|
<< Bush Promises $200 Billion Plus Deficits | Main | Rightwing Trashes SOTU >> January 22, 2004FBI & ACLU: Together v. Internet DeregulationThis is a story of how the Bush regime's deregulatory impulses are being undercut by its anti-terrorism police state tactics. And the legal rules of the Internet are in the crossfire. In 2002, Bush's F.C.C. voted to place high-speed Internet cable services under a looser regulatory regime than the phone system. The idea was to encourage the rollout of broadband services across the country by eliminating some of the regulations that were deterring companies from investing in broadband expansions. But by classifying such cable systems as not being in the same legal category as the phone system, the F.C.C. undercut the ability of law enforcement officials to get wiretap and other similar access to those networks. So the ACLU should be celebrating, right, with its civil liberites folks giving a big hurrah? Except the ACLU also cares about free speech and diversity in our media: In a strange-bedfellows twist, officials from the F.B.I. and other agencies have found themselves the unlikely allies of groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, which have also argued that the new Internet services offered by cable companies should be under a regulatory regime like the phone system — but for different reasons. The A.C.L.U. prefers that approach because it would prohibit cable companies from discriminating against Internet service providers, and as such would assure a greater diversity of voices.Okay, and for the personal irony of the situation, I'm on the other side of the fence from the ACLU on this one, lined up with the "deregulators", in supporting giving the broadband cable folks the ability to exclude competitor ISPs from their system, a point I made in a very early post on this blog-- following up on an article I had written called A Broadband Mandate? Now, I'm no advocate of Internet deregulation in the abstract-- heck I wrote a whole book largely trashing the 90s approach to competition around Internet deployment, but I think the ACLU position promoting "competition" around ISP access to broadband is just one more bad market-oriented approach to promoting diversity. If I had my druthers, the best Internet regulation would be simple-- mandate that those who control the wires into the home cannot own the content that is being sold over the wires. Cable and telephone companies would be barred from discriminating based on that content, but otherwise would have monopoly control of those wires-- with price controls on the cost for consumers as needed. Which all goes to show that when talking about the Internet, simple dichotomies of "regulation" and "deregulation" get really complicated, especially when the ACLU gets into bed with the FBI promoting market competition for ISPs against a libertarian F.C.C. which wants to give monopoly control to cable companies. Posted by Nathan at January 22, 2004 05:23 AM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsHow do you feel about structural separation, where the wires to the home are maintained by one corporation, and services(dial-tone, internet access) are provided by other competitive companies(like long-distance telco)? Posted by: David Glynn at January 23, 2004 03:34 PM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|