The highly polarized debate over so-called net neutrality at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exposes serious philosophical differences about the appropriate role of government in managing technological change. Neither side is unfortunately free either from hyperbole or fear-mongering. And neither side is completely right.
It is completely beyond me why the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats could be this obtuse. No one should want — and I doubt any American really does support — the government standardizing serving sizes and recipe compositions, even on health grounds.
Release of Release of the FCC’s “National Broadband Plan” marks the start of what is likely to be a long and hotly debated implementation process, as the plan pits the interests of different industry segments against one other and tests the limits of the FCC’s regulatory authority.
It is hard to understand how “conference reports” from Congress on pending legislation can have fallen from 200 per year to just 11 over the past three decades. But it indicates, sadly, that laws in America are increasingly being made in back rooms, not the public forums our system of politics has traditionally used.
It’s not a good political sign at all that liberals seem to be departing the president in droves. The more things “change,” the more it appears politicians give us more of the same.
Don’t bet against technology. Increased efficiency in wireless data protocols trumps spectrum capacity all the time.
The problem is that while speech is free, campaign $$ is not.
To avoid (correct) charges of budget-busting, the Obama administration needs to craft a more “revenue-neutral” plan, and thus really needs the incremental revenue from taxing health benefits.
After an historic election, the Luddites are saying that Barack Obama will be forced to stop using email and turn in his BlackBerry.
The question is not whether the Valley will sit on the sidelines but rather how, when and on what issue(s) it will engage Washington.