First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach they claimed we need to protect the open Internet. Second, people should worry that this rule will be extremely expensive in practice, because anyone wanting to bring a complaint will be hard-pressed to predict whether they will succeed. For example, how will the Commission determine “industry best standards and practices”? It's all subjective, you suckers!
The FCC wants to be, in Chairman Wheeler’s words, “a referee on the field” who can stop any ISP action that it thinks “hurts consumers, competition, or innovation.”
To liberals, "competition" and "innovation" (i.e: not-toeing the party line) IS what hurts consumers!
The problem with a rule this vague is that neither ISPs nor Internet users can know in advance what kinds of practices will run afoul of the rule. Only companies with significant legal staff and expertise may be able to use the rule effectively. And a vague rule gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment away! You're responsible for your own posts, but if you don't address the topic, &/or engage in pointless critical thinking logical fallacy distractions, diversions, deflections and evasions of the fact that you have to facts, your comments may be edited, moderated, deleted or just plain laughed at. If you post threats, they will not be removed, but will in stead remain as evidence of your crimes, for LEO's to use in tracing back to you, to deal with appropriately.
I especially won't tolerate the usual liberal slanders / Ad-hominem / un-justified personal attacks, nor the Argumentum Tu Quoque (i.e: "Evil crime / islam isn't really an evil crime, because we - i.e: you - all do it, too!") fallacies;i.e: COMPARING TWO OR MORE UNRELATED WRONGS WON'T EVER MAKE ONE OF THEM RIGHT. Capisce?