[ExI] internet regulation as a public utility
atymes at gmail.com
Tue Nov 11 05:59:29 UTC 2014
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:55 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> *>…** Behalf Of *Adrian Tymes
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] internet regulation as a public utility
> On Nov 10, 2014 5:07 PM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> >>>> I read up on it and I come away with little doubt: any attempt at
> regulation is a bad thing. It sets up too many risks for violation of free
> speech enforced by the IRS.
> >>>...at least target the right agency, please! The IRS wouldn't be
> regulating this, but the FCC …
> >>…The IRS is the universal enforcement arm.
> >…That is factually incorrect. If nothing else, there are other
> enforcement arms - starting with the military…
> Was there a single military officer who has recently pled the fifth and
> refused to answer questions about the content of the missing evidence?
Irrelevant to the claim that the IRS is the universal enforcement arm.
Also, most military officers are under the military justice system, which
follows different rules.
> Consider this explanation.
Considered - and confirmed irrelevant to the question of the IRS being the
primary, let alone universal, enforcement arm of the US government. You
are only arguing that the IRS has had one scandal; you are completely
ignoring all the other scandals and factors throughout the government.
> >…No, they could not. Especially since not all Internet operations are
> US-based, or anywhere the IRS can get to…
> They can figure out who in the US is receiving the content they find
> objectionable, then tip off the IRS, and the recipient gets audited beyond
> recognition and is never heard of again.
What if the content merely passes through the US, but is consumed by and
served by no one in the US? This is not uncommon.
Also this sets up policy that the large corporations will enforce
worldwide, even on stuff not directly under the US's legal jurisdiction, if
only because large corporations like homogenous operations. The IRS can't
touch this...but the FCC can influence it indirectly in this manner.
> I don’t see why we couldn’t set up a system that guarantees a minimum free
> bandwidth allocation, a voice for everybody, available free everywhere,
> which would be more than adequate for text applications (which require
> almost nothing.)
We can...unless the corporations are given unlimited right to say who can
and can not use their networks. Which is the only option on the table
other than "FCC regulates". No middle ground is possible: either the FCC
regulates and makes sure people get access, or it doesn't.
> Then let the corporations fight with their money (it’s their money, not
> ours) over who gets to deliver high-bandwidth streaming of the latest funny
> cat YouTubes, porn and epic fail videos.
You are incorrect if you think this is truly just about the videos. Yes,
those are the highest bandwidth users and thus the first to be targeted -
but once legal precedent is established, it's open season on the rest of
us, pure-text users included.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat