|
|
|
|
|
|
by hn_acker
980 days ago
|
|
|
My impression is that Commissioner Rosenworcel is just being performative. Let's be clear that net neutrality has only incidental relevance to national security. (At most, a rare national security issue would result from something similar to what happened when Verizon throttled emergency responders [1].) Also, in case anyone else brings the following up, net neutrality has nothing to do with government censorship of speech. Moreover, the FCC does not have authority to regulate speech on the internet (or any private speech at all, after the FCC repealed the misleadingly named Fairness Doctrine [2]). Even if you have a problem with other parts of Title II, net neutrality is a net good for consumers. Or, it would be if the FCC believed in fighting for consumers in the first place [3]: > And while Democratic FCC Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks talk a good game about bridging the “digital divide” and addressing the “homework gap” (a lack of affordable broadband for kids), they generally lack the courage to even identify that concentrated monopoly power is the primary reason US broadband is spotty, slow, and expensive. It’s a political risk to do so. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttle... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine [3] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/07/14/finally-close-to-having-... |
|
|