Cuccinelli Prepared to Fight for Net Independence
By Steven Osborne | Thursday, September 29th, 2011 | Catch-All, Policy, VirginiaAccording to the Lynchburg News and Advance, Attorney General Cuccinelli told a group of Amherst County Republicans Wednesday, that he was prepared to do legal battle with the Federal government over internet regulations.
Apparently, Cuccinelli expects that that Federal Communications Commission will move ahead with regulations on the internet despite a court order telling them that they had no such authority. It would seem that the FCC plans to regulate the broadband internet line using the regulations already in place for telephones. The report goes on to state that these regulations could affect the availability of video and other high bandwidth services.
Cuccinelli has been no stranger to calling out the current Administration on matters of Constitutional importance. Having already filed lawsuits against Obamacare and the EPA, Cuccinelli is continuing to show himself as the Constitutional watchdog that Virginia and America desperately needs.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Steven Osborne is a grassroots conservative activist from Central Virginia. He is currently furthering his education at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. In addition to writing for Bearing Drift he is also a columnist for the Christian Law Journal.
Comments
11 Responses to "Cuccinelli Prepared to Fight for Net Independence"
I just can’t praise AG Ken Cuccinelli enough. Virginia and America is a better place because of him.
Are you trying to define Net Neutrality by using different terms?
It is my understanding that the Administration and the FCC are trying to expand broadband coverage to rural Americans and preventing internet service companies from throttling broadband speed and slowing down web traffic.
Am I mistaken, or are you for the end of Bearing Drift?
Tor is correct. The FCC has proposed Net Neutrality, a system under which Internet Service Providers (ISP) must provide equal bandwidth to all content providers. Under the rules that Cuccinelli is pushing for, Verizon, Comcast, and other ISP could charge high-volume content providers such as Google and Yahoo a surcharge to provide them full bandwidth. If they refused to pay, the ISP could slow or ever block their content to subscribers. That would be the equivalent of charging a high call volume business a surcharge to allow people to call them, something that has been illegal since the Telecommunications Act of 1934 was passed.
Is that what you consider Constitutional, Steve? An Internet provider being allowed to filter and block what web sites you can get to without telling you that they are doing it, even while you are paying them for full Internet access? Cuccinelli isn’t acting in the interest of consumers or the citizens of the Commonwealth. He is protecting the profits of Big Telecoms.
BTW, I’m not sure where you got the information that a court order said that the FCC did not have this authority. The lawsuit by Verizon and MetroPCS was dismissed on the grounds that the FCC had not yet published the regulations.
I understand the confusion. Concepts of a neutral net are what we all want. The FCC regulation of the internet and some portions of the Net Neutrality package do harm as well as some good.
Net Neutrality advocates speak mostly in hypotheticals. We “could” lose Bearing Drift as we know it should those evil Democrats start heading big companies. I guss we pretend no big businesses support Democrats? Facebook’s Zuckerberg (not sure if I got his name right)? Democrats get no love from telecoms? Please.
What DO we know? WITHOUT “Net Neutrality” we have Bearing Drift NOW! We have explosive growth in broad band availabilty NOW, and it is growing. There are possibilities of unfair business practices. That can be handled through existing laws or future laws. FCC is not the answer!
To the contrary, the “Left” should be MORE concerned if guys like Cuccinelli favored FCC regulation. How did you guys like the prudish FCC under Bush. Obama is likely to lose. Do you want to take a chance on the next John Ashcroft insisting there be no bare boobs on the net? What would certain GOP social conservatives running the FCC do about gay content. Some like to legislate against gays.
You run the risk of “correctness” stifling development, content, and innovation. Political Correctness, Moral Correctness, Environmental Correctness, Patriotic Correctness. You don’t want to open that Pandora’s Box anymore than conservatives want the “Fairness Doctrine”. And who doesn’t favor fairness?
JUDGE Napolitano is against it and can be seen on youtube explaining how the FCC has no legal authority. That issue is also addressed on some videos by Reason TV. John Stossell is against it and yes, hard core Republicans like Rush and Cuccinelli are against Net Neutrality.
There are better ways of doing this than the FCC.
Britt,
I’m sorry, but your comment is woefully uninformed. Net Neutrality is not a Democrats versus Republican or liberal versus conservative thing. In fact, the concept of Net Neutrality that the current FCC is proposing was originated by FCC Chairman Michael Powell (yes, the son of Colin Powell) during the Bush Administration. It is designed to ensure that all Internet traffic is given the same priority by all Internet Service Providers (ISP) and that content providers can neither buy greater access nor be denied access for not paying ISP extortion.
The damage of a lack of Net Neutrality rules is hardly a hypothetical. Many ISP’s have already blocked or slowed access to peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing sites who have refused to pay surcharges for being fully accessible. In one of the most egregious examples, Verizon has blocked all access to NewsGroups because of the bandwidth consumption of file-sharing there.
You seem to think that Net Neutrality is government over-regulation by Democrats of private enterprise. It isn’t. It is the government guaranteeing the open and full access to Internet content providers. Exactly what do you object to when the government protects full and open access in telecommunications, esp. when the proposal is fully embraced by both Republican and Democratic administrations?
What I find objectionable to what you have said, HisRoc, is not that you say that I am wrong. I could understand why even a CONSERVATIVE Republican or Libertarian would (in my opinion) be mistakenly for “Net Neutrality”.
