Posted on 04/29/2011 4:50:07 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
The Power To Control
Is Internet freedom threatened more by dominant companies or by the government's efforts to hem them in?
Mr. Wu's solution is to propose a "Separation Principle," a form of industry self-regulation to be overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (though he concedes that there is an ever-present danger of regulatory capture—whereby the FCC or other agencies become excessively influenced by the businesses they are meant to be regulating). The key to competition in the information industry, Mr. Wu believes, is a complete independence among its three layers: content owners (e.g., a games developer); network infrastructure (e.g., a cable company or cellular-network owner); and tools of access (e.g., a mobile handset maker). Obviously vertical integration, where one company participates in more than one layer, would be prohibited. The biggest effect of such a rule would be to separate content and conduit: Comcast, the cable giant, would plainly not be allowed to complete its planned acquisition of NBC Universal, a content provider.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Note the telco jargon in the last paragraph:
——————The legitimate desire to prevent basic “discrimination” (e.g., Comcast blocking Twitter) is not enough to justify the broad restrictions that Mr. Wu advocates. Besides, enforcing the new rules would itself stifle innovation, create arbitrary distinctions and protect rival incumbents. Google’s bid for wireless spectrum and its Nexus One smartphone would certainly have crossed “separation” lines—as would Apple’s combination of access devices (the iPhone) and a content-distribution business (iTunes). Mr. Wu’s proposal would blunt the competitive pressure that Google and Apple apply to each other, as well as to Verizon Wireless, Microsoft, Nokia and just about everyone else. As Mr. Wu himself shows when tracing the history of earlier technology-based industries, the effort to regulate openness can often do more harm than good.———————
You keep making the charge, but you can’t back it up.
So here’s an example of telco jargon. Sounds nothing like the things I’m saying. Doesn’t talk of marxism, big government, the constitution, power consolidation, soros, the fcc marxists, or free press.
And every one of those is important in understanding the core issue: net neutrality.
Net neutrality is the core issue, and Wu is it’s father. That makes the things he believes core to the core issue.
Net neutrality is nothing more than a plan to grow government and dilute freedom, ultimately. That’s according to everyone in the high places of power and capable of making things possible.
And you can’t prove otherwise. Skip the telco jargon in the WSJ piece and read the core synopsis of Wu’s book.
He’s a marxist. net neutrality is dangerous. Prove otherwise.
Well, I don’t know if I agree. Before the Internet (and still, for that matter), you could buy TONS of magazines, of all different political viewpoints. That’s how I became a conservative (or, really, that’s what reinforced my beliefs).
For TV and Radio, you simply have a limited bandwidth, there was no easy way around it...until satellite. If you let every Tom, Dick, and Harry broadcast on whatever frequency they wanted, they would step all over each other and no one could hear or see anything. Or, if you were lucky enough to pick up a radio station at your house, you’d drive half a mile and someone else would be transmitting at the same frequency and you’d have garbage again. People here may not like regulation, but it CAN be beneficial, if done right.
As to the Internet, I think the magazine analogy is MUCH BETTER than something that was inherently limited from the start.
This is exactly what I mean when I say that net neutrality is dangerous.
Tim Wu coined the term net neutrality. Arguably, it starts with him.
This is what he believes, along with the nationalization of source code. How big of a government has to exist in order to implement these schemes? Depending on how long you’ve been freeping, no explanation is needed. You’ll spot the danger right off the bat.
Your proposal describes what we already have.
Take what you said about radio and simplistic regulation. An activist form of regulation for radio is the fairness doctrine - no explanation needed, I’m sure.
The internet as it currently exists is in that mode. The government is largely hands off, as it is in the case of a fairness-doctrine-free radio world.
Net neutrality will change this, and we know it will because of everything that “they” are saying.
By they, I mean the groups who are in power making decisions at the higher levels.
As a crash course into all this, I’ll bump you to these two posts:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2711488/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2699462/posts
If we’d have had the media we had in the 60’s, free republic would’ve already been gone. Nobody would’ve known these things, And that doesn’t even cover all of it.
“Net neutrality will change this, and we know it will because of everything that “they” are saying.”
I agree with that...I’m just pointing out that regulation is not required for the Internet, as it is for broadcast. And the “fairness doctrine” should have NEVER survived the First Amendment. Needless to say, Net Neutrality is a non-starter in my book.
Mr. Wu's solution is to propose a "Separation Principle," a form of industry self-regulation to be overseen by the Federal Communications CommissionTo hell with Mr. Wu and his Final Solution.
Having a nice picture is one thing, having actual content worth watching is the important part. :’) Could be pingworthy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575589621694834704.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
Of possible interest to the ping list:
“Is Internet freedom threatened more by dominant companies or by the government’s efforts to hem them in?”
Special thanks to SunkenCiv for the ping!
thinking that new technologies will eventually displace the companies.
that was the case with the monopoly at&t. upon divestiture,
at&t chose long lines and went broke.
the name att now belongs to a former bell subsidiary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.