Slashdot Mirror
FTC Could Gain Enforcement Power Over Internet
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that under a little-known provision in financial overhaul legislation before Congress the Federal Trade Commission could become a more powerful watchdog for Internet users with the power to to issue rules on a fast track and impose civil penalties on companies that hurt consumers. 'If we had a deterrent, a bigger stick to fine malefactors, that would be helpful,' says FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, who has argued in favor of bolstering his agency's enforcement ability. This power would stand in stark contrast to a besieged FCC, whose ability to oversee broadband providers has been cast into doubt after a federal court ruled last month that the agency lacked the ability to punish Comcast for violating open-Internet guidelines. The provision to strengthen the FTC is in the regulatory overhaul legislation passed by the House, and although it is absent from the legislation before the Senate, some observers expect the measure to be included when the House and Senate versions are combined."
I'm going to go ahead and point out the flaw here. In most conversations, net neutrality specifically means blocking certain sites is bad. So your slippery slope is pretty poor, imo.
But its the government. They can/will break net neutrality to get their way. Neither republicans nor democrats are parties of principle, they are parties who change their politics to fit whoever gives them the most money. Someone donates $5 million and owns a 'green' company, that party is going to want tax breaks and government contracts for that company. Someone gives campaign funds and is a record executive? We get things like the DMCA.
history has shown that regulation can help and that without that regulation things can go poorly
Really, then how do you explain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_australia ?
As for the Glass-Stegal Act, if we had less regulation, less government pressure to give loans to 'minorities' for homes (who can't pay for them) and if we had a policy of not bailing out companies, I'd imagine we wouldn't have the banking collapse. A -lot- of it was from when Clinton wanted -everyone- to own a home, even if they couldn't pay for it. So banks would not only give out loans for the home but let them take out more than they could pay back. When the people defaulted on their loans the banks acted surprised. Regulation breeds monopolies and big businesses that are 'too big to fail'. Lack of regulation leads to smaller companies who don't do things correctly failing early and harming fewer people.
Show me a single instance of government regulation of the internet -ever- increasing freedom and having a truly positive end.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.