Why does Rep. Terry Love The ITU And Hate Freedom?
[Commentary] The sad truth is that those who oppose network neutrality and claim to oppose the International Telecommunication Union are hypocrites of the worst kind.
Why would I say that? What makes me say folks like Rep Lee Terry (R-NE), and other staunch opponents of network neutrality are hypocrites when they claim to oppose the ITU? Because -- as anyone who is paying the least attention to the actual proposals at the ITU will tell you -- all the proposals in front of the ITU to date are ANTI-network neutrality proposals. So obviously, if you hate network neutrality as much as Rep Terry says he does, you must totally love the ITU or be a flaming hypocrite, right? Anyone trained in formal logic recognizes the fallacy here. Someone can oppose the ITU exercising any jurisdiction over internet traffic while still supporting a specific policy proposed at the ITU.
So Rep. Terry can oppose ITU jurisdiction over Internet traffic management even if he likes the fact that -- if certain proposals were adopted -- it produces the result he likes with regard to carriers prioritizing one website over another or one application over another regardless of actual user preferences. So why do I accuse Rep. Terry and Rep. Walden of hypocrisy for opposing ITU jurisdiction over Internet traffic while still pushing for the same anti-network neutrality outcome under consideration at the ITU? Glad you asked! As it happened, Rep. Terry made just such a flawed and unsupported assertion in the opposite direction. That is to say, Rep. Terry asserted that "there is a certain level of hypocrisy" for organizations that supported the FCC's net neutrality rules (such as PK) to oppose ITU "regulation of the internet."