Politics Plus

While it isn’t over by a long shot, this is a very big deal!

Reversing a controversial deregulation decision made by the Bush administration, the FCC will seek to force broadband internet providers to adhere to some of the rules that have long applied to the nation’s landline phone providers.

The decision will be announced officially tomorrow by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, according to a senior FCC official’s statement Wednesday, and will likely set off a firestorm of protests from the nation’s well-connected telecommunications industry.

The FCC says the move is a response to a recent court ruling that called into question whether the FCC had authority to regulate how the nation’s broadband providers run their networks, including whether providers can block content. The ruling came in a case where Comcast appealed an FCC order that forbade the carrier from blocking peer-to-peer file sharing.

The federal appeals court decision also called into question whether the FCC would have the legal authority to carry out much of its lauded National Broadband Plan. Consumer groups have been calling for the FCC to reclassify broadband providers. Broadband providers counter that regulation will stymie investment and make it less likely they will invest in new broadband infrastructure like fiber optic cables.

“The Chairman will seek to restore the status quo as it existed prior to the court decision in order to fulfill the previously stated agenda of extending broadband to all Americans, protecting consumers, ensuring fair competition, and preserving a free and open Internet,” the FCC official said.

The Bush administration’s FCC freed cable and DSL providers from having to rent their lines to competitors by reclassifying them as so-called Title I services, or information services. That meant broadband providers escaped the heavier regulation of Title II that applies to “telecommunications services,” namely the nation’s phone lines. Those rules include price controls and provisions that let users contact anyone they like using any device they care to plug in — whether that’s a modem or a Mickey Mouse phone.

The FCC says it will move to put broadband back under Title II, but only apply a few of the 48 or so regulations under that portion of law, using a process called “forbearance” to cancel out the rules it considers unnecessary.

“The Chairman will outline a ‘third way’ approach between a weak Title I and a needlessly burdensome Title II approach,” the official said. “It would 1) apply to broadband transmission service only the small handful of Title II provisions that, prior to the Comcast decision, were widely believed to be within the Commission’s purview, and 2) would have broad up-front forbearance and meaningful boundaries to guard against regulatory overreach.”

Here the official is likely referring to the so-called Four Freedoms, which are openness principles that the FCC issued in 2005. They essentially promise that broadband users can use the device they want, run the programs they want and access the services they want, so long as they don’t harm the network.

The commission never officially tried to enforce them until Comcast was caught secretly blocking peer-to-peer file sharing. Then, an appeals court in D.C. found the FCC had no power to enforce them because the FCC had reclassified broadband as an “information service.”

Reclassification is often referred to as the “nuclear option,” because it undoes a decision that actually was contested all the way at the Supreme Court. Even if the FCC describes its approach to reclassification as a moderate “third way,” expect a fierce battle from the nation’s telecom giants and from Republicans… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Wired>

The reclassification makes it possible for the FCC insure equal access and prevent telecom giants from blocking or slowing content.  Comcast tried to slip in the back door by using a very unsympathetic opponent for a test case.  The primary use of peer-to-peer file sharing is the illegal distribution of copyrighted music, videos, and software.  I certainly oppose that practice.  The problem is that if greedy corporations are allowed to block or slow that content, their next move might be to block or slow the content of bloggers who claim that corporations are not people and money is not speech.

The telecoms claim that they should be able to control their networks as they see fit.  That claim is false.  Networks are not bound to access the Internet.  They do so by choice, because doing so attracts customers. 

Content providers pay for the bandwidth they have to provide content. In some cases a third party provides it for them to gain advertising revenue.  An example of this is Google providing the bandwidth for Blogger blogs.  In other cases, the content providers pays for the bandwidth themselves.  An example of this is Politics Plus.

Internet users pay for the bandwidth  they have to access content.  In some cases, a third party provides it for them: an employer, a coffee shop, or a library.  Most users actually pay for their bandwidth.  Faster access costs more.

Since the bandwidth is paid for by both content providers and users, both have a right to the maximum speed their bandwidth allows.

That is the bottom line.

