RIP Net Neutrality
RIP Net Neutrality
RIP
Disclaimer: This is not my usual thing and all, but when comes time and I am provoked, I am implementing my review skills in reality. With that, all of my research comes from the respective sites below, and I encourage you all to go on them for more information. Biased or not, these sites will give you the overview on what net neutrality means, so just filter out the bias if you don't like that stuff. All information is owned by those respective sites and the only things I own are my sweet, sensitive and caring nature, my delightful and polite commentary, and my corny jokes. And yes, that might be sarcasm.
So without further ado, let's begin!
*****
So, net neutrality.
You want to know my input on it (even if you don't, too bad, I'm writing it anyways).
I could start off on a whole jargon of quotes from wise dead people and a plethora of analogies about the Founding Fathers, but I won’t. Nonetheless, I am a big believer when it comes to the whole quote “History repeats itself.”
And it does. But I am an even bigger believer to my own personal quote, “History repeats and so do rapacious people.”
To put it into context, rapacious means being a narcissistic, money grabbing douchebag and since you are reading this right now and not using any improvised script about anti-net neutrality from HowToWriteMySpeech.com, I am fairly confident that none of you are.
But let’s get back to rapacious. Despite common belief, I didn’t know this word until I searched it up on my handy dandy device over the internet over Thesaurus.com . Kind of like how Verizon searches up fancy words in their statements to justify their actions today. Let’s take what they replied to for Ajit Pai when he confidently cheered for the repealing of net neutrality.
They were, in fact, quite satisfied with the plan and complimented Pai’s “light touch regulatory framework.”
So tell me, does this statement give any clue as to why exactly they are supporting this repealing act?
Ring, ring. Hello, Verizon, I think you left behind something at the press conference today, I believe it’s called validation for your argument, but since there is practically nothing there anyways, I took the liberty to throw it out.
Before today, I didn’t even know what net neutrality meant, as did the 75% of Americans according to Washington Post. Let me break it down. Net neutrality is basically what we know the internet as — we can search up whatever we want without anyone blocking us. It is our ability to communicate freely with people and look through information. Now, after the FCC (The Federal Communications Commission) had a 3-2 vote, net neutrality is basically going to be obliterated. So, now, we have companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T being able to do whatever the hell they want when it comes to managing the internet.
A few things that they can do is as follows: being able to manipulate which websites, applications, and ultimately, companies rise to the top while others are crushed, destabilizing their opponents’ campaigns and ads, and even blocking unfavorable political content. They can also afford to give special treatment to companies who can pay their fees while others are reduced to “second best” at the bottom of the food chain. You think this is all hypothetical? I thought so too. Believe it or not, this is actually in their power to do, as long as they make announcements to the public. I bet a lot of those announcements would include “regulatory framework” as in their previous speeches, so I encourage the lot of you to count how many times they say that. As a matter of fact, count how many times they use thesaurus.com, it should be fairly easy to spot.
However, there is another thing repealed along with net neutrality: the Title II rules. What are they? Wikipedia says, “On February 26, 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by reclassifying broadband as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.” After extensive research and too many pictures, I simplified it down to this.
So once upon a time, the FCC, the abbreviated name for the network fashion police (yes, this is sarcasm) made the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that amended the Communications Act Of 1934 (a really old law). The Telecommunications Act was established because of the emergence of internet and basically made a bunch of laws so that anyone can enter the communications business. The main goal was that communications businesses should be able to compete against each other in any market.
Fast forwarding to 2015, the FCC adopted stronger net neutrality rules using Title II of the Communications Act. This was to better protect all internet users by preventing companies like Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T from interfering with web traffic (this is the flow of data sent and received by visitors on the internet). But none of you care about that.
The question is, what happens now that Title II is repealed with this new decision? Now, those same companies regulate the playing field; choosing who gets to succeed in the markets and who does not. Obviously, favoritism and “fees” are all fair game in these decisions. Before I even go into my major beef with censorship, I will tell you what this means for budding entrepreneurs. Small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs used to rely on the open internet in order to advertise and spread the word about their products. Now, they no longer have this open access because they will be bumped down by companies who can afford to pay their way into the good graces of Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T.
So, what they are basically saying is, “Innovation can go to hell as long as there is money coming in through the doors.”
