RSS
Don't Be Too Quick To Cheer On FCC On Its Net Neutrality Response
from the double-standards dept
With most reports assuming that the FCC will vote in favor of some sort of wrist slap on Comcast for its traffic shaping this week, one of the things that doesn't make sense is the folks who are cheering about this move who also fought like dogs to keep the FCC from implementing the broadcast flag. As you may recall, a few years back, the entertainment industry pushed for the FCC to mandate a broadcast flag that would allow it to define rules for whether or not its content could be recorded by DVRs. The courts rightfully determined that such a mandate was outside the scope of the FCC's authority. However, an FCC ruling on net neutrality is basically covering identical grounds, yet many of the groups cheering this decision are the same who fought against the Broadcast Flag, claiming the FCC had no mandate.
Now, to be clear, the concept of network neutrality is definitely a good thing -- but having the FCC suddenly put itself in charge of regulating such things (even if it's regulating it in a reasonable manner) is really dangerous. Those who are celebrating this decision should be worried about what it means. Specifically, they're going to have little leg to stand on when the FCC next tries to mandate something outside of its authority (which is almost certainly going to happen in the near future).
That doesn't mean that the apocalyptic predictions from the industry will come true, however. Represented by a positively ridiculous and blatantly silly editorial in the Washington Post by FCC commissioner Robert McDowell, it's pure rubbish to suggest that this ruling by the FCC means the internet might "grind to a halt" is totally unsubstantiated sensationalism that has been shown time and time and time again to be false. There isn't a serious bandwidth crunch -- and whatever potential crunch may be coming could be dealt with by some modest improvements in infrastructure, not necessarily by breaking network neutrality, which is more of an attempt to double charge for bandwidth than anything else.
However, supporters of net neutrality may be making a big mistake in cheering on the FCC as it expands its authority in this area. The FCC has never been about protecting consumer rights, and granting them this authority (which the law appears not to do) opens the door to a lot more trouble down the road.
11 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- I'm Not A Fan Of This Craptastic Trademark Lawsuit
- Justices Finally Notice Naked Statues In The Supreme Court While Arguing Why Nudity Should Be Censored
- Comcast -- Owner Of NBC Universal -- Admits That DNS Redirects Are Incompatible With DNSSEC
- Is Verizon Wireless Violating Its Promise To Be Open By Blocking Google Wallet?
- Surprise! AT&T Admits Defeat, Withdraws T-Mobile Takeover Attempt, Pays $4 Billion Breakup Fee
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
The misnomer of consumer rights
We're talking about privacy and freedom of speech here, not whether manufacturers should be obliged to detail the calorific content of their soda pop so that consumers have a better clue as to what the heck they're consuming.
Citizens do not consume communication, they speak publicly, or privately, and they listen.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Rethinking Net Neutrality violations!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The misnomer of consumer rights
con·sum·er [kuhn-soo-mer]
–noun
1. a person or thing that consumes.
2. Economics. a person or organization that uses a commodity or service.
3. Ecology. an organism, usually an animal, that feeds on plants or other animals.
I believe Mike was discussing the "economic" definition of consumer.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The misnomer of consumer rights
They've already adjusted the date for the earliest use of the word 'pirate' as the unauthorised reproduction of copyrighted works by a couple of centuries.
Anyway, thank you for bringing this definition to my attention, however, I remain insistent that 'network neutrality' is not primarily about regulating ISPs in their provision of networking services to 'consumers' thereof, but about protecting citizens' rights to privacy and free speech, i.e. without invasion or interference.
The Internet is not an entertainment delivery mechanism.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The misnomer of consumer rights
Sadly, the 1st Amendment is not applicable here. The 1st Amendment only protects against goverment interference with speech. Comcast and other ISP's are in fact private entities. That said, the government has led us to this unfortunate space where ISP pretty much have local monopolies, and so there is a need to protect the rights of consumers against these monsters they have created.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The misnomer of consumer rights
What the government can do is to rectify local monopolies, and thus enable the market to rectify any commercial bias in communications.
Unfortunately, state, publishers, and broadcasters are all interested in regulation/control of communications, so 'net neutrality' regulation is the Trojan horse that will achieve it.
Oh well... :-/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Whew...
...good thing you stopped me.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The misnomer of consumer rights
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Telco Neutrality
Do you think that the FCC also oversteps its authority in enforcing telco neutrality? Should the telcos be exempt from neutrality rules? I'm looking forward to your reply.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Misreading of Opinion Piece?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment