0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Some people just don’t understand what network neutrality is all about and Rep Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn) definitely falls into that category.For she gave a speech at function sponsored by the Safe Internet Alliance, a group whose goal is to “better educate and protect” all Internet users from corruption, crime, and abuse, in which she blasted proposed net neutrality regulations as “fairness doctrine for the Internet.”The Fairness Doctrine is a policy, first introduced by the FCC in 1949 and later abolished in 1987, that requires broadcasters to present both sides of controversial issues. It was recently used as a scare tactic by right-wing politicians who spread false rumors that the FCC was planning to bring back the policy in a bid to silence right-wing radio talk show hosts.By equating the policy with network neutrality, which the essence of is simply to “protect the openness of the Internet,” she’s trying to demonize the policy as some sort of Obama scheme to socialize the Internet.Nothing could be further from the truth.In fact, here’s exactly what the FCC has proposed so far.ISPs….would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet;would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm thenetwork;would not be allowed to deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers; would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner; and would be required to disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking.So rather than seeing it as plan to protect the rights of consumers, which are subject to the whims of regional cable monopolies that also own competing interests in content creation and delivery, she thinks it’s a bid for govt control of the Internet.If only she stopped there. To add insult to injury she thinks network neutrality is unfair to content creators, that they should be able to create agreements with ISPs determining how and when their content is transmitted on their networks without the meddling of the fed govt.From the Hill:Content creators ‘fully understand what the Fairness Doctrine would be when it applies to TV or radio. What they do not want is the federal government policing how they deploy their content over the Internet and they want the ISPs to manage their networks and deploy the content however they have agreed on with ISP. They do not want a czar of the Internet to determine when they can deploy their creativity over the Internet. They do not want a czar to determine what speeds will be available….We are watching the FCC very closely as it relates to that issue.’But, that’s the thing. The Internet provides an even playing field for people to deliver content to consumers. What’s to say that Universal won’t decide to offer movies to Cox Communications and not Time Warner Cable?ISPs are MONOPOLIES in this country and it’s sad that she and other members of congress don’t realize that before criticizing proposal like network neutrality that try to create an Internet free of unnecessary commercial interference. I have but one choice of broadband providers so it’s not as though I can pick another if I don’t like its agreements with content creators.How about a “fairness doctrine” that breaks up our country’s telcos so that they have to divest their Internet services from their cable services.Aren’t Republicans supposed to be pro-business competition? I guess only when the “invisible hands of capitalism” are also signing campaign contribution checks