Slashdot Mirror
Republican's 'Net Neutrality' Proposal Called 'Bait and Switch' (techcrunch.com)
Remember that net neutrality legislation introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)? TechCrunch is calling it "half-hearted" -- and suspect.
It's not going to happen, it wouldn't help if it did and Blackburn isn't someone you want writing this kind of legislation. Among other things, she thinks it's the ISPs' job to police content, and voted to kill the Broadband Privacy Rule.
In fact, Blackburn's legislation would deal a "fatal blow" to net neutrality, argues Evan Greer, campaign director at the nonprofit Fight for the Future, writing in Newsweek: Already one of Big Cable's best friends in Congress, Marsha Blackburn, who has taken more than $600,000 from the industry, is pushing for legislation that would permanently undermine the FCC's ability to enforce open internet protections. This bait and switch has been in the works for months. The telecom lobby's end game is to use the crisis they've created to ram through legislation that's branded as a compromise but amounts to a fatal blow to net neutrality... We don't need legislation that's been watered down with kool-aid.
A better solution, he suggests, is pushing Congress to overrule the FCC with a Congressional Resolution of Disapproval.
In fact, Blackburn's legislation would deal a "fatal blow" to net neutrality, argues Evan Greer, campaign director at the nonprofit Fight for the Future, writing in Newsweek: Already one of Big Cable's best friends in Congress, Marsha Blackburn, who has taken more than $600,000 from the industry, is pushing for legislation that would permanently undermine the FCC's ability to enforce open internet protections. This bait and switch has been in the works for months. The telecom lobby's end game is to use the crisis they've created to ram through legislation that's branded as a compromise but amounts to a fatal blow to net neutrality... We don't need legislation that's been watered down with kool-aid.
A better solution, he suggests, is pushing Congress to overrule the FCC with a Congressional Resolution of Disapproval.
Having the FCC destroy the internet or let congress do it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1) The differences between Title I and Title II?
2) Why the FTC and not the FCC should under current law handle internet regulation as such, and why no one is asking the FTC to do anything instead?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
So following a train of thought I just had. Fake news becomes harder to detect. "Paid prioritization" has an interesting feature of enabling the quarantining of localities.
If local businesses, government, or organizations suffer from the effects of "paid prioritization", a solution is to make it so those are within the local network, before hitting a major ISP pipeline. That way locals would have access, but anyone outside the local community wouldn't have access because "paid prioritization" would consume all available bandwidth across the national pipelines. Then some vague "other" or "they" get blamed for a site being inaccessible.
The results are two-fold. One, foreign powers wouldn't likely be granted paid prioritization to influence elections. Two, if there is any meddling or fake news, foreign or domestic, there wouldn't be a nation wide internet to corroborate or collaborate to identify and challenge the "fake news".
That only works if all the towns only have municipal broadband that is entirely autonomous and locally administered. But the reality is that most people's Internet access are controlled by national networks. Paid prioritization just makes it easier for foreign powers to target the national network and spread fake news to the entire country of people.
How do you suppose you got your Internet access?
I once had a signature.