'First amendment of the internet': what is net neutrality and why is it at risk?

[tao]

Companies including Facebook, Google and Amazon will band together on 12 July to raise awareness about a threat to the open internet. So what’s the big deal?

 

About 200 internet companies and activist groups are coming together this week to mobilize their users into opposing US government plans to scrap net neutrality protections.

 

The internet-wide day of action, scheduled for Wednesday 12 July, will see companies including Facebook, Google, Amazon, Vimeo, Spotify, Reddit and Pornhub notify their users that net neutrality – a founding principle of the open internet – is under attack. The Trump administration is trying to overturn Obama-era regulation that protected net neutrality, and there is less than a week left for people to object.

 

Just as the internet came together in a blackout to protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) in 2012, many websites will on Wednesday feature a prominent message on their homepage, showing visitors what the web would look like without net neutrality and urging them to contact Congress. But what exactly is net neutrality, why is it under threat, and what can individuals do to protect it?

What is net neutrality?

Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) treat everyone’s data equally – whether that’s an email from your mother, a bank transfer or a streamed episode of The Handmaid’s Tale. It means that ISPs don’t get to choose which data is sent more quickly, and which sites get blocked or throttled (for example, slowing the delivery of a TV show because it is streamed by a video company that competes with a subsidiary of the ISP) and who has to pay extra. For this reason, some have described net neutrality as the “first amendment of the internet”.

 

“Net neutrality is basically the principle that keeps the internet open. Without it, big cable companies will be able to slow down certain websites and pick winners and losers on the internet,” said Mark Stanley from Demand Progress, one of the activist groups organizing the day of action.

What is the difference between an ISP and a content provider?

ISPs, such as Verizon, Comcast, Charter, Verizon, CenturyLink and Cox, provide you with access to the internet. Content companies include Netflix, Hulu and Amazon. In some cases, ISPs are also content providers: for example, Comcast owns NBCUniversal and delivers TV shows through its Xfinity internet service.

Why is net neutrality under threat?

In February 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to more strictly regulate ISPs and to enshrine in law the principles of net neutrality.

 

The vote reclassified wireless and fixed-line broadband service providers as title II “common carriers”, a public utility-type designation that gives the FCC the ability to set rates, open up access to competitors and more closely regulate the industry.

 

“The internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet,” said FCC chairman Tom Wheeler at the time. “It’s simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field.”

 

Two years on, Trump’s new FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, has pushed to overturn the 2015 order. On 18 May, the FCC voted to support a new proposal that would repeal the order and started a 90-day period in which members of the public could comment. The deadline for feedback is 17 July, after which the FCC has to provide reply comments by 16 August, before a final vote later in the year.

Who supports net neutrality?

Content providers including Netflix, Apple and Google. They argue that people are already paying for connectivity and so deserve access to a quality experience.

 

Mozilla, the not-for-profit company behind the Firefox web browser, is a vocal supporter, and argues that net neutrality allows for creativity, innovation and economic growth.

 

More than 800 startups, investors and other people and organizations sent a letter to Pai that read: “Without net neutrality, the incumbents who provide access to the internet would be able to pick winners or losers in the market. They could impede traffic from our services in order to favor their own services or established competitors. Or they could impose new tolls on us, inhibiting consumer choice.”

 

Many consumers support the rules to protect the openness of the internet. Some of them may have been swayed by Last Week Tonight host John Oliver, who pointed out that “there are multiple examples of ISP fuckery over the years” – so restrictions are important.

Who doesn’t support the FCC’s 2015 net neutrality rules?

Big broadband companies including AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Cox. They argue that the rules are too heavy-handed and will stifle innovation and investment in infrastructure. These firms have filed a series of lawsuits challenging the FCC’s authority to impose net neutrality rules.

 

Publicly, however, the message is different. Verizon released an odd video insisting that they were not trying to kill net neutrality rules and that pro-net neutrality groups are using the issue to fundraise.

 

Comcast also launched a Twitter campaign insisting it supported net neutrality.

Are there other reasons why people don’t like the 2015 rules?

Yes. Opponents don’t like the idea of putting the federal government at the center of the internet when, as Pai has said, “nothing is broken”.

 

The new FCC chairman argues that the 2015 rules were established on “hypothetical harms and hysterical prophecies of doom” and that they are generally bad for business.

