Skip to main content

View Diary: The New York Times Busted Lying Through its Teeth (301 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The FCC is looking to kick the can forward (3+ / 0-)

    Tom has put himself in a fairly difficult position.  On the one hand he would like everyone to be happy with how open the Internet is, and he would like to be perceived as doing something about it.  On the other hand the FCC's true patrons are always the big companies they regulate, revolving door and all.  And they have clout in Congress over the FCC's budget and even can pass worse laws to really screw folks. (And they've tried.)

    So his real strategy here seems to be a replay of Julius' -- come out with a complex docket on the subject, talk a good game,  pass rules that contain some legal poison pill (hint: "Section 706" has no power, so whenever the FCC cites it, they're asking to get overturned -- a rule must cite to the proper statutory section in order to be valid), knowing that given the court schedules, it won't get overturned until after the next presidential election.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

    •  So hang on now ... (7+ / 0-)

      Accepting for the sake of argument that your characterization of what this proposal does is correct, isn't that very different than a proposal "...guaranteeing an open Internet, prohibiting high-speed Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content flowing through their pipes" which is what the NYT reported?

      And was characterizing opponents of the proposal as "net neutrality purists" really acceptable in a news article?

      "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

      by jrooth on Fri May 16, 2014 at 07:35:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The proposal does have those guarantees (7+ / 0-)

        The problem is that the FCC is currently too timid to do the right thing; they prefer to make politically-acceptable compromises.  Barring that, they kick the can forward.  If there becomes some kind of consensus on what they should do, then it happens.

        The term "purist" is quite reasonable in a news article because among the NN supporters, some have a very strict view that does not, frankly, jibe with the reality of how the Internet has ever operated, yet they demand that rules enforce their mythical view.  I have heard and read statements to the FCC that "all packets must be treated equally".  That is purism, and does not describe how the Internet ever worked.  (Hint -- the rules for blocking spam go well beyond blocking only "illegal" packets.)

        When the non-neutral behavior of an ISP is managed well, it looks neutral -- it is an illusion.  The FCC sort of knows that.  Look -- NN is our version of the Federal Reserve, BLM, EPA, etc. -- the teabaggers go off the deep end on misunderstandings of those things, and many on our side go off the deep end on misunderstandings of how the Internet operates.

        I actually (I have to be careful here because I am intentionally pseudonymous) wrote some stuff warning about the bad stuff that monopoly or duopoly (cable/telco) ISPs could do if the FCC dropped common carriage.  This was before the term Network Neutrality was even coined.  So far those things haven't been done, in part because the economics are bad, and in part because the political reaction would not tolerate it. So I'm actually working hard -- and I actually am paid for this at times -- to have a truly open Internet.  I'm just disagreeing about the tactics that call for technically non-viable solutions.

    •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

      You make me feel a little bit better.

      Obama is the most progressive president in my lifetime.

      by freakofsociety on Fri May 16, 2014 at 04:45:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site