Here we go again...
On Sep 16, 2018, at 10:19 PM, Manfredi (US), Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The article conflates broadcasting with "the Internet." Which is really
unfortunate, because it only feeds the ignoramus, for one, but also the
disingenuous phonies, like our current FCC, who should know better but
obviously do not.
"The Internet" is a telecom network - links, routers, switches, and the
domain name system.
What the article is upset about is the lack of control, or oversight, of a
different and specific class of Internet users. Most users are people,
households, and I trust even far lefties don't want government monitoring of
Internet conversations or transactions, any more than is done on the
telephone system.
But a very small minority of these users are companies that provide what can
legitimately be called "information service." They host large server farms,
and provide such services as social media sites, newspapers, political sites,
streaming sites like Netflix. This class of USERS is the only subject of
fretting. Oversight of such businesses may not even fall in the FCC's
charter. That's for the legal system to decide.
Confusing users with the infrastructure is not really excusable anymore.
Honestly, it's as nonsensical as to suggest that the Department of
Transportation should be in charge of making sure that your Giant Food store
is free of rodents. Just because you reach Giant Food via the local roads
does not make Giant Food part of the road network.
Perpetuating this confusion only serves to encourage cluelessness, or much
worse, to get the current disingenuous and technically incompetent FCC to pat
itself on the back, for being so righteously correct in not "regulating"
Internet users. When its main job from day 1 has been oversight over the
telecoms, to guarantee telecom neutrality.