FCC Commissioner argues for delaying February net neutrality ruling One of the FCC's five Commissioners has argued that the Commission should delay its net neutrality ruling until Congress has had an opportunity to devise new legislation aimed at resolving the issue. Speaking on Wednesday at the American Enterprise Institute, Michael O’Rielly argued that "there are very good reasons for the …
So basically a regulatory agency that actually has the gall to try and regulate should be immediately disbanded.
Also, I am not sure why and FCC ruling would make Congressional action moot. The FCC can make a ruling and Congress is free to act after that. I think that thing here is that if the FCC does make a ruling, then Congress might actually have to come up with a well thought out bill and get it passed </gasp> rather than just let the status quo rule the day, which is probably what most of them want.
The reason why these three-and-four letter regulatory agencies exist is that unregulated corporations have never, in all of history, proven able to rise above anything more than ripping out the underbelly of representative society. The republicans don't want to let the dogs out to play, they want to set the wolves out to hunt and scavenge what they can of the rotting meat.
The same types are those enacting funding cuts to the EPA. Legislation and exceptions to reduce the financial penalties OSHA can seek for injuries and deaths. Immunities and bailouts for directors that loot investment groups today and run them into the ground tomorrow. Individually, easy to ignore, but collectively, all part of the same corrosive pattern.
This guy is a tool of the GOP. There is NO WAY that any Republican sponsored legislation is going to get past Obama's Veto pen! There is no way that the President would allow the FCC to be stripped of its authority...and therefore there is ZERO reason to wait to act on this incredibly important decision!
Is an anti-regulation, pro-business think-tank that pretends that cutthroat capitalism will result in everyone winning, with an extremely strong belief in social Dawinism. Oligarchies are a-okay, even oppressive and monopolistic ones, because it's not the government. In general, everything they take issue with when the government does it is somehow not just acceptable but laudable when done by businesses.
The commissioner in question was a legislative aid for the Senate Republican Whip (like the name implies, it's the leadership position in charge of "whipping up" support for a leadership-approved bill) and has been a professional politician. He was "nominated" by President Obama to make sure the FCC even had enough bodies to have a quorum and do anything at all. To show just how politicized the FCC is, there are legal limits to the number of commissioners that can be from the same party.
To expect this man to be anything more than a Trojan Horse used to convey the not-so-secret desire of the ISPs to double charge for the same bandwidth is ludicrous. At best, he's a puppet. His appearance at the AEI speaks volumes about his ability to address any proposal or action without having already decided the outcome.
I don't think so. There's a heap of lobbying dollars to be had by Congress and since Congress controls the FCC, the FCC will follow their lead rather then seeing what they do being overturned. I think this "wait and see" is a ploy so that the commishes won't take the blame. Let Congress take the heat from users/consumers (unlikely Congress won't upset the industry) while the commishes find new jobs in a year or two (around election time) as lobbyists.
Smoke, mirrors, promises, and lies...the American political system at work.
By all means, give them what they want, remove net neutrality; but with the following conditions:
1) Net neutrality can be removed in areas where the end consumer has an alternative local broadband ISP to move to within that area. In the case that an ISP is the only ISP in the area, then net neutrality must remain enabled.
2) In the exceptional cases where the ISP wish to disable net neutrality despite being the only broadband ISP in the area; then the ISP must provide the end consumer the option to enable net neutrality on their connection without need to pay any extra charges.
There, I believe that give them what they want, while protecting the consumer and the businesses. In the areas with multiple broadband ISPs, if they all do disable net neutrality, then the consumer can vote with their money as to which provide the best service despite the disadvantage.
P.S. Forgive my EngRish, as it isn't my first language.
Won't work....
1) In most places there's only one "true" broadband. Usually a cable company and a telephone company. The Telco only offers DSL and usually very slow DSL but it's called broadband by them.
And most of all.. money talks... err... owns Congress. Lobbyist money, not voters.
As an outsider the first thing you OUGHT to learn is that Congress is the only part of government which is authorized to pass new laws. As such, the FCC cannot pass a law under the guise of a rule implementing a law that Congress hasn't passed. Which is EXACTLY what the FCC is proposing to do.
That goes double for all you Brits who think you understand it because we mostly share a language.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