 

“It’s basic economics. The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get,” he said.

 

The big broadband companies publicly state they are quibbling the title II “‘common carrier’” designation rather than net neutrality per se. They believe they shouldn’t be regulated in the same way that telecommunications services are, and prefer the light-touch regulation they would otherwise be subject to under their previous title I designation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The FCC lacks the direct authority to regulate title I “information services”.

Who is behind the day of action on 12 July?

Fight for the Future, Free Press Action Fund and Demand Progress have teamed up to create the Battle for the Net campaign. They have signed up almost 200 participants in the day of action, and created explainer videos, banner advertisements, tools and suggested messaging for communicating with users en masse about why net neutrality matters.

How does this tie in to Trump’s approach to the internet?

Trump’s Republican party is friendly to big corporations – even if it leads to the unfettered accumulation of corporate power.

 

It’s the second major rollback of Obama-era internet protections. In March, Congress voted to allow ISPs to sell the browsing habits of their customers to advertisers. The move, which critics charge will fundamentally undermine consumer privacy in the US, overturned rules drawn up by the FCC that would have given people more control over their personal data. Without the rules, ISPs don’t have to get people’s consent before selling their data – including their browsing histories – to advertisers and others.

What can people do?

Tell the FCC and Congress to protect the open web through BattleForTheNet.com, or through one of the widgets on many popular websites on Wednesday.

 

< Here >

[steven36]

Only county that has a 1st amendment is the USA  so how does the internet as the whole have one .? and as far as net neutrality they been trying to get it in for 15 years and Obama promised that too the USA not Trump  and guess what Trump got voted in ..Nothing really changed because we never really had it only way most things Obama got put in law would stay law is if a Clinton would of got in or the USA had a democratic congress, guess what they didn't and they dont .

 

So if they wanted democratic based laws to stay in effect they should of voted for the other ticket no use too cry about it now, only thing they can do is vote congress out in about a year and a half, but this sure do stink like some democratic PR too me, too try too make you think they care about you're privacy or you're freedoms. they don't the democrats try too hide the nasty stuff they do and get caught at it by whistle blowers and the Republicans are upfront about what they do and they don't care about no one but the rich and that's who they voted in.

 

Who cares if I get Google Fiber or another internet i been stuck with this  one since they ran ADSL through here and who cares if they charge more for Netfilx  or  Google has too pay more money or if they get wiped off from planet earth  they are  just rich people who didn't  pay off congress like the isps did ..It's the rich fighting the rich is all .

 

And i'm still trying figure out if you give big teach more power and the ISP less how would that be fair ? the big tech giants are ruining the internet anyway they even try too dictate what software we use and the public are dumb enough to fall for it even.. Google are already very rich and want take the ISPs money too? And Services like Netfix already took millions of customers from cable and satellite companies how is that fair?

 

You know how  crazy this is back in 2014 they said Net Neutrality Rules were a threat too internet freedom and now they want us too fight too protect them?

 

Net Neutrality Rules: Still a Threat to Internet Freedom

http://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/net-neutrality-rules-still-threat-internet-freedom

They Government should not be allowed to regulate the ISPs  or anything else too do with the internet Unless you want them to control it.

 

2012 -2014 no one wanted it and said it was bad and Obama and big tech brainwashed people into thinking it was good!

Why Net neutrality is incompatible with 'Internet freedom September 3, 2012

https://www.cnet.com/news/why-net-neutrality-is-incompatible-with-internet-freedom/

 

[tao]

Why We’re Joining the ‘Day of Action’ in Support of an Open Internet

 

Tomorrow, AT&T will join the “Day of Action” for preserving and advancing an open internet. This may seem like an anomaly to many people who might question why AT&T is joining with those who have differing viewpoints on how to ensure an open and free internet. But that’s exactly the point – we all agree that an open internet is critical for ensuring freedom of expression and a free flow of ideas and commerce in the United States and around the world. We agree that no company should be allowed to block content or throttle the download speeds of content in a discriminatory manner.  So, we are joining this effort because it’s consistent with AT&T’s proud history of championing our customers’ right to an open internet and access to the internet content, applications and devices of their choosing.

