A note on Next week's vote at the FCC (I will post other points of view if well stated djf)

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Andrea Glorioso <andrea () digitalpolicy it>
> Date: October 16, 2009 6:50:19 PDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] A note on Next week's vote at the FCC (I will post  
> other points of view if well stated djf)

> For IP, if you wish.
>
> > > > > > "david" == David Farber <dave () farber net> writes:
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: "Gross, David" Date: October 15, 2009 8:02:06 AM PDT To:
> > dave () farber net Subject: A New Post
>
> > However, if the US government creates a set of rules and
> > regulations that will govern the relationship among those
> > providing Internet facilities and services to advance US
> > government policies – even for good purposes such as promoting
> > the free flow of information -- then there may be virtually no
> > basis for the United States to object to other governments also
> > creating new rules governing the Internet.  Presumably this
> > would include not only issues about Internet content, but also
> > about Internet facilities and the economic relationships among
> > Internet service providers. It is easy to understand that these
> > other governments will seek to design rules to help their
> > domestic companies at the expense of international and American
> > companies as well as at the cost of the economically efficient
> > design of the Internet.  Ironically they are also likely to use
> > the establishment of new US rules regulating the Internet to
> > impose their own restrictions on Internet content – especially
> > focusing on restricting the free flow of information so as to
> > promote their own interests in enhancing Chinese "social
> > cohesion" or other countries that seek to "defend against
> > religious defamation".
>
> Countries throughout the world are already able (and sometimes keen)
> to "regulate the Internet", which in practice means regulating the
> behaviour of their citizens that is based on, or uses, the Internet.
>
> This includes "restrictions on Internet content".
>
> One may argue over the merits of such regulations and even whether, in
> practical terms, these regulations work at all.  But it is entirely in
> the remit of sovereign states to do so; furthermore, it is already
> taking place throughout the world; and last, but not least, judging
> From the Antigua v USA case at the WTO, the USA has already engaged in
> some form of content regulation.
>
> The decision of the FCC may or may not influence the behaviour of
> other countries, but most certainly will not be an excuse for them to
> start doing it, as it seems to have been suggested.
>
> My private opinion only.
>
> Best,
>
> --
>      Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/
>          M: +32-488-409-055         F: +39-051-930-31-133
>  * Le opinioni espresse in questa mail sono del tutto personali *
>      * The opinions expressed here are absolutely personal *
>
>    "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the
>     people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will
>    secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost
>           protection. They are rules proscribed by
>             Philip sober to control Philip drunk."
>               David J. Brewer (1893)
>       An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com