[IP] more on Broadcast flags pass Committee markup, net neutrality to be voted on tomorrow.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 27, 2006 8:21:39 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [IP] Broadcast flags pass Committee markup, net
neutrality to be voted on tomorrow.
Here we go again trying to solve marketplace problems by making
innovation a federal offense. What makes this even more stupid is
that broadcasters are already starting to download and are moving
beyond the problem this is supposed to solve. So we’ll have a law
that does little good while leaving us in the position of Europe in
the 19th century as innovation went to the disruptive Americans,
When you can’t even add a brightness control to your TV … in the
meantime I can watch my home video on my cell phone screen using
Sling Media box. So what if it’s the lo-res, it’s a small screen and
the story is what’s important.
We seem to be worrying more about illegal activity than opportunity
to create new value – it’s as if we didn’t realize the First
Amendment gave economic innovation an opportunity.
But then what can we expect of a Congress that confuses DTV with HDTV
and Tellywood’s stories with reality.
It’s probably related to the tendency to say that Network Neutrality
is about allowing legal content – next we’ll update the first
amendment to only protect “legal free speech”? Where did this
obligation to talk about “legal content” come from? Am I presumed
guilty unless I say otherwise?
It’s as if the city said that buses were only for legal travel – it
couples multiple agendas and reduces the transparency of public
policy. For NN it seems to imply that neutrality, like free speech,
is OK as long as you don’t abuse it. “Free speech” doesn’t condone
illegal activities – it just shifts the onus to proving harm rather
than having to prove no harm.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 18:49
To: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [IP] Broadcast flags pass Committee markup, net neutrality
to be voted on tomorrow.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ethan Ackerman <eackerma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 27, 2006 5:02:59 PM EDT
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@xxxxxxxx>, David Farber
<dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Broadcast flags pass Committee markup, net
neutrality to be voted on tomorrow.
As the markup of the Senate’s telecom reform bill wraps up another
day, the controversial broadcast and audio flag provisions made it
through committee mark-up unscathed, lending strength to fears that
it will be law before the year’s end. ‘Net Neutrality’ amendments
escaped attention for yet another day, but, according to Chairman
Stevens, will be voted on tomorrow morning.
The Senate Commerce Committee has closed that portion of the mammoth
bill that contains the broadcast and audio flags, and no amendments
were offered to remove them. The only Senator who publicly expressed
strong opposition to the flags, Sen. Sununu of NH, withdrew his
amendments. The Senator did express an intent to bring up the issue
again before the whole Senate, but as it stands now, the flags are in
the bill.
Even though this is a very important step, the bill, S. 2686, still
has to pass the full committee after all amendments are offered, and
then pass the full Senate and House. (And the President has to sign,
or at least not veto, it...)
Minimal hearing details here:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID78
You are subscribed as BobIP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/