Replies

Surprisingly, they did a good job encapsulating much of what I wanted to reference in quoting that one part of the book.

(so that the page numbers I list match)Also, I know there's several versions of this book. I have the definitive edition; grey cover; bruce caldwell)

Here is my son’s response to your comments on this thread.

**********************************

You miss my point entirely. You have two options here:

1. The president controls the internet kill switch directly.
2. A government agency oversees the process.

At this point you’re I really don’t think we’re going to get option three. (No internet kill switch.) This is especially true since both parties want it. (It’s seen as a national security issue by many conservatives and don’t tell me it isn’t. Cyber warfare is one of the biggest national security hot-issues right now. This is just the kind of issue that splits the Republican party because it divides the libertarians from the social conservatives.)

As for net neutrality all I can say is that I’m sorry you see it that way. You know I agree that less government is better but government has one true roll which generally falls under “make sure we don’t kill each other”. The problem is that the internet is controlled by gatekeepers. We can’t just “get” it by walking to the supermarket. Net neutrality is not a government control mandate. It is a policy of zero tolerance for internet censorship. The first amendment is a zero tolerance policy on censorship.

I’m NOT supporting FCC oversite of the internet. I AM supporting a particular idea that says “you can’t censor data or discriminate access based on what you have to say.” Anything beyond that is a rider of something else entirely. It just happens to be that the FCC is one of the few organizations championing the idea at the federal level. If they push for anything further than that then I’ll be glad to help you verbally go for their scalps.