Ex-Obama adviser calls on FCC to reclassify Web access: report

[IDemo]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - The U.S. could regain its authority to pursue both network neutrality and widespread access to broadband by formally reclassifying Internet access as "telecommunications services," a former adviser to President Obama said in a published report on Sunday.

Susan Crawford, who was a special assistant to the President for science, technology and innovation policy, wrote in the New York Times that, before it can reclassify Internet access, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has to prove "good reason".

Crawford, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, was writing in response to the Federal appeals court ruling last week that the FCC lacks the legal authority to tell Comcast Corp not to block certain uses of its Internet access services.

Comcast, which is the No.1 TV and Internet service provider to U.S. homes, had been found to slow down access to file-sharing services used for sharing TV and movies by users.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63A21T20100411

[msongs]

1. internet should be a public utility, not controlled by parasite corporations who hate us nt

[pipoman]

3. Public Utility = government control over content by default..

[elleng]

7. Subject to first amendment.

In fact, there's virtually no 'control' over content where FCC has authority, as in radio + tv.

[pipoman]

12. You are far more trusting than I

I have seen what the commerce clause, asset forfeiture, free trade agreements and condemnation have proven to authorize at the federal level...pardon me for not quite trusting authoritarians.

[elleng]

14. Don't trust our system of laws, I guess.

[pipoman]

18. I have seen their application and the (gwb) influence on those good 'ol lawz

keep them out of the internet...I can't believe when people proclaiming liberalism or progressiveness advocates for authoritarianism...it is so contrary..truth can be stranger than...

[Psephos]

21. Check out the Center for Constitutional Rights for a lot of reasons not to

http://ccrjustice.org/

:)

[christx30]

32. Ask the people

that have lost their homes due to eminent domain how much they trust our system of laws to protect them from government abuse.

[elleng]

44. Some things about eminent domain,

AND about our system of laws to protect us all from government abuse:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/eminent_domain.html

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13252

[christx30]

49. Well,

I'm not seeing a whole lot of limits on when they can come in and take your property. If the local government thinks they can get more property taxes from some corporation, they will come and take it out from under you. They will give you a joke of a compensation and send you packing. But what if I love my home and would rather have that than the money?
I mean... do you know of any examples of when a judge says that a person's right to their property trumps the "public interest"?
And that is why I don't trust our "system of laws" to protect us, any more than I trust my children around an unattended bag of chips.

[elleng]

50. Not popular decisions generally.

I think our system of laws has geared up to protect us. About major recent Supreme Court decision on the issue:

'Public reaction to the decision was highly unfavorable and, as a result, many states changed their eminent domain laws. Prior to the Kelo decision, only eight states specifically prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight. Since the decision, forty-three states have amended their eminent domain laws, although some of these changes are cosmetic.<18>'

VERY INTERESTING Dissenting opinions:

On June 25, 2005, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. The dissenting opinion suggested that the use of this taking power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion— take from the poor, give to the rich— would become the norm, not the exception:

“ Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. ”

She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively delete the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." 125 S.Ct. 2655, 2671

Clarence Thomas also penned a separate originalist dissent, in which he argued that the precedents the court's decision relied upon were flawed and that "something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution." He accuses the majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use" clause with a very different "public purpose" test:

“ This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.' ”

Thomas also made use of the argument presented in the NAACP/AARP/SCLC/SJLS amicus brief on behalf of three low-income residents' groups fighting redevelopment in New Jersey, noting:

“ Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

[christx30]

51. Again

these are laws that local areas have put in place to protect people. But they didn't HAVE to do it. I would rather they simply not have the power to steal my home so Wal-mart can build a store. Wal-mart comes to me to get me to sell, and I say no. So Walmart goes to the city council and tells them what's going on. I would rather the city council say "Sorry. We don't have the power to force him to sell. Go back to him and offer more money". The courts wouldn't do that.

[elleng]

52. Eminent domain is an attribute of sovereignty.

States and localities do what they can.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html

[boppers]

27. What the fuck are you fucking talking about?

If you don't fucking think the fucking FCC isn't constantly fucking regulating content....
....try saying the word "fuck" on radio or TV.

:evilgrin:

edit: added grin to indicate that this wasn't meant with hostile intentions

[elleng]

43. You say that so well!

:evilgrin:

[24601]

46. Broadcast - not cable where you hear it all the time. n/t

[toopers]

53. What about the fairness act?

People wanted to make sure that radio broadcasts both sides of the political spectrum.

[onenote]

17. shouldn't public utilities be built and paid for with public funds?

Telephone companies aren't public utilities --they're private, regulated utilities.

[pipoman]

2. If you like what the authoritians

at the FCC have done with radio and television, you'll simply love the FCC overseeing your web access.....I pray good sense and overwhelming opposition leaves the FCC out of the internet business. I live in the country, there are options and they are getting better all the time, we don't need the FCC to fuck things up.

