WASHINGTON – More than 3.7 million comments poured into the Federal Communications Commission over the four months that it was seeking public input on its proposal for “Promoting and Protecting the Open Internet,” also known as net neutrality.
A study by the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for government transparency, found that at least 60 percent of a set of 800,000 net neutrality comments released in bulk by the F.C.C. were form letters written by organized campaigns. The foundation said that was “actually a lower percentage than is common for high-volume regulatory dockets.”
“Typically we see a rule-making dominated by a few organized letter-writing campaigns,” said Andrew Pendleton, who co-wrote the Sunlight study with Bob Lannon. “A lot of people in this instance wrote a comment for themselves,” he said, probably spurred by the debate’s seeping into mass media, as net neutrality did with a segment on HBO’s “Last Week Tonight With John Oliver.”
Over all, the comments studied were overwhelmingly one-sided. Less than 1 percent were clearly opposed to net neutrality. And about 5 percent had anti-regulation messages, although those included seemingly contradictory camps, one calling for consumer freedom and another advocating freedom for Internet service providers.
immagino che qualcuno potrà dire che è cosa troppo complessa e delicata per prendere una decisione sulla base di un plebsicito cui rispondono solo persone interessate e motivate e che quindi non sia cosa da lasciare ad una consultazione
oppure che ci vorrebbe una consultazione, ma solo di alcuni.
e chi sceglie i qualcuni ? quelli piu' rappresentativi sulla base di quote associative (ovvero di ricavi) delle imprese ?
è forse uno dei temi piu' politici di questo periodo.
io sto con i principi della sentenza USA vs. Columbia steel del 1948
We have here the problem of bigness.
Its lesson should by now have been burned into our memory by Brandeis. The Curse of Bigness shows how size can become a menace — both industrial and social.
It can be an industrial menace because it creates gross inequalities against existing or putative competitors.
It can be a social menace because of its control of prices. Control of prices in the steel industry is powerful leverage on our economy. For the price of steel determines the price of hundreds of other articles.
Our price level determines in large measure whether we have prosperity or depression — an economy of abundance or scarcity.
Size in steel should therefore be jealously watched.
In final analysis, size in steel is the measure of the power of a handful of men over our economy.
That power can be utilized with lightning speed. It can be benign, or it can be dangerous.
The philosophy of the Sherman Act is that it should not exist.
For all power tends to develop into a government in itself. Power that controls the economy should be in the hands of elected representatives of the people, not in the hands of an industrial oligarchy.
Industrial power should be decentralized.
It should be scattered into many hands, so that the fortunes of the people will not be dependent on the whim or caprice, the political prejudices, the emotional stability of a few self-appointed men.
The fact that they are not vicious men, but respectable and social-minded, is irrelevant.
That is the philosophy and the command of the Sherman Act. It is founded on a theory of hostility to the concentration in private hands of power so great that only a government of the people should have it.”
Un'ultima annotazione: ho scritto altre volte dell'errore che si commette, a mio avviso, molto spesso quando ci si riferisce a questioni tecniche implicitamente assumento l'assolutezza delle questioni. Il pensare che se si dice "tal cosa è bianca" significa che non esista possibilità di una sfumatora di luminosità.
Questo della neutrlaità della rete (e delle piattaforme) è un principio, una idea cui tendere perchè fa bene alla concorrenza e ai diritti delle persone.
Questo è ciò che va affermato. sapendo che il percorso è asintotico. Ma quella, per me, è la direzione.