Wireless Provider Follows Verizon in Suing FCC to Undo Net Neutrality
by Seton MotleyMetro PCS is an American wireless phone service provider – with coverage reaching about 90% of the nation. Their slogan is “Wireless for All” – and their different price packages are certainly readily accessible for most people.
Including a single smart phone-specific $40 a month (absurd taxes and fees included) 4G network plan for unlimited talk, text and web browsing – and access to the bandwidth hog YouTube.
Some other plans they offer are:
- A $50 plan that has everything above plus international and “premium” text messaging, the MetroNavigator GPS directional service, the ScreenIT caller ID app, mobile instant messaging, corporate e-mail, 1GB of additional data access, and the MetroSTUDIO video service.
- A $60 plan that has all of the above plus unlimited data access and MetroSTUDIO “premium content”—18 video-on-demand channels plus audio downloads.
Those of us now wincing at the thought of our monthly cell bills are also simultaneously thinking – Metro PCS is a pretty good deal. It is certainly one of the more “public-friendly” out there right now.
You would think. Ahh, but the Public Interest Groups (PIGs) have found fault with Metro PCS.
At the behest of no one, Media Marxist PIG outfit Free Press went whining to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – and “call(ed) on (them) to investigate Metro PCS for Internet blocking.”
In other words – they are accusing Metro PCS of a Network Neutrality violation.
Never mind that the FCC hasn’t yet filed its December 21st totally unlawful Internet power grab order – executed so as to then unlawfully impose Net Neutrality. So it may not yet even be enforceable.
Never mind that Verizon has filed already filed a lawsuit to undo in expedited fashion said order.
In response to Free Press’ caterwauling, MetroPCS also filed suit.
The real problem here is the perpetually moving goal post that is “Net Neutrality.” Its eternally expansive and elastic definition is changed to suit the Media Marxist moment, and “fit” whatever free market situation the PIGs wish to warp.
It is these Leftist groups that made up the ridiculous notion of Net Neutrality in the first place. An invented solution – with which the Media Marxists then went running around looking for a “problem” to which to apply it.
Net Neutrality is the PIGs way of getting the government’s hooks into the Internet. The Web has grown – without any real government involvement at all – into a free speech, free market Xanadu. A whole new world now making up 1/6th of our national economy – and of limitless First Amendment revelry. Including a whole lot of less government, free market talk and talkers – which is not what the Media Marxists wish to see or hear.
So born was Net Neutrality – not to make the Net neutral, but to neutralize the Net.
In 2006, there were but four Net Neutrality principles – to which everyone agreed, no problem. Then with President Barack Obama and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski came two more – which are far more pernicious. Media Marxist Free Press has a lengthy list of even more.
Net Neutrality used to mean the Internet Service Provider (ISP) could not block its customers from receiving lawful content over “the last mile” – meaning the last little bit of the Internet between the ISPs and their customers.
But in the last several months the Media Marxists have come up with several new, very different and incredibly expansive alleged examples of Net Neutrality “violations.”
There was the Fox-Cablevision situation. Their mutual broadcast contract expired, so Fox pulled their shows from Cablevision TVs, and briefly blocked their Internet content from Cablevision Web subscribers.
After all, it’s their content – they can do with it what they wish, right?
Wrong, say the Media Marxists – Net Neutrality now means that Fox (and everyone else) must provide their content – for free.
Until this incident, the PIGs had rigidly insisted that Net Neutrality was not about content control. Now we know it is.
There is the Comcast-Level 3 situation. Level 3 works with the home-movie monster Netflix, who is looking to move as much as possible away from postal delivery of their movies to Internet delivery thereof. It currently costs them 1/20th as much to deliver via the Web than via the U.S. Postal Service.
But Netflix’s ongoing shift to an ever more Internet-intensive delivery model makes them an ever-growing bandwidth hog. And that bandwidth is not in the “last mile” – it is in the Internet “backbone” where a whole host of companies interlock their networks via long established “peering” contracts with one another so as to best deliver content to their customers’ “last miles.”
So of course Netflix should pay for all this extra bandwidth they’ll be hogging, right?
Wrong, say the Media Marxists and Level 3 – Net Neutrality now means that the “peering” system that has existed for, well, ever is now a giant heap of Net Neutrality violations.
That’s not an assault on the Internet, is it? Exploding a complex mesh of all-party-agreeable contracts that have existed since virtually the beginning of the Web?
And if Netflix doesn’t have to pay for all that bandwidth hogging, guess who does? That would be you and me. Hooray.
Way to look out for the consumers, all you “consumer” groups.
And now we have the Metro PCS situation. Where the cellular provider is giving consumers many options from which to choose – some of which do not allow full access to the Internet. Which means the consumer – not Metro PCS – is “blocking” his or her access to the Internet based upon the phone plan choice he or she makes. Voluntarily.
Because after all, not everyone wants or needs full-on Internet access on their phones. Many, many people don’t even want it in their homes – 90+% of residences have access to broadband, but only 66% actually choose to get it.
So if someone wants, you know, a regular cell phone – should they be forced to pay for Internet service they’re not going to use?
