An interesting article in The Denver Post touching on pros and cons of net neutrality. There was one point in particular about unlawful content. There seemed to be agreement amongst the panelist interviewed by The Post about blocking unlawful content. It would seem to me that in order to make a determination whether content is unlawful that packets of digitized information would have to be inspected somehow.

How this would be done is above my pay grade but I have to wonder if net neutrality advocates have taken this into consideration. If they are so hyped on applying Title II, common carrier regulations to broadband Internet access, then this is a price that the card carrying ACLU types among them may have to pay.

Section 230 of the Communications Act grants broad immunity to Internet intermediaries such as Internet service providers and content hosting sites, from liability where these intermediaries take good faith actions to restrict access to or availability of objectionable online content posted by third parties.

Question is, how can broadband access providers play a role in restricting access to child pornography content when net neutrality says allow all content to flow freely and equally?

Flip the script this way. To equalize the treatment of objectionable content traffic with other legal content, slowing down all traffic on the Internet so that all traffic is inspected may be required.

That screeching sound you hear is the Internet coming to a halt.

Public Knowledge’s Art Brodsky appears more concerned with Congress’ alleged bias toward the broadband industry versus the economic and political ramifications of what he recommends FCC chairman Julius Genachowski do regarding net neutrality. Mr. Brodsky is recommending that the FCC, based on a 3-2 vote, move forward with effectively reclassifying broadband eas a telecommunications service and implementing open network rules based on this questionable assertion of authority.

This is dangerous. The fourth branch is a creation of Congress, not the other way around. Just because lobbyist practice the pluralism dance in the halls of Congress doesn’t mean that the FCC has administrative fiat to promulgate and implement rules for which it has no statutory authority.

If losing the influence game is the main reason for this act of desperation, then maybe open network proponents need to go back to the drawing board and create a properly constructed influence machine. Maybe they need to reevaluate their arguments and make better use of the liberal connections that they boast of from time to time.

A technical issue such as net neutrality won’t win much support simply by pulling heart strings with the civil rights argument. Real people are concerned about their investments and their jobs. Real people think pragmatically. Net neutrality and the recommendations that Mr. Brodsky makes to implement this flawed concept, do not appeal to practicality.

In short, net neutrality does not create jobs or grow the economy. You can’t go around Congress like this.

It’s third and eighteen with less than a minute to go in the fourth. Genachowski takes the snap from center, drops back, and looks down field for his favorite receiver.  Problem is that Clyburn, as quick as she is, is covered.  Copps is running an underneath pattern and Genachowski, feeling the pressure from the defense, is forced to either eat the ball or hit Copps. Genachowski knows in his heart of hearts that while the wily old veteran is stout of heart, his ability to pick up yardage after the pass has long since left him.

Meanwhile, Rockefeller has been able to elude the corner and work his way downfield. He is waving his arms, hoping that Genachowski will see him and throw a pass that will get his team the first down. The coaches see it. The fans see it. Does Genachowski see it?

Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia, has been waving his arms at FCC Chairman Genachowski for weeks now. The chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, in a letter to the FCC dated 2 August 2010, apparently signaled a way to treat broadband access services as common carrier without going through the itineration of coming up with new legislation.

In his letter, Mr. Rockefeller expressed the need for speed in deploying telecommunications and information services throughout rural West Virginia. Mr. Rockefeller cited section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, arguing that the FCC is directed by the statute to develop a universal service policy that provides consumers in rural, insular, and high-cost areas with access to telecommunications and information services reasonably comparable to services provided in urban areas.

In short, Mr. Rockefeller would like the FCC to use USF funds to finance the deployment of broadband services throughout rural West Virginia. Fair enough. The statute does say that the preservation and advancement of universal service should be based in part on the principle of access to advanced telecommunications and information services.

This is where, Mr. Rockefeller has to work his way down field. Before the FCC can use USF funds to finance broadband deployment, Congress will have to clean up section 254(c)(1) of the Communications Act. This section defines universal service as “an evolving level of telecommunications services that the Commission shall establish periodically under this section, taking into account advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services.

In other words, broadband access services, which are currently defined as information services, will have to be redefined as telecommunications services. It will take an act of Congress to change that definition. Even if Genachowski wants to toss the pigskin to Rockefeller, Rockefeller has to be prepared to catch it.