 

For more than a decade, whether under a Democratic or Republican administration, AT&T has supported the need for clear and enforceable open internet rules.  We supported the efforts of Republican FCC Chairmen to introduce the nation’s first Open Internet Principles.  And we welcomed FCC Chairman Genachowski’s Open Internet Order in 2010 and testified before Congress, as a Democratic witness, in support of it.

 

AT&T has long embraced this bipartisan regulatory approach because it has advanced internet freedom and openness without sacrificing innovation, investment and rapid growth throughout our nation’s online ecosystem.   With its 2010 Open Internet Order, the FCC tackled the core issues of blocking, throttling, and anti-competitive paid prioritization that stood at the center of the open internet debate and addressed the prominent concerns of online consumers.

 

Unfortunately, in 2015, then-FCC Chairman Wheeler abandoned this carefully crafted framework and instead decided to subject broadband service to an 80-year-old law designed to set rates in the rotary-dial-telephone era.  Saddling modern broadband infrastructure and investment decisions with heavy-handed, outdated telephone regulations creates an environment of market uncertainty that does little to advance internet openness. Instead, it jeopardizes the prospects for continued innovation and robust growth we have witnessed since the internet’s creation.

 

The debate around an open internet has been going on for nearly 15 years. In the end, the issue is never really about what the rules should be or whether we should have an open internet.  Rather, the debate focuses on whether open internet rules should derive from the 80-year-old Communications Act or some other theory of Congressional authority because the current law predates the internet. Instead of having this debate again, Congress should act now to provide the clear statutory authority that guarantees an open internet for all consumers.

 

On the eve of this “Day of Action,” AT&T reaffirms our support for an open internet based on protections that are fair and equal for everyone.  We hope Congress can reach agreement on these principles and make those protections permanent.

 

< Here >

[Batu69]

Topic moved from Guides & Tutorials forum.

 

Original topic title is

Why the 12 July protest to protect net neutrality matters

[steven36]

 

Quote

 

Net neutrality and the Left - not 'neutral' when it comes to hate speech

This Wednesday, internet netroots and online behemoths will host an “Internet-Wide Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality” expected to slow down websites and online portals, as well as post language encouraging Americans to “fight to save the free and open Internet.”

 

There’s just one problem with this seemingly innocent call to action: it’s disingenuous, misleading, and being driven by partisan and at times hostile organizations that prioritize misleading propaganda and Obama-era overregulation over bipartisanship, transparency and civility.  

The recently revived net neutrality debate has caused progressive activists to lose their politically correct masks. And when I say they lost it, I mean really lost it. There are anonymous online activists submitting comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) calling Charmian Ajit Pai insults and names that range from funny to infuriating and from ill-informed to just pure hate. They have attacked the chairman’s Indian background, his marriage, even his two children. But, it hasn’t only been words, activists have even stalked his family outside their house for days on end.

 

“Oh, he’s in public service. He signed up for this,” you might say. No. That doesn’t justify this treatment. This man merely has a free market-rooted ideology that differs from “government is the only one who can save you” mentality of hard core net neutrality supporters. That means that this kind of behavior is abusive and potentially dangerous as well.  

 

Without the messaging machine of the internet activists ginning up these radicals and threatening comments, the topic of net neutrality is one that makes most peoples’ eyes glaze over, and one that would be left to internet engineers and technologists to resolve. But unfortunately, a cottage industry around the issue of net neutrality developed over time, one that helps radical netroots groups raise a lot of money and make a lot of fake noise by misleading the public about what the issue is all about.

 

Quote

The net neutrality debate was never about “maintaining a safe, free, and open internet” as President Obama messaged it to be. It was about ensuring the one thing Democrats always want – control of the internet and to help their crony friends.

 

First, the principles of net neutrality itself is supported by FCC Chairman Pai, Commissioner O’Rielly, Republicans in Congress, and broadband providers. They all support a free and open internet. The real issue at play is the Obama-Wheeler government takeover of the internet known as Title II which re-classified broadband service providers in 2015 as “common carriers” from the 1930’s.

 

Title II regulation of the internet is a vintage example of lipstick-on-a-pig politics. The net neutrality debate was never about “maintaining a safe, free, and open internet” as President Obama messaged it to be. It was about ensuring the one thing Democrats always want – control of the internet and to help their crony friends. Under these regulations, government bureaucrats can decide what websites they can prioritize or punish and what broadband infrastructure investments are worth.

