Posted on 04/23/2018 7:34:12 PM PDT by BBell
Everyone take a moment of silence please — the free and open internet is all but dead.
In December 2017 the FCC, under chairman Ajit Pai, voted to repeal net neutrality, signaling the end of the open internet as we know it.
The decision was controversial at the time, with everyone from Alyssa Milano to Reddit calling out the FCC in the lead-up to the vote, but the the vote was just the first step toward repeal. To enact the change, the FCC would have to officially list the ruling and provide a timeline for it.
That listing came in February and, now we're even closer to net neutrality's funeral. The listing notes the repeal's effective date as April 23, but there's a big asterisk next to it. The effective date isn't actually the effective date for the most impactful parts of the repeal. We have to wait for an administrative step — a review by the Office of Management and Budget — and then there will be another published notice.
Net neutrality is a series of regulations, instituted by the Obama administration, designed to ensure that the internet is open and free. That sounds very conceptual but basically it means internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast or Verizon can't slow down specific sites and charge companies for preferential treatment for internet access.
The dominant metaphor used to explain net neutrality is the image of a highway. Under net neutrality, the internet functions as a one-lane highway — everyone and everything flows at the same rate, on the same path (more or less). Every site, no matter how big or small, was given equal access.
"At the core, [net neuatrality] means all data and content on the internet must be given equal rights, whether you're a college student in a dorm room or a mega-conglomerate that uses up a lot of the web's speed for, say, streaming movies and TV shows," Mashable's Samantha Murphy wrote in 2015.
But without net neutrality, ISPs could institute fast and slow lanes, decide to block sites, and charge companies more money varying levels of access to their audience. In other words, hypothetically speaking, a company like Hulu could pay more money to load faster than Netflix, effectively purchasing a competitive edge.
The decision has largely been decried as a move that undermines innovation, making it harder for startups and younger companies to compete with existing corporations that can afford to cover the costs for preferential treatment from ISPs.
"The internet mostly evolved under net neutrality principles. This meant that the internet was something of a meritocracy. The best idea would conceivably win out," Mashable's Jason Abbruzzese wrote in 2017 following the net neutrality vote. "Without net neutrality, this could change, opening up the door to corporate domination of the internet."
For anybody looking for a more visual illustration, Burger King explained it using Whoppers.
So why are we ending net neutrality? On December 14, the FCC voted in a 3-2 decision to repeal the net neutrality legislation put in place by the Obama administration.
Opponents of net neutrality say net neutrality is an overextension of government regulation, that the internet doesn't need federal governance to function fairly.
Instead, the FCC board says that if there is a violation, those violations can go to the FTC.
Explaining the vote, Mashable's Jason Abbruzzese used a cops and courts metaphor. The FCC are the cops preventing crimes from happening. But the FTC is like a court, adjudicating after a crime has been committed.
"The FTC is more like the court system. If someone wrongs you, you have to take them to court. Then you have to wait. Then you have to hope you win. This is what the FTC is—a passive system," Abbruzzese outlined.
But I don't own a business. I just use the internet to browse. Does this affect me too? Yep! The repercussions of net neutrality could also be felt but individual internet users. After all, if an ISP institutes slower load times for your favorite sites, that means more time waiting for them to appear in your browser or app. In other words, without net neutrality, you may see more of those infamous internet buffering icons on your favorite websites.
Another thing that could happen is, in order to pay for a higher tier of internet access, services may start charging higher premiums to offset the increased cost of broadband.
Overall, the industries that will be affected by the net neutrality repeal run the gamut of services — from porn to health care ("These days, electronic health records are often kept in the cloud, and fast and reliable access to this data is vital to patient care," writes Mashable's Jack Morse).
So that's it? Net Neutrality is just over now? Fortunately, not all hope is lost.
First, just because the lack of net neutrality means, technically, ISPs can charge for preferential internet access doesn't mean they necessarily will. And some ISPs have already stated their commitment to keeping the internet open. For instance, Comcast senior executive VP David Cohen wrote a blog post stating, "Comcast customers will continue to enjoy all of the benefits of an open Internet today, tomorrow, and in the future. Period... We’ve said consistently we’ve not entered into paid prioritization agreements and have no plans to do so."
Also, proponents of net neutrality aren't going down without a fight.
States and towns are sticking up for an open internet, passing local legislation to protect and free an open internet. New York's governor Andrew Cuomo, for instance, signed an executive order stating that "the internet is an essential service that should be available to all New Yorkers," and accordingly banned New York State's government from entering any contract with ISPs unless they agree to net neutrality principles. Montana governor Steve Bullock also signed an executive order stating that "the state of Montana will only do business with companies that adhere to net neutrality."
Meanwhile, over 20 state attorneys general — including AGs for New York, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and D.C. — have filed a lawsuit against the FCC and the United States of America.
"An open internet — and the free exchange of ideas it allows — is critical to our democratic process. The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers – allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online," said Attorney General Schneiderman of New York said in a statement about the suit.
The question that remains is how much can ongoing lawsuits and state legislation counter the repeal of net neutrality.
"In some circumstances, a federal agency like the FCC can “pre-empt” state and local laws and rules when they are inconsistent with federal laws and rules. Comcast and Verizon asked for this preemption after Congress repealed the FCC’s strong broadband privacy rules and some 16 states introduced laws that would protect users’ privacy. As usual, Pai gave these powerful companies exactly what they asked for," Gigi Sohn wrote for Mashable in November 2017.
