NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Dueling broadband policies
|
We need to be careful about confusing
statements of goals with specifications and with politics. When I read “(2)
to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for
the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or
State regulation;” it’s hard to take the rest seriously. These principles
don’t seem to be specific rules. But then we’re using terms like “broadband”
which are very vague. In the short term it’s
about containing rage. Reading people’s traffic to decided what to sell
them is clearly out of bounds. Peeking inside packets for network management is
also questionable but fuzzier – at very least such actions should be
transparent. What takes precedence, alas,
is the popular perception of fairness. I’d prefer going back to first
principles and the First Amendment which does trump Congress. But it will take
a while for people to realize they don’t need people second-guessing
their conversations. -----Original Message----- Everyone: As the matter of the Comcast petitions (which was
mentioned repeatedly at the Pittsburgh hearing) comes to a head at the FCC,
there's a jurisdictional question that I haven't seen asked yet and which may
be key to everything. Suppose that Congress makes a policy statement (and includes
it in a law), and then the FCC makes a policy statement. Which one takes
precedence? Why, the one drafted by Congress, of course. Well, it turns out that Congress did make a very specific
broadband policy statement when it passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
It's at 47 USC 230(b), and it says: ----- It is the policy of the United States� (1) to promote the continued development of the Internet
and other interactive computer services and other interactive media; (2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market
that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services,
unfettered by Federal or State regulation; (3) to encourage the development of technologies which
maximize user control over what information is received by individuals,
families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer
services; (4) to remove disincentives for the development and
utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to
restrict their children�s access to objectionable or inappropriate online
material; and (5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal
laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by
means of computer. ----- This policy statement by Congress -- which, unlike FCC
Chairman Michael Powell's "four freedoms" policy statement, was not
explicitly declared to be "nonbinding" -- trumps any contrary policy
statement made by the FCC. How could inside-the-Beltway lobbyists such as Free Press
ask that Michael Powell's rough policy ideas -- unvetted by a rulemaking
process and directly contradicting the statute -- take precedence over
Congress' explicitly binding policy? Do we need to wait for a court to state
the (seemingly obvious) answer? --Brett Glass [ Well, shucks. Regardless of the particulars of
that jurisdictional argument itself, the very concept of
such possible jurisdictional disputes could be viewed as
validating those groups who feel that pursuing legislatively
mandated regulatory changes at the Congressional level is a
useful course. -- Lauren Weinstein NNSquad Moderator ] |