Former FCC Commissioner: Net Neutrality Helps Terrorists! In what may just be the dumbest argument yet in opposition to net neutrality, former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth has published a piece at Forbes claiming that the recent, brutal Manchester attack -- as well as terrorism in general -- can be somehow blamed on net neutrality protections. Furchtgott-Roth now works at a think tank dubbed the Hudson Institute, which takes some of its funding from large broadband providers (you'll note that Forbes can't be bothered to disclose this).

Written just two days after the Manchester attack, the former FCC Commissioner blames net neutrality rules for somehow encouraging acts of brutal murder. "A sensible question," Furchtgott-Roth states, "is why civilized governments do not seek to deprive terrorists of unfettered access to the internet." "Sadly," the former FCC Commissioner continues, "here in America, limiting access to the Internet would be illegal under the euphemistic term ‘network neutrality,’ the two-year-old experiment in federal regulation of the Internet." "Under network neutrality, a broadband company cannot slow web portals that routinely host terrorist content," he claims. "It cannot favor websites that meet certain anti-terrorist standards. It cannot deny service to likely terrorist organizations or to suspected terrorists such as Abedi or their families." Furchtgott-Roth seems to be confused about what net neutrality is, and what the rules protecting it actually do. What Furchtgott-Roth is advocating is greater internet censorship and the use of internet filters, which really has little to nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality is about preventing large ISP gatekeepers from abusing a lack of broadband competition in creative ways. It has little to nothing to do with what specific extremist websites a would-be murderer may or may not visit. And removing offending content at the source instead of implementing filters that don't usually work has generally been the rule of thumb. But in Furchtgott-Roth's mind, he envisions a world in which ISPs compete with each other not over speed, customer service, or price -- but on which ISP can engage in greater filtering and censorship of internet content. "A better approach would be to allow consumer preferences and competitive market forces for ISPs to fight against terrorism," he claims. "Different ISPs could compete on the basis of their degree of “anti-terrorist” efforts. Many individuals would be attracted to an anti-terrorist ISP. Some state and local governments might mandate purchase of such services by government institutions." Of course since there's not much competition in the broadband space, it's unlikely this fantasy scenario ever materializes anyway. But it's simply bizarre and tasteless to use the Manchester attacks -- just two days removed from the carnage -- as a prop in a coordinated industry attack on net neutrality. But Furchtgott-Roth did just that, and in the process took an already hyperbolic debate over the open internet to an entirely new low. Of course since there's not much competition in the broadband space, it's unlikely this fantasy scenario ever materializes anyway. But it's simply bizarre and tasteless to use the Manchester attacks -- just two days removed from the carnage -- as a prop in a coordinated industry attack on net neutrality. But Furchtgott-Roth did just that, and in the process took an already hyperbolic debate over the open internet to an entirely new low.







News Jump War Of Words Heats Up: T-Mobile Fires Back At Verizon, AT&T; Amazon Intros Gaming Service To Take On Stadia; + more news Starlink's Network Faces Huge Limitations; AT&T Whines T-Mobile Merger Put Too Much Spectrum In One Place; + more news WISPs Get CBRS Range As Great As Six Miles At 100 Mbps Speeds; Windstream Officially Exits Bankruptcy; + more news Charter Relaunches Free 60-day Internet And Wi-Fi Offer; NCTA: FCC Should Stick With 25/3 Speed Threshold; + more news Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 21 comments

Brim77

join:2012-03-16

Lansing, MI 29 recommendations Brim77 Member Bullshit salesman.

A young Ajit Pai, former PR for Saddam Hussein. Ajit Pai is peddling smoke and mirrors and his supporters are morons. Net Neutrality is a good thing for everybody. Opponents of this have about as much credibility as anti-vaxers, holocaust deniers and confederate flag defenders. You know, the Republican party. Nucleartx

join:2016-09-08

Belton, TX 14 recommendations Nucleartx Member Clueless Can someone run to Wal-Mart and buy an extra large bag of clues for him? Who am I kidding, he wouldn't even open the bag let alone know how to use them.



The world governments can block these websites if they so please. Ostracus

join:2011-09-05

Henderson, KY 14 recommendations Ostracus Member Same old playbook. Well if it isn't "won't someone think of the terrorists" then it is the children.

WHT

join:2010-03-26

Rosston, TX 5 recommendations WHT Member Both a Red Herring and Strawman Argument said by Karl Bode: But in Furchtgott-Roth's mind, he envisions a world in which ISPs compete with each other not over speed, customer service, or price -- but on which ISP can engage in greater filtering and censorship of internet content.

Unnecessary data cap are first thing subscriber bitch about.

Speed is second, though cable companies are eclipsing telcos' DSL service.

Poor customer service is a big complaint, especially with cable companies (looking at you ComCast); but when in a duopoly of worse and worst providers you can't complain.

Price - 15 to 20 percent of potential subscriber base will go for lowest price.



The same argument was touted back in late '90s for family safe ISPs. I was listening to the Sunday morning radio and a religious internet expert said Microsoft's MSN (debuted in 1995) was the worst offender when it comes to obscenity. He gave an example of a soccer mom searching for "donkey show" for her little girls birthday. Hint ... it has nothing to do with the Democratic political party. said by Furchtgott-Roth : "Different ISPs could compete on the basis of their degree of “anti-terrorist” efforts. Many individuals would be attracted to an anti-terrorist ISP. Some state and local governments might mandate purchase of such services by government institutions."

Wife says to husband: Dear, we need to find an ISP that doesn't support terrorist ideologies of M'Balz Es-Hari, Graabir Boubi, Haid D'Salaami, Hous Bin Phaarteen, etc (tips hat to Robert Deniro on SNL).

Husband: "But there's only that French company Alltits and Bombast and don't give a $hit about anything.



*Mandate* state and local governments purchase anti-terrorist ISP service? WTF is he thinking?? My brain suffers zero-day exploit buffer overload thinking about that. I've been in the ISP business for twenty years, I've consulted on WISPs for ten years ... I'm not new to this game and can tell you:Unnecessary data cap are first thing subscriber bitch about.Speed is second, though cable companies are eclipsing telcos' DSL service.Poor customer service is a big complaint, especially with cable companies (looking at you ComCast); but when in a duopoly of worse and worst providers you can't complain.Price - 15 to 20 percent of potential subscriber base will go for lowest price.The same argument was touted back in late '90s for family safe ISPs. I was listening to the Sunday morning radio and a religious internet expert said Microsoft's MSN (debuted in 1995) was the worst offender when it comes to obscenity.Hint ... it has nothing to do with the Democratic political party.Seriously~~???Wife says to husband: Dear, we need to find an ISP that doesn't support terrorist ideologies of M'Balz Es-Hari, Graabir Boubi, Haid D'Salaami, Hous Bin Phaarteen, etc (tips hat to Robert Deniro on SNL).Husband: "But there's only that French company Alltits and Bombast and don't give a $hit about anything.*Mandate* state and local governments purchase anti-terrorist ISP service? WTF is he thinking?? My brain suffers zero-day exploit buffer overload thinking about that.

Kilroy

MVM

join:2002-11-21

Saint Paul, MN 4 recommendations Kilroy MVM And how do we identify the terrorists? That's the million dollar question. Because the answer is you are all terrorists until we can prove otherwise. (and we won't be looking too hard to prove that) jspaldin

join:2001-12-05

Tallahassee, FL 4 recommendations jspaldin Member Quick question..... Is there enough FAIL in the entirety of the Interwebtubes thingy for this statement?



What next, Net Neutrality leads to hair loss?