How Can The Same Senators Vote Against Net Neutrality, But For Broadcast Flag?
from the consistency? dept
Those who are against adding any language to the latest Telecom Act on net neutrality keep saying it's important not to regulate the industry -- because government involvement leads to inefficient results that could strangle the technology. That's a defensible position (though, there are reasonable responses to it). However, what makes no sense at all is for a Senator to declare that net neutrality legislation isn't needed because it's a bad idea to regulate this important technology... and then turn around and support the idea of a broadcast flag in the exact same bill. We mentioned back in May when Senator Stevens telecom bill first came out that he had brought back the broadcast flag concept that refuses to die. After the courts told the FCC that they couldn't mandate a broadcast flag, the entertainment industry hasn't missed an opportunity to try to sneak the broadcast flag amendment into just about any bill they can find. Today, as the Senate debated various amendments in the telecom bill, they decided to keep the broadcast flag in there (though, it's possible that someone will introduce an amendment to get rid of it later). However, it's hard to see how someone could credibly claim that net neutrality legislation is bad because it adds regulatory hurdles to a new technology, while at the same time saying the broadcast flag is good, because it adds an even bigger regulatory hurdle to technology. About the only reason to support both seems to be if you have to make good to friends you have in both the telco industry and the entertainment industry. Update: At the House (not Senate) hearings on the broadcast flag: "We have to stop measuring creativity by the financial interests of ten companies."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Stop whining about broadcast flags
Screw 'em. No one HAS to play with their bat and ball.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop whining about broadcast flags
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop whining about broadcast flags
But really, you're right: screw them. I'm not going to die if I miss these shows. I realized that I frequently don't watch what I tape now. And the stuff goes into syndication and you get it rerun forever on cable channels, and there's less and less that's worth watching anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good bedfellows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look - If the good Senator can piss off the people who give him money, or piss off - well, the rest of us, he'll piss off the rest of us. Every time.
After all - what can we do, fire him for incompetence? If all of the Alaskans with an interest in staving off the broadcast flag rose up against him, would he feel any heat?
John Sununu is talking about introducing an amendment to remove the broadcast flag language. The House version of the bill doesn't have any language like that in it at all.
Keep pushing your Congresspersons, in the Senate and in the House, to stop this thing. Don't send email - bots can send email. Make a phone call on the way to work, and let the offices of your lawmakers know how you feel. They'll respond to those. And don't let up the heat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greed leading the blind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heh...
But hey, it's almost impossible to do that, and if we did they may just start passing bullshit laws and bills that will throw us into a full on Communist Government.
Oh well. Fuck all this bullshit. Just leave the Internet the way it is, a place where we truely are 'free'.
That's my two cents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the big deal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's raining and everyone wants to watch a movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
congressional influence
we need an amendment that whatever congress passes for one person must aply to all
the alternative is to get congress and house back to the old days when they had no ability to influence anything, and therefore couldnt be bought off.
so when do i get my 40 and a mule?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with the senator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree with the senator.
Wait, how do you agree with him when he's saying regulation is a bad idea for one industry, but essential for the other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree with the senator.
I like what Tim Berners-Lee said "For example, the market system depends on the rule that you can't photocopy money."
Meaning that there IS an important role that government plays in a free-market. There isn't really capitalism unless everyone plays fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I agree with the senator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I agree with the senator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops, forgot to complete post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]