 

And contrary to what activists continue to yell and howl, this type of framework doesn’t bode well for consumers. According to a report by the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

 

“[These] regulations harm consumers because they prevent ISPs from experimenting with the network configurations and pricing models that serve consumers best. Instead of regulating how broadband service is provided, Congress, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and governments at all levels should promote competition by making more spectrum available for commercial use and by reducing barriers to deploying wireline infrastructure.”

 

The reality in what should really just be called “The Title II Debate” is that businesses using the networks which ISPs operate want to make sure their information pipeline into homes is as cheap as possible. Instead of building their own networks, with the exception of Google on this point, cronyism is their tactic. And to reach that end they are demagoguing ISPs.

 

But that story wouldn’t help the activists raise money online, generate fake FCC filings, or advance their big government agenda. Their playbook has been fairly easy to forecast since it’s a recycled act, but that doesn’t stop them from spreading their false talking points and hate to feed off of a lack of knowledge in this technical and wonky issue.

 

This debate, at its roots, is about a difference of opinion regarding how best to regulate the internet—one of the most important modern inventions. There is the conservative, let the economic chips fall where they may attitude, and then there’s the liberal, government control is key attitude. But regardless of where you stand on that fundamental question, political advocacy should never turn to hate or race, which this debate undoubtedly has. It is, indeed, a dangerous path we’re on.  

 

Net neutrality activists have already lost the moral high ground. Not even Wednesday’s hostile Internet takeover will make us forget that. And next they will lose on Title II as well. 

 

 

Charles Sauer is founder and president of The Market Institute.

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/07/11/net-neutrality-and-left-not-neutral-when-it-comes-to-hate-speech.html

 

[steven36]

 

Quote

 

Activists Are Teaming Up With Big Tech For Net Neutrality Protests

 

Activist groups pushing for U.S. government oversight of the internet are encouraging people to protest and demonstrate Wednesday in what is being called a “day of action,” and they appear to have the support of Silicon Valley and much of the larger tech industry.

 

Three groups, Fight for the Future, Free Press, and Demand Progress, started the “Battle for the Net” project in order to rally supporters. One of the primary methods for outreach and advocacy is offering companies and organizations a computer widget that gives websites the ability to greet visitors with a set of information. Those details can include the address of their local congressman’s office or information on how to correspond with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on their online forum for public comments.

 

The debate over net neutrality has been heating up in recent months after new FCC leadership voiced their aversion and intent to unroll Obama-era rules the agency imposed only a couple of years ago.

 

Net neutrality is a nebulous term loosely defined as the principle that internet service providers have no right to discriminate against certain forms of traffic, including spam, nor to offer faster speeds to higher-paying customers. For supporters, who usually skew left, it means all traffic receives equal treatment. For critics, who skew right, net neutrality is a government takeover that prevents companies from investing in faster infrastructure.

 

It is important to distinguish that the majority of liberal groups want the government to categorize the internet as a Title II utility (meaning publicly controlled), which is not the exact same as net neutrality.

 

Placing the internet under the Title II classification is a mechanism to enforce net neutrality in a comprehensive manner, though many businesses call it cumbersome and restrictive.

 

A representative for Comcast, which is portrayed as an exploitative, overly-capitalistic corporation by Fight for the Future, Free Press and Demand Progress, alluded to this concept in an email to The Daily Caller News Foundation. Comcast maintains it is for equal treatment of the internet, and against placing the government in central command.

 

AT&T, another internet service provider that is vilified by the activist groups, also says it supports net neutrality — but not a Title II classification — because it would severely limit the industry’s ability to innovate by extending new offerings to consumers.

 

“AT&T continues to support the fundamental tenets of net neutrality,” AT&T Chairman & CEO Randall Stephenson said in an official statement. “And we remain committed to open internet protections that are fair and equal for everyone. The bipartisan, light-touch regulatory approach that Congress established at the internet’s inception brought American consumers unparalleled investment in broadband infrastructure, created jobs and fueled economic growth. It was illogical for the FCC in 2015 to abandon that light-touch approach and instead regulate the internet under an 80-year-old law designed to set rates for the rotary-dial-telephone era.”

