not to be defeatist, but I am not sure if 'America', as an ideal, can be saved at this point by anyone.

[Free Vulcan]

Can you point out a regulation that was passed that will hinder our ability to access information on the internet? The cable companies have been lobbying to get rid of net neutrality for years so they can take over the internet. The FCC regulations were an attempt to keep them from doing that. Yes, they created regulations, but those regulations will make it harder to censor the internet, not easier. Why should we assume they would do a 180 and start passing regulations that completely contradict what they were trying to do?

The problem is you think the govt will define net neutrality the way YOU will think it will be defined. They will define it the way THEY that want it defined. They will take 'neutrality' and twist the meaning to regulate content. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.

[Dexter]

The problem is you think the govt will define net neutrality the way YOU will think it will be defined. They will define it the way THEY that want it defined. They will take 'neutrality' and twist the meaning to regulate content. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.

Net neutrality is already defined. The FCC did not change net neutrality in any way. I would obviously oppose any attempt to change the definition of net neutrality.

[DCPatriot]

We're already being regulated.

The Google search engine is rigged   Google executives practically have their own bedrooms at the White House. 

In fact, once they were found to have visited the White House dozens of times each month, they started having their meetings in nearby hotels, to avoid the logging in at the gate.

Wake up......

[Free Vulcan]

Net neutrality is already defined. The FCC did not change net neutrality in any way. I would obviously oppose any attempt to change the definition of net neutrality.

Right. Then tell me Dex, if the FCC didn't change net neutrality in any way, then why exactly did they do something about it? Because they wanted their foot in the door. The courts have smacked away any attempt by them to regulate the internet in the past, and they will simply say in any court case that they are only codifying what was already there.

Then they'll wait a bit, and come back with stricter and stricter regulations once they have their precedent. This is how they work. You have been played, the cake is already baked.

[aligncare]

America is where it is because Liberty slips away one regulation at a time....

[DCPatriot]

America is where it is because Liberty slips away one regulation at a time....

....and the elderly Americans, who experienced said liberty, are dying.

[aligncare]

....and the elderly Americans, who experienced said liberty, are dying.

...and soon no one who remembers what liberty felt like will be left.

[Free Vulcan]

...and soon no one who remembers what liberty felt like will be left.

Yep, and that's pretty much what the plan has been all along.

[Dexter]

Right. Then tell me Dex, if the FCC didn't change net neutrality in any way, then why exactly did they do something about it?

They wanted to prevent the cable companies from eventually being successful in their attempts to end net neutrality. The cable companies are the ones that want to change the internet and prioritize content so they can make more money. Removing net neutrality would be the equivalent of kicking the doors open for them. We have to make sure net neutrality is not removed or perverted. Currently the FCC has not done either of those things, but the cable companies have tried. The FCC already had the authority to create regulations. They don't need a "foot in the door" to do that. If they attempt to pass regulations that would actually hinder our ability to access content we will know about it.

[aligncare]

Yeah, like when Iran is close to having the nuke, we'll know about it...when we see the mushroom cloud.

[Dexter]

Yeah, like when Iran is close to having the nuke, we'll know about it...when we see the mushroom cloud.

If the FCC is planning on taking over the internet they have hindered their own plan by passing the regulations that they passed. There doesn't need to be a precedent for them to pass regulations; that is within their authority. What they did would have been a completely unnecessary and counterproductive step in their plan.

[Free Vulcan]

They wanted to prevent the cable companies from eventually being successful in their attempts to end net neutrality. The cable companies are the ones that want to change the internet and prioritize content so they can make more money. Removing net neutrality would be the equivalent of kicking the doors open for them. We have to make sure net neutrality is not removed or perverted. Currently the FCC has not done either of those things, but the cable companies have tried. The FCC already had the authority to create regulations. They don't need a "foot in the door" to do that. If they attempt to pass regulations that would actually hinder our ability to access content we will know about it.

The FCC has had no such authority, and the courts have made that clear time after time. This is not about net neutrality, that is the trojan horse. They will get their 'net neutrality' and build from there, which will include censorship just like they wanted to do with talk radio.

[Dexter]

The FCC has had no such authority, and the courts have made that clear time after time.

https://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do

"The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation and technological innovation."

This is not about net neutrality, that is the trojan horse. They will get their 'net neutrality' and build from there, which will include censorship just like they wanted to do with talk radio.

There's nothing else I can add to this conversation to convince you that you're wrong. I guess we will just have to disagree. Just try to understand that net neutrality as it is now needs to stay. Getting rid of net neutrality is the absolute worst thing you could possibly do if you want the internet to stay the way it is.

[Free Vulcan]

The FCC can say what it wants, the courts and Congress will ultimately decide the amount of power it really has.

I will say it again - you are naive in their intent and methodology, as well as the legal reality. This is not a static equation, but something that is being driven toward an agenda. The first step is to attempt to regulate something that to this point the courts have said they have no jurisdiction over.

[aligncare]

The FCC can say what it wants, the courts and Congress will ultimately decide the amount of power it really has.

I will say it again - you are naive in their intent and methodology, as well as the legal reality. This is not a static equation, but something that is being driven toward an agenda. The first step is to attempt to regulate something that to this point the courts have said they have no jurisdiction over.

That's an excellent point. We often lose sight of the fact that unelected bureaucrats pass regulations that are in effect laws.  Regulations which can be very onerous to the individual or business – yet imposed without any congressional input (ie. without we the people's voice being heard).

Using the current subject as an example, let's say you wanted to censor the Internet. Okay. Just get your congressman or senator to draft legislation to that effect. Let's see how many in congress would be willing to vote yea.  If we're going to regulate the Internet let's do it the old-fashioned way, through congressional action, not through some faceless agency.