The funny thing is that all of these companies: Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T did not start big, they started like every other company: small and practically debt ridden. We say that the century we live in right now is a reign of technology, yet, with companies like these controlling the playing field, they will undoubtedly strike down any small business that threatens their company in any shape or form with ease. And those small companies don’t have the resources to fight back or climb back up. Think about it. How are we benefiting, how is America, how is the whole world benefiting from this? We are essentially blocking the way for potential businesses that can become the new Google, Microsoft, or even Verizon from climbing their way up.
It is a known fact that competition drives people to do better, to perform better, and to allow for creative ideas to take root in reality. This repealing of net neutrality puts all that power in the hands of a few companies, and being that they want even more money to put into their overfilled wallets, they will undoubtedly use their means to prevent this from happening at all costs.
However, let’s see what the opposition has to say.
It is a known fact that competition drives people to do better, to perform better, and to allow for creative ideas to take root in reality. This repealing of net neutrality puts all that power in the hands of a few companies, and being that they want even more money to put into their overfilled wallets, they will undoubtedly use their means to prevent this from happening at all costs.
However, let’s see what the opposition has to say.
Broadband means high speed internet, by the way, so replacing that word in a phrase, AT&T stated that, “AT&T has consistently made clear that we provide high speed Internet service in an open and transparent way. We do not block websites, nor censor online content, nor throttle or degrade traffic based on the content, nor unfairly discriminate in our treatment of internet traffic. These principles, which were laid out in FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order and fully supported by AT&T.”
Okay, AT&T wants to mess with dates and orders, two can play at that game. In December 2010, the FCC did adopt the Open Internet Order. At this point, I encourage all of you to search it up. One of the major fundamental rules that it was based on includes non-blocking, which means that fixed broadband providers cannot block lawful content or anything that is considered competition to them.
Does this ring a bell? Doesn’t this sound a lot like the Title II gizmo I mentioned before? Let me repeat myself. Title II was implemented so that FCC can retain control over the broadband companies, and just as FreePress states, “Title II gave the FCC the authority it needed to ensure that companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon can’t block, throttle or otherwise interfere with web traffic. Title II preserved the internet’s level playing field, allowing people to share and access information of their choosing.”
However, AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast all supported Pai’s plan to repeal the net neutrality rules and along with this, Title II was obliterated. Yet, AT&T has the audacity to say that “AT&T has consistently made clear that we provide high speed Internet service in an open and transparent way. We do not block websites, nor censor online content, nor throttle or degrade traffic based on the content, nor unfairly discriminate in our treatment of internet traffic. These principles, which were laid out in FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order and fully supported by AT&T.”
Hypocritical much? AT&T just said that they supported a 2010 plan by the FCC that supports the same thing that Title II does, yet they went against Title II and supported it in having it repealed.
Looks like Verizon wasn’t the only one who left their validation back at the press conference.
Quite similar to AT&T, Comcast also decided to put input. So Comcast customers will enjoy the benefits of an open internet, apparently. Must I remind Comcast even of its own history? On August 1, 2008, FCC voted 3-2 against Comcast. This was because it had illegally prevented its users from using file sharing service. So, I guess we can see what their idea of an “open internet” is. Additionally, although FCC didn’t penalize them, they required them to stop in the same year. Same goes for Verizon when they tried to make users go to their own apps by exempting them from mobile data limits. Believe it or not, AT&T seemed to be on that same page as well when they offered discounts on Internet service to users who would allow them to look at their web browsing history.
So, with the repeal of this neutrality act, they would have a lot to gain, would they not? Freak coincidence or intentional?
What I find more ridiculous is that they think that the populace would take it for granted. Gee, a non physical pinky promise over Twitter....obviously, it’s very legit.
This is the full version. Just in case you ever want more hypocrisy in your life.
“This is not the end of net neutrality.”
*Comcast rips apart page titled: Net Neutrality*
Okay, so they say, “Despite repeated distortions and biased information, as well as misguided, inaccurate attacks from our detractors, our Internet service is not going to change. Comcast customers will continue to enjoy all of the benefits of an open Internet, today, tomorrow, and in the future. Period.”
The most logical part is the “period.” Good thing they know how to punctuate the ends of their sentences, because that was really the only redeeming factor of this speech. According to the New York Times, the repealed Title II prevented blocking, which I already talked about, throttling, and paid prioritization.
Throttling means that service providers cannot slow down legal content for its uses, almost like blocking. Lastly, Paid prioritization basically means favoritism for those who can pay fees (giving them a fast lane and putting the rest into the slow lanes). Now, the Title II regulations they struck down supported these safeguards, and they are saying that Comcast customers will continue to enjoy all of the benefits of the open internet.
