Net Neutrality to Win Big on Capitol Hill?

The New York Times has weighed in again on Net Neutrality, this time with a hopeful message of change in the near future due to the shift of power in the House and Senate. The opinion piece takes a look at Ron Wyden in the Senate and Edward Markey in the House who have both promised to lead the charge to pass a net neutrality bill in the coming months. Lessig, on the other hand, has a somewhat more cynical view of the new Congress.

Comments

Balance of power

[BWJones]

From TFA from Lessig: "Radical" changes in Washington always have this Charlie Brown/Lucy-like character (remember Lucy holding the football?): it doesn't take long before you realize how little really ever changes in DC. The latest example is the Dems and IP issues as they affect the Net. Message to the Net from the newly Democratic House? Go to hell.

This balance of power of course is really what we want to happen in DC, and is just what has been out of whack since the Gingrich led Congress felt they had a mandate. Too much has been done in the name of fear and un-Constitutional powergrabs over the last little while and we need a re-balancing of power.

Years ago, when I grew up in Texas, our legislature only met every other year because every time they met, new laws got passed. This was what the state leadership was like at least under Ann Richards, and we did not have as many professional politicians, but I bugged out before the turn of the tide towards Bush and Co. so I don't really know if that is currently the system in our Great State.

Re:Balance of power

[AKAImBatman]

Please explain to me how legislation to protect equal access and prevent multi-tier implementations that favor big business and big government are a un-Constitutional power grab.

You changed the meaning of his sentence by adding the word "un-Constitutional" in there. Of course it's going to be used in a grab for power. There is very little in congress that isn't misused and abused in that fashion. Unfortunately, there's no constitutional amendment against dirty politics.

After all, conceptually, net neutrality goes far back in US history to the mid 1800's to preserve equal access to telegraph lines with the only exception being made for war or emergency purposes.

And conceptually, tiered services go all the way back to the government's emergency services demands that prioritized switchboards to carry government calls over non-government calls.

Prioritizing traffic can be a good thing when properly applied. For example, VoIP services work much better when there is a guarantee that the packet will make it to its destination in a specified period of time. (A bit like how RTOSes guarantee a time slice to a program.) The only reason why we have a problem is because some telco exec got the bright idea of selling this prioritization service in a general-purpose fashion. (Thus negating the purpose of such a service. Genius, pure genius.) They then tried to ram it through as part of Senator Steven's Internet Consumer Right Bill thingymatube.

Meanwhile, the FCC has already declared that they'll fine any company that abuses their tiering abilities. So the situation is well in hand, but congress-critters are still trying to play the hero in... *gasp* a massive play for power on the Hill.

Pure and simple: The opposite of progress is congress. Don't let them do anything that can be handled without legislation.

Re:Balance of power

[spun]

Okay, so what will prevent companies from abusing tiered service? The free market? There isn't one in telecom and there simply can't be one. Great example of a natural monopoly, no state required.

The FCC? Ah, isn't that part of the government? Who do you want making the regs, some unelected bureaucratic body, or your elected and (slightly more) accountable representatives? Without any special instructions from congress, what do you think the FCC will do, what is best for we, the people, or what is best for telecom fatcats?

The companies themselves? Why? You just know it's going to be, "Hey Google, those are some mighty nice lookin' packets ya got there. Be a shame if anything happened to them, capisce?" Wouldn't they be sued by their shareholders if they didn't screw people over this way? That's what capitalism is all about right, dog eat dog, devil take the hindmost, screw the poor and powerless neo-social-darwinism sort of thing?

In the free market, it's one dollar one vote. Theoretically in a democracy, rich and poor alike both have one vote. Sure, in practice it doesn't work like that, but who's fault is that? Show me the system of checks and balances inherent in the free market that will ensure justice and equitability? Or are those just outdated, antiquated notions now that we all worship on the altar of the almighty dollar.

Call me old fashioned, but I kind of like our Republic, with it's Houses and Executives and, you know, the Constitution? Maybe congress isn't the problem. Maybe we are. It's our government, after all.

Vetos

[Frequency Domain]

This president has used the veto less than any other president in history. I suspect that's about to change, now that Congress isn't his lap dog but the loyal opposition doesn't have veto-proof majorities. Don't get your hopes too high for massive changes. If anything, the biggest changes are likely to be in Congressional hearings - we might actually see some committees try to hold some of the "deciders" accountable for their decisions.

Re:We really should start thinking of the 'net...

[DragonWriter]

The problem, of course, is graft. I live in California which seems to have the worst roads in the nation.

I'm not sure that's true, but I'd agree that California seems to have a problem here: I expect that, as you note, inadequate "transparency and citizen oversight" plays a role, not because California is structurally worse, in outline, than other states in that regard but simply because that a state level bureaucracy like Caltrans is inherently more opaque and distant than a structurally identical organization would be in a smaller state.

As citizens we must demand transparency and oversight. Everything else is just jerking off because let's face it, there's no real difference between democrats and republicans. They're both populists.

There is certainly a difference between the beliefs, interests, and values of people who are committed Democrats and those who are committed Republicans, though there is certainly a continuum in between (and of to the sides, and...) But, of course, without effective transparency and oversight of what people in government are doing, the views of the people won't be reflected in what politicians do.

Re:Government is a puppy: Dangerous when bored.

[ScrewMaster]

It's ironic that although the Founders of this country realized the dangers that having a standing Army presented, they evidently never realized those posed by a sitting Legislature.

They did ... our elected representatives were supposed to be cycled through on a regular basis (a civic duty akin to serving on a jury) and then leave, go back to their jobs and live under the laws that they themselves imposed.. The Founders essentially placed a negative-feedback loop into our legislative system ... brilliant, when you think about it. I might add that it worked well for a long time, but like most other aspects of our Federal Government it too eventually got subverted by the power-hungry.

Truly, the desire to have power over others, merely for the sake of having power over others (i.e., because it makes one feel good in and of itself) should be classified as a mental disorder and treated as such. It should also disqualify you from holding a position of power or authority until you've been cured and can prove it.

Re:About taxation

[75th Trombone]

Congress just needs to say "Everyone has to pay X amount of what they make each year."

Wrong.

Telco competition COULD be reality

[jmorris42]

> The free market? There isn't one in telecom and there simply can't be one.

Agree with the part about a lack of a Free Market. I'm amazed anyone can call two government granted monopolies pretending to fight 'competition.' But you are wrong in that there COULD be competition.

A bold statement, right? Almost every tech savvy type has admitted that telco competition just isn't possible so we are going to have to take it in the pooper from the government, the telcos, big media or somebody. Wrong.

The AT&T breakup was bungled because everyone missed the real monopoly and broke them up into the wrong pieces. AT&T's 'monopoly' on long distance didn't matter. The Baby Bell's monopoly on local calling was an annoyance at best and only because of the limits in the numbering plan. The monopoly was and is on the physical plant, the most importantly, the WIRES.

Imagine a new breakup order that took that reality into account. And we are going to have the opportunity because look out, Ma Bell is back and she is large and in charge again. Break them up into two parts, one part regulated as a utility that would own the wires, poles, right of ways and the central offices. This part would be a boring dividend paying entity, just owning and maintaining the wires and selling access at mandated rates to any and all who wished access. The second half would own the switches, dslams and the current customers and pay the first entity for the wires to get at them and rent for the facilities to house their switches.

Then impose a similar breakup on the other monopoly, the cable companies where once part keeps the monopoly right of way grant but looses the right to put a signal down the wire.

In the world I just described net neutrality would arise as a consequence of the Market because customers would have a choice.