In this diary (my first, ever, on dKos), I want to share a letter I received from my Congressman concerning his vote on the COPE Act. I haven't seen any of the astroturf ads that were shown on TV promoting this legislation to the taxpayers because I hide from network TV, but I have followed the discussion here and followed links to discussions and news items elsewhere on the net.
There is something about this letter that I can't quite get my head around, and I hope this diary will stay above water long enough to garner a comment or two.
After last week's vote on the COPE Act in the House of Representatives, I wrote to my congressman to ask why he had voted in favor (he also voted against the Markey amendment). Rep. Pearce has responded to me via email as follows:
Thank you for writing me about the recent legislation pertaining to the Internet. This is an important issue and I appreciate having the chance to respond.
Currently, the internet remains an unregulated medium which allows valuable access to information. It is also a great proponent of commerce, communication and entertainment. The House is currently reviewing bills that would modify how the internet is regulated.
The two resolutions being discussed are H.R. 5417-Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 and H.R. 5252-the Communications Opportunity Promotion & Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE). These acts are designed to protect the internet's ability to provide information in an efficient and safe way.
These acts are not attempting to limit access or prevent users from enjoying the freedoms they are accustomed to on the internet. They are trying to make the internet more accessible to establish a faster and efficient service.
There are safeguards which would prevent companies from altering the available content. By allowing national franchising is [sic] will enable phone companies to compete with the cable providers. Rather than limiting the internet, these resolutions are designed to protect the internet while allowing it to function in its intended form.
Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this issue. I am glad you have let me know this is an important issue for you. Please continue to call, write, or email me with any other questions or comments. Visit my website at http://pearce.house.gov to find out what I am working on in Washington, or where you can find me around in New Mexico.
Sincerely,
STEVAN PEARCE
Member of Congress
What is he saying in paragraph 5? What safeguards are needed to prevent companies from altering content? I didn't think we were in imminent danger of having our web pages rewritten on the fly by Verizon, although those blank pages on dKos did give me a fright the other day. The last sentence of that paragraph is so teflon-like, that I can feel any "intended form" slipping right off my frontal lobes. The sentence does not make it clear precisely whose intentions are being honored.
I sense that Representative Pearce is responding in the context of those ads mentioned at the top of this diary. I feel that I could make a better job of responding to this if I knew better what the official position is, something it's difficult to scry out of this letter.
Oh, and dialogue is impossible. The email is no-reply. If I have anything more to say, I have to go to his website and write to him all over again, out of context of this initial exchange.