« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Tech at Night: Lots more Net Neutrality

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  October 16th, 2010 at 02:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Tech at Night

Alright I admit it. I’m kicking off tonight’s Tech at Night with this article from NationalJournal.com because it mentions me. I like feedback.

But seriously it’s an important overview of Net Neutrality with respect to the conservative grassroots and the TEA party. Our side has been resistant to any action (Because as Digital Society points out, we don’t support action for its own sake), but the Obama FCC just might not give us any choice on that.

In fact, the FCC’s express words for months have been telling us that we won’t have a choice on that. The runaway FCC must be slapped down before they claim broad powers with Title II reclassification, and Congressional leaders have to take the lead on that.

One thing though, the closing quote in the National Journal piece isn’t quite right:

“If legislation is needed to stop the FCC from carrying out its ‘third way’ proposal, it will be up to industry to sell the idea to the tea party,” said Paul Raak, head of legislative affairs at the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance. “Otherwise, the tea party will always be negative on net neutrality.”

It’s not just industry. I’m also here to make the case. The FCC can do so much damage, including price and content controls, if we don’t stop them. Think of how tightly regulated and taxed phones are. Can our economy afford that kind of choking effect on the Internet? I don’t think so.

I’ll close tonight with something very technical. One way that, even under more radical Net Neutrality proposals, customers and ISPs could get around regulation would be to forego traditional Internet services and go with more specialized “managed services.” So of course the FCC is talking about regulating those as well. Nothing is too private for the FCC to get involved. There’s no pretense of something being public that demands regulation.

Once again, we need [legislation] to stop this ever-expanding scope that the FCC is claiming for itself. We have to save the real open Internet by stopping regulation, and say no to the Orwellian rhetoric of radicals like Free Press, who are claiming that only through tight government controls can we be free. But we know better.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • GreyCloak

    The Democrats may not like Internet freedom, but Congress hates it even more … not a one (on any side) wants The People to actually publish damning evidence of impropriety or (heavens to Murgatroid) even LYING in political speeches.

    We have three weeks to get Republican hopefuls to sign on to “net neutrality” … not that they believe in it for a moment, but to at least get them on record.

    Otherwise, the telecom lobbyists (because they want to make money) and the political lobbyists (because free speech is dangerous) will unite to regulate what is currently more or less free.

    I may be able to get into places that aren’t even ON the World Wide Web (WWW…); they are still out there; but most folks who don’t even know that Arpanet once existed are going to be clueless. ISPs like Yahoo or MSN.com just naturally filter the news, much as they may also provide convenient access to it.

    Note: It is often fun to see your name in print, but I would caution that such publicity may result in both arrogance and vulnerability … you may be tempted to say even more … those in opposition will also be tempted to find ways to make you the fool (or worse).

    ANYwho … in the balance between honesty (supporting The People) and money (contributions from telecoms and ISPs), ALL Congresses tend to side with money.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    after January, This current bunch are not going to do a damn thing. We have several months in which the Administration will try to create all kinds of shenanigans.

  • jaykali

    this is one of those topics that has be thoroughly confused bc conservative blogs on this topic and mainstream articles don’t even come close to addressing the same issues.

    on conservative blogs i read that the FCC is going to regulate (and suffocate) the internet and also possibly get into the content regulation altho i would think the supreme court would have something to say ab that. i really doubt the FCC could regulate content but i do imagine they could easily start to suffocate the only thing that seems to be recession-proof, the internet.

    i say that bc i make my living from the web as a developer.

    anyways the mainstream articles talk ab keeping your big conglomerates like comcast, etc from anti-competitive practices in the internet/wireless space.

    and so thus i am left confused, i definitely dont want burdensome regulation of the internet altho it does seem like a few companies hold a lot of power in the internet/wireless space. i don’t know if these conservative blogs are just ‘red meat’ to get conservatives riled up or if there’s any real substance to lefties trying to back-door free speech regulation like they have tried with the ‘fairness doctrine’ stuff

  • http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

    You know the one…… The program with all the filtering in place.

    “It’s for the children.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ISQ66G0

    Experts and U.S. officials are interested in portions of the plan, set to go into effect in Australia in December. But any move toward Internet regulation or monitoring by the U.S. government or industry could trigger fierce opposition from the public.

    It could also trigger a rev…….. I better not go there.

  • heir2freedom

    To quote “The Great one”, conservative radio talkshow host Mark Levin, when referring to democrats’ desire to seek power:

    “These people are like locusts. Their appetites are insatiable.”

    It should come as no surprise then that Obama, his abettors in Congress and his suffocative regulatory agencies would eventually get around to smothering the one free market enterprise that has seen unparalleled growth in the past decade precisely because these same sticky-fingered butinskies haven’t interfered.

    It was only a matter of time before the progressive left moved their swarm from one field to the next.

    NEW POST: “BAD” OBAMA
    http://heir2freedom.blogspot.com/2010/10/bad-obama.html

  • GreyCloak

    For thousands of years, governments have been scaring their populaces into believing that only the Government can protect them from some real or imagined (or made up) threat. Corporations are no better. Each intervention “for the public good” often results in suppressing the public.

    Muslims think America will kill them or take their wives or whatever … Americans by the thousands take their shoes off every day in airports. Either the Taliban or the TSA will “protect” the populace!

    When you sign up for Microsoft’s “free” Anti-Malware program, you also let Bill Gates check the registration of your software … when you hook your I-pod into your PC, Steve Jobs gets to check if you have any illegal music downloads.

    “Net neutrality” starts by being an argument about whether corporations like AT&T or Google can block sites that might compete with them or take advantage of FCC rules that allocate telephone costs. But the law of unintended consequences means that the ability to block sites for commercial reasons might also let folks block sites or services for political reasons.

    Liberals would like to block Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck; Conservatives would like to block Daily Kos or “SeeMyWebcam.”

    RedState is not immune: gee, it makes good sense to me to ban trolls (this is how it starts); but a few on our site would also like to ban opinions that don’t quite “toe the party line.”

    The Internet was originally funded by government … it has resulted in revolutions. Iraq, Iran, China (for instance) would like to limit content or access. In my household, we miss posts from “SomaliaLady,” who disappeared from the Internet years ago when the Islamic Courts Union took control of Somalia for a few years.

    Repression starts easily … scare enough people, and you can get them to agree (whatever their origin or inclination) … rest assured: today’s “security” may secure your freedom and tomorrow lock you or it away.