5 ms·

Why would network neutrality and transparency laws bring us closer to censorship laws? If you're arguing that increasing the scope of the FCC's authority leave

by roc 17y ago

Why would network neutrality and transparency laws bring us closer to censorship laws? If you're arguing that increasing the scope of the FCC's authority leaves it open to future abuse by people we may not agree with, I think it's pretty clear that keeping the FCC out of it wasn't working either. Sad as it is, I believe I have more say in how the FCC operates than I do in AT&T and Comcast. Particularly given the realities of local telecom monopolies in the US. And the entire point of the ruling is to emphatically state that subverting standards and protocols is not a business opportunity. Ad-supported broadband that relies on manipulating the IP stream is a danger, not a victim.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
I believe I have more say in how the FCC operates than I do in AT&T and Comcast. Perhaps that's the problem. Other people, who may have very different values than you, also have say in how the FCC operates. Since we've long ago crossed a line limiting the federal government to enumerated powers, and that protecting our physical safety is now at least as important as protecting our freedoms, it's easy to imagine a regime where some majority elects to silence some minority of [porn readers | gay supporters | militia supporters | whatever unpopular minority].
- jorgeortiz85 17y ago
  As someone in a thread below points out, unaccountable commercial carriers were already restricting speech on their networks: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html?_r=1
  - lupin_sansei 17y ago
    You can always change carriers that restrict what you want to do though. When the government restricts something you can't change to something else.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    In what way are the commercial carriers "unaccountable"? I can always vote with my pocketbook, as the saying goes. But when it's the FCC ensuring that one-size-fits-all, I can't do that. And in the past, when the FCC has issued regulations or fines that you disagree with, how have you made them account for their actions? What, exactly, is the process for a citizen to exert influence over specific regulatory policy? Granted that, as a parent post argued, you can exert some influence in general by way of your legislators, but how can you ever say "that was the straw that broke the camel's back, I want out."? In the case of the commercial carriers, though, restricted speech may in some specific situations be a good thing. While I disagree with it myself, should people with specific sets of values be allowed to purchase a net connection that's pre-filtered for ideas the find offensive (say, hate speech, or gay content)? That's their right, isn't it? Today in the television arena, we argue because what's broadcast goes out to everyone, and some people don't want some shows to be seen. With broadcast, they don't have the option of blocking it from their own home, so the get the FCC to block it from everyone's home. If ISPs are allowed to filter, then those ISPs can do the filtering for those with "delicate sensibilities" can have the bland world they want, and the rest of us can revel in free speech unhindered.
gojomo 17y ago
Why would network neutrality and transparency laws bring us closer to censorship laws? The FCC is an agency with censorship in its DNA: it fines broadcasters for indecency, of course, but also uses its discretion over media ownership and broadcast licenses to favor some operators and expression at the expense of more critical views. Interpretation of neutrality rules will give the FCC -- constructed always of three loyalists from the President's party, and two loyalists from the other party -- another bit of leverage on private interests. The next generation of righteous busybodies could easily decide packets aren't truly neutral unless they advance neutrality, equality, and justice for all people. Packets which contain hate speech, pornography, anonymous speech, content inaccessible to the handicapped, political campaigning beyond the spending limits of the FEC, or an insufficient proportion of 'underrepresented' viewpoints all twist the net against the public interest. Why shouldn't fair-minded regulators issue more rules to protect us? Demand more proof of compliance and 'good faith' from operators to stay in business? Once an agency is reviewing business practices for compliance with political ideals, where does it stop? We need no federal 'neutrality' rules for newspapers, magazines, or books; we shouldn't need them for electronic communications, either. Inviting the FCC to regulate this medium makes it more like our tamer broadcasting outlets, and less like our vigorous independent publishing. Is that the direction we want to move? I think it's pretty clear that keeping the FCC out of it wasn't working either How? The supposed biased-network trangressions have been tiny and temporary. Open networks have defeated closed without needing the FCC's help. Even lagging other nations, broadband internet is cheaper, faster, and available over more wires/wavelengths in the USA each year. And if there were major harms, there'd be an opportunity for upstarts and competitors to advertise "the whole internet" as a marketing theme. If the problem is lack of local competition, adopt pro-competitive reforms -- don't dictate with federal rules what voluntarily-contracted network services are legal or illegal. Such rules always wind up benefiting the big incumbents who can show up in DC (even if those incumbents initially seem to gripe).
gojomo 17y ago
Ad-supported broadband that relies on manipulating the IP stream is a danger, not a victim. Why would that be so awful? Ad-sponsored 'free' TV/radio is a beloved cultural institution. Ad-sponsored dialup (eg NetZero) is a minor point on the spectrum of connectivity options. Ad-sponsored search (eg Google) is a fundamental utility of the web. Ad-sponsored content (from NYTimes to Slate to Gawker Media to HuffPo) drives much of the web's cultural discussion. Even a novel online utility like Facebook depends on the potential of selling preferential ad-placement to sponsors. But if some destination websites sponsor faster broadband delivery for their own traffic, that would be the Death Of The Internet, unless the feds make such paid-prioritization illegal? I don't buy it. It's all part of the economic solution-space competitive enterprises should be allowed to explore.

