Net Neutrality

Today the FCC voted to classify the Internet as a public utility and enforce net neutrality.  Kudos to Tim Wu (disclosure–I’ve known Tim for a long time).  Rarely has an academic had such a significant impact on public policy.  Congress may tinker with the regulatory framework in the coming years, but I suspect that the principle of net neutrality will remain a part of that framework.

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Brett Bellmore says:

    Hurray. The FCC has just approved over 300 pages of regulations, without letting anybody see them in advance. What a triumph.

    I guess it had to be passed for us to find out what was in it…

  2. Joe says:

    An allusion to Rep. Pelosi’s comments that we have to see a bill in action to see how it will work & show how various things are misunderstood. Yes, like most things, major things have to be seen in action to see how they works.

    This is how republican government works. We delegate rule making to the legislature and agencies. They don’t have to get an okay from the public first. This has been an extended process with lots of comment from the public. The regulations will be published in the Federal Register in a few weeks. They become effective 60 days after publication. That gives two months to flag problems (the new regulations themselves a result of a court challenge) & Congress can even pass various changes.

    Net Neutrality preserves our right to communicate in a more equal basis online. This is done via an imperfect system since we don’t live in an utopia. But, it appears to be good news. It does hurt if you are an anarchist and don’t like republican government as we do it in the U.S.

  3. Brett Bellmore says:

    “This is how republican government works.”

    No, this is how Democratic government works: Massive pieces of legislation passed before the public gets to see what’s in them. And lately, the massive pieces of legislation don’t even originate in the legislature.

    I like the internet the way it is, and do not trust the government that perpetrated the IRS targeting not to muck it up for political advantage.

  4. Shag from Brookline says:

    Brett is so sensitive that he displays his ignorance of the meaning of lower case “republican” relative to governance, which may be controlled by Democrats at times or by Republicans at times. Brett brings in the IRS; perhaps he is finally over Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. He’s obviously an angry anarcho-libertarian. (Sorry for the redundancy.) Perhaps he doesn’t understand that the internet he likes will be maintained with a sense of equality. But Brett has demonstrated that he has problems with equality in some areas.

  5. Shag from Brookline says:

    Regarding the internet Brett likes, perhaps this includes the “Hidden Internet” referred to at this link:

    to Henry Farrell’s essay “The Silk Road might have started as a libertarian experiment, but …” probably of the anarcho variety. A direct link is available at Paul Krugman’s blog at the NYTimes today, 2/27/15.

  6. Joe says:

    The Internet was not just something the free market thought up. It was developed and furthered in various ways with government’s help & with government regulation. We might have a “government keep your hands off my Medicare” sort of irony here. The concept of the “common carrier” was something generally useful for quite some tme, though since BB repeatedly felt it was a form of “slavery,” I can understand in a fashion opposition here.

    The proposed regulations can now be found on the Federal Register’s website & will be submitted to comment & open to challenge and amendment including by congressional action. This is normal practice & how past regulations supported by Democrats and Republicans were carried out in the past. We yet again have a sigh for an nonexistent golden or better age.

    Support of open government overall is a good thing though as shown from the Supreme Court down, limits are not something supported by one certain side. It is useful to remember that threats can come from all sides, but largely single focus on one party, confused at that, makes some bad spokespersons on that front.