Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn) blasts proposed network neutrality regulations, says content creators don’t want the feds interfering with how they deliver content to consumers.
Some people just don’t understand what network neutrality is all about and Rep Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn) definitely falls into that category.
For she gave a speech at function sponsored by the Safe Internet Alliance, a group whose goal is to “better educate and protect” all Internet users from corruption, crime, and abuse, in which she blasted proposed net neutrality regulations as “fairness doctrine for the Internet.”
The Fairness Doctrine is a policy, first introduced by the FCC in 1949 and later abolished in 1987, that requires broadcasters to present both sides of controversial issues. It was recently used as a scare tactic by right-wing politicians who spread false rumors that the FCC was planning to bring back the policy in a bid to silence right-wing radio talk show hosts.
By equating the policy with network neutrality, which the essence of is simply to “protect the openness of the Internet,” she’s trying to demonize the policy as some sort of Obama scheme to socialize the Internet.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, here’s exactly what the FCC has proposed so far.
ISPs….
- would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet;
- would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful
applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;
- would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the
network;
- would not be allowed to deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to
competition among network providers, application providers, service
providers, and content providers;
- would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a
nondiscriminatory manner; and
- would be required to disclose such information concerning network
management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and
content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking.
So rather than seeing it as plan to protect the rights of consumers, which are subject to the whims of regional cable monopolies that also own competing interests in content creation and delivery, she thinks it’s a bid for govt control of the Internet.
If only she stopped there. To add insult to injury she thinks network neutrality is unfair to content creators, that they should be able to create agreements with ISPs determining how and when their content is transmitted on their networks without the meddling of the fed govt.
From the Hill:
Content creators ‘fully understand what the Fairness Doctrine would be when it applies to TV or radio. What they do not want is the federal government policing how they deploy their content over the Internet and they want the ISPs to manage their networks and deploy the content however they have agreed on with ISP. They do not want a czar of the Internet to determine when they can deploy their creativity over the Internet. They do not want a czar to determine what speeds will be available….We are watching the FCC very closely as it relates to that issue.’
But, that’s the thing. The Internet provides and even playing field for people to deliver content to consumers. What’s to say that Universal won’t decide to offer movies to Cox Communications and not Time Warner Cable?
ISPs are MONOPOLIES in this country and it’s sad that she and other members of congress don’t realize that before criticizing proposal like network neutrality that try to create an Internet free of unnecessary commercial interference. I have but one choice of broadband providers so it’s not as though I can pick another if I don’t like its agreements with content creators.
How about a “fairness doctrine” that breaks up our country’s telcos so that they have to divest their Internet services from their cable services.
Aren’t Republicans supposed to be pro-business competition? I guess only when the “invisible hands of capitalism” are also signing campaign contribution checks.
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related Posts
- UK – New P2P Scheme: Charge for Unauthorized Content – Problem: DPI Unfeasable
- How ‘Saving The Net’ may kill it
- Australia Continues Plan to Have ISPs Filter ‘Inappropriate’ Content
- IFPI Wants ISPs to Filter Content, P2P Programs, and Websites
- Limewire: ‘Congress Should Make ISPs Filter Copyrighted Content’
Loading ...
How can they be so delusional, they are arguing points that are the exact opposite of the idea of net neutrality. They fear legislation that will grant them what they are demanding. People with a lack of technological understanding should not support bills that affect the technology.
They are not delusional at all. What you and everyone else believes what is right has nothing to do with it. You have to understand that alot of money is at stake here, and the RIAA and MPAA I am sure are behind it. Politicians like the above carpet muncher will accept large amounts of money on their behalf to oppose what obviously would otherwise happen. Corporatism always impedes democracy. I have no idea why lobbying is even legal…
Often its just purely lobbying that brings about the idiocy. But when it comes to technology I have found that politicians are all too willing to trumpet the call of lobbyist as compared to other initiatives due to the lack of understanding of the cause they are fighting. They don’t know they are being unethical, so its a lot easier to accept the bribe.
Listen we can expect nothing more from anyone who is in the Republican party. The GOP always sides with business and there core interests. If you take a look at the health care debate as an example the GOP doesn’t want reform because it would harm business. The GOP doesn’t want net neutrality because it is in the pocket of whatever industry throws money to it.
You have to understand the vast majority of congress are not concerned with what is best for the people, only in what is best for them. Their party dictates what and how they will vote for most issues, and if the money flows for no, then it’s no and vice versa …
That’s goofy logic. The FCC is proposing to prevent companies from controlling the Internet. It’s no more controlling of the Internet than the Feds are when they review mergers of large companies to make sure that monopolies aren’t being created. I guess if you think businesses should be able to form monopolies then you should also be against Net neutrality.
EXACTLY! Until we are able to actually have some free choice of ISPs we need the feds to ensure that are able to at least use the applications and services of are choosing, especially when these ISPs are also offering competing apps and services.
Wow, that was a balanced article…
Or not.
There really is 2 sides to this and not just ‘Neutral’ and ‘You’re a stupid republican.’
Go read Wikipedia’s entry on Net Neutrality.
That’s at least balanced and explains why it might not work.
Even one of the creators of the internet (not Al Gore) thinks it’s a bad idea.
It’s a complicated concept and might be a good idea if people that really understood technology were writing the law, but they aren’t.
If you ignore what they call it (which SOUNDS nice and rosy), NN is an excuse to give the government large scale control of the net.
Remember when we were against that?
Of course a bunch of old white guys in DC really understand the internet, so they’ll be writing a law we’ll all like.
The FCC already spanked Comcast for throttling P2P. At this point there is enough protection.