 

When AT&T started offering free data through the “DirectTV Now” service last year, the FCC under the Obama administration ordered it to stop because the offer was a violation of net neutrality.

 

The FCC leadership at the time — as well as the activist groups today — worried that more powerful internet service-providers, like AT&T, would be able to exact charges for data received from video-streaming companies like Netflix and Hulu while offering its own content for free. They fear that by creating a gap in costs, less established companies will not be able to prosper. AT&T’s Stephenson said in December that his company received “a really aggressive letter” from the agency for giving better, cheaper services to their customers.

 

In a press release issued Tuesday, Bob Quinn, senior executive vice president of external and legislative affairs at AT&T, announced the company is joining the “day of action.” He clarified that this “may seem like an anomaly to many people,” but that it shouldn’t since there are ways to foster an open internet environment without using an antiquated statute and classification.

 

Holmes Wilson, co-founder of Fight for The Future, told TheDCNF that several organizations have reached out to their coalition and expressed interest in either using their widget, or advocating for an open internet in some similar respect.

 

Starting months ago, the FCC invited people to publish their thoughts about net neutrality on the public filing system in an attempt to have the rule-making process for internet regulation as democratic as possible. Hundreds of thousands of people (perhaps millions, though it is difficult to tell due to unclear authenticity) have apparently contributed to the policy debate through the FCC’s online forum, despite how technical, complex, and idiosyncratic the issue is.

 

Now the same liberal, pro-net neutrality activists who have been contributing to the flood of comments — anti-net neutrality activists have as well — are organizing support of a government takeover of the internet. Companies that have expressed their intention to back these activists include tech giants like Amazon, Netflix, Twitter and Dropbox, according to the larger protest website. How these companies will participate remains to be seen, as Wilson told TheDCNF they “don’t really know what to expect” since they have never gotten such a high degree of backing before.

 

“We support strong net neutrality protections, even if we are at less risk because of our popularity,” a public relations executive at Netflix told TheDCNF, referring to the company’s belief that compared to years ago it is less likely to be harmed if net neutrality rules are unraveled. “There are other companies for whom this is a bigger issue, and we’re joining this day of action to ensure the next Netflix has a fair shot to go the distance.”

 

Other participants of the “day of action” consist of organizations from a wide variety of industries, from lobbying groups and advocacy organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation, to pornographic video-sharing services like PornHub and YouPorn.

 

“Net neutrality is an essential driver of innovation for startups,” Vice President of PornHub Corey Price said in a statement. “It has helped us and many others create leading-edge solutions that have huge benefits for consumers. It’s a fight worth fighting and we’re excited to stand alongside industry leaders to protest the FCC’s planned rollback of net neutrality rules. I encourage all our fans across the world to stand together on July 12^th and help spread the word.”

 

Fight for the Future has issued a number of press releases in recent weeks boasting that “more than 80,000 people, sites, and organizations have signed on to the effort overall.” With so many entities participating, a large portion of Silicon Valley is ideologically aligning itself with far-left leaning organizations, including some of the groups’ leaders who have connections to groups or people with a violent history.

 

The activists are part of the pro-net neutrality advocacy consortium that staked out FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s home for several days in May (including Mother’s Day) and include John Zangas and Evan Greer.

 

Zangas, a self-described “citizen journalist” with the leftist DC Media Group collective, was the videographer of an organized Antifa (Anti-Facist) protest on March 4, 2017. Antifa protestors at the time were demonstrating at a pro-Trump rally on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

 

Greer, who is a higher-up at Fight For The Future, lists his role as media strategy and outreach coordinator for the Tarek Mehanna Support Group on his LinkedIn profile. Mehanna was convicted on charges that he conspired to kill Americans, and sentenced in 2012 to 17.5 years in federal prison.

 

Whether more formidable and established tech conglomerates like Amazon and Netflix know they are working with organizations whose leaders have engaged in dubiously appropriate behavior is not fully known.

 

Bret Swanson, president of Entropy Economic and visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, argues that Silicon Valley is playing a dangerous game by calling for more oversight over its own industry. He points out that ill-defined values of neutrality have already harmed large tech companies. The European Union, for example, slapped a record $2.71 billion fine on Google for favoring some of its price-comparison search results over those of its rivals. In addition to the fine, the EU ordered the company to apply the same search results methods to its rivals that it does to its own company.