The “consumer” groups – under the mantle of Net Neutrality – say Yes. And that is patently absurd.
The ever-mutating Net Neutrality is very similar to Global Warming Climate Change. It’s hot? It’s Global Warming. It’s snowing? Global Warming Climate Change. There’s an earthquake? Flood? A stiff breeze? It’s all Climate Change – and government is the only answer.
So too is Net Neutrality morphed to meet the situational Machiavellian needs of the Media Marxists. Every free market situation is a Net Neutrality “violation” – and government is the only answer.
But to paraphrase the bumper sticker, if government is the answer – it must be a really stupid question.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
36 Comments
One must hand it to the Obama Administration.
Every piece of legislation they manage to pass, gets challenged in court, with major lawsuits.
They have turned the American Experience into a Cottage Industry for Trial Lawyers.
It must be all part of the Jobs Created and/or Saved portion of the Stimulus Plan.
Net Neutrality and The Fairness Doctrine are working wonders for progressive strongman Chavez. The FCC greatly admires what is happening in Venezuela and they want the same type of control here in the USA.
Here is some interesting news.
I am not a birther. Never was, but this opens a whole new can of worms http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvrb7YqdvxE .
Listen starting at 1:28.
The birthers ought to run wild with this.
There is another interesting fact.
If Obama was born in Hawaii, as claimed, why does he have a Connecticut Social Security Number?
"Until this incident, the PIGs had rigidly insisted that Net Neutrality was not about content control. Now we know it is."
This was obvious to any thinking Conservative who understands Leftists. Just as the Fairness Docterine" before it, it's designed to quell anything that is not regime approved talk or 'content' in this case.
<Ann likes neither>
This smacks of the same hubris used to relegate GM bondholders pennies on the dollar behind Union shareholders who got full payment. This Alice in Wonderland approach to the rules jeopardizes every present lawful agreement between citizens. Why would anyone hire in such an uncertain environment? It is no stretch of the imagination to envision dictates of payment and benefits to every employee through executive orders and regulatory enforcements.
This is who they are. They will not stop.
As a person who likes her individual rights, I hope the Obama administration loses in this, yet another bid to control me and what I do, listen to or consume.
Anyone expect Obama to treat Internet content access differently than the Chinese?
This is not good or pro Freedom.
QP
The lib's use the courts very effectively. It's about time we see this happen on our side.
Go get em, Verizon!
Yes but not just content control.
Citizen control as well.
…because the guy is a fraud. In the early 90s I worked for a bank and when we opened an account for someone there was a real time background check that would show among other things where the person's ss# was issued and in what year. The number and year had to match up with the info the client was giving me and if it didn't I would ask a series of follow up questions to see if the client's story matched his data. Barry's info doesn't make any sense based on what we know about him and I would not open an account for him.
Here is an interesting article http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-invest... .
As stated above, I am not a Birther. Never was. I always figured if there was a real issue, the Hillary Clinton Campaign would have capitalized on it. With that being noted, here we are two years into it, and there are a whole lot more questions, than there are satisfactory answers.
The keyword is "satisfactory".
Just like when you were in the bank you talked about.
Unsatisfactory answers, are partial truths, or lies. They tend to throw up red flags.
Barrack Obama is nothing but one giant Red Flag.
(Pardon that pun).
True cost of liberal democrats is not just their socialist idealism it is also in the massive resources we expend in defending our free enterprise system against their never ending attacks. Whether it is this, or our nuclear power industry, or our firearms manufacturing industry. Or any industry in general.
In fact. Mr. Gutfield should do one of those videos about the perfect liberal product manufactured in the perfect liberal factory. Then shipped to the perfect liberal customer. When they open the box. It is empty.
And the perfect liberal customer says "Oh that's exactly what I wanted" cause he won't admit he got screwed.
I'm not a birther either, but think Obama has created the problem for himself. Obama needs to show the birth certificate to clear things up.
This is making the passport-gate campaign issue look very interesting. John Brennan's private company hacked access to the Sec State passport information in March 2008 adding significance to the issue. John Brennan is now working for Obama.
Orwell said, "He who controls the past, controls the future; and he who controls the present, controls the past."
We could simplify this to "He who controls the internet, controls everything." It can either be us as free people directing our lives, or it can be the government directing them for us.
They are only too happy to get screwed. Just so long as it is Barney Frank doing it!
Net Neutrality is nothing but a cover for control of the internet. Everybody knows it, that's why the commie FCC people are trying to do end runs around the law.
They want to register all networks, big and small, private and business. They then want them to register all users and the government can monitor and shut them off as they please. That's where this is going.
.
Red Fag is more like it…..
Me thinks NObama is pushing the FCC to keep grabbing power…
My position is this… if he has nothing to hide, then why hide? He could extinguish this opposition against him if he simply allowed his B-cert to go public! I don't consider myself a birhter, but I DO want proof he is allowed to be President!
I doubt Hillary would have been allowed to bring a birth cert issue public anyway.
If/when they determine he was not elligible to be president, I want everything during his presidency Nullified!
executive orders are BS! Unconstitutional!
