After reading countless articles and watching countless apocalyptic, prognosticating youtube clips, it suddenly dawned on me that people have no idea what Net Neutrality actually is.
Here are some of the things people say:
Net Neutrality...
• Will keep the internet open
• Will prevent data from being priced differently
• Will literally kill the internet without it
Note: Actual file footage of what happens after the repeal of Net Neutrality.
These are vague talking points that miss the point of what proponents really advocate.
If you're curious, ask someone if they can explain Net Neutrality to you and see if you get anything other than a cryptic answer.
So what is it?
Net Neutrality is the idea that government should nationalize and regulate the internet like your electricity or water.
The common perception here is that, "Well, government already regulates utilities, so why should internet be any different?" Good question, and I'll get to this in part 2. First we need to know...
Where did this idea originate?
After decades of having an internet where prices have fallen dramatically, where speeds have increased by orders of magnitude, where internet access is everywhere and unrestricted... the government realized it needed to do something about all this.
Let's say you're a government official and you have an agenda (shouldn't be all that hard to imagine really). Let's say your agenda is to control the flow of information so that it skews in your general direction for the purpose of getting reelected or passing more cumbersome laws onto your voting constituency.
What could you possibly do to curb that flow of information in a world where information is everywhere?
First thing you do is remind yourself that you're a part of the world's most powerful monopoly with a near unlimited income and an unrivaled military industrial apparatus.
Then you remind yourself that regulation is the way to control those information gatekeepers and that you regularly do this with other sectors.
Finally, you have to convince well-intentioned people that government control over the internet is in their best interest.
And that's how Net Neutrality was born.
Obviously, this is an overly simplistic explanation, yet it cuts to the heart of why it exists in the first place. It's not a single individual but a system of individuals who all share similar beliefs about the flow of information.
There's one country that does this exactly: China.
The Great Firewall of China
Believe it or not... China has its own amazingly successful Net Neutrality. They spend billions of tax dollars to create hardware and software which filters and flags any content which goes against China's interest while actively hiding information from their own population which could hurt their self-image. For example, they've successfully scrubbed their internet of the terrible mass murder they caused at Tiananmen Square. To do this, they hire thousands of people to sit and scour the internet for individuals who spread crazy ideology like "liberty" and "human rights" or "history". Anyone caught with subversive ideas is arrested and thrown in prison. It's the Ministry of Truth 2.0. And it's also the wet dream of all other governments around the world.
China justifies it's extreme violence toward individuals promoting liberty by saying things like, "People already understand that free speech can not go against social order. Internet regulation is not only an embodiment of the government's will, but is also laid on the foundation of the public interest." (techdirt)
What do you think China would do if their idea of "social order" was in conflict with the people they rule?
It doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, it's government control of the internet and whatever they say is in your best interest is what you better agree with on the internet or you can spend the rest of your life in jail (there are college students here in the states that salivate at that notion).
I know what you're thinking: "We're not China".
True. But we also have a government that spies on EVERYTHING IT CAN POSSIBLY SPY ON. We have a government that has been at war for nearly two decades now.
Are you really going to play the "but that can't happen here" game while we drone bomb countries whose name we can't pronounce?
We can't be so naive as to believe our government is noble only when it's in the hands of those we personally support. That's how we end up justifying the mass murder of people who think differently than we do. Just ask China about that.
The USA and the War on the Open Internet
The United States is at war with anyone that wants anonymity or access to information that could potentially make them look bad.
What better way to maintain control that than by directly controlling it?
Net Neutrality is that first step. They have to convince you that this powerful internet isn't so powerful and only they can save it from ::insert manufactured scapegoat::. Once you're good and convinced they're needed to regulated it they'll unleash a MASSIVE campaign to smear anyone who would threaten their power... but they're smart. They won't tell you that you threaten their power. Instead, they'll tell you that the evil ::insert manufactured scapegoat:: are out to get you with their greed and remind you that they have material things that you don't!
If that doesn't work, they know their shills will make outlandish statements like, to paraphrase, 'if you don't support Net Neutrality, you're literally killing the internet'.
Assuming they did their job right, you'll buy into the fear-mongering and you'll proselytize with the gospel of government internet regula... I mean Net Neutrality... and demonize anyone that disagrees with you.
The Gatekeepers of the Internet (or how I learned they aren't)
They want you to be this stupid:
So who are these scapegoats that Net Neutrality will supposedly ride a white horse to save us from?
Internet Service Providers.
Comcast. Time Warner. AT&T. and many more.
These are the companies that build the infrastructure that connects you to the internet.
Understand... THEY ARE NOT THE INTERNET. Nor did they create it. They are simply companies that spent billions of dollars to provide you with access to that global network. They built some of the roads... you pay to use them.
So how do these supposed gatekeepers threaten the existence of the internet? Well, they actually don't. But what the proponents of Net Neutrality want you to believe is that companies like Comcast have a switch they can flip and suddenly you have no access, or you suddenly have to pay more, or whatever doom and gloom scenario they've got painted which ignore market economics. They want you to believe that without Net Neutrality these Internet Service Providers will suddenly make you pay a different price for accessing sites Netflix over their own services.
These are bogus arguments because they assume you have no alternative Internet Service Providers... which you do (more on this in Part 2).
That's Net Neutrality in a nut shell. It's just a government-fabricated issue to fear-monger their way to a massive power grab.
If you're interested in the economic ramifications of Net Neutrality check out the following article:
https://fee.org/articles/net-neutrality-is-about-government-control-of-the-internet/
I am amazed at how people arrive at the conclusions you make in your piece. The only think that is gauranteeing the type of open access to the Internet is net neutrality. And without using generalities: net neutrality establishes that the ISPs