 

Google is not directly listed under the Battle for the Net’s participating organizations, but is a member of the Internet Association — a trade alliance that is marked under the coalition’s index of supporters.

Google also reportedly confirmed, according to two different publications, that it will participate in the “day of action” July 12, though, once again, it is not clear how. The company declined to provide comment to TheDCNF when asked about their plans for the protest.

 

Netflix, which is excited to join the protests, admitted to throttling video speeds for consumers of Verizon and AT&T. Almost every advocate of net neutrality says one of their primary concerns is that companies like AT&T and Verizon would be able to slow down streaming speeds for certain websites like Netflix or smaller companies, but what actually occurred was the other way around. FCC Chair Ajit Pai has said it would be wise to wait until evidence of throttling comes out before imposing restrictions on tech companies.

 

Swanson, in his paper titled “Silicon Valley’s Dangerous Political Game,” provided several examples of the tech companies crying foul when forced to comply with standards of uniformity, or when accusations of harming neutrality are misapplied.

 

“A more constructive path forward on net neutrality,”  Swanson concluded, “would be for Silicon Valley to join with parties across the political spectrum to find a common sense legislative solution that protects content consumers and also the ability of current and future firms to innovate.”

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/11/activists-are-teaming-up-with-big-tech-for-net-neutrality-protests/

 

[Sylence]

But they define "hate speech" as anything that is against the west and their policies, mostly the truth. Youtube, Instagram, Facebook, Google you want more? they all do censorship, they censor things and facts that are true but they prevent people from knowing it. I've seen so many Instagram pages, so many Youtube channels getting disappeared or blocked over night.

 

U.S claims in Iran there isn't much human rights and some websites are blocked for citizens, porn websites and such are blocked for us. but instead a lot of other things are open for us, things that are blocked in the west. 

[steven36]

 

Quote

 

Net Neutrality: an ugly debate where nobody wins

 

 

Lines have once again been drawn. Posters and signs once again put up. Voices and arms raised once more on both sides. Yes, it’s time again for the great Net Neutrality debates as tech companies call supporters to arms. What was presumed to be a done deal is in danger of being overturned with the turning of the guard. While the final word, legally speaking, will come down to a vote, the debate will carry on and on, long after the vote has been cast. And it is a debate that might not have a clear answer in sight for a long time.

 

What is Net Neutrality?

The definition of Net Neutrality has been given over and over again since the term popped up in the early 2000s, including in a few pieces here. We won’t repeat a length, scholarly definition here, and we’ll settle for what is perhaps the core tenet of the principle: all data is equal.

 

This means that, under the principle of the “Open Internet”, service providers and even government agencies should not discriminate against different types of data. They should not favor one over another, block one type of data, or charge extra for some other kind of data. ISPs shouldn’t be allowed to throttle services based on their own standards of fairness and government shouldn’t be allowed to exert pressure on them to block services that are used to criticize it.

 

On the surface, this Open Internet sounds like a really good thing, one that is almost on the same level as basic freedoms and human rights. In fact, advocates of Net Neutrality often point out how the Internet has become such, necessitating the government to reign in carriers and service providers from milking consumers dry. An Open Internet sounds pretty much aligned with the spirit of democracy. But, as they always say, the devil is in the details.

Data is equal, use is not

Technically speaking, data is just data and is, therefore, really equal. But that’s not exactly what’s put in question here. It’s the use of data that’s put under a microscope. And, honestly speaking, that has never been equal. At least not after the introduction of BitTorrent and streaming.

 

Browsing a news site and checking email are very different activities from watching a YouTube video and downloading a very large file. While they can be reduced down to 0s and 1s at their most basic level, the intention of their use, the use of bandwidth, and their frequency put them in very different classes.

 

This is one of the favorite arguments opponents of Net Neutrality push forward when pointing out the flaws of the principle. A user binging on a Netflix series will use up more bandwidth and consume more data than someone who simply checks emails and news, even if daily. Multiply that by the number of streaming services and users and you’re presented with a picture of an uneven distribution of resources between network hogs and casual users. ISPs argue that they should be allowed to throttle hogs for the sake of preserving the balance. Or, and this is their preferred solution, at least charge services extra for using up all that bandwidth.

