Beck still doesn’t understand net neutrality
Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on November 23rd, 2010 5:46 am by HL
Beck still doesn’t understand net neutrality
Glenn Beck again claimed that proposed net neutrality rules are “basically a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet” and would allow the government to “control what you see on the Internet.” In fact, net neutrality prohibits Internet service providers from controlling access to Internet content, and — contrary to Beck’s suggestion — would not require Fox to change its content.
Beck falsely claims net neutrality is “basically a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet”
Beck: “They want to make sure that you can get the Huffington Post on Fox News.” On the November 22 edition of his Fox News program, Beck Brent Bozell, who frequently appears on Fox News.
Internet pioneers and leaders credit net neutrality as guiding principle in growth and competition
“Father of the internet” and pioneering scientists support net neutrality rules. In an October 15, 2009, notes, Cerf is “often called ‘the father of the Internet.’ ”
Internet pioneering companies support net neutrality for growth and creativity. In an October 19, 2009, post on his blog, Tim Berners-Lee — who FoxNews.com noted “created a computer-based system for sharing information with colleagues around the world [World Wide Web]” — wrote: “When I invented the Web, I didn’t have to ask anyone’s permission. Now, hundreds of millions of people are using it freely. I am worried that that is going end in the USA. … I hope that Congress can protect net neutrality, so I can continue to innovate in the internet space. I want to see the explosion of innovations happening out there on the Web, so diverse and so exciting, continue unabated.”
Investors who “brought us the Mac, Tweets and Internet search” support net neutrality. WashingtonPost.com telecommunications reporter Cecilia Kang noted on October 20, 2009, that the “people who invested the money that eventually brought us the Mac, Tweets and Internet search … threw their support behind a push for proposed net neutrality rules, saying clear regulations that prevent Internet services providers from blocking the applications they help fund would spur growth in one of the brightest sectors of the economy.” The investors stated in a letter that the “promise of permanently securing an open Internet will deliver consumers and innovators a perfect free market that drives investment, job creation, and consumer welfare.” Kang reported that the letter’s signers included investors who helped start Amazon, Sun Microsystems, Google, Skype, Hotmail, Twitter, and Yelp.
Google: “Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days,” allowing innovation. In its explanation of net neutrality, Google wrote that the “Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.”
Beck wrongly suggests Sunstein wants to require websites to present opposing views
Beck: “Cass Sunstein said it was bad for people that they could seek out information that only fits their point of view.” During the segment, Beck said: “Cass Sunstein said it was bad for people that they could seek out information that only fits their point of view. They want to make sure that you can get the Huffington Post on Fox News. No, thank you. They’re about to control what you see on the Internet.”
Sunstein said it was a “bad idea” for government to require websites to provide opposing viewpoints. PolitiFact.com reported that in his 2002 book, Republic.com, “Sunstein talks about the idea of the government requiring sites to link to opposing views.” However, PolitiFact further reported:
In a later edition of the book released in 2007, Republic.com 2.0 , Sunstein tempers that position, advocating instead for the creation of public spaces on the Internet where people with differing viewpoints could share their ideas with one another.
But in a video interview on the Web site Bloggerheads.tv on Feb. 29, 2008, Sunstein actually goes a little bit farther than that, calling it a “bad idea” he should never have ventured.
Asked to explain some of the differences between the first book, what Sunstein called “the initial inadequate edition,” and its successor, Sunstein said, “To me, the most important (difference) is that the first Republic.com was full of some bad policy recommendations and I was able to get rid of those. So I feel the book has been corrected.”
“The initial book was interested in at least considering some government mandates that would require people to link to opposing views, that would require some attention to arguments that maybe had been neglected,” Sunstein said. “And while the book Republic.com was pretty tentative about that, to be tentative about a bad idea, it’s probably better not to even venture a bad idea. Some of the bad ideas I ventured tentatively as worth considering in Republic.com , in 2.0 I say they’d be bad ideas and they’d be unconstitutional.”
Contrary to Beck’s suggestion, Sunstein’s discussion of this topic is entirely unrelated to net neutrality.
Beck has a history of misinforming about net neutrality
Beck claimed net neutrality is “a way to control voices.” On the January 19 edition of his Fox News show [accessed via Nexis], Beck claimed, “FCC, they want net neutrality with Obama. That’s the big push. Net neutrality, it’s a way to control voices.”
Beck: “So we have Marxists that are designing and working on net neutrality — are believers in net neutrality” to “control content.” During the October 20, 2009, edition of his Fox News program, Beck claimed that “we have Marxists that are designing and working on net neutrality — are big believers in net neutrality, right? Gosh, it does seem that these would be the wrong people to help, you know, innovate business for it. And so what they want to do is, if I can do the third one, control content.”
