Thursday, October 22, the FCC will decide on whether “Net Neutrality” rules will guide the new regulations they are proposing for the internet. This is yet another grab for power, and this one is serious because it opens the door to censorship of the internet. I think we need to flood the FCC with comments opposing it.
Following is a copy of a letter I sent to the FCC’s new “Join the Discussion” site at:
http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=1
You can also contact them at: E-mail: fccinfo@fcc.gov
Tel# (1-888-225-5322)
Fax: (1-866-418-0232)
Federal Communications Commission
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Complaints
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20554
Dear Sirs:
Net Neutrality will result in slowing the internet down for everyone by making the use of Broadband extremely inefficient. It will stifle innovation because new enterprises will not be willing to invest in new applications when they will not be able to recoup their investment.
The following quotes are from an article by Steven Titch, a Political Analyst, from the Reason Foundation:
"An unmanaged Internet, consumed by an exaflood, endangers the ease of which smaller Web publishers, bloggers and merchants can reach users."
"The network neutrality issue has dwindled to a political agenda supported by a handful of vocal advocates at Moveon.org and Freepress.org. And while these groups may have good intentions behind their support for Internet regulation, the neutrality rules they favor will not result in what they hope for. Quite the contrary, they will lead to higher broadband prices, mediocre service and cede a lot of market power to one segment of the market. In this, network neutrality is no different from many of the radical new regulatory programs the Obama administration is introducing to the American economy, be it banking, insurance, auto manufacturing, health care or alternative energy—they allow a select group of favored companies to privatize the gains and socialize the costs. Such programs don’t encourage competition, job growth and entrepreneurship, they impede it."
http://reason.org/news/show/how-net-neutrality-regulation
Implementing "net neutrality" will destroy choice of services, and increase costs to the public because of the inefficiency and rules against banning the business practice of “Levying surcharges on content providers that are not their retail customers”. Consumers would have to pay full service rates for small and limited applications.
"Net Neutrality" is about government control and special interests. The American people know this, and will express their displeasure at the polls if it is implemented
Showing posts with label FCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FCC. Show all posts
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
LOCALISM, ACORN AND THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE
I just read an article, by Connie Hair, called "ACORN Pushes Return of Fairness Doctrine", dated 02/18/09, at http://www.humanevents.com/. Ms.Hair believes that "ACORN is readying a campaign to kill conservative talk radio".
I. Make it possible for low- and moderate-income community groups to have their own sources of information
A. Initiate government funding to low- and moderate-income community groups in order to assist them in establishing their own sources of information.
B. Exempt government funding to low- and moderate-income community groups in order to assist them in establishing their own sources of information.
C. The Federal Communication Commission should revise its policies so that broadcast applicants with low- and moderate-income boards of directors are more likely to be awarded stations.
II. Make the mainstream media accessible and accountable to low- and moderate-income people.
A. Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting, so that grass roots community groups have equal time to express their views.
B. Require cable TV companies to make good on their promises to allow community groups access to air time, or revoke their operating licenses.
I am extremely concerned about plans being discussed by the current administration regarding the imposition, on the media, of “community watchdog boards” with the purpose of judging whether the content “serves the public interest, locally”. These boards would have the power of intimidation, or even the ability to cause the loss of broadcast licenses. This would amount to blatant censorship, and would be the death of free speech in America.
Any entity with the power to determine whether media content “serves the public interest” would do so according to their own agenda. Whoever is in charge would have the ability to silence any opposition, thereby ensuring continued power. This would be the death of democracy in America.
We would consider any support of such legislation as evidence of intention to do away with free speech, and democracy in the United States. As your constituents, we expect you to fight any such legislation. We promise we will be watching.
Regards,
I. Make it possible for low- and moderate-income community groups to have their own sources of information
A. Initiate government funding to low- and moderate-income community groups in order to assist them in establishing their own sources of information.
B. Exempt government funding to low- and moderate-income community groups in order to assist them in establishing their own sources of information.
C. The Federal Communication Commission should revise its policies so that broadcast applicants with low- and moderate-income boards of directors are more likely to be awarded stations.
II. Make the mainstream media accessible and accountable to low- and moderate-income people.
A. Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting, so that grass roots community groups have equal time to express their views.
B. Require cable TV companies to make good on their promises to allow community groups access to air time, or revoke their operating licenses.
I am extremely concerned about plans being discussed by the current administration regarding the imposition, on the media, of “community watchdog boards” with the purpose of judging whether the content “serves the public interest, locally”. These boards would have the power of intimidation, or even the ability to cause the loss of broadcast licenses. This would amount to blatant censorship, and would be the death of free speech in America.
Any entity with the power to determine whether media content “serves the public interest” would do so according to their own agenda. Whoever is in charge would have the ability to silence any opposition, thereby ensuring continued power. This would be the death of democracy in America.
We would consider any support of such legislation as evidence of intention to do away with free speech, and democracy in the United States. As your constituents, we expect you to fight any such legislation. We promise we will be watching.
Regards,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
