How Can The Same Senators Vote Against Net Neutrality, But For Broadcast Flag?

Those who are against adding any language to the latest Telecom Act on net neutrality keep saying it's important not to regulate the industry -- because government involvement leads to inefficient results that could strangle the technology. That's a defensible position (though, there are reasonable responses to it).

However, what makes no sense at all is for a Senator to declare that net neutrality legislation isn't needed because it's a bad idea to regulate this important technology... and then turn around and support the idea of a broadcast flag in the exact same bill. Back in May Senator Stevens telecom bill first came out that he had brought back the broadcast flag concept that refuses to die. After the courts told the FCC that they couldn't mandate a broadcast flag, the entertainment industry hasn't missed an opportunity to try to sneak the broadcast flag amendment into just about any bill they can find.

Today, as the Senate debated various amendments in the telecom bill, they decided to keep the broadcast flag in there (though, it's possible that someone will introduce an amendment to get rid of it later). However, it's hard to see how someone could credibly claim that net neutrality legislation is bad because it adds regulatory hurdles to a new technology, while at the same time saying the broadcast flag is good, because it adds an even bigger regulatory hurdle to technology. About the only reason to support both seems to be if you have to make good to friends you have in both the telco industry and the entertainment industry.

As you can imagine personaly I support keeping Net Neutrality in place to continue the rate of growth we've seen over the last few years. That and the 9 computer network out of my house, all running off one cable connection, would just get to damn expensive!