Spirited Exchange Over Net Neutrality

LukeCage sends us to The Register for a rabble-rousing account of a US Commerce Department official's talk at Supernova 2007. The article is headlined Bush official goes nuclear in New Neut row, and points out that the speaker, John Kneuer, is a former telecom lobbyist. To figure out what really went on in that session — whether it was a shouting match as El Reg reports — be sure to read Suw Charman's notes from the floor and Kevin Werbach's note (Werbach is the conference organizer).

Comments

The power of debate

[MosesJones]

One of the worst things about the last 7 years of US government has been the destruction of rational debate. Everything is now about opinion rather than about facts and its become perfectly okay to have a firm opinion, no matter how insane it is (Cheney and his "I'm not in the executive" for starters).

Its hard to see this changing in the next few years because it is actively supported by the media who much prefer a strong opinion to some dull and boring facts.

At least he didn't claim everyone against him was supporting terrorists......

Re:The power of debate

[tjstork]

Last 7 years? I'd say more like the last 30. What's been happening is a gradual escalation in political demagoguery since Reagan won in 1980s. Back then, the left went absolutely nuts and started throwing out all sorts of ridiculous charges. The right reciprocated when Clinton got elected by trying to impeach him essentially because he was a Democrat. The left, obviously ticked off, racheted up their assaults on the right to a high new level. These assaults are bleeding into lawmaking.

You saw Clinton go after the right by using the IRS to attack right wing think tanks. Then, Bush matched that by trying to get loser pays tort reform, a proposition which would bankrupt the plaintiff lawyers that drive the Democrats. And you see Republicans also proposing to allow members to opt out of union dues for political purposes, another union defunder and Democrat breaker. Now Democrats are trying to retaliate by going after right wing media - by basically banning free speech in radio.

The bottom line is, that anyone that thinks their guys, Democrat or Republican, is a fool, and anyone that goes onto a board and parrots the latest propaganda from the likes of MoveOn or National Review are even bigger fools, because they let themselves get used as puppets.

Distortions, flat out lies, go around on both sides, as if, it is settled that the truth can be sacrificed for the greater good of political victory. If you really want to take our country back, we need to realize that the people that are trying to whip up support for their own causes. People like Kos and Rush are in it to cash in, and gain personal power. They are damaged, all of these "talking heads", and they need more a good bullet to the head than to be taken as anything more as the demagoguing power mongering traitors to the American ideal that they are.

Re:The power of debate

[jc42]

At least he didn't claim everyone against him was supporting terrorists......

Maybe he didn't, but those of us paying attention ahve already seen this argument used. The "reasoning" is obvious: Allowing everyone (who pays for service) equal access to the Net clearly does allow terrorists the same access. It also allows politicians, pedophiles, librarians, garbage collectors, and left-handed people the same access.

But one of the lessons of history is that if ISPs and other comm companies are allowed to block "terrorists" (or pedophiles or politicians), they will first use it to block their own economic competitors by slowing down their packets to uselessness. The real issue here isn't whether people we don't like can be blocked.

The issue is whether single corporations set up as legal monopolies (or duopolies in some neighborhoods) can be allowed to control who can communicate and who can't. Their main concern will be with maintaining their control, not implementing the public policies used to justify giving them control.

Communication is an important right. There's reason that it was the very first thing written into the US Bill of Rights. Without the right to communicate, our other rights don't mean very much. And the recent tendency in the US for those in power to label just about anyone as a "terrorist" without any evidence at all should give us all pause.

Re:The power of debate

[Elemenope]

Uh, hmm. No way does he have a leg to stand on, and it has nothing to do with the 'hybrid nature of his office'. It very well may be true that the Vice-president can in some circumstances be treated as both a legislative and executive office...but that's not the issue. The issue is that Cheney is claiming that because he is in both, he doesn't have to follow the rules of either. And that is just patently stupid. If he is in both, he has to follow the rules of both.

For the vast majority (i.e. up until four years ago) of the time this republic has existed, the Vice-president, despite his cursory senatorial duties, has always been considered a member of the Executive. More importantly, all the rules, laws, and regs are written as if that were the case. So, there is a heavy precedental weight against even the theoretical contention that the VP should be considered legislative, even if he might for the sake of argument considered to be so.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[QMO]

Why anyone bothers to read that piece-of-trash site is far beyond me...

BOFH

The talk is on line

[isdnip]

Why take somebody else's word for it when you can watch the actual talk? Thanks to conference organizer Kevin Werbach:

http://conversationhub.com/2007/06/27/video-john-k neuer-on-spectrum-policy-and-network-neutrality/

Summary: Kneuer makes a total idiot of himself, but remains generally calm. He is reciting Cheney-Rove talking points, not actually discussing the issue in any meaningful way. He declares American broadband policy to be a success. He also sets up a straw man argument, that any kind of network neutrality rule would be regulating the "rates, terms and conditions" of Internet access. And he simply assumes that regulating "rates, terms and conditions" (a phrase he repeats over and over) is Bad. This is to be taken on faith, and when the crowd doesn't get it his way (because they're not members of the Orthodox Chicago School of Economics Church of Untrammeled Monopoly Power), he just repeats himself.

He has to leave for the airport by the end of his talk. I wish the taxi had followed his model of deregulation. "Me and my boy Tiny here gotta inspect yer luggage. We have to take care of it, you know, so nothing happens between here and the airport. Hmmm, nice computer you have. You wouldn't want that to fall and have an accident. Let's see, that'll be $100. for safe passage. And gee, your plane leaves in an hour and a half. You do want to make that plane, right? That'll be a $50 fee for rapid delivery. And no, don't get off the taxi, because Tiny and I are going to Deliver this stuff, whether it's to you or not. We gotta pay for this nice taxi, you know. It ain't cheap maintaining a 1994 Plymouth on these streets." Yep, that's what he wants, the transport operator to take a cut of the goods. To (his term) "encourage investment".