Comments on: Here We Go Again http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/ The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology. Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:46:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Jim Lippard http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/#comment-51904 Jim Lippard Mon, 12 Jun 2006 03:52:21 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/#comment-51904 You are far too kind to Art Brodsky. I've yet to see him write anything about net neutrality that didn't <a href="http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/04/talking-points-memo-gets-it-completely.html" rel="nofollow">contain misconceptions and errors of fact</a>. I have no confidence that he understands the technological or legal framework of the Internet.<br><br>Your points are right on the mark. I would add that imprecise definitions are a huge concern because the FCC has a history of making regulations in *conflict* with the enabling statutes that give them the rule-making capability. Two examples are the requirement for applying CALEA wiretapping requirements to broadband in spite of Congress' specific exemption of information services and the Internet, and their creation of an established business relationship exemption for prerecorded telemarketing advertisements where no such exemption exists in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. You are far too kind to Art Brodsky. I’ve yet to see him write anything about net neutrality that didn’t contain misconceptions and errors of fact. I have no confidence that he understands the technological or legal framework of the Internet.

Your points are right on the mark. I would add that imprecise definitions are a huge concern because the FCC has a history of making regulations in *conflict* with the enabling statutes that give them the rule-making capability. Two examples are the requirement for applying CALEA wiretapping requirements to broadband in spite of Congress’ specific exemption of information services and the Internet, and their creation of an established business relationship exemption for prerecorded telemarketing advertisements where no such exemption exists in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/#comment-33169 Jim Lippard Mon, 12 Jun 2006 02:52:21 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/#comment-33169 You are far too kind to Art Brodsky. I've yet to see him write anything about net neutrality that didn't <a href="http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/04/talking-points-memo-gets-it-completely.html" rel="nofollow">contain misconceptions and errors of fact</a>. I have no confidence that he understands the technological or legal framework of the Internet. Your points are right on the mark. I would add that imprecise definitions are a huge concern because the FCC has a history of making regulations in *conflict* with the enabling statutes that give them the rule-making capability. Two examples are the requirement for applying CALEA wiretapping requirements to broadband in spite of Congress' specific exemption of information services and the Internet, and their creation of an established business relationship exemption for prerecorded telemarketing advertisements where no such exemption exists in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. You are far too kind to Art Brodsky. I’ve yet to see him write anything about net neutrality that didn’t contain misconceptions and errors of fact. I have no confidence that he understands the technological or legal framework of the Internet.

Your points are right on the mark. I would add that imprecise definitions are a huge concern because the FCC has a history of making regulations in *conflict* with the enabling statutes that give them the rule-making capability. Two examples are the requirement for applying CALEA wiretapping requirements to broadband in spite of Congress’ specific exemption of information services and the Internet, and their creation of an established business relationship exemption for prerecorded telemarketing advertisements where no such exemption exists in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

]]> By: pkp646 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/#comment-51903 pkp646 Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:26:33 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/#comment-51903 I for one do not think that any government agency is capable now or would be capable of doing a good and meaningful job of enforcing net neutrality legislation. I think that they will actually mess things up worse by creating unintended consequences like they always do. I for one do not think that any government agency is capable now or would be capable of doing a good and meaningful job of enforcing net neutrality legislation. I think that they will actually mess things up worse by creating unintended consequences like they always do.

]]> By: pkp646 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/#comment-33168 pkp646 Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:26:33 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/#comment-33168 I for one do not think that any government agency is capable now or would be capable of doing a good and meaningful job of enforcing net neutrality legislation. I think that they will actually mess things up worse by creating unintended consequences like they always do. I for one do not think that any government agency is capable now or would be capable of doing a good and meaningful job of enforcing net neutrality legislation. I think that they will actually mess things up worse by creating unintended consequences like they always do.

]]> By: hush http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/#comment-51902 hush Mon, 24 Apr 2006 00:46:02 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/#comment-51902 It's not what I want, tpwk! It’s not what I want, tpwk!

]]> By: hush http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/#comment-33167 hush Sun, 23 Apr 2006 23:46:02 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/#comment-33167 It's not what I want, tpwk! It’s not what I want, tpwk!

]]> By: tpwk http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/#comment-51901 tpwk Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:29:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/#comment-51901 You bet there will be intense lobbying and litigation over the question of how government should regulate. Once government gets its regulatory mitts on this issue, it will be a feast for lobbyists. Given the atmosphere in Washington of late, is this really what we want for the Internet? You bet there will be intense lobbying and litigation over the question of how government should regulate. Once government gets its regulatory mitts on this issue, it will be a feast for lobbyists. Given the atmosphere in Washington of late, is this really what we want for the Internet?

]]> By: tpwk http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/#comment-33166 tpwk Sat, 22 Apr 2006 02:29:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/19/here-we-go-again/#comment-33166 You bet there will be intense lobbying and litigation over the question of how government should regulate. Once government gets its regulatory mitts on this issue, it will be a feast for lobbyists. Given the atmosphere in Washington of late, is this really what we want for the Internet? You bet there will be intense lobbying and litigation over the question of how government should regulate. Once government gets its regulatory mitts on this issue, it will be a feast for lobbyists. Given the atmosphere in Washington of late, is this really what we want for the Internet?

]]>