by roc 17y ago

CWuestefeld 17y ago

I believe I have more say in how the FCC operates than I do in AT&T and Comcast. Perhaps that's the problem. Other people, who may have very different values than you, also have say in how the FCC operates. Since we've long ago crossed a line limiting the federal government to enumerated powers, and that protecting our physical safety is now at least as important as protecting our freedoms, it's easy to imagine a regime where some majority elects to silence some minority of [porn readers | gay supporters | militia supporters | whatever unpopular minority].

jorgeortiz85 17y ago
As someone in a thread below points out, unaccountable commercial carriers were already restricting speech on their networks: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html?_r=1
- lupin_sansei 17y ago
  You can always change carriers that restrict what you want to do though. When the government restricts something you can't change to something else.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  In what way are the commercial carriers "unaccountable"? I can always vote with my pocketbook, as the saying goes. But when it's the FCC ensuring that one-size-fits-all, I can't do that. And in the past, when the FCC has issued regulations or fines that you disagree with, how have you made them account for their actions? What, exactly, is the process for a citizen to exert influence over specific regulatory policy? Granted that, as a parent post argued, you can exert some influence in general by way of your legislators, but how can you ever say "that was the straw that broke the camel's back, I want out."? In the case of the commercial carriers, though, restricted speech may in some specific situations be a good thing. While I disagree with it myself, should people with specific sets of values be allowed to purchase a net connection that's pre-filtered for ideas the find offensive (say, hate speech, or gay content)? That's their right, isn't it? Today in the television arena, we argue because what's broadcast goes out to everyone, and some people don't want some shows to be seen. With broadcast, they don't have the option of blocking it from their own home, so the get the FCC to block it from everyone's home. If ISPs are allowed to filter, then those ISPs can do the filtering for those with "delicate sensibilities" can have the bland world they want, and the rest of us can revel in free speech unhindered.

gojomo 17y ago

Why would network neutrality and transparency laws bring us closer to censorship laws? The FCC is an agency with censorship in its DNA: it fines broadcasters for indecency, of course, but also uses its discretion over media ownership and broadcast licenses to favor some operators and expression at the expense of more critical views. Interpretation of neutrality rules will give the FCC -- constructed always of three loyalists from the President's party, and two loyalists from the other party -- another bit of leverage on private interests. The next generation of righteous busybodies could easily decide packets aren't truly neutral unless they advance neutrality, equality, and justice for all people. Packets which contain hate speech, pornography, anonymous speech, content inaccessible to the handicapped, political campaigning beyond the spending limits of the FEC, or an insufficient proportion of 'underrepresented' viewpoints all twist the net against the public interest. Why shouldn't fair-minded regulators issue more rules to protect us? Demand more proof of compliance and 'good faith' from operators to stay in business? Once an agency is reviewing business practices for compliance with political ideals, where does it stop? We need no federal 'neutrality' rules for newspapers, magazines, or books; we shouldn't need them for electronic communications, either. Inviting the FCC to regulate this medium makes it more like our tamer broadcasting outlets, and less like our vigorous independent publishing. Is that the direction we want to move? I think it's pretty clear that keeping the FCC out of it wasn't working either How? The supposed biased-network trangressions have been tiny and temporary. Open networks have defeated closed without needing the FCC's help. Even lagging other nations, broadband internet is cheaper, faster, and available over more wires/wavelengths in the USA each year. And if there were major harms, there'd be an opportunity for upstarts and competitors to advertise "the whole internet" as a marketing theme. If the problem is lack of local competition, adopt pro-competitive reforms -- don't dictate with federal rules what voluntarily-contracted network services are legal or illegal. Such rules always wind up benefiting the big incumbents who can show up in DC (even if those incumbents initially seem to gripe).

gojomo 17y ago

Ad-supported broadband that relies on manipulating the IP stream is a danger, not a victim. Why would that be so awful? Ad-sponsored 'free' TV/radio is a beloved cultural institution. Ad-sponsored dialup (eg NetZero) is a minor point on the spectrum of connectivity options. Ad-sponsored search (eg Google) is a fundamental utility of the web. Ad-sponsored content (from NYTimes to Slate to Gawker Media to HuffPo) drives much of the web's cultural discussion. Even a novel online utility like Facebook depends on the potential of selling preferential ad-placement to sponsors. But if some destination websites sponsor faster broadband delivery for their own traffic, that would be the Death Of The Internet, unless the feds make such paid-prioritization illegal? I don't buy it. It's all part of the economic solution-space competitive enterprises should be allowed to explore.