Why don’t we hold off turning our internet over to the government until it’s necessary.
Just the fact that you mention Al Gore, as if he has some influence on the articles author, or even is somehow influencing the view of net neutrality shows your ignorance. If you are going to make an argument, make one that is relevant. I feel like I’ll be wasting my time to get into a long winded debate with you.
All net neutrality is trying to achieve is prevent ISP’s from becoming regulators of the internet. The idea is that all traffic no matter what it is gets the same treatment, no one can pay to have their company get better service, and ISP’s can’t regulate services that might compete with their own interests. Some ISP’s already are blocking or capping VoIP, File Sharing and online gaming. There was a proposal a while back that suggested ISP’s should be able to charge you a premium if you use these services.
The success of the internet is due to its original open nature. These new initiatives to allow for a two tiered internet would unbalance competition on the internet, break it apart, and render it only a pitiful version of its current self. Net neutrality is basically a law against regulation by business or government, and anyone with half a brain can see the value in prevent internet manipulation.
OMG u dont get it. The reason why net neutrality is so important is because the same companies selling you Internet service also control your cable and telephone outlets!
The Internet is the public thoroughfare of the 21st century and to argue otherwise is both naive and idiotic.
I dont care what any “father” thinks because his opinion is reflective of a world where the Internet is not controlled by regional monopolies!
What’s really sad in all this, and Mountain Rage can attest, is that we even have to have a stupid argument about this. It should be a no-brainer.
No wonder our country’s so retarded, we have to actually prove that the govt is actually trying to help them for a change.
Speaking of don’t get it… the joke is that Al Gore once claimed to have invented the internet. People have derided him about it ever since.
So you feel that “crusty old farts and old bimbos who can’t tell the difference between a facebook page and youtube” should write laws that control the internet?
I’m serious when I say you should educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_against_network_neutrality
I swear to you, I was pro-NN for the past few years. A week ago I changed my mind after I did some more in depth reading.
You can never be too educated on a subject.
The hive has already made up it’s mind, net neutrality is super-hip. Until it’s not.
Give it up, maroon.
Just skimming those arguments I immediately detected a great lack of logical rigorousness. Also, at the beginning of that section, it reads “This section is written in the style of a debate rather than an encyclopedic summary”. There’s a difference between education, i.e. learning facts and concepts, and blindly taking the word of others.
“I was pro-NN for the past few years. A week ago I changed my mind after I did some more in depth reading.”
I’m sure you were and did.
Until the regime currently in power consisting of crusty old farts and old bimbos who can’t tell the difference between a facebook page and youtube, We will continue to see this kind of ridiculous commentary. Face it these supposed policy makers are so far removed from what the internet is really like, that they can not help from being swayed from savvy record company execs. The state of affairs in this country will continue to decline until these old fuckers start to die off and people of our generation take control of goverment.
This article is so horribly biased it’s impossible to read.
Believe it or not, I actually vote Republican
Blackburn isn’t naive, she’s just another paid pawn. But McCain is the biggest pawn of them all Here you have it::
Rachel Maddow: Sen John McCain vs. “Net Neutrality”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJKtSp2_kQ4&feature=player_embedded
I don’t know what the people want, I don;t think she does either, but internet service should be like any other utility, you should just pay for the bandwidth you use. People who want more bandwidth should pay a higher fee. People who just check email once a day should not be paying the same thing as heavy users.
I don’t see how it relates to the fairness doctrine. It’s irrelevant what people end up using the net for in the 21st century, whether it takes over all the roles of other media or not, the point is that nobody is talking about regulating lawful content like political content, which is what the fairness doctrine did. So it’s kind of the opposite of the fairness doctrine.
Notice they did say ‘lawful content’ and ‘lawful applications’ which leaves a lot of doors open for application filtering.
They had a utility based model, they chose to change it, and new business were created around it. Now they want to say, no sorry we changed our minds, and people are not buying it. New business aren’t gonna accept that, neither are consumers who have adapted to the new system. You go back to charging like a utility and a lot of innovative businesses will die. Public money heavily subsidies the internet infrastructure, people have a right to fair practices and prices. The monopolies in place make it impossible to have enough competition to give consumers fair prices and practices without enforcement and that is what people are fighting for.
Never was the net run like a utility – not sure what you mean. If ISP’s were a gov. regulated utility like electricity, bandwidth per m. would be far far cheaper, so I doubt there would be a slew of bankruptcies.
“Never was the net run like a utility – ”
Actually it is in some parts of the world.
“… not sure what you mean.”
So you reject any idea you don’t understand. That would explain how naive you are.
Funny, since it was when I grew up with it, but you wouldn’t know the realities of the arguments you are contesting. The internet was paid by the time you spent connected for most dial up services, and some of the early broadband start ups. It was near the millennium when the unlimited internet access first emerged. So as I said before, they had the pay per usage model, they moved away from it, now they want to move back, its bullshit.
Oh, pricing. That was pretty much over by 97. I worked at an ISP for a while around then. Anyway, it’s not the same companies or the same pipes. But like I said, first of all it’s fair to people who don’t download or stream much, keeps traffic flowing, and it would be cheaper even if you did use a lot of bandwidth because it would be a utility.
“I worked at an ISP for a while around then.”
Sure you did.
“… and it would be cheaper even if you did use a lot of bandwidth because it would be a utility.”
The point is that ISPs did use a utility-based business model, which is what characterizes a utility.
“Nothing could be further from the truth.”
Yeah, we figured that from where you said she was (R-Tenn) and in Congress. You don’t get that kind of power by telling the truth, honestly.