Is there anything that I can do to advocate for Net Neutrality? The fight against net neutrality can seem like it's happening all above us: States and giant tech companies fighting the federal government. But there is a lot that we as consumers can do to stand up for net neutrality rules.
The first, obviously, is to stay informed of any changes that are happening. One way to stay informed about what changes companies are making following the net neutrality is to read the "terms of service," assistant professor of information at the University of Michigan told Mashable in December 2017, following the FCC vote.
"Next time Comcast, Verizon, AT&T update their terms of service (TOS) or privacy policy, what are they actually changing? It's probably not going to be super obvious and might just be things where they kind of loosen the language a little bit to allow them to do stuff they weren't allowed before, but that's the stuff to watch out for."
You can find a helpful explainer on how to be a responsible citizen of the internet in a post-net neutrality world here.
I will be honest, I don't quite understand net neutrality. Every time I think I do I find out I don't.
A might confused myself.
We have to regulate it to make it free.
“On December 14, the FCC voted in a 3-2 decision to repeal the net neutrality legislation put in place by the Obama administration.”
That’s all you need to know. Anything and everything implemented by Klownie the Kenyan is bad. So anything reversed is good for America, the world and the universe.
As I understand it, Net Neutrality is all about forced subsidy. Net Neutrality fans want for others to pay for their streaming. John Oliver and Al Franken are for Net Neutrality. That should tell us something.
It's all about people wanting others to pay for their access...gimme, gimme, gimme, or as James Hetfield would say...
That’s all you need to know. Anything and everything implemented by Klownie the Kenyan is bad. So anything reversed is good for America, the world and the universe.
Thank Yew.........;)
“we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it ”
Federal legislation is always named the opposite of what it does. The Affordable Care Act, for instance.
“Net neutrality” is “The Fairness Doctrine” recycled to the Interwebls.
Obama the camel’s nose under the tent.
I understand that gubmint screws up pretty much anything it touches.
It has nothing to do w internet speed.
It sets up a regulatory body which will eventually control the message.
The fake news battle is exactly what they had in mind.
Except they want prison time for non-correct news
if Goggle, Facebook, Twitter etc are for it, then I’m against it...
Don’t feel bad, most people don’t understand it including me, that’s what makes it so ripe for mischief by politicians.
Look at it this way. We didn’t have it before Obama and we were doing fine. Just the government sticking its nose in another business for no reason.
Cats have a simple way of understanding complex issues.
Glad to see another Obama idea ........kicked to the roadside.
I wasn’t for NN when it was proposed (I prefer free market) and I’m glad to see this being
dismissed.
Let the market take it’s natural course. Let the Gov., Isp’s,, and others go back to respecting the privacy of the paying public. Liberals will have to find another scheme to build files on people private information.
Please enough with the Boo-hooing of slow access to medical records and the such. The Cloud and AI with personal information is a recipe for disaster, unless of Course.....YOUR with HER (Agenda).
Winning.
I stopped trying to understand it. If it effects me directly, that’s when I will deal with it. My internet footprint is very small compared to most people’s. I don’t do Facebook or Twitter, so we’ll see what does or does not happen.
I’m not going to fret about it.
I think some people were going nuts after Pres. Trump authorized a change. Most were upset simply because the ‘change’ was something recent, implemented by their idol, Obama. Around 2009, I think. So ‘obviously’ if Trump was removing that change, it has to be bad, if not downright horrible.
“Net neutrality?” It’s more like “net neutering.”
It essentially gives the “content providers” like google, streaming services, amazon, etc, tie up limited bandwidth and create bottlenecks that will slow access by smaller entities.
It makes the carriers who maintain the physical infrastructure subservient to the online behemoths and bars them from charging more for the extra data they dump into the pipeline, and removes any incentive to build more bandwidth.
It’s anti-market and will create a shortage.
For me, it was a two level approach to understanding it.
Step One: Who is for it, and who is against it? On nearly any issue, when all the leftists line up on one side, it is uniformly going to be a bad proposition for the individual, the country, and the world.
Step Two: Who benefits and who doesn’t? Leftists like to say the “Working Man” benefits from Net Neutrality. When I hear that, I run the other way. Fast. In. this case, it is Thomas Sowell’s admonition to avoid one stage thinking. When the surface is scratched and you look at the next level, it boils down to this: If a carrier cannot differentiate themselves from their competition by increasing their network infrastructure and capability because their competition can use their infrastructure, then WHY WOULD THEY IMPROVE THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE? The simple answer is...they won’t. And if they don’t...who will?
You have one guess to figure out who is going to do it if the carriers don’t. And that entity that will do it is well known for waste, corruption, poor service, and inefficiency. You get one more guess to figure out where that entity will get their money from, and who decides what is done with it.
The obverse side of it is that if a carrier CAN get a business advantage by improving their infrastructure, then they will, and a rising tide will lift all boats. It is competition that does that. And they do that by improving their infrastructure so they can reach more customers with cell service and internet access by extending it in those directions. People who had poor access to cell service and the internet will be brought on board, because someone can make money doing it.
Thanks for the reply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.