Shark Bait

Knowledge Centers

Operating Systems

Networking & Internet

Mobile & Wireless

Security

Storage

Business Intelligence

Servers & Data Center

Computerworld Reports

Industry

See your link here

Angela Gunn

Pushing Buttons

Lose some... win some?

4 comments

TAGS:FCC, net neutrality
IT TOPICS:Government & Regulation, Security

Nothing short of total rollback is going to make the FISA situation all right with anyone fond of our Bill of Rights. Congress is not our friend this week. But in a stunning reversal of The Way Things Seemed To Be Going, it may be that the Federal Communications Commission is poised to act for the good of the Net-using public. The New York Times' "Bits" blog takes a look this morning at early reports that the FCC is poised to smack Comcast for high-handed BitTorrent-blocking behavior -- maybe fines, pretty certainly a requirement that the service provider be more forthright about their traffic-management practices, and very, very likely a win for the prospect of Net neutrality.

I agree with blogger Vindu Goel that the Law of Unintended Consequences may lead us from this point into a world of metered Net access (though I'm optimist enough to think the market will push back on that), but considering that the road to Net neutrality looked pretty heavily barricaded earlier this year, this sort of news makes a Net-using person just want to... dance!

Email this

Digg this

What People Are Saying

Add new comment

The rhetoric carries Angela away...

Submitted by John in Missouri on July 11, 2008 - 10:30 A.M.

I really resent Ms. Gunn's characterization of anyone who considers FISA not to be the Devil's tool that she and her left wing cronies make it out to be. Believe it or not, I still love the Bill of Rights and I will die to fight for the right for Ms. Gunn to make such broad-stroke generalizations as the one she made in this poorly thought-out piece. I support, with fear and trembling for what it might become if not properly supervised, FISA. Angela, give up the rhetoric! Stop making me look like a Nazi. I'm not. And your speech makes you look as bad as the "My Country, right or wrong" idiots of the sixties and seventies.

Reply | Report this comment

Well, at least John's not anonymous...

Submitted by Angela Gunn on July 14, 2008 - 8:08 P.M.

...and in the current climate, one must respect that. Sorry you didn't agree with the piece, John, but I stand by every word -- and with plenty of folk across the spectrum who are appalled by this piece of legislation.

As you point out, it does come down to supervision. There's a very simple test I suggest to folks who have trouble thinking through these things: Imagine this legislation in the hands of the people who disagree stridently with everything you believe. How are you feeling now about the prospects for "proper supervision?" And what about the previous supervisions did you not find proper? Can you truthfully point to a situation where the previous structures failed us? (And no, my son, 9/11 is not an answer. Plenty of governmental / intelligence fail there without making stuff up.)

Reply | Report this comment

Calling the re-offenders like she sees them

Submitted by Vitamin K on July 11, 2008 - 2:36 P.M.

What a wonderful piece of doublespeak. While Angela clearly has an opinion, it seems to be well-supported. What gives me pause is the commenter's ability to simultaneously support indiscriminate, automated usurping of citizens' personal communications AND broad immunity for those who (illegally) implemented the technology to do it... yet still somehow find room to hold up the Bill of Rights. (And make a reactionary and illogical comparison to the "my country right or wrong" crowd. Need a mirror?)

You might think there's a glimmer of light from the re-assertion of the FISA court's role approving wiretaps and data filtering, but consider this: Congress just gave immunity to those who ignored and broke that law last time; recidivist technology-abusers whose likelihood to re-offend (when asked by corrupt politicians) is now 100%. Your obedient willingness to "die to fight for the right" of free speech is *completely* meaningless if the rule of law is denigrated in this way. How can you pledge undying support for a federal legal structure yet support those who are actively dismantling it?

Reply | Report this comment