Fuzzyglass

I recently read this bill via OpenCongress, you can reach it directly here. For the most part I find this bill a descent start however I’m puzzled as to why it has to be this complicated.

Section 2 starts out all well in good, congress recognizes how important the internet is, the importance of the internet being a marketplace, having communities, etc. This is great.

Section 2 states how Title I of the Communications Act of 1934 would be changed. Here is where I get a little lost. In change (1) it states “to maintain the freedom to use for lawful purposes…” Now what I don’t get is why the need to mention lawful. Wouldn’t any illegal act being done over the internet be covered under a specific law already. Child Porn.. Yep, Fraud.. Yep, etc, etc. So why the need. In Change (3) it again refers to “lawful content” this begs the question what is lawful content, isn’t this still covered under current laws. If someone transmits information that is unlawful across the internet isn’t it already illegal? Someone please explain why these constant references to lawful and legal need to be in this law. Maybe there is a reason, read on.

Section 4 talks about requiring an assessment by the FCC to come up with specific requirements that ISP’s and internet devices must do or not do. Good so far. Under sub-section (2) part A it is talking about ISP’s ability to adhere to this said policy and it uses the phase “unreasonably interfering with the ability of consumers to do..” and then it goes on to mention several specific ideas or processes that ISP’s can’t “unreasonably interfere with. so exactly what does unreasonably interfere mean. I don’t know. Many wise men would disagree to what is reasonable so I see this as nothing but an out for the ISP’s. Big loophole. In (i) of Part A it again mentions lawful content and the ability of citizens to utilize the internet for lawful content. (ii) of Part A starts out “use lawful applications”. (iii) of Part A “attach or connect their choice of legal devices…” legal devices, ok so follow me here, what would be an illegal internet device. Does such a device exist yet? Maybe a scanning device would become illegal, maybe a logging device would become illegal. How can any policy on net neutrality have these types of provisions? Wouldn’t the addition (3) of the Title I Act which states “…as long as such devices do not harm the network…” cover all devices to ensure no harm is being done. I can only take (iii) of Part A to allow future laws or government acts to instantly and without recourse make any device illegal to use on the internet. Seems a bit odd to me. Maybe this is the same ability the FAA has to ground airplanes it deems unairworthy?

Maybe I just don’t understand the law enough to realize that the mentioning of lawful acts needs to be in the law. I haven’t read the laws concerning our nations highways, do they mention something similiar to “operating a motor vehicle lawfully”, etc maybe they do but if so why, if speeding is illegal why must another law cover the same act. In the case of the internet if the lawful phases where left out and someone robs a bank via the internet is their act somehow not illegal anymore because of net neutrality, I think not but then again I’m not a lawyer and maybe that is the case. I certainly hope not. In the end I believe in net neutrality but this bill seems to leave huge holes for ISP’s and industry to drive through. Really think about it, a few dollars here or there and all of a sudden my xyz device I’ve used for years is deemed illegal… It would be a shame.

Permalink