Gubernatorial Candidate Speaks Out Against CAS

New submitter C0R1D4N writes "Carl Bergmanson, a New Jersey gubernatorial democrat running in the 2013 primary, has recently spoken out against the new 'six strike policy' being put in place this week by major ISPs. He said: 'The internet has become an essential part of living in the 21st century, it uses public infrastructure and it is time we treat it as a public utility. The electric company has no say over what you power with their service, the ISPs have no right to decide what you can and can not download.'"

Comments

Common carrier

[Anonymous Coward]

ISPs look like common carriers and quack like common carriers. It's high time we started treating them as common carriers (i.e., imposing net neutrality on them).

Re:Common carrier

[Jane Q. Public]

"SPs look like common carriers and quack like common carriers. It's high time we started treating them as common carriers (i.e., imposing net neutrality on them)."

The FCC has wanted to classify ISPs as Title II Common Carriers since their inception. It was Congress that stopped it from doing so, by passing a law that made ISPs an exception. Backed by lobbying, no doubt. There was never any real, rational reason for doing that and I have been lambasting Congress for it ever since. (That is, "corporate profit" might be a "reason", but not a good one. This situation is definitely not in the public interest. Countries that treat internet more like a utility have significantly better service at lower rates than the U.S.)

The reality is, more than ever before, that ISPs are Common Carriers, in every meaningful way. We need to get Congress to let the FCC classify them as such.

The moment that happens, many of these problems -- and privacy problems too -- simply disappear.

Re:Poor analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Going along with your line of reasoning, the ISPs are distributors of child pornography and all of their executives should be jailed for life.

Re:CAS

[freeze128]

I disagree completely! I don't think that any member of the government has any authority to dictate whether memory controllers should or should not use Column Address Select. It's a technical problem that politicians should clearly stay away from!

Re:Never waste an opportunity

[runeghost]

You're conflating two different things and confusing the issue. Bergmanson is speaking of using government power to *prevent* corporations from engaging in censorship. You are implying that any government attempt to exercise the power to stop corporate censorship will itself be creating a situation where the government can and will censor the internet itself - something that is not exactly accurate.

I find it disheartening how, whenever there is a semi-serious discussion of using government power to stop flagrant corporate abuse, someone inevitably hauls out the "OMG! We can't allow the government to have that much power! They'll abuse it and our freedom will suffer!" While I certainly am concerned about government tyranny and over-reach, I fail to understand why we settling for corporate tyranny and abuse instead is the only possible alternative. American history would seem to demonstrate that it is possible to have a government that keeps corporations in check without becoming some sort of nightmare police-state.

Re:Sadly, this is probably as good as it gets

[paiute]

Well, at least consumers now have an obscure gubernatorial candidate, who stands no chance of winning either the primary or election, on their side. Guess that beats *nothing*.

You can make this guy into a major candidate by writing him a check. As a matter of fact, if he doesn't get a couple of hundred thousand checks from the Slashdot community pretty damn quick then you all might be the whining do-nothing slackers the more cynical among you have always claimed.