[DJ13]

4. I prefer the FCC to Comcast

[pipoman]

5. There are other options to Comcast

once FCC takes over there will be no non-FCC option. The market and technology will take care of comcast.

[DJ13]

9. Not in my area there isnt

Besides, you're confusing regulation with operating the ISP, which isnt the same thing.

Thats like claiming that regulating the banks is socialism, a tea bagger concept.

[pipoman]

13. You know, I can't even believe I am hearing this on here...

when Janets tit fell out and the Bush FCC wanted to step in, oh, the howling right here in this very place...there is not one fucking thing which is less freeper than opposing inevitable religious influence on the regulation of the internet. There is nothing liberal or progressive about moral regulation or support for assisting in the birth of such ultimately inevitable monstrosity.

There are other options in most areas and those areas are getting larger. You can't get much more rural than I am and I have the satelite option, cellular is getting closer, a nearby town has free hs internet access for the entire town wirelessly...it is coming..in the mean time, sat isn't too bad.

[Psephos]

22. Good posts - you're not afraid to bell the cat. n/t

[DJ13]

24. I understand your main concern is censorship

But theres no more effective censorship than allowing corporations to price freedom above what you're willing to pay.

Allowing the Comcasts and the Verizons to operate unregulated will result in exactly that..... censorship based on ability to pay.

[pipoman]

25. I am unable to think of an example of that model playing out?

Technology seems to be getting cheaper on it's own.

[Occulus]

35. .

I was thinking of a whole different issue

[boppers]

34. You live in California, according to your profile.

There are, quite literally, *thousands* of other ISP's on California.

Go here:
http://www.dslreports.com/search

Enter a zip code.

Wallah. :P

[elleng]

6. If I understand you, because there are many 'options,'

and likely to be more, there's no need for regulation; the 'market' will handle everything. Is that what you're saying?

[pipoman]

8. I think right now

we are in the midst of such rapid change in the web industry that it remains to be seen how comcast or any other system will maintain the market. I like the new cellular options and believe they are getting better, I haven't counted out the telephone companies who currently have 95% of the nation hard wired. I also know how we all howled and the world laughed when Janis Jackson's tit fell out and the FCC suffered cardiac arrest...multiple arrests...I'd rather my access to the internet not fall prey to GWB or BO for that matter political expediency.

[PSPS]

10. You're wrong

Classifying the internet as "telecommunication service" gives the FCC no more say in its content than it does with telephone service. It merely declares ISP's as "common carriers."

Actually, ISP's should welcome such a declaration as it would free them from any responsibility over the content of their traffic.

But I expect Comcast to fight this tooth and nail since it is the biggest threat to their (and, really, all media broadcaster's) business model. So long as they control the distribution of and access to programming, they're running a money printing machine. If the internet circumvents that control, they'd have to lower their virtually-all-profit prices or go out of business. They'll do everything they can to throttle internet access to the same programming that they want people to pay them $50/month to watch (with commercials.)

[pipoman]

16. I suppose it depends on what people are willing to accept

I believe there will, if ComCast doesn't but out, people will begin using the next technology....hey, isn't it the FCC who limits the speed which can be transmitted via the telephone lines or some such?...I'll go check on that now..

[elleng]

20. isn't the speed 'limited' by the laws of physics,

or technology?

[boppers]

29. The speed is limited by law, in one sense, and use, in another sense, and cost, in a third sense.

Anybody can get a true broadband link to their house, with a full speed, guaranteed, 3Mbs, no limits, no shaping, no censorship.

$1,100 to $2,400 a month. Pair up a couple of T-1's, set up and agreement with a couple peering points (another $500-1000 a month) and you're ready to go!

The problem is that people have become accustomed to thinking that service that costs $3-4,000 a month should be only 50 bucks, because they've gotten so used to sharing that link with others.... sharing made possible by traffic shaping, bandwidth caps, and access restrictions.

[elleng]

40. I see you're a geek, bop!

Thanks for the info.

You say 'anybody' can get. Is this regardless of their geographic location?

[boppers]

48. Having access to copper helps.

Fiber, ever better.

If you're really remote, microwave is required. It's more expensive.

If you're remote, and mobile (think ships) the cost goes up more.

[boppers]

28. Common carrier comes with a huge burden to consumers.

For example, they can no longer stop spam/malware at the perimeters of their networks, as that would be regulating content. Hello, SPAM!

They'd also have to massively increase prices in order to guarantee access, or drop speeds to levels where all access is equal. Like the phone companies had to do with phones. Hello, 56K!

Oh, and of course, there's the huge burden of *every* ISP, large and small, having to deal with compliance, another consumer cost. Hello, price increases!

[elleng]

41. I'm not sure about burden to consumers re: 'common carrier.'

Want to think about it, re: communications. I'm something of a transportation common carrier expert, which is, of course, where the 'theory' began, and have not studied, otherwise. Appreciate the conversation, tho, bop.

