Blogs mk, Smartass Oracle's
Even the Left Opposes Government Takeover of the Internet
- October 20, 2009 01:03:49
- Read all 13 comments
- +6 raves
On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission will consider “a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on policies to preserve the open Internet.” That’s a long way of saying that the FCC, led by Julius Genachowski, Obama’s old friend from Harvard Law School, will take its first steps towards forcing through net neutrality, a controversial policy that critics say would amount to a government takeover of the internet.
Internet Service Providers—the ones who have actually invested in the architecture and infrastructure that enables us all to access the internet—have long been opposed to net neutrality, as have conservatives and libertarians concerned about maintaining free markets and promoting innovation and quality service.
But, with concerns that the FCC might now act to push net neutrality through, some voices less traditionally associated with opposition to the policy are speaking out regarding the proposed rulemaking, too. In fact, a number of Democrats and groups typically aligned with the left—the online component of which has long treated net neutrality as a top three policy objective—seem to be feeling less than warm and fuzzy about increased government intervention with regard to the internet.
Those groups include the Communications Workers of America labor union, which in a letter to Chairman Genachowski from Thursday, raised concerns regarding the impact that the FCC’s rulemaking could have on job creation at a time of 10 percent unemployment. Groups like the Asian American Justice Center, National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the National Urban League, keen to avoid a widening of the “digital divide,” also voiced concerns in a letter to the FCC dated October 13.
Democratic Governors, including Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe and North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue, have urged caution with regard to the issue. Meanwhile, Oklahoma’s Democratic Gov. Brad Henry wrote to Genachowski earlier this month to tout the positive effects of his state’s model of “light or no regulation for landline, broadband and wireless services.”
Last Thursday, 72 Democratic members of the House of Representatives, also in a letter to Genachowski, wrote that “it is our strong belief that continued progress in expanding the reach and capabilities of broadband networks will require the Commission to reiterate, and not repudiate, its historic commitment to competition, private investment and a restrained regulatory approach.”
A restrained regulatory approach net neutrality would not be, of course. Opponents of the policy rightly argue that its implementation would stifle innovation and impact service—a little bit the way that a government takeover of health care would with regard to that industry. Also like health care, the internet is something that most Americans are unable and unwilling to go without. Turning the internet into the functional equivalent of the US Postal Service (a communications system in which Genachowski takes a deep, and arguably ironic, personal interest) is the wrong answer to preserving it in a viable, useful form.
Of course, Genachowski should know this. Here’s hoping some of his fellow FCC commissioners bear it in mind before going along with their Chairman’s big government, overtly leftist and doomed-to-fail scheme.
Internet Service Providers—the ones who have actually invested in the architecture and infrastructure that enables us all to access the internet—have long been opposed to net neutrality, as have conservatives and libertarians concerned about maintaining free markets and promoting innovation and quality service.
But, with concerns that the FCC might now act to push net neutrality through, some voices less traditionally associated with opposition to the policy are speaking out regarding the proposed rulemaking, too. In fact, a number of Democrats and groups typically aligned with the left—the online component of which has long treated net neutrality as a top three policy objective—seem to be feeling less than warm and fuzzy about increased government intervention with regard to the internet.
Those groups include the Communications Workers of America labor union, which in a letter to Chairman Genachowski from Thursday, raised concerns regarding the impact that the FCC’s rulemaking could have on job creation at a time of 10 percent unemployment. Groups like the Asian American Justice Center, National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the National Urban League, keen to avoid a widening of the “digital divide,” also voiced concerns in a letter to the FCC dated October 13.
Democratic Governors, including Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe and North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue, have urged caution with regard to the issue. Meanwhile, Oklahoma’s Democratic Gov. Brad Henry wrote to Genachowski earlier this month to tout the positive effects of his state’s model of “light or no regulation for landline, broadband and wireless services.”
Last Thursday, 72 Democratic members of the House of Representatives, also in a letter to Genachowski, wrote that “it is our strong belief that continued progress in expanding the reach and capabilities of broadband networks will require the Commission to reiterate, and not repudiate, its historic commitment to competition, private investment and a restrained regulatory approach.”
A restrained regulatory approach net neutrality would not be, of course. Opponents of the policy rightly argue that its implementation would stifle innovation and impact service—a little bit the way that a government takeover of health care would with regard to that industry. Also like health care, the internet is something that most Americans are unable and unwilling to go without. Turning the internet into the functional equivalent of the US Postal Service (a communications system in which Genachowski takes a deep, and arguably ironic, personal interest) is the wrong answer to preserving it in a viable, useful form.
Of course, Genachowski should know this. Here’s hoping some of his fellow FCC commissioners bear it in mind before going along with their Chairman’s big government, overtly leftist and doomed-to-fail scheme.