Yeah, go figure.
You might think I am dramatic, after all, isn’t this just a plan to get money for companies like Verizon? Wrong. Politics is very much incorporated into this. How, you may ask? First off, Pai is a Republican and a Trump supporter, and as known, the Trump administration decreed that it would strike down Obama’s policies. One of these policies included him supporting net neutrality. However, arguably greater that this,
Pai, the figurehead of this, served as an associate general counsel at Verizon for two years since 2001.
Need I say more? Geez, so much coincidence. If this was a book instead of reality, I would probably be critiquing it five feet under. Or potentially more.
But what are the effects? Take a look at this snapshot from the Washington Post, it pretty much sums up this situation.
*Comcast rips apart page titled: Net Neutrality*
Okay, so they say, “Despite repeated distortions and biased information, as well as misguided, inaccurate attacks from our detractors, our Internet service is not going to change. Comcast customers will continue to enjoy all of the benefits of an open Internet, today, tomorrow, and in the future. Period.”
The most logical part is the “period.” Good thing they know how to punctuate the ends of their sentences, because that was really the only redeeming factor of this speech. According to the New York Times, the repealed Title II prevented blocking, which I already talked about, throttling, and paid prioritization.
Throttling means that service providers cannot slow down legal content for its uses, almost like blocking. Lastly, Paid prioritization basically means favoritism for those who can pay fees (giving them a fast lane and putting the rest into the slow lanes). Now, the Title II regulations they struck down supported these safeguards, and they are saying that Comcast customers will continue to enjoy all of the benefits of the open internet.
Yeah, go figure.
You might think I am dramatic, after all, isn’t this just a plan to get money for companies like Verizon? Wrong. Politics is very much incorporated into this. How, you may ask? First off, Pai is a Republican and a Trump supporter, and as known, the Trump administration decreed that it would strike down Obama’s policies. One of these policies included him supporting net neutrality. However, arguably greater that this,
Pai, the figurehead of this, served as an associate general counsel at Verizon for two years since 2001.
Need I say more? Geez, so much coincidence. If this was a book instead of reality, I would probably be critiquing it five feet under. Or potentially more.
But what are the effects? Take a look at this snapshot from the Washington Post, it pretty much sums up this situation.
 |
| Wow, a plan where I have to pay for something that was once free because a bunch of companies want to make extra money.....where can I sign up? (Yes, this is sarcasm as well). |
And the situation sucks.
You can see a majority of my sources in the citations below. Without this research, without the open internet where I could see everyone’s debates and arguments, I could never have been able to express my ideas knowledgeably or effectively. FreePress acknowledges this in their points.
I will leave the First Amendment issues to people who actually study legal matters. For now, I will just say this.
The United States is looked upon as a symbol for freedom: of speech and press. Censorship, despite what you may think, is not a far leap, these companies have in their power to slow down content that they do not deem favorable.
So when people come to our country, what do you want them to say?
So far, all I am thinking is: Ooooo, land for the free, the free who can pay for it.
Micdrop.
Micdrop
*****Citations: (Enjoy Reading) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/21/the-fcc-has-unveiled-its-plan-to-rollback-its-net-neutrality-rules/?utm_term=.4f174acbe1f8
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/21/the-fcc-has-unveiled-its-plan-to-rollback-its-net-neutrality-rules/?utm_term=.494adbc4843d
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/14/the-fcc-is-expected-to-repeal-its-net-neutrality-rules-today-in-a-sweeping-act-of-deregulation/?utm_term=.402937d3719a
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/?utm_term=.e43d46fa3a9a
https://techcrunch.com/gallery/what-telecoms-and-tech-companies-are-saying-about-the-fccs-net-neutrality-decision/slide/2/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/courts-net-neutrality-fcc.html?login=email
https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/#537e2a2f70d5
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=0
Yup, that is happening too:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/21/the-fcc-has-unveiled-its-plan-to-rollback-its-net-neutrality-rules/?utm_term=.494adbc4843d
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/14/the-fcc-is-expected-to-repeal-its-net-neutrality-rules-today-in-a-sweeping-act-of-deregulation/?utm_term=.402937d3719a
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/?utm_term=.e43d46fa3a9a
https://techcrunch.com/gallery/what-telecoms-and-tech-companies-are-saying-about-the-fccs-net-neutrality-decision/slide/2/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/courts-net-neutrality-fcc.html?login=email
https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/#537e2a2f70d5
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=0
Yup, that is happening too:
Comments
Post a Comment