In risposta al mio supporto per le leggi a favore della neutralità della rete, poi mutato nella decisione della FCC di far diventare l’internet una utilità di dominio pubblico, ho ricevuto una email dal rappresentante della camera dei deputati del Massachusetts Katherine Clark. Mi piace interessamento diretto dei politici al gruppo dei loro sostenitori più pronti a far sentire la loro voce. Non guasterebbe in Italia un atteggiamento così, che è sempre meglio dei tanti politici che vanno sempre in televisione confondendo l’apparire con il fare. Nella società mediatica, soprattutto in Italia, questa è la norma. Insomma, Berlusconi docet.
Dear Mr. Varlotta,
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding net neutrality and Title II reclassification of Internet providers. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this issue.
Since its inception, the Internet has been a free and open environment where innovation, competition, and creativity have thrived. Initially, the infrastructure that made the Internet work was so decentralized and competitive that very little government involvement was required to maintain its open nature. But over time, as companies have merged and expanded, Internet infrastructure has become more and more centralized. This trend has led to concerns that broadband providers will use their position to control access to Internet consumers.
In response to these concerns, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued regulations that prevented broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against lawful internet content on their networks. These rules essentially required broadband companies to treat all Internet content equally. Together the ‘no blocking’ and ‘non-discrimination’ rules formed the foundation for what is commonly referred to as ‘net neutrality.’ Unfortunately, the legal authority relied on to issue these regulations was not the strongest authority available to the FCC under the Telecommunications Act.
As a result, in Verizon v. FCC, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia invalidated the blocking and discrimination rules. By striking down these net neutrality regulations the Court made it possible for companies like Comcast, Time Warner, or Verizon to treat access to content providers like Amazon, Netflix, or YouTube differently. The fear is that this differential treatment will lead to an Internet with two classes of content providers, those who pay for better access to consumers and those who do not. That is why I supported legislation that would reinstate these rules until the FCC can develop new neutrality protections.
I believe the elimination of these regulations has the potential to fundamentally alter the Internet as we know it. It is vital for us to enforce net neutrality rules that maintain an Internet free from content blocking or discrimination. We must not allow the innovation that led to the phenomenal growth of the Internet to be stifled by pay-to-play schemes that prevent the growth of new enterprise.
That is why I support the FCC’s decision to classify broadband providers as utilities under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Reclassification under Title II will empower the FCC with the legal authority to prevent Internet providers from content blocking or discrimination. But more importantly, net neutrality regulations issued under Title II authority are more likely to withstand any potential legal challenge in the courts.
Please know that I share your support for an open and free Internet, and I will oppose any effort in Congress to undermine the FCC’s efforts to regulate Internet neutrality rules under Title II.
Again, thank you for voicing your concerns, and please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I may be of assistance. Also, you can stay up to date on my work for the 5th District by following me on Facebook, Twitter, and my official website.
Sincerely,
Katherine M. Clark
Member of Congress
AGGIORNAMENTO (Martedì 31 marzo, 2015): Chiaramente la vicenda non è per niente finita.
Tagged: Massachusetts, politica, USA