FCC'S ATTACK ON 1ST AMENDMENT
The Radical Leftist majority of the FCC made a power-grab to control the Internet. That court cases have been filed to dispute their authority to do this is most necessary for First Amendment protections. Which brings me to Mark Lloyd, the Diversity Czar on the FCC and supporter of Net Neutrality — the backdoor to the Fairness Doctrine. In his own words:
“The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him,” Said Lloyd. “But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”
An interesting perspective from the Marxist Diversity Czar. We are not talking about free press here, people!!!!! On a study for the Center for American Progress, John Halpin, a senior fellow, wrote with Lloyd:
“When 91 percent of the talk radio programming broadcast each weekday is solely conservative – despite a diversity of opinions among radio audiences and the proven success of progressive shows in key cities – the market has clearly failed to meet audience demand. Our goal has always been clear: We want more free speech and diversity of views in the media, not less.”
Do you think for a minute, the FCC is going to stop with the Internet????? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you to Portugal. Talk radio, Fox News, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck are the target. Sorry, not target, crosshairs. Political Correctness, another form of censorship. The FCC must be stopped. Only with free and unlimited debate, can our Republic function. There are those who would take it from us.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thomas Jefferson
We buy the bandwidth, we pay for the bandwidth and the FCC pretends it belongs to them. I wish the FCC would just go play in the street.
Unless we all want to pay for others use of netflix, internet on a cell, etc, we had best hope Comcast and others win the FCC battle. Otherwise you and I will be paying much, much more for a lot less.
It's time to beat back the over reaching Obumble administration, a tyrannical out of control executive branch. Like one reader posted here it's funny how everything they do ends up in the courts.
There is nothing, good, productive and successful in this life that the useless dweebs in government will not try to completely f*ck up.
I do.
The US government didn't build the internet. The private sector did. The Chinese government built their internet, so they have total control.
The US government does not. And I seriously doubt they ever could with out a police state.
To pick a nit, that "90% of the nation", isn't any such thing.
90% of the 48 states, sort of. (Go to the web site and see how much land is not so good, and that means, low bandwidth.)
90% of the population of the 48 states, probably.
This really should have been cleared up long ago. It should have gone to court to get something to settle it.
However, consider that Soros is behind Obama. How many politicians do /not/ have something in their back ground that the public would choke on? Get enough dirt on enough politicians and you can shut them up about anything. Even the ones with nothing (known) will be forced to shutup by their collegues.
Hillary only had a few FBI files. How many does Obama and his staff have on their hard drives? Think Soros and his staff don't have free access to everything?
My guess is that either the twit in Hawaii believed the propaganda, or Obama has been showing signs of independence and this is to slap him down.
Egzactly. The whole point of the excercise.
It is all about control.
Democrats will not be satisfied until they have their hands on every throat in America.
I'm not sure if Obama and his regulators care who built it. They only care about regulating it and the content by any backdoor underhanded method they can slip by us when they think we're not looking.
QP
Net Neutrality isn't bona fide law, therefore it doesn't even have to be respected and obeyed in the first place. Instead of IT companies going on the offensive by suing, they should just sit back and refuse to abide by these blatant unlawful regulations that the FCC has no authority to be issuing, and instead let the agency go after them in court. They won't be able to defend themselves when it comes time to prove that they have jurisdiction over the Internet and will easily lose the case. So in other words, just let the government do all the work while still screwing themselves in the end.
This is one situation that definitely calls for civil disobedience. The reactions of this Federal government need to be properly gauged so we can see for ourselves just what teeth they would have to bare at us should they come to the realization they couldn't rely exclusively on their army of lawyers to enforce their unjust laws and regulations.
Oddly enough, non-neutrality was part of the IPv4 protocol so that interactive data such as voice or streaming video could have a higher priority than other data.
The internet is nothing like, say, the power grid, where you have delineated lines of control and switches that can be flipped on and off.
The internet is based upon the concept of "best try." Which means if I have a wide are edge router, plugged into the internet back bone, and some one sends me a data packet, all I have to do is promise to try to get it to the next router – or as we call them "hops." I'm under no obligation to make sure it gets there, all I have to do is try.
And if I can't get it on to the next hop, the router that sent it to me will try another path to get it to it's destination. It's pretty much completely decentralized. Hit the power switch on one set of routers, data will simply find another path to the destination.
The only way to shut down the internet is to force the big telecoms like Verizon, ATT, MCI, etc, and tell them to shut everything down. And if they did that, everything – and I mean everything – goes black. No emails, no eCommerace, no internet transactions, any and every company that uses the internet for ordering supplies, paying workers, transferring funds, it all comes to a screeching halt. And so does the American economy along with it.
That's why the only alternative is to go after content. Hence, net neutrality.
In his speech at the UN Obama was talking about free and open Internet. This may be mistranslated across the world as 'you don't have to pay' for Internet.
Obama's Broadband Plan for "Connecting America to affordable, high speed broadband' is the first step to government takeover of the Internet. They talk about it as a 'civil right'. No wonder FCC is now in the business of rationing the broadband. When Internet becomes 'free' nobody will invest in it and FCC will say what is fair for whom to have.
http://www.bigbureaucracy.com/?p=1769
You must be logged in to post a comment.