Net neutrality: Generally the more upbeat the law's name, the less the name resembles what's in the law. There has been a bomb threat over the passage of the new net law. A bomb threat.
The jurisdiction for regulation of the internet providers (vs. content providers) was changed from the Federal Communication Commission to The Federal Trade Commission. That is to say, changed back to the way it used to be before 2015. ISPs will again be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission, which will again be responsible for pursuing cases to protect consumer privacy and data security, including cases involving fraudulent, deceptive or otherwise unfair and anti-competitive business practices. There has been a lot of angst over the threat of this change but were things so bad before 2015? And the Open Internet rules the FCC devised based on its Title II authority expressly permit ISPs to block, filter and curate content. Is that so good?
But, of course, this will be a reason-free discussion. Will writes, in an article on hyperbole in popular discourse: "During two decades, the internet was barely regulated as it delighted its users. In 2015, a regulatory policy ("net neutrality"), one without a constituency sufficient to move Congress, was imposed by bureaucratic fiat. Thirty-three months later, net neutrality was ended. And the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth commenced: "This is the end of the internet as we know it." (Sen. Bernie Sanders); "A brazen betrayal ... disastrous ... I am disgusted" (Sen. Richard Blumenthal); "Outrageous" (Sen. Cory Booker); "Horrible" (Sen. Tim Kaine); "Shameful" (Sen. Sherrod Brown)." Of course.
In 2006, only the higher-end suites at the Four Seasons in Austin, TX (the city's most luxurious hotel) had flat-screen televisions. The regular rooms still had the box-shaped version. But by 2015 flat-screen tvs were standard not just in rooms at the Four Seasons, but also in most any Motel 6. Tammey in Forbes uses this argument to explain the advantages of ending "net neutrality." He writes, "“Net neutrality” was all about giving everyone – large and small – equal access to the internet. Ok, but that’s a violation of property rights. Plain and simple. End of discussion. Those who own the “pipe” should be able to do whatever they want with it, including charging different prices for access to the pipe." To this conclusion: "Great wealth, the kind of wealth that causes inequality to soar, is frequently a function of entrepreneurs democratizing access to the goods and services formerly enjoyed by the rich alone."
The nature of those seeking to govern us should be clear to everyone now. And it should be clear that government, as The Great Attractor, attracts some characteristics more than others. We should all remember that none of us will be protected by what a law says. (Remember "Separate but Equal?") We will be protected by only one thing: Vigilance-with-a-Spine.
Drag the lava lamps into the safe spaces and everyone hold hands. We'll be ok with this one (as long as the lovers of freedom, peace and harmony don't bomb us.)
The jurisdiction for regulation of the internet providers (vs. content providers) was changed from the Federal Communication Commission to The Federal Trade Commission. That is to say, changed back to the way it used to be before 2015. ISPs will again be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission, which will again be responsible for pursuing cases to protect consumer privacy and data security, including cases involving fraudulent, deceptive or otherwise unfair and anti-competitive business practices. There has been a lot of angst over the threat of this change but were things so bad before 2015? And the Open Internet rules the FCC devised based on its Title II authority expressly permit ISPs to block, filter and curate content. Is that so good?
But, of course, this will be a reason-free discussion. Will writes, in an article on hyperbole in popular discourse: "During two decades, the internet was barely regulated as it delighted its users. In 2015, a regulatory policy ("net neutrality"), one without a constituency sufficient to move Congress, was imposed by bureaucratic fiat. Thirty-three months later, net neutrality was ended. And the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth commenced: "This is the end of the internet as we know it." (Sen. Bernie Sanders); "A brazen betrayal ... disastrous ... I am disgusted" (Sen. Richard Blumenthal); "Outrageous" (Sen. Cory Booker); "Horrible" (Sen. Tim Kaine); "Shameful" (Sen. Sherrod Brown)." Of course.
In 2006, only the higher-end suites at the Four Seasons in Austin, TX (the city's most luxurious hotel) had flat-screen televisions. The regular rooms still had the box-shaped version. But by 2015 flat-screen tvs were standard not just in rooms at the Four Seasons, but also in most any Motel 6. Tammey in Forbes uses this argument to explain the advantages of ending "net neutrality." He writes, "“Net neutrality” was all about giving everyone – large and small – equal access to the internet. Ok, but that’s a violation of property rights. Plain and simple. End of discussion. Those who own the “pipe” should be able to do whatever they want with it, including charging different prices for access to the pipe." To this conclusion: "Great wealth, the kind of wealth that causes inequality to soar, is frequently a function of entrepreneurs democratizing access to the goods and services formerly enjoyed by the rich alone."
The nature of those seeking to govern us should be clear to everyone now. And it should be clear that government, as The Great Attractor, attracts some characteristics more than others. We should all remember that none of us will be protected by what a law says. (Remember "Separate but Equal?") We will be protected by only one thing: Vigilance-with-a-Spine.
Drag the lava lamps into the safe spaces and everyone hold hands. We'll be ok with this one (as long as the lovers of freedom, peace and harmony don't bomb us.)
No comments:
Post a Comment