Monday, May 29, 2006
Another anti-Network Neutrality Distortion
Former representative Dick Armey's Freedom Works wants you to sign a letter to your representatives in Congress asking them to "strip network neutrality provisions out" of current telecom legislation. They cite net neutrality supporters like middle-of-the-road Hillary Clinton and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, calling them "ultra-liberal" but completely IGNORE the fact that Network Neutrality has garnered support of the Christian Coalition, the Gun Owners of America, the Republican House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, and hundreds of other mainstream American individuals and organizations.
The letter Armey wants you to sign says,
A hardware store does not have the right to sell tools to people with blue eyes but not to people with brown eyes. The government regulates that. A hardware store does not have the right to sell hammers that shatter or nails that don't fasten. The government regulates that. A hardware store has to have a license to do business. It has to pay taxes. It has to have enough parking for its customers. It has to be operated in a safe manner. It has to be honest. It has to have a sign that conforms to local sign ordinances. The government regulates all that.
Telephone companies are different than hardware stores. They're regulated in different ways than hardware stores. And the government, that is, we the people, the citizens, certainly DOES have a right to regulate telephone companies. Because with hardware stores, two hardware stores can set up right next to each other, and I can order by mail order when neither store doesn't have what I want.
But with a telco, in sharp contrast, I can't just go down the street to get a different kind of service. For example, if I want a telco that doesn't send my call detail records to the NSA without probable cause, there's only one to choose from: Qwest. What am I going to do, move my house to Colorado? No. I want my government to regulate the telco to prohibit it from spying on me without probable cause. And I want the government to regulate telcos to preserve my right to go anywhere on the Internet I want to go.
I met Dick Armey a couple months ago. We were standing around before a PFF meeting on telecom, and I introduced myself. He cordially told me about his "Freedom Works" organization that was for less government and more business. I asked him what he thought the role of government should be in roads and sewers, and he mumbled something and turned to his friends and began talking about last night's football game. As a result of his failure to engage on the issue he said he was working on, and his rudeness, and his distortionist analogy above, my respect for him is not high.
If you sign Dick Armey's letter please don't tell me you did.
If you want to help preserve Internet Freedom, go to savetheinternet.com and sign the letter there.
The letter Armey wants you to sign says,
The government has no more right to tell a cable or phone company how to manage the pipes that offer their clients Internet service than they do to tell a hardware store what kind of tools they can sell.This is a deliberately misleading analogy. It is a distortion of the truth.
A hardware store does not have the right to sell tools to people with blue eyes but not to people with brown eyes. The government regulates that. A hardware store does not have the right to sell hammers that shatter or nails that don't fasten. The government regulates that. A hardware store has to have a license to do business. It has to pay taxes. It has to have enough parking for its customers. It has to be operated in a safe manner. It has to be honest. It has to have a sign that conforms to local sign ordinances. The government regulates all that.
Telephone companies are different than hardware stores. They're regulated in different ways than hardware stores. And the government, that is, we the people, the citizens, certainly DOES have a right to regulate telephone companies. Because with hardware stores, two hardware stores can set up right next to each other, and I can order by mail order when neither store doesn't have what I want.
But with a telco, in sharp contrast, I can't just go down the street to get a different kind of service. For example, if I want a telco that doesn't send my call detail records to the NSA without probable cause, there's only one to choose from: Qwest. What am I going to do, move my house to Colorado? No. I want my government to regulate the telco to prohibit it from spying on me without probable cause. And I want the government to regulate telcos to preserve my right to go anywhere on the Internet I want to go.
I met Dick Armey a couple months ago. We were standing around before a PFF meeting on telecom, and I introduced myself. He cordially told me about his "Freedom Works" organization that was for less government and more business. I asked him what he thought the role of government should be in roads and sewers, and he mumbled something and turned to his friends and began talking about last night's football game. As a result of his failure to engage on the issue he said he was working on, and his rudeness, and his distortionist analogy above, my respect for him is not high.
If you sign Dick Armey's letter please don't tell me you did.
If you want to help preserve Internet Freedom, go to savetheinternet.com and sign the letter there.
Technorati Tags: Deregulation, F2C, NetworkNeutrality, NSA, DickArmey, Qwest
Comments:
When developers build a subdivision, they have to put in roads and infrastructure (water, sewer, and gas lines, plus electricity). The city or county gets easements on that property for right-of-ways. The power company installs poles or trenches. All on property originally owned by the developer. Plus a portion of the land has to be established as conservation. Now some communities want a portion of the houses to be worker affordable. Developers don't make money on roads, easements or conservation lots --- but that is what it takes to get your permits to build your neighborhood. How is this kind of regulation any different than the Telcos having to build the infrastructure that they have been paid for and promised back in 1999?????
The Barton bill in the House would actually create a national franchise, which would open up the telcos to true competition. Conservatives should support this, along with stripping out the federal regulation euphemistically called "net neutrality."
It is YOU who are misleading people as to the issue of net neutrality.
It is YOU who are misleading people as to the issue of net neutrality.
# posted by 
: 5/30/2006 1:11 PM
: 5/30/2006 1:11 PM
The idea of network neutrality in concept is great, but government forced network neutrality is less than appealing. Allowing the government to regulate an industry which has flourished while remaining free of red tape and government bureaucracy is a bad idea at best. Not only would it stifle innovation, it would also lower what competition there is in the industry today. Allow the telecommunications market to govern itself; if these companies are truly intent on committing these atrocities you proclaim, the loss of business will surely make them consider otherwise.
# posted by : 5/30/2006 1:28 PM
: 5/30/2006 1:28 PM
A national franchise means that the telcos get to enter video markets in an easy way. They get a quick path to compete against the cablecos. It is NOT a road to competition. The cities and counties that handle franchising now would get screwed. But what do conservatives care about local governments anyway. A Net Neutrality law is not something I think will work, but like Isen said, we have to start somewhere, because at&t and VZ are beyond regulation now (thanks to Kevin Martin's FCC).
Post a Comment
