Subject: [IP] more on Broadcast flags pass Committee markup, net neutrality to be voted on tomorrow.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bob Frankston <Bob2firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: June 27, 2006 8:21:39 PM EDT
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: [IP] Broadcast flags pass Committee markup, net neutrality to be voted on tomorrow.
Here we go again trying to solve marketplace problems by making innovation a federal offense. What makes this even more stupid is that broadcasters are already starting to download and are moving beyond the problem this is supposed to solve. So we’ll have a law that does little good while leaving us in the position of Europe in the 19th century as innovation went to the disruptive Americans,
When you can’t even add a brightness control to your TV … in the meantime I can watch my home video on my cell phone screen using Sling Media box. So what if it’s the lo-res, it’s a small screen and the story is what’s important.
We seem to be worrying more about illegal activity than opportunity to create new value – it’s as if we didn’t realize the First Amendment gave economic innovation an opportunity.
But then what can we expect of a Congress that confuses DTV with HDTV and Tellywood’s stories with reality.
It’s probably related to the tendency to say that Network Neutrality is about allowing legal content – next we’ll update the first amendment to only protect “legal free speech”? Where did this obligation to talk about “legal content” come from? Am I presumed guilty unless I say otherwise?
It’s as if the city said that buses were only for legal travel – it couples multiple agendas and reduces the transparency of public policy. For NN it seems to imply that neutrality, like free speech, is OK as long as you don’t abuse it. “Free speech” doesn’t condone illegal activities – it just shifts the onus to proving harm rather than having to prove no harm.
From: David Farber [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 18:49
Subject: [IP] Broadcast flags pass Committee markup, net neutrality to be voted on tomorrow.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ethan Ackerman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: June 27, 2006 5:02:59 PM EDT
To: Declan McCullagh <email@example.com>, David Farber <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Broadcast flags pass Committee markup, net neutrality to be voted on tomorrow.
As the markup of the Senate’s telecom reform bill wraps up another day, the controversial broadcast and audio flag provisions made it through committee mark-up unscathed, lending strength to fears that it will be law before the year’s end. ‘Net Neutrality’ amendments escaped attention for yet another day, but, according to Chairman Stevens, will be voted on tomorrow morning.
The Senate Commerce Committee has closed that portion of the mammoth bill that contains the broadcast and audio flags, and no amendments were offered to remove them. The only Senator who publicly expressed strong opposition to the flags, Sen. Sununu of NH, withdrew his amendments. The Senator did express an intent to bring up the issue again before the whole Senate, but as it stands now, the flags are in the bill.
Even though this is a very important step, the bill, S. 2686, still has to pass the full committee after all amendments are offered, and then pass the full Senate and House. (And the President has to sign, or at least not veto, it...)
Minimal hearing details here:
To manage your subscription, go to
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as email@example.com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Powered by eList eXpress LLC