 

Things get even more heated when you bring in less legitimate uses of the Internet. Porn, downloading pirated media, cyberterrorism, etc. Carriers argue that they should be able to discriminate against these types of data, or rather, these types of use, for the sake of law and order. Considering how that argument appeals strongly to the government’s policing of the Internet, it shouldn’t be a surprise why the FCC chair wants to rescind the current Net Neutrality laws.

Unhealthy competition

Net neutrality advocates, however, claim to see through the smokescreen. Carriers aren’t really that interested in keeping network abusers in check. They aren’t charities and they aren’t government either. They are for-profit companies that are, at the end of the day, driven by profits. They would allow network hogs to do as they will, provided they pay a hefty fee.

 

That fee, however, will eventually trickle down to users. If Netflix gets charged by carriers in order to get the widest and fastest network lines, Netflix will eventually pass on that cost to subscribers. In other words, subscription costs are guaranteed to go higher. And make no mistake, companies will pay for that special privilege, at least those that can afford it. That puts smaller companies and startups at a huge disadvantage. A competing service will be left on a slower, more congested lane because it doesn’t have the bank account that Netflix or Google has.

 

There is also the fear that ISPs can be used as instruments of government censorship and espionage. It’s not that difficult for government to “convince” carriers, especially after siding with them on this Net Neutrality debate, to seek out sources of dissent alongside shutting down venues for crime. It’s a worst case scenario that might already be familiar to some.

 

The price of innovation

On the other hand, Net Neutrality will also hurt the market in the long run, argue those rallying behind FCC chair Ajit Pai in this matter. Net Neutrality would stifle innovation in the Internet and networking space. How? By removing incentives for companies to innovate. Why? Because they aren’t going to profit as much.

 

Popular services that use up more bandwidth than normal place an undue stress to network infrastructure, infrastructure that providers have to maintain as well as develop. But why would they bother doing so when the only ones that benefit and profit in the long run are those services? Shouldn’t providers and network hardware manufacturers get their fair share of the pie for all the work and innovation they put in? Without that carrot, the horse won’t feel all that motivated to step forward.

 

That almost sounds like a veiled threat from some angles. Keep Net Neutrality and you might see innovation and even quality of service plummet. Net Neutrality advocate worry that the money ISPs and carriers earn from the “Netflix tax” might end up lining pockets instead of improving technology. They would argue that there hasn’t really been any significant innovation in that space, even before Net Neutrality became a thing, so what’s to say that will change if Net Neutrality rules do get revoked?

Regulating regulation

Some opponents of Net Neutrality have recently come out to say that they don’t oppose Net Neutrality at all. AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon have joined the pro Net Neutrality troops, saying that they’re all for an open Internet, one where companies like them won’t be allowed to block access to or throttle services on grounds given above. What they’re opposed to, however, is how Net Neutrality is currently enforced.

 

Under the Obama administration, the FCC re-classified ISPs as “common carriers” which gave the commission regulatory powers over them under Title II of Communications Act. The rules that have come out of that, argue ISPs, discourage investment. They also fear that regulating service providers would stifle competition and free market dynamics. AT&T and friends are, instead, arguing that it is on Congress to pass laws that would implement the principles of Net Neutrality, not government agencies.

 

Interestingly, Net Neutrality advocates are pushing for that as well, even if they don’t believe AT&T and Verizon have their hearts in it. Laws would be more permanent and less prone to being overturned by the next administration, as can already be seen now. The question is whether Congress will be able to pass such laws in a timely manner. An even bigger question is whether companies will use their deep pockets to influence the formulation of those laws. Given how ISPs and tech companies have strong lobbying powers, that’s pretty much a given already.

Who do you trust?

In theory and on principle, Net Neutrality is something everyone can agree on. Even those opposing it won’t deny that losing both customers and content providers is bad for business. In practice, Net Neutrality has failed to become permanent because neither side really trusts the other.

 

Proponents of net neutrality don’t trust companies to behave when they’re given nearly free reign. They believe, based on past behavior, that companies will take advantage of the situation for their profit. On the other hand, those pushing to have the current Net Neutrality laws taken down also don’t trust the government to be an impartial authority. Given recent events, they too have reason to be distrustful.

