Slashdot Mirror
House Panel Backs 'Internet Freedom' Legislation
GovTechGuy writes "The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed legislation on Wednesday once again affirming the current management structure of the Web. In doing so, the lawmakers made one thing clear: the only government that should have its hands on the underpinnings of the Internet is the U.S. ' It affirms the importance of an Internet free from censorship and government control and codifies the existing management structure of the Internet. ... Notably, however, lawmakers dropped from the legislation the phrase “free from government control,” which had threatened to derail the April 11 markup by the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. ... [Democrats argued] it could undermine the U.S. government’s ability to enforce existing — or future — laws online.'"
The terms get muddied. Net neutrality is regulation: Regulation to prevent service providers from doing things which are in their business interests, but would be detrimental to the internet as a whole. So an 'anti-regulatory agenda' is in opposition to net neutrality. Right now the internet is built in part on a set of very informal 'unwritten rules,' and it's dubious how well those will hold up as commercial pressures become ever greater.
They wrote a bill that essentially says, "We affirm that we think the internet is fine the way it is." Wow! What a bold move!
And they say Americans dont get irony.
Boy you got that right....
From the story
the only government that should have its hands on the underpinnings of the Internet is the U.S.
I could name a dozen countries I would trust to manage the web more than the U.S.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
That sounds like the democrats too. They put on a big show together of fighting over things, but on most issues they are really very similar. Just find me any recent act passed by congress in which they gave up any significant amount of power.
Even when the parties aren't screwing the people over, there are lobbyists to make sure they do. Look at healthcare reform, for example: It started out as a well-intentioned plan to set up a minimal level of universal health care. By the time the lobbyists from the insurance industry were done, all it did was compel everyone to have an insurance policy and hand out mountains of money in subsidies. Not even subsidies to directly pay for medical care, but subsidies to private insurance companies.
I agree that the Republicans are, on balance, worse than the democrats... but that just means the democrats are less bad.
They've already built up their own networks, and the protocols are open source and free for all.
This isn't about infrastructure, its about regulation.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Which means if China decides it wants to create it's own Internet, there's nothing we can do about it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
And they say Americans dont get irony.
Boy you got that right....
From the story
the only government that should have its hands on the underpinnings of the Internet is the U.S.
I could name a dozen countries I would trust to manage the web more than the U.S.
The U.N.?
Oh man. No mod points but you deserve +5 Funny if anyone ever did. I laughed so hard I almost ruptured something.
The US goverment is the least corrupt...
Citation please!
Spoiler: 13 other governments are less corrupt than the US
That's what the "free from government control" bit was about. Republicans wanted to sneak that nice sounding line in there so that they could kill off net neutrality. Democrats saw through their scheme and stopped it.
In the end, both Republicans and Democrats can't help being themselves - politicians. What we need are statesmen and they're always in short supply.
The definition of "statesman" is "a dead politician". While I don't think those are in short supply, I am rarely disappointed when their numbers increase.
Basically it all boils down to net neutrality. To maintain net neutrality requires laws, these laws basically protect the individuals right of the nature of access and establishes hard limits upon controls being placed upon that access. Now the right is opposed to that because they want unfettered corporate controls upon individual access, including unlimited monitoring, censorship and alteration of communications, with a greed is God mentality.
Regardless no matter where in the world, the internet always crosses and is embedded in government territory ie where all the cable is laid and crossing state and national boundaries, hence the justification for government control and limits placed upon business that operate it or the preference for a government provided essential utility (as for any claims that the internet is not an essential utility, don't bother talking utter rot).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Actually the UN would be perfect. When was the last time they actually accomplished anything? Pretty much every motion they ever make is vetoed. It's perfect, put the Internet under the control of an entity so dysfunctional that they simply can't get their act together to mess it up.
I would trust the UN over the USA to run the internet any day.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all packets are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Propagation, Transit and the pursuit of their Destination. --That to secure these rights, net neutrality is instituted among ISPs, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Regulation becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Regulation, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Sure it's regulation, the Bill of Rights is regulation... but there's good kinds.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Why? What makes "digital" so different from, oh, music, books, anything with copyright on it, that suddenly the first sale doctrine wouldn't apply?
Yes, that is more than a little annoying, but the fix isn't DRM. It's enforcement of your copyrights. That is in fact how the GPL works. If that software was public domain (or similarly loosely licenced) then that includes allowing reselling, though the "NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF ANY KIND" disclaimers are the usual CYA against having to support it. Some people will still be unreasonable about it, of course, but some people will be unreasonable in any case.
There is no requirement whatsoever that enforcing your copyrights includes DRM. DRM doesn't guarantee lack of false positives or preclude rampant DMCA abuse either, far from it. So you'll have to think this one through again, sorry.