[elleng]

11. What has FCC done with radio and television

that you disagree with?

[pipoman]

15. Well, there are only big people in my house,

I really don't need to hear beeps or worse during the Kill Bill marathon on TBS. I don't believe there should be massive regulation of the content of radio or TV beyond the pretty much universally agreed to limitations like the separation between porn and adult content.

[elleng]

19. There is no massive (or other) regulation of content,

so to what do you object?

[pipoman]

23. Regulation "for the children" as it's come to be known

anything which is currently regulated has been specifically targeted by a law making that content illegal or regulated....that's fine with me. We don't need content regulation of the internet on any level which isn't already actionable....and I believe that is the ultimate reality of FCC involvement in the internet industry on any level.

[boppers]

31. Things the FCC objects to:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html

[pipoman]

39. Do you like the idea of these 'standards' being applied to

your internet? Do you trust the Bushites to interpret and enforce these 'standards"? No thanks, I think we're fine as we are.

It’s Against the Law

It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing these laws. The FCC may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture, or issue a warning if a station airs obscene, indecent, or profane material.

Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times

Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:

*

An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
*

The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
*

The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Indecent Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action.

Profane Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined profanity as “including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.”

Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Thanks to boppers for posting the link....

[wcshustle]

38. What has the FCC done?!?

Check out a documentary by Robert Kane Pappas called "Orwell Rolls Over In His Grave"...as in George Orwell..."1984"...BIG BROTHER!! I'm a pretty moderate liberal and even this scared me because it's verifiable...at least it might open your mind enough, hopefully, that you will research it more and find out what's really happening when politicians use words like regulating and deregulating.

[elleng]

45. 'that you disagree with'

was the operative phrase.

[wcshustle]

47. Everything they did that was discussed in the doc. I disagreed with

[boppers]

26. How many radio channels are there?

How many TV channels?

How free is their speech?

Do we want that kind of censorship, and tightly regulated content, to happen to web sites, too?

[go west young man]

30. Many of the posts in this thread are in relation to concerns about

regulation of content. That is ridiculous. The Obama Administration is on the side of a more accessible and free internet. The plan is to force providers to increase service which they are reluctant to do. If Comcast or any of the local internet monopolies want to serve communities and get their guaranteed dollars they should increase capacity and speed up service. Not shut people out or charge more. The FCC taking back control will force Comcasts hand.

Europe, Korea, and Japan are well ahead of the US when it comes to the internet. We have some catching up to do if we want to stay competitive in the modern world.

[boppers]

33. I *want* regulation of content to be allowed on my own damn networks.

I also worry that the FCC tends to over-reach. Also, this isn't just about Obama, this is about regulation that will exist under liberals and conservatives... as well as under content-ban attempts by the likes of Hillary Clinton (who didn't like video games), and Tipper Gore (who didn't like music), and the likes of the RIAA and MPAA. That's the downside of allowing *any* kind of federal content regulation that I, and others, are concerned about.

The flip side is that I *want* to be able to control content on my own networks. There's no sane reason the government should be allowed to step in and demand I always allow port 1433 into and through my networks, exposing my business clients to remote MSSQL attacks. The reason the internet has remained accessible and relatively safe is *because* me, and my peers, are able to react quickly and shut down, or control, unacceptable or excessive content, or be proactive and limit content ahead of time.

Heck, the whole reason for this problem, or, rather, the "spark" that ignited this, was content that has absolutely nothing to do with the web.

Let me repeat: Comcast was slowing down *non-web* traffic, in order to keep their web traffic flowing smoothly.

In specific, rather than shutting down port 80 (http), or 443 (https), traffic, they were sending "please stop" signals to people who were running non-web, file sharing, software (on ports 6881-6999), that was overloading their networks (BitTorrent traffic can easily swamp an entire neighborhood's worth of capacity, the "torrent" part of the name isn't an accident).

As far as Comcast having any kind of "monopoly", that's certainly not true where I live, nor is it true in most locations that I've lived and worked in.. there's a vast number of smaller companies that provide services to both large and small users.

Here's one way of finding more:
http://www.dslreports.com/search

edit: add a resource to locate competing ISP services

[dbmk]

36. People cannot use more bandwidth than they are sold and given.

Argument void.

They have been selling more than they have been able to provide - and by throttling certain traffic they tried to hide that fact.

[boppers]

37. Fair enough.

Meter on bandwidth used. Problem solved.

[elleng]

42. I agree that regulation of content is generally foolish,

certainly in respect to tv and radio, and as there's ample opportunity for the public to address proposals for restrictions, we do that. (Janet Jackson comes to mind.)

As to similar restrictions over the internet, thats a different matter, which is why its resonable to think about similar rules for the internet. Originally, there was in fact limited physical access, for tv and radio, so rules re: such were a reasonable thing, in the public interest. Now that 'access' is significantly less restricted, we should adapt to the new world.