This time, it's net neutrality:
The Obama administration and its allies at the Federal Communications Commission are retreating from a militant version of Net neutrality regulations first outlined by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in September.You see, the Telcos won't build out high speed fiber/cable unless we allow them to bend us over the table and do us without any lube at all.
That's my reading of a number of recent developments, underscored by comments made by government speakers on a panel on the first day of a Tech Policy Summit at CES in Las Vegas.
…………
Signs of more modest Net neutrality regulations include resignation in late October of Susan Crawford, who took part in Thursday's panel discussion and who was previously a key adviser to the president on technology and communications. According to the conservative-leaning American Spectator, [according to the paid to lie by Richard Mellon Scaife American Spectator] Crawford's version of Net neutrality was too radical for White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers, contributing to her early departure.
…………
Part of the reason is some unexpected political pressure, including a letter signed by 72 congressional Democrats opposing the FCC's proposed rules soon after they were announced.
But the bigger explanation is the growing priority within the administration for nationwide, affordable broadband service. In the course of preparing the national broadband plan, mandated by the 2009 stimulus bill, universal high-speed access has taken on increased significance in the government's hopes for a rapid economic recovery. Beyond the current financial woes, Congress, the FCC and the White House all recognize the importance of improving the communications infrastructure to maintain U.S. competitiveness in technology innovation.
This is why the US has the highest costs and the slowest speeds for internet access in the developed world (here, here, and here), because allowing the Baby Bells and the Cable companies to squash competition and extort money.
If true, this is too depressing for words.
ReplyDeleteI've never been much of a "hopium" smoker. Although I voted for Obama, I didn't vote for him in the primary & renounced the Democratic Party after Obama voted for the FISA/Telecom bill that he had promised to filibuster.
Obama's selling out of the "little people" has become a pretty consistent pattern, starting from before his inauguration. It would appear that he and his advisors feel that they can take our votes for granted. Either that or they don't care if he's a one-term president. In any event, although I fear and loathe the Republican agenda, it's becoming less and less clear that American democracy or the global climate have much more of a chance with Obama in the White House than they would with a Romney or Palin.