Faith in Neutrality
The NPRM isn't out yet, the policy statement hasn't been issued, but Chairman Martin gives us these ringing words:
I have long believed that consumers should be able to use their broadband internet access service to access any content on the internet.[FOOTNOTE ONE]
[FOOTNOTE ONE]: Subject, of course, to the bandwidth limits and quality of service terms of the particular Internet access service plan that they have chosen to purchase.
Watch how this works. Martin first states an article of faith (beliefs as policy?), and then completely eviscerates its importance. If no DSL provider is required to make basic access (unconditioned, uncustomized) available to consumers, and if service plans say “don't use any unapproved applications or devices,” then it is meaningless to say that as a matter of policy users should have the right to access any content they want to. Because they won't be able to. The cable/telco duopolists will treat them as passive recipients of packaged services, as they are with respect to the telephone and cable services these providers are used to selling.
Watch, also, for the meaninglessness of whatever policy is stated. As Martin says: “While policy statements do not establish rules nor are they enforceable documents, today’s statement does reflect core beliefs that each member of this Commission holds regarding how broadband internet access should function.”
More faith-based policymaking. We'll need more than principles for the open internet to survive.
Comments
3 Responses to “Faith in Neutrality”
Got something to say?
What is your basic argument with faith? I think you are stretching like most of the left to prove that faith is a bad thing. If we have no faith in the Constitution, no faith in our government, no faith in anything but ourselves - I believe we will get exactly what seems to be happening.
wow. susan, I guess you are now part of the “left”. in today's crazy world I don't know whether to say “sorry to see you go” or “welcome”!
faith is important AND should no more be a basis for public policy than it should for fire safety.
en
Susan,
Well done. If there is any comfort, it is the predictability that the ruling party's words are meaningless theater and the opposite of actual policy.
Powell struggled with this, naively believing in pure principles. But Martin clearly is in step with the program. He doesn't grant consumer freedoms, only entitlements. And even to the concept of entitlements he spews qualifications based on the overriding claims of content owners, law enforcement and goverment, and network providers. In summary consumers have no rights and take a back seat to virtually everyone else. Now that's the Republican party we've come to know.
I am scared too. This is not small government conservatism, but uncompetitive elitism. As Isenberg has shown and been proved correct in the Rise of the Stupid Network and the Internet, it's bad economics and technical policy. It's especially bad for innovation and small industries like P2P.
See http://www.p2p-weblog.com/50226711/fcc_back_in_the_republican_flock.php