Obama's continuing attack on free speech via regulation, is advanced with his desire to treat the Internet as an Utility rather than an Information Service.

Obama: Regulate broadband Internet like a utility so it 'works for everyone'

Editor's notes:  as you read,  take this to the bank:  Obama no more cares about "fairness" than he supports open and honest governance.  He talks about "fairness" with the intent to deceive,  a strategy he used to pass ObamaCare onto this nation's population.  The politics of "bait and switch" work well for the dishonest but biased driven agenda of the Utopian One Worlders;  it is an affront to those who which to be free in their expressed opinions.  

Make no mistake,  this is about setting the table for a (FCC) control mechanism that can,  in time,  turn off the flow of opposition speech.  That is what is envisioned in this move,  not withstanding the fact that such is not mentioned in the following text. Understand that when "large corporations," Progressive and willing to limit free speech,  are given the political power,  they will do so.  It is am Emphatico of the Law of Murphy,  which states,  "If it can happen,  it will happen," and the Obama Cartel knows it.        

 

The FCC commissioners (left to right): Ajit Pai, Mignon Clyburn, Tom Wheeler (chairman), Jessica Rosenworcel, and Michael O'Rielly.

                                              

(From c/net) President Obama urged the US government to adopt tighter regulations on broadband service in an effort to preserve "a free and open Internet."  . . . . .  

Obama wades into a contentious debate that has raged over how to treat Internet traffic, which has only heated up as the FCC works to prepare an official guideline. Those rules were expected to be made available later this year, though reports now claim they may be delayed until early 2015. The debate has centered on whether broadband should be placed under Title II regulation under the Telecommunications Act, which already tightly controls phone services.

Proponents argue that Title II regulation would ensure the free and fair flow of traffic across the Internet. Opponents, however, believe the reorientation would mean onerous rules that would limit investment in the infrastructure and in new services, and that toll roads of sorts would provide better service to companies that can support their higher traffic volumes. 

But that in turn has created widespread concern that ISPs could throttle service in some instances, intentionally slowing some content streams and speeding others.

Some of the major broadband providers have already spoken out against the plan. "Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition and innovation," Verizon said in an e-mailed statement.

"Today's announcement by the White House, if acted upon by the FCC, would be a mistake that will do tremendous harm to the Internet and to U.S. national interests," said Jim Cicconi, AT&T senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs, in a statement.

"To attempt to impose a full-blown Title II regime now, when the classification of cable broadband has always been as an information service, would reverse nearly a decade of precedent, including findings by the Supreme Court that this classification was proper," David Cohen, executive vice president at Comcast, said in a statement.

The broadband providers have advocated a "light touch" regulatory environment that has been in place, which they argue has been the catalyst for wireless and broadband investment.

The FCC earlier this year saw a vigorous response from the public to its call for comments on its Open Internet proposals, with the FCC's servers sometimes stumbling and crashing under the overwhelming input. The comment windowclosed in September.

"I will say it again, there is nothing in the proposal that authorizes fast lanes on the Internet," the chairman said earlier this year. "It simply asks questions, such as should there be a ban on paid prioritization. But there is nothing in the rule that authorizes it."In April, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler came under fire after an early proposal for his rules on Internet access were made available. While Wheeler has said that he fully supports the open Internet, the proposal could allow for paid prioritization of Internet traffic.

At the crux of the debate over Net neutrality is Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The section, which is more than 100 pages long, regulates how common carriers must conduct business across all forms of communication in order to act "in the public interest." Net neutrality supporters say that the language is vague and could be used to sidestep a free and open Internet and give ISPs the opportunity to sign deals with Internet companies that would provide for prioritization of traffic.

Obama, however, said that the FCC should limit some of the regulation relating to rates and "other provisions less relevant to broadband," creating potential wiggle room for further debate on the limitations.

Still, the reference to Title II marks a clear stake in the ground for the White House.

"This is a basic acknowledgment," Obama said, "of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone -- not just one or two companies."  

(except for Editor's notes,  all of the above came from c/net, here ).