As Financial reform moves forward in the Senate, there is still lots to change.

The financial reform bill made it through the first Republican filibuster last week and is being debated and amended now on the Senate floor.  Regulating Wall Street isn’t easy, though, and economics journalist Zach Carter has noted that the proposed reforms are "pretty flimsy"–he uncovered a loophole that allows banks to continue to make illegal trades without punishment!…

Inserted from <Grit TV>

Here’s the video.

This subject dovetails with our current poll.  If you haven’t voted yet, it’s at the top of the right sidebar.

A big thank you to my friend RJ for the tip on this piece.

Ladies, this proposed Missouri law succinctly reveals where women’s rights fit into the GOP/Theocon agenda.

Kansas City Star headlines recently announced what those in the field have long known: a tough economy increases the incidence of domestic violence and depletes the resources available to combat it.

What has received less attention is a new Missouri bill that would make matters worse.

House Bill 1234 claims to promote “heterosexual marriage” by making divorce more difficult; what it really does is to strip away hard-won protections for the victims of domestic violence. Indeed, the bill’s proposals are so one-sided, it should be renamed “The Full Protection of Batterers Act.”

The proposals start by limiting divorce to cases of mutual consent or “marital irresponsibility.” Marital irresponsibility, however, includes domestic abuse only in cases of “serious spousal abuse involving injury to petitioner where petitioner was not the initiator of physical violence” or a “history of serious emotional or physical abuse.”

Consider what this means. Husband and wife argue. Husband threatens to kill the wife, and beats her up so badly she ends up in the hospital. Wife sues for divorce.

The husband insists that the wife slapped him first (a common allegation whether true or not) and that the episode of “serious” abuse was an isolated incident. Wife, in the hospital with a skull fracture, has no grounds for divorce.

The bill gets worse. It mandates that the assertion of domestic violence “shall not be deemed credible in the absence of physical evidence or convincing testimony by parties unrelated to the spouses.”

Consider again what this means. The wife returns home from the hospital. The husband repeatedly threatens her, slaps her without leaving bruises, grabs her and holds her by the neck in front of the teenage children, and tells her in front of his mother and her sister that if she leaves him, she will never see the children again.

This woman has no grounds for divorce. Her testimony, however convincing, is deemed not to be “credible” as a matter of law. The testimony of the children, his mother and her sister (all relatives) do not matter.

The proposed legislation also makes it more difficult to protect children. Impressive empirical evidence demonstrates that exposing children to domestic abuse has lifelong negative consequences even if the abuse is directed only at the spouse.

In response to these studies, every state in the country has expanded the ability of the courts to take domestic violence into account in determining custody. This bill would undo the protections.

It provides that even if a spouse meets the act’s tough standards and proves domestic violence to the satisfaction of the court, “a protective order shall not deny the [abuser] parenting time if the petition for dissolution does not allege child abuse or neglect.”

In other words, if the husband cracks open his wife’s skull, but does not touch the children, he cannot be denied parenting time.

And the new definitions of child abuse are even harder to prove than spousal abuse. Punching and hitting children is not physical abuse unless it causes injury.

Moreover, if repeatedly striking a child causes injury only rarely, it is not abuse where it can be said to be an “infrequent” mistake or a manifestation of parental differences about appropriate discipline.

Yet, interfering with the other spouse’s parenting time because the children are terrified is emotional abuse, while threatening to kill a child becomes abuse only if it is “continuing and chronic.”

Finally, the bill punishes spouses who allege domestic abuse, but fail to prove it under these draconian standards.

To take only one example, the proposed legislation would threaten a spouse who alleges domestic violence with loss of custody if the court does not find in her favor, while a battering spouse who commits perjury is guaranteed continuing contact with the children unless he has been separately found guilty of child abuse… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Kansas City Star>

I checked this out, and the sponsors are Republicans, as if I didn’t know that before I checked.

So there you have it.  Under these GOP family values, women are reduced to chattel.  Ladies, the GOP wants you barefoot and pregnant.  Do you agree with me that you deserve better?