You make a really good point actually. The fear of being seen to do "nothing" does seem to be a real thing for politicians. Even though nothing is what they've been accomplishing lately with all of their partisan bickering.
Top cryptologists have reasonably cautioned that “new law enforcement requirements are likely to introduce unanticipated, hard to detect security flaws,” but this is not the end of the analysis. We recognize there may be risks to requiring such access, but we know there are risks to doing nothing.
Typical BS politician statement, "there may be risks to requiring such access"... No, there are *absolutely* risks, no "may" about it, which begins with a very strong possibility, and increases over time to near certainty, that the encryption backdoor will be discovered and used by criminals and other adversaries.
Why can't they get this through their heads? What dementia affects career politicians that they don't get that OUR ENEMIES will be able to read our most closely guarded secrets if they get their way?
"... and when that happens the rebroadcast of tv shows and signals will become a norm of the internet."
Um. Every tv show in existence is uploaded as a commercial-free mkv/mp4/pickyourformat file within a day of being aired already. Their objections have nothing to do with piracy, and everything to do with losing their insanely profitable rental fee income.
Much like "intellectual property", which is stupid on the face of it, I think he means that it amounts to a contradiction in terms. He is suggesting that you can't appropriate culture. I'm not sure I agree, but I understand what he means.
"So if I cover my ears when you talk, am I engaging in censorship?"
Well, that depends. If I am a millennial, then absolutely, you are engaging in censorship. Not listening to anything I have to say is oppression. Unless I'm in my safe space, in which case you aren't even allowed to be here.
While I agree that the existing "standard" is low, it's pretty arbitrary for the FCC to suddenly decide 25 meg is the standard.
How do you figure? Just because they didn't supply *you* personally with all of the data and/or research they may have used to arrive at that figure, it's arbitrary? You don't think maybe they looked around at, just for instance, the rest of the civilized world? You do know that the US is basically in the stone age of broadband, compared to other first world countries?