3 comments

• 

  Robb Topolski

  11 months ago

  McDowell's comparison of Network Neutrality is the dumbest thing I've heard all week. And while I'm glad that you're smart enough to realize that it probably won't happen, I'm puzzled that you don't explain why.
  
  So I will -- The Fairness Doctrine, if applied on the Internet, would violate Network Neutrality principles!
  
  The network has never cared about the political positions of the senders of packets, and it would violate the neutral behavior of the network if it had to start caring. Today's free marketplace provided by the Internet ensures that no voices get blocked and that access to all voices are ensured to anyone who wants to listen. The fairness doctrine provided for "equal time" on a radio station, regardless if anyone was listening to it. That's not a free market, and McDowell definitely knows the difference.
  
  The Comcast case was about "deregulating" the Internet -- Oh, it wasn't regulated by the government, this was actually worse -- It was being regulated by a monopoly.
  
  C'mon TLF -- what was really going on here? I didn't see his presentation, and so I don't really know for myself. But I'm thinking that a speech at the Heritage Foundation, which is a well-respected source especially popular with fans of AM talk-radio (as I am), which has had unsurpassed analysis of how our tax money gets spent -- this was the perfect place for McDowell to try and drive a wedge between bloogers on NN by bringing up the long-dead Fairness Doctrine to strike fear in those who generally support the idea of a free and open Internet.
  
  Be skeptical -- we fought (and won) a case to keep Comcast from regulating the global Internet. Do you think we did that because we want OUR (or any) government to regulate it, instead?
  
  Thanks
  
  Robb Topolski
  reply
• 

  Turk

  11 months ago

  Do you think we did that because we want OUR (or any) government to regulate it, instead?

  
  
  But that's exactly what you asked for, and that's exactly what you're likely to get.
  
  It's easy to say you have innocent intentions in asking government to get involved. It's quite another to look at cases where such involvement was requested that actually stopped there.
  
  Government is never going to be happy just having it's toe in the door and it won't stop pushing. Then, to quote Tommy Boy:
  
  

  He sneaks into your house once,
  that's all it takes. Next thing you know there's money missing off the dresser and your daughter is knocked up. I've seen it a hundred times.

  reply
• 

  WSA

  11 months ago

  Topolski Writes: "The Comcast case was about 'deregulating' the Internet — Oh, it wasn’t regulated by the government, this was actually worse — It was being regulated by a monopoly."
  
  
  If Mr. Topolski truly believes that the FCC is "deregulating" the Internet by regulating the Internet, and if he truly believes that Comcast is a "monopoly," then his complete confusion may be attributable to his having been tragically miseducated about basic economics.
  
  Oh, is this what Adam Thierer refers to as "Hippie Economics?"
  reply