[discuss] Net Neutrality: Perhaps the FCC is the wrong agency?

Tue Jun 3 19:29:02 UTC 2014

The short summary is that the US FCC has been the agency for content
censorshop almost from its inception in 1934.

Content censorship is one of the FCC's primary work products.

They have, and regularly use, the power to levy fines for "indecency"
and similar violations.

They recently raised their per-violation fine from $27,500 to
$325,000.

So, as the author explains, it's a little worrying that so many would
like to extend the FCC's jurisdiction to the internet.

Basically they lost on the recent net neutrality rules because a
federal court in Janauary told the FCC they had no jurisdiction to
impose those rules.

No doubt it was a little more complex than that but that's the
tuppence summary.

In addition the new Chair of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, previously spent 20
years as a Cable TV lobbyist.

It's worrisome that this movement to give the FCC so much jurisdiction
over has become so popular.

The sentiment, no matter how well-founded (i.e., net neutrality) begs
critical examination.

On June 3, 2014 at 01:21 bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) wrote:
 > 
 > An interesting alternate take on this FCC / Net Neutrality issue.
 > 
 > I tend to think the author has a good point -- be careful what you
 > wish for.
 > 
 >   "The FCC Must Ignore the Silly 'Net Neutrality' Advocates"
 > 
 >   http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/19/the-fcc-must-ignore-the-silly-net-neutrality-advocates.html
 > 
 > or
 > 
 >   http://tinyurl.com/m5yllnl
 > 

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*