Zoe Lofgren spins tall tails about the Judiciary Committee’s bid for power, making the grandiose claim that it saves the Internet:
The bill requires broadband providers to operate their networks in a non-discriminatory manner and makes sure that the phone and cable companies cannot favor or block access to the Web sites or online services that they pick instead of the consumer. It will keep the Internet an open and free marketplace of ideas and services chosen by consumers instead of big corporations. It will also guard against those who own “the pipes” gleaning profits by creating a virtual toll road.
What it really does is apparent from the bill’s actual text:
If a broadband network provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, it must prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin or ownership of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhanced quality of service.
It bans performance levels and pricing flexibility, making the Internet a truly one-size-fits-all network, except for one big thing: companies like Google who have private feeder networks attached to the public Internet will still be able to buy faster connections and control the flow of information on the public Internet. So in the name of creating a “level-playing field” (quoting another moron, Craig Newmark) it actually creates a status quo where the guy with the fattest pipe controls the network, and nobody can do a damn thing about it. Unintended consequences, anybody? Not inintended for Google, those freedom-hating bastards know exactly where they’re going.
Lofgren was last seen in these parts pushing the silly V-chip, the device that’s supposed to raise your children for you by blocking undesirable TV shows. Her grasp on reality hasn’t improved any, nor has her consistency.
What happens to an ISP that wants to sell an Internet V-chip to heroic single mothers working three jobs to make ends meet and unable to monitor their daughters’ access to pedophile-friendly web sites and chat rooms? Why, they would go to jail, of course, because they would have to filter and block certain web sites.
Back to the ole drawing board, Zoe.