 

In the end, people will be people and even if the matter ends up and ends at Congress or even the Supreme Court, there will be no shortage of dissenting voices, whichever way it turns out. Nor will there be a shortage of casualties in a battle that doesn’t seem to have an end, and those casualties are often the consumers.

 

https://www.slashgear.com/net-neutrality-an-ugly-debate-where-nobody-wins-13491380/

 

[steven36]

 

Quote

 

Modern life in rural America requires high-speed internet

 

With all the rancor between political parties in Washington, D.C., you could have easily missed two bipartisan bills in Congress concerning high-speed internet in rural areas — Senate Bill 1013 and House Bill 1546. This is an important topic to Utah, given how much of the state is rural. But what happens next? Will bipartisanship continue long enough to build the high-tech infrastructure required for modern life in rural America?

 

In a state-by-state comparison, Utah actually fares pretty well in internet speeds, coming in as the eighth fastest state with a download peak of 60 Mbps (megabits per second) and third fastest on average at 16.2 Mbps. Utah is pushed higher for several reasons, including Google Fiber in the Provo area and the population concentration along the “Silicon Slopes” of the Wasatch Front.

 

Urban areas still outpace rural areas considerably. Many rural areas still have only dial-up modem service that is much slower — too slow to stream movies, music or even family pictures, at least without a serious wait.

 

Nationally, only 55 percent of people in rural areas have broadband speed connections, compared to 94 percent in urban areas. Tribal lands are closer to 40 percent. The problem seems worse as the Federal Communications Commission redefines broadband speeds to reflect increased use. At one time, the Connect America Fund offered subsidies to telecom companies to connect rural customers at 10 Mbps. In 2015, the FCC declared 25 Mbps as a minimum for broadband.

 

Both S.B. 1104 and H.B. 1546 require standardized data gathering to analyze speeds for mobile and data service. This should help evaluate the cost/benefit of continuing with CAF. Some experts argue 10 Mbps for broadband is still capable of improving rural economic production. But rural leaders want funding for higher speeds, which is one reason many local communities are subsidizing the cost of improving infrastructure.

 

Access to faster internet speeds raises income, reduces unemployment and creates jobs. Unfortunately, in rural areas, the challenge of lower incomes, higher unemployment, less education and older residents exacerbates the problem of building internet infrastructure.

 

Rural settings offer fewer interested customers per square mile. This means greater material and labor costs for laying fiber and boosting signals and less income for internet providers.

Less competition in rural settings also means higher prices. Rural customers typically have three times fewer provider options from which to choose.

 

In some locations, wireless communication over cell networks has replaced wired homes because speeds have increased faster than wired connections. But, 4G doesn’t provide broadband speed. The not-yet-fully-defined 5G network protocol that may surface within the next two to four years is supposed to get to 10 Gigabits per second (a 1,000-fold increase) but 5G also requires smaller and cheaper transmission devices instead of large towers, so the rollout will be in cities and along roads.

 

Many technologies are being tested to reach extreme rural areas. Both Facebook and Alphabet/Google are testing concepts in Africa. Facebook’s solar-powered drone, Aquila, is designed to fly for months at over 60,000 feet and act as a relay for internet signals. Unfortunately, a test plane crashed last fall, slowing the project.

 

Alphabet’s project Loon is also a bit out there, using balloons as high-flying cell towers. The company is using artificial intelligence to hone the balloons’ abilities, using wind currents to stay over a particular area, and has had some testing success.

 

Due to economies of scale, urban areas will continue to lead the way in increased internet access. For as long as civilization has existed, humans have gravitated toward closer proximity and realized the economic value. With more content, more high definition, and more connected devices, what constitutes “broadband” will continue to require higher rates of transfer. The economic engines of cities will drive that.

 

However, rural America cannot be left behind. Modern farming is a data-intensive business using drones, instantaneous market analysis and automated machines. The tools of the city are also of the country.

 

Fortunately, our representatives — both red and blue — seem to understand that.

 

Dr. David Ferro is dean of the College of Engineering, Applied Science & Technology at Weber State University. Twitter: @DavidFerro9.

 

http://www.standard.net/Guest-Commentary/2017/06/27/internet-rural-America-broadband-Google-Fiber-Facebook-Congress-Utah-column-Ferro