Top Comment
-
This one I can agree with them on. With the White House controlling most of the MSM, and the FCC controlling content on TV, the internet is really the last and best hope of free speech. Plus it is a great tool for finding answers to questions on a broad range of topics from cooking, to auto repair to problems in the bedroom( sexual and non-sexual)...View thread
About Me
Recent Posts
SodaHead Hot Trends
Precedence is a real bitch.
Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.
—Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users
Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.
—SaveTheInternet.com FAQ
Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success.
—Vinton Cerf in testimony before Congress February 7, 2006
Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney argue that net neutrality ensures that the Internet remains a free and open technology, fostering, amongst others, democratic communication.
***********
Could President Obama, in the event of a massive cyber attack against government computers, be given the power to bring Internet traffic to a stop?
That's the big question being asked in cyber security circles today. The answer is no, at least not based on the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 that Sen. Jay Rockefeller first (D–W.V.) proposed in April nor on an excerpt of the revised bill that's been floating around the Web since late last week.
The confusion arises from some of the language in the bill's original version, which proposes to give the president authority to declare a cyber security emergency and "order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network." By critical infrastructure, we're talking about the computers that run utilities, banks, hospitals and government agencies—th...
***********
Could President Obama, in the event of a massive cyber attack against government computers, be given the power to bring Internet traffic to a stop?
That's the big question being asked in cyber security circles today. The answer is no, at least not based on the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 that Sen. Jay Rockefeller first (D–W.V.) proposed in April nor on an excerpt of the revised bill that's been floating around the Web since late last week.
The confusion arises from some of the language in the bill's original version, which proposes to give the president authority to declare a cyber security emergency and "order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network." By critical infrastructure, we're talking about the computers that run utilities, banks, hospitals and government agencies—the institutions that society relies on to function normally. The first draft of the bill also seeks to give the president the ability to "order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security."
An excerpt of the revised bill, obtained by CNET, would still give the president authority to declare a cyber security emergency, but it makes no mention of tinkering with Internet traffic or disconnecting government computers from networks they might share with critical infrastructure systems.
It's important to note that the proposed legislation (both the original and the revised copies) would give the U.S. federal government the ability to protect its computers from attack by closing off areas of vulnerability—which could include connections to the Internet or any other network—something it presumably already does when under attack.
In reality, the government controls very little of the country's critical infrastructure, more than 85 percent of which is in the hands of private industry. Much effort has gone into getting private companies to voluntarily share information with the government—in particular, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—but these plans are still being worked out.
Whether the U.S. government even could control the Internet is another issue. As Govinfosecurity.com notes in a blog today, "There is no on-off switch for the Internet." Given that it is a network of networks without any true central control point, "any attempt to redesign that architecture to give the president that on-off switch, though theoretically possible, would be costly and realistically impractical," Govinfosecurity.com says.
*****************
Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:
The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.
*****************************...
more control, means more control, of course they will say they dont like it, just will have to check their voting records afterward.
Prime example
Heath Shuler US Congress NC.. stated he opposed the healthcare bill in it's current form.. this was 1st time few months ago.. he stated he tried to get some changes made in it on the floor, but was not able too before vote time. He voted for it.
So "net neutrality", which sounds very laissez-faire, is actually something that will regulate it and limit ISP and content choice?
It seems to me a contradiction that the very capitalistic system that allowed and fostered that entrepreneurship and profit-motive which accelerated the growth of and even caused the "explosion" of these technologies, eventually limits them once the big players are established, by dictating (following the same channels of pure capitalism) the most profitable course, dictating the most profitable packaging and choice structures (tiers) and price rather than the least restrictive and most choice-retaining.
I would perhaps hold the tenative position that the government COULD offer some mandates that would help retain freedom-of choice... I agree that mandating what a priva...
It seems to me a contradiction that the very capitalistic system that allowed and fostered that entrepreneurship and profit-motive which accelerated the growth of and even caused the "explosion" of these technologies, eventually limits them once the big players are established, by dictating (following the same channels of pure capitalism) the most profitable course, dictating the most profitable packaging and choice structures (tiers) and price rather than the least restrictive and most choice-retaining.
I would perhaps hold the tenative position that the government COULD offer some mandates that would help retain freedom-of choice... I agree that mandating what a private business must do is limiting to capitalism and also a confiscation of property, since companies could be forced to spend capital to comply and to restructure their enterprise and to offer less profitable packages over the "maximal profitable" ones they now offer. It's all how we choose to look at it... in another sense, the big businesses MIGHT have a duty to the consumers, since it was theose very consumers who ALSO played and paid along with them in the rise of the technology, who were just as instrumental in their own success.
I am not a socialist, I assure you. I am very skeptical of government ragulation... but could it be that there are times when regulation EXPANDS freedom of choice rather than limits it? I know that my cell phone bill (with apx. the same number of minutes) has gone from $60-some to $196 (tripled) over the last seven years, and the offers and packages have shunk, with very little regulation. I can now take my phone number to another provider however thanks to regulation. I dunno... I will need to read up on this particular proposal... any thoughts?