Mr. Ben Scott of FreePress answered many softball questions in a lengthy interview on the Open Video Alliance.
- Let me suggest that the reason that FreePress has not been persuasive to date in making its case for net neutrality is that they won’t or can’t answer the substantive and important questions required to prompt Government to mandate their extreme vision for the Internet.
Some “open” questions for Mr. Ben Scott of FreePress:
- What actual, lasting, or unaddressed harm can you point to over the last four years that makes a compelling case for preemptive legislation or regulation?
- Why can’t FreePress define in legislative/regulatory language what net neutrality is, if FreePress wants net neutrality legislated/regulated?
- Why couldn’t the Markey-Eshoo net neutrality bill, that FreePress was involved in drafting, define “net neutrality,” “open,” or “reasonable network management?”
- Is a problem really a public policy problem or ripe for action, if it can’t be defined for legislative/regulatory purposes?
- Does FreePress believe in competition as a policy method to encourage openness and consumer choice?
- Does FreePress believe in private ownership of networks and spectrum?
- Do property owners involved with the Internet ecosystem have the right to require permission and payment for the usage of their property?
- Does FreePress respect the concept of profit or does FreePress still consider above-cost pricing an unfair business practice?
- Is allowing reward for risk-taking important in encouraging private investment in universal broadband?
- Should corporations enjoy the same Internet freedoms as users?
- Do you agree with the Supreme Court that corporations enjoy free speech protection?
- Does FreePress believe that discrimination can ever be “reasonable,” due,” or “just” like the law has recognized since 1934?