What I object to is your characterization that my points were “woefully uninformed”. Did I not mention supporting statements and point to well known people that have come out publicly against Net Neutrality? So, not only am I woefully uninformed, so is Rush Limbaugh, and Ron Paul. Judge Andrew Napolitano, a freakin judge must be woefully uninformed. Why? Because this is a cuddly fur ball package of true neutrality that even the FCC couldn’t screw it up right? Glenn Beck is against it as are the Libertarians at Reason/Reason TV. John Stossell must be woefully uninformed, because……he just hasn’t done any research before he made those clips. And of course, Ken Cuccinelli is the great evil and uniformed Attorney General elected by the duped Virginians. Gee, I guess you must be right. We all are paranoid and uninformed. Maybe you can forgive Rush. After all, he and other radio hosts are continually threatend with the possible resurgence of the “Fairness Doctrine”. Everybody wants a neutral net as do they want fairness. A rose by any other name is just a back door to power.
So, let’s talk about “uninformed”:
“BTW, I’m not sure where you got the information that a court order said that the FCC did not have this authority. The lawsuit by Verizon and MetroPCS was dismissed on the grounds that the FCC had not yet published the regulations.” – HisRoc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nmas1DMOWQ
About 1:50 in. I guess Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s opinions are uninformed too, even as she quotes what the FCC was doing?
Let me be clear, I specifically mentioned the prudish FCC under Bush in my last reply. Michael Powell was a horrible FCC head. I don’t care who his father is.
You are correct that support can be found from both parties. There are indeed ancedotal incidences that have occured. For the most part, however, the fear mongering coming from the Net Neutrality crowd is indeed hypothetical. The net does work extremely well and there are consumer driven pressures that will punish wrong doers that go too far. You also touch on a stark reality when you mention bandwidth. Bandwidth is not unlimted. Consumption of it continually rises, and technology struggles to keep up. I am no fan of Verizon. I believe their success led them to a false sense of security that has led them now to making poor decisions. Much like our government. That said, bandwidth is a real issue and “blackmail” and “forced to pay” is something that regulated companies deal with daily. I wouldn’t expect perfect solutions immediately even from the best of companies. Still, the FCC is hardly needed to regulate the internet. I sure wouldn’t want Michael Powell in charge.
The fact is, we have more broad band access now than before. There will be repercussions for companies that go too far and rewards for those doing it well. Short term mistakes will be forgiven, but egregious repeated ones punished. Think of how Ford is rewarded and Government Motors and FIAT-Chrysler are punished.
I know, I have been busy and off my game lately, but call me “wrong”. Calling me uninformed might just be a mistake.
You don’t think I wasn’t at one point fooled by the words “Net Neutrality” and the clever packaging? I was. The idea of a neutral net certainly appeals to Libertarians! Then again, so does “Fairness”.
Britt,
Now we are starting to understand each other. Yes, Rush Limbaugh, Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, et al, are all wrong. And anyone who listens to their hysterical rantings is bound to be uninformed, misinformed, or just plain wrong. And Cuccinelli is wasting the Commonwealth’s time and money tilting with windmills. There is no way he is going to prevail in court.
I’m glad we got that straightened out.
Quit trying to confuse the issue:
FCC regulation is only thing preventing big telecom from slowing down internet connections and limiting websites.
Since Congress has failed to act to protect internet users and non-ISP businesses the FCC had to come in and regulate. A failure to do so, or a Supreme Court ruling preventing the regulation, would be a terrible blow to consumers and businesses trying to do business.
If you’re arguing otherwise or supporting AG Cuuccinelli on this issue you clearly don’t understand what’s going on or you’re OK with these practices that would harm freedom of information, stifle the economy, and be a pain in the ass.
This isn’t an R vs. D issue. This is people that support big ISP companies which apparently AG Cuccinelli does and those who support businesses and consumers across the nation and party lines.
I’m pretty sure this is why we’ve seen Google (and other content providers) trying to develop high speed internet independent of the like of Verizon and Comcast. They’re worried that the ISPs will favor their own internal content or charge for outside content.
Steve,
I’m waiting for an honest explanation for your reasoning. Or has your connection to Bearing Drift been shut down by Verizon?
Without these “regulations” the ISPs are going to “affect the availability of video and other high bandwidth services” by blocking, slowing, or making consumers and companies pay more to use them!
Britt,
If there are “better ways of doing this” then why aren’t they being done?
ToR, are there better ways of stopping people involved in white collar crime in general? Should we put the FCC in charge of everything?
To big to fails? Eminent Domain back door dealings with localities cheating property owners? Embezzlement? What about in your face crimes like murder? Let’s have the FCC regulate abortion and voting fraud!
The problem you say is a problem isn’t as big as you paint it. Even were it so there are already laws against unfair business practices. THE FCC HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY!
You are right. The FCC doesn’t and shouldn’t have regulatory powers over the internet. It is not neutral: it is partisan and many are already having their sites taken down for even having an opinion in opposition to the State. The majority doesn’t want Marxism and tyranny. We will not go the way of Germany and Venezuela.
Maybe you missed this Brit and USA,
Maybe you still don’t understand, so I’ll explain it again:
Internet service providers (ISPs) want to limit your access to the internet by charging you more and blocking websites. The rules (regulation) the FCC is proposing prevents them from blocking any websites or throttling your connection speed.
Does that make sense?
P.S. USA Moron,
Germany and Venezuela are quite different countries. I’m sure you’ve actually visited either of them or know anything more than what NewsMax or Rush has told you, huh?
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.