I propose a new phrase; "Ben's 21st birthday."
About three weeks ago I called Vern Ehlers, the Michigan Congressman, to have a nice enlightening chat on Net Neutrality, and to arrange a game of golf and cigars. But, his warm secretary insisted she'd pass on the message to him. I disagreed with the premise of the bill in question.
Today, I received a nice blue monogramed letter out of Washington DC from Vern. It seemed very personal, mentioning my message and giving me the run down on how the bill was tackled in Congress.
"In fact, at a recent congressional hearing, eight different experts gave eight different explanations for what 'network neutrality' means. Generally speaking, I think it is fair to say that 'net neutrality' is the idea that Internet service providers should not discriminate between types of Internet traffic transmitted over their networks."
Continuing on, "Last year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted several principals related to broadband Internet: that consumers are entitled to access lawful Internet content, run applications and services of their choice, connect their choice of legal devices, and to competition among network, application and content providers. The House of Representatives recently approved legislation that would give the FCC authority to enforce these principles. The bill, which passed 321-101, gives the FCC the ability to impose $500,000 fines for violations of these principles."
He also gives a very nice layout of the two sides and is very own position on the matter, which, unfortunately is not quite as aligned with mine as I had hoped. He also mentions an amendment proposed by one Rep. Markey, that would "prohibit providers from blocking, impairing, or interfering with the ability of anyone to access, use, send or receive lawful Internet content or services." It was a very Welfarist proposal if you ask me, and it was exactly what I thought was right. But, the amendment was battered 152-269, with Ehlers on the dissenting side.
"I voted against the amendment because I thought that the underlying bill struck the right balance between protecting Internet users and not overly regulating the Internet or deterring innovation and expansion in broadband."
What exactly are the guidelines again? Are politicians freethinkers or are they chained to their consituency? When does this bill become enacted and real? Ehlers seemed to have decided for us. But, perhaps that's his job. Or, perhaps the majority of Michigan called his office for a round of golf and cigars and said "no" to neutrality. And maybe he really did smoke a fat one and wack some balls with his allies, I didn't even get a timely return call.
If you want to call your Congressman or woman (about anything), peruse the above links. Save it on your phone, just don't drunk dial it OK?
No comments:
Post a Comment