Re: The cheek!
I don't know about that being a blatant lie, or even an attempt to grossly represent facts, but I'd have to wonder what 'most of the original motivations' means.
I understand that the FCC is there primarily to regulate frequency bands and public communications services (like telephones), and not the CONTENT on those frequency bands. Hopefully he didn't mean THAT. More 'modern' usages included the (now defunct) "fairness doctrine" which was a form of CENSORSHIP. The explosion of talk radio (and saving of AM stations with news/talk formats), once it was appropriately REMOVED from the list of FCC regulations, is proof of that. The censorship of the 'fairness doctrine' was IMPEDING commerce.
Similarly we have another 'fairness doctrine' at issue with the FCC with respect to the intarwebs. Only THIS time it's mislabeled 'net neutrality'. Its objective is SIMILAR to 'fairness doctrine', to provide a mechanism through which unelected gummint regulators can CONTROL.
The intarwebs best serves the world by remaining an ANARCHY. The only thing that should be regulated is the communication protocol, so that actually WORKS. Beyond that, there's no need for ANY regulation. (although I wouldn't *mind* a regulation that *requires* U.S. IPv6 support by 'some reasonable date', the way it was for HDTV - we're all better off from THAT)
Let it be the 'wild west' web, not the 'world whipped' web.
So what DID Jamison mean by 'original motivations' anyway?