4 ms·

I think the radio analogy is spot on, and I really believe that the endgame to all this government interest may very well be the same sort of regulatory control

by cubano 12y ago

I think the radio analogy is spot on, and I really believe that the endgame to all this government interest may very well be the same sort of regulatory control that the FCC now imposes in radio stations and content via the [1] Communications Act of 1934. This can easily been seen as a power grab by plutocrats who want to start filtering and controlling the money making and informational aspect of the web, and while I am, of course, speculating about this outcome, I think in general, it has been on the back burner for years. You know, to protect the children and all that FUD. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934

unprepare 12y ago
To me there seems to be a distinct difference between actively broadcasting a signal(radio) and allowing access to those who request it(internet) Radio works by beaming signals all over their coverage area. those signals are pushed to everyone. Whereas, a website isn't just sending its html to every IP and port it can find, it waits for a request and responds accordingly. This seems to be a fundamental distinction to me, but one that would likely be easily obscured by politicking and misinformation campaigns if that were the ultimate goal. Interesting thought though, as we do see the UK beginning to move towards this more hands-on internet regulation all of a suddden
- cubano 12y ago
  To me there seems to be a distinct difference between actively broadcasting a signal(radio) and allowing access to those who request it(internet) Now, that's a very good point, but can't the very act of turning a radio dial be the 1930's equivalence of typing in a URI or clicking a link? Wired magazine published an article in the 90's about the parallels between radio and the "new" internet, and it was filled with direct analogies between the two and how governments eventually took control and started regulating licenses and content, for the most part. I am unable to find a link to that long article, but the ideas contained in it have stuck with me for a long time.
logn 12y ago
The FCC is able to regulate broadcast content because the courts found it constitutional due to the pervasive nature. Reclassification of ISPs does not affect the pervasiveness.

by cubano 12y ago

unprepare 12y ago

To me there seems to be a distinct difference between actively broadcasting a signal(radio) and allowing access to those who request it(internet) Radio works by beaming signals all over their coverage area. those signals are pushed to everyone. Whereas, a website isn't just sending its html to every IP and port it can find, it waits for a request and responds accordingly. This seems to be a fundamental distinction to me, but one that would likely be easily obscured by politicking and misinformation campaigns if that were the ultimate goal. Interesting thought though, as we do see the UK beginning to move towards this more hands-on internet regulation all of a suddden

cubano 12y ago
To me there seems to be a distinct difference between actively broadcasting a signal(radio) and allowing access to those who request it(internet) Now, that's a very good point, but can't the very act of turning a radio dial be the 1930's equivalence of typing in a URI or clicking a link? Wired magazine published an article in the 90's about the parallels between radio and the "new" internet, and it was filled with direct analogies between the two and how governments eventually took control and started regulating licenses and content, for the most part. I am unable to find a link to that long article, but the ideas contained in it have stuck with me for a long time.

logn 12y ago

The FCC is able to regulate broadcast content because the courts found it constitutional due to the pervasive nature. Reclassification of ISPs does not affect the pervasiveness.