• Tag Archives net neutrality

  • Net Neutrality Is about Government Control of the Internet

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    Net Neutrality Is about Government Control of the Internet

    The fight over the privacy rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the latest brawl between advocates of a free and largely unregulated Internet and the “net neutrality” activist ideologues who see the Internet as something that should be nationalized and publicly owned and regulated.

    In March, Congress voted 215-205 to eliminate the Internet privacy rules passed by the FCC under former chairman Tom Wheeler. The Senate had already voted the same way. President Trump signed the legislation into law in April. The vote in Congress was predictably condemned by ideologues opining in the Washington Post, CNN, and other news outlets on how the vote entirely destroys our privacy rights on the Internet. But repealing the draconian FCC privacy rules – before they were set to take effect later this year – will not put our privacy rights in any danger at all. There are more than enough federal and state protections in place.

    We’re Fine without It, Thanks

    Internet privacy has been protected quite well for almost 20 years by rules from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). When the FCC enacted the new privacy rules, the FTC opposed them as unnecessary. Surely when the FTC says new rules would hurt consumers and weaken consumer protections, those rules should be seriously questioned. Without the FCC privacy rules, the FTC remains active in protecting consumer privacy on the Internet.

    The privacy and net neutrality rules passed in the FCC in 2015 were part of the larger effort under the Obama Administration to regulate the Internet as if it were a public utility, much like the old “Ma Bell” phone monopoly. Ironically, the very development and growth of the Internet would not have been possible were it not for the deregulation and breaking up of the old phone monopoly.

    Current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai pointed out that the elimination of the FCC Internet regulations  will not harm consumers, or the public interest, because they were never needed. Justification for the regulations were “phantoms that were conjured up by people who wanted the FCC for political reasons to over regulate the Internet,” he told Nick Gillespie of Reason. “We were not living in a digital dystopia in the years leading up to 2015.” Pai also pointed out how Google and Facebook have succeeded in an Internet free of government micromanagement, where content providers and others are free to innovate and offer consumers the services and content they demand.

    The “Open Internet Order” (OIO) regulating the Internet, passed by the FCC in 2015, would have moved the Internet in the direction favored by net neutrality ideologues. In the text of the OIO, the George Soros-funded net neutrality group Free Press was mentioned 46 times – it’s almost as if Free Press had written the regulations for the FCC. The OIO sees the Internet as something that should be nationalized by the government to be run like a public utility.

    Advocates of this vision, including leaders of Free Press, have made it clear what they want. Robert McChesney, one of the founders of Free Press, stated,

    What we want to have in the US and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility. We want an Internet where you don’t have to have a password and that you don’t pay a penny to use. It is your right to use the Internet.

    The goal they are calling “net neutrality” is to have the federal government, and governments around the world, in control of the Internet. McChesney stated further,

    At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.

    Government control of the Internet raises many questions about consumer and privacy protection. When the Office of Personnel Management held the personal data of 21.5 million people, it was an easy target for hackers seeking access. The list of government agencies compromised by hackers continues to grow. Imagine if everyone’s personal information, including emails, browser history, and the data stored on “cookies” on computers was stored in one giant government entity that runs the Internet.

    Public Utilities Are Not Private

    The FCC agenda that voted for those regulations in 2015 is less about privacy and consumer protection than it is about government control of the Internet. In receiving court approval of the privacy rules, the FCC reclassified broadband Internet access as a public utility.

    The rapid advance of technology lets the Internet evolve continually, and this innovation is threatened if the Internet is to be regulated or run like a public utility. Public utilities do not compete against other entities, and are regulated as monopolies. But the Internet is not structured that way: most consumers have a choice in what Internet service they have. In 20 years, Internet providers invested more than $1.5 trillion in the development of the Internet in the US. Most homes in the US have access to broadband Internet at lower rates than consumers pay in Europe, where the service is price-regulated.

    Public utilities do not innovate, nor do they seek to better their service for consumers. Those who remember the old “Ma Bell” phone monopoly know this: consumers rented phones from “the phone company” at high rates, and although getting them fixed was included in the cost of the service, consumers often waited days before a technician showed up.

    There are two clear paths the Internet might take, depending on which sides wins this battle over having a truly free, private Internet or one controlled by the government as a public utility. While the free market always supports innovation and consumers’ choices, government control has only lead to corruption and inefficiency in all entities it controls.

    Supporters have communicated exactly what they want. There can be no confusion about what the net neutrality agenda is all about: supporters of net neutrality demonize Internet service providers in their populist arguments for government control. But if they win their dream, consumers will be the real losers in this battle over Internet control.


    Drew Armstrong

    Drew Armstrong is a freelance political journalist based out of Orange County, California.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.



    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged

  • In Net Neutrality Order, The FCC Sides With Big Content Over Little Consumers

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    Who will pay for the communications infrastructure of the 21st century? Will it be broadband consumers, big content providers, or some combination of the two? In its Open Internet Order released last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC ) sided with Big Content and stuck broadband consumers with the full tab.

    Before the FCC’s order, there were two possible ways by which Big Content—think Netflix or Amazon or YouTube—could contribute to the recovery of infrastructure costs by Internet service providers (ISPs). Content providers offering real-time applications (which for the most part do not yet exist) could pay for special handling of their packets or “priority delivery.” Alternatively, online video providers could pay ISPs a fee for interconnection.

    By reclassifying ISPs as public utilities, however, the FCC has foreclosed both forms of contribution. Paid priority has been banned (see para. 19), snuffing out the market for real-time applications in its infancy. And interconnection arrangements will be regulated under Title II’s “just and reasonable” standard (see para. 29), which could mean anything, including Big Content paying only the ISP’s incremental cost of adding interconnection capacity (see para. 200). If Netflix has its way, that nebulous standard could mean free interconnection for the largest content providers.

    Zero contribution is great news for Big Content. Indeed, Netflix’s stock price is up nearly $100 (a 25% increase) since President Obama came out in favor of public-utility regulations in November of 2014.

    But it is bad news for broadband consumers. In a two-sided market such as broadband, banning payments from one side of the market will likely reduce broadband adoption. The simple reason is that broadband users are more price-sensitive than Big Content. Imagine what would happen to newspaper subscriptions if contributions from advertisers were banned, and the entire cost burden fell on readers!

    Ironically, Big Content hired a team of lobbyists and activists to convince millions of consumers that corporate welfare for Big Content is somehow pro-consumer. Yet the FCC’s order will mean higher bills for broadband consumers; not necessarily higher than today, but higher than they would have been had Big Content been permitted to make some contribution.

    Full article: http://www.forbes.co … er-little-consumers/


    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged

  • 10 Important Facts About the FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    Things have drastically changed for the Internet after the Federal Communications Commission passed the new rules cheered by President Obama. But how will these changes impact you?

    Obama promises the new rules will “even out” the playing field. Opponents warn about new taxes. But who’s right and how do we get to the bottom of it? Maybe these 10 important facts about the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules may help you decide.

    1- Obama’s Net Neutrality Means Fewer Choices, Less Freedom

    To Obama, net neutrality means not allowing consumers to choose what they want to spend their money on. To the FCC and the President, web site operators should never have the option of spending more money to ensure that content gets delivered as promised. Obama’s net neutrality ensures certain services and applications are limited simply because start-ups and small business may hurt if they cannot compete “mano a mano” with the big dogs.

    By ensuring the standards are low to everybody, the new net neutrality rules do not give you access to better services if you’re willing to pay for it.

    2- New Rules Reclassify Broadband

    FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler had one goal in mind: reclassify the Internet by categorizing it as a telecom service instead of referring to it as an information service.

    That is not just a sign of Wheeler’s unfamiliarity with what the Internet provides to consumers, it’s also a clear sign of what the new rules are all about: government control over the Internet. By reclassifying the Internet, the government is able to exert more control over it.

    3- What We Have Now Is (Sorta) Net Neutrality

    Exceptions exist, but as it stands, cable and wireless companies do not discriminate when it comes to similar types of web traffic. Broadband providers don’t use their technology to block or deliberately slow the exchange of data either. But to regulators, things are not right until government is involved. As a result, rules were put in place to restrain broadband providers even further. To gather support for the new rules, regulators claimed major companies were interested in manipulating the network. The fear mongering was so strong that support for the FCC rules became widespread.

    4- Rules Will Thwart Innovation

    Smaller Internet businesses and other start-ups have been fervent proponents of the new FCC rules, but not too long ago, the wireless industry was heavily against net neutrality regulations. In 2010, when the FCC passed several regulations covering the Internet, the industry argued the new rules would decelerate innovation. As a result, only a few transparency rules were enforced. But now, new rules impact everybody, especially if you’re a consumer.

    From now on, anything you use to have access to the Internet, whether it’s a PC, a tablet, phone, Macbook, etc. will have to comply with the new rules. Internet providers will also have to abide by the same three rules: no blocking, no restraint toward competitors, and no paid prioritization. But if the rules are so black and white, why are so many people so angry about them?

    5- FCC’s Rules Aren’t Predictable

    New FCC regulations may not sound all that bad to you, but what if I told you that they are unpredictable? Would you still trust Obama and the bureaucrats?

    According to cable and wireless companies and some Republicans who strongly opposed the new rules, uncertainty makes it hard for Internet providers to know what they are dealing with. Not knowing what the legal battles you will have to pick ahead before launching a program or a service can be damaging not only to the companies, but also to consumers.

    Full article: http://www.voicesofl … et-neutrality-rules/


    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged