Well, here we are. The reason CISPA was getting all the attention was allegedly that it was coming to a vote first. Well, now Lieberman-Collins is next to a vote, as Democrats scramble to find a way to make cloture. Where’s the outrage? I’ll tell you where it is: non-existent, because CISPA opposition was solely designed to give cover for Lieberman-Collins.
We do need the private sector to have more information, though. Internet attacks aren’t going away.
Continue reading »
CISPA’s proponents bent over backward to respond to reasonable complaints, but the extremists are still complaining. Anonymous and Mozilla (much of which is foreign, no?) are whining, but nobody ever points to any specific, offending verbiage of the bill. Am I the only one who reads tech bills before complaining about them?
Even Democrats are having to start acknowledging Republican expertise in tech leadership, though. Darrell Issa is the leader of quite a gang in DC.
FCC on the other hand…
Continue reading »
Having abandoned the seemingly-endless series of patent lawsuits in the new America Invents Act era, Tech at Night will be quick tonight. Google allegedly knew about the Wi-Spy Street View snooping for two years before ending it. Oops. No wonder FCC claims Google obstructed government investigations into the program.
Gotta love the Media Marxists: FCC ventures into campaign finance chilling effects regulation, and they claim it doesn’t go too far enough! Further, when Net Neutrality regulations force Hulu to adopt new business models, they also flip out. Never mind it’s their fault Hulu can’t simply make deals with firms like Comcast.
And finally, the Barack Obama/George Soros-led attempts to use CISPA as a distraction from Lieberman-Collins are not entirely successful, as some like Microsoft refuse to be bullied from their pro-CISPA positions.
CISPA is still a harmless bill devoid of new mandates of power grabs, but I’m actually short of new things to say about it this week. Lieberman-Collins is the real threat. Watch the other hand.
Let’s start with some spectrum instead. Verizon is under fire for trying to buy spectrum from Comcast and other cable companies, even as it tries to sell other spectrum. Note though that observers are saying T-Mobile, recently held up as a competitor who must be propped up by government action, stands to benefit in the marketplace by Verizon’s actions. Sprint, however, is put under pressure to to continued mismanagement and lack of funds to invest in its network.
Why would Verizon buy and sell its spectrum is all over the place, and consolidation allows for less demanding hardware requirements for its phones, which benefits Verizon’s customers. That’s good thinking, and that kind of market innovation should be rewarded, not regulated out of existence.
Look: it’s well and good to try to find a treasure trove of unused spectrum as Mark Warner wants, but hope is not a substitute for making more efficient use of what we already know about.
Though while Warner is optimistic, the NAB is insane. I mean, seriously? Did they miss where Verizon is also buying spectrum, so that it’ll have a net gain? Or that Verizon needs to look to the future, unlike various American broadcasters, who are doing the same old thing, and gradually losing out to new technologies? Jealous much of the Internet, NAB?
Continue reading »
Yup, CISPA is still the top story. It will improve our security, which matters in an age of Chinese and Anarchist Internet attacks. And unlike Lieberman-Collins, Which is the bill being pushed in the Senate, no government power grab is involved.
So the House is right to challenge the President’s push for Lieberman-Collins. Lungren’s PRECISE Act is another bill that would create no new regulations. That’s the kind of approach we need. Remove impediments to greater security. No micromanagement.
Continue reading »
How harmless is CISPA? Despite irrational attacks by association, because we’re apparently supposed to think Republican bills bad, even though the Democrats in the Senate had kept PROTECT IP alive months before Lamar Smith brought SOPA to committee, CISPA has already has been modified to remove mention of copyright infringement. And yet the rage continues.
I figured it out, though. The reason CISPA, a previously unknown bill, is under attack is to give cover for the Lieberman-Collins cybersecurity bill, the one that had the Internet Kill Switch in it. If the leftys are all a-twitter about Republicans, then nobody but us conservatives will pay attention to the power grab in the Democrat-controlled Senate being pushed by the Obama administration including DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.
CISPA is not a threat. It looks like CISPA is a red herring.
Continue reading »
I’m seeing some real panicked shouting online about CISPA, a new bill that some are calling “the new SOPA.” It’s absurd. The bill may not be perfect. It could have flaws. But the argument being hammered against CISPA again and again is that it may be used against copyright infringers who abuse networks. So? The only reason to oppose that is if you wish to destroy copyright property rights entirely, as the radicals do.
I warned about this way back during the SOPA debate. I predicted that the left side of the anti-SOPA coalition would try to hijack the movement into a general one against copyright, as the anarchists over there tend to do, and the shrieking over CISPA is proving me right. CISPA is not a bundle of mandates. It is an avenue to information sharing. Note that everything in CISPA is “totally voluntary,” per The Hill.
If someone and disprove that, and point to one or more mandates in CISPA, I’d like to know. Until then, the burden of proof is on the radicals to prove they’re not really out to protect Anontards and copyright infringers.
For now, it’s looking like CISPA is a solid response to The plans by the President and Democrats to expand government online, by regulating the Internet. Double regulating in fact, as every ‘critical’ industry is already regulated. So this whole “critical infrastructure” thing is more pretext than anything
Continue reading »
Monday night, as promised, we still have some catch up work to do. So let’s start with those Amazon Taxes, those Internet sales taxes of dubious Constitutionality. Colorado’s got tossed in federal court and Illinois’s didn’t raise any money. Obeying the Constitution counts, folks. Pass a true interstate compact through the Congress first.
Also as promised, there’s the matter of the Next Generation Television Marketplace Act. This is the one where ACU has come out against Jim DeMint, and that caught my attention. I have to side with the bill DeMint is sponsoring. I think ACU simply misunderstood what’s at stake here and had good intentions, but the excessive complexity of the regulations defeated them here.
The bill does not let cable providers become free riders, retransmitting others’ streams for free. It just stops the law from trying to dictate the parameters of the negotiations on retransmissions. I see no harm in that, and potentially much good.
Continue reading »
Am I tired of expressing dissatisfaction with the Obama FCC and other government intrusions? Never!
Al Franken is setting up an unfalsifiable rationale for government action against Verizon and Comcast. Gotta love that, eh?
I’m sure he, the FCC, or both will try to overturn the courts who say bundling is not anticompetitive. I like bundling. It saves me money when I’m buying both things anyway. Then again, I like choices in the marketplace.
Why we want FCC subsidizing tablet makers though, I have no idea.
Chuck Grassley’s threat seems to be working at least, as FCC starts to break down on LightSquared transparency, a necessary step toward being able to confirm the President’s new appointees to the commission.
Continue reading »
FCC reform advances in the House. Greg Walden’s FCC Process Reform Act is a needed bill, so I’m glad that it went from committee to the floor, and took minimal modification in passing. I like that it got an extra poke at FCC being more closed on FOIA requests than even CIA.
Locking in the reforms is important, and CTIA is right in saying we need a “more transparent, predictable regulatory process.”
Continue reading »