I would like to make that statement a reality, but I can't. Part of it may be I haven't spent sufficient time thinking about the current bill. But the real problem is that I have had trouble with the gesture towards "fair use".

The problem is as it always was with the basic economics of the approach. Content is a fairly small tail to be wagging the huge infrastructure dog with. Unfortunately, while true, that is an argument that requires some real understanding to grasp.

Far easier previously has been visible signs of abuse. Obvious crap like handing Microsoft a monopoly, banning most current uses of email, etc. Unfortunately with a bill that says, "Take fair use into account" it is very hard to point to any specific obvious stupidity. Any piece that you find can be answered with, "Well, that would be fair use and obviously would be addressed by a reasonable standard." That a reasonable standard that avoids all such abuses is impossible is harder to convince people of. (Note that the bill doesn't demonstrate the plausibility of any such standard. It just claims it is an easy problem, and gives a time frame with no regard to the fact that said time frame is insane.)

That no simplistic resolution exists is hard to explain without getting into the economics of software and networks in some detail. And unfortunately pointing out the economics can leave me with an ironclad argument that nobody will ever bother to follow. Which leaves me with few easily followed explanations beyond, "It is a natural managerial wish to declare by fiat that which cannot possibly be justified in reality. Ridiculing this stupidity makes Scott Adams a fortune with Dilbert. That Hollings would claim that his bill could be implemented at reasonable cost is a perfect example..."

This is true. But find me a pithy explanation of why that can be followed by people who do not understand in their guts why Hollings' bill is full of cr*p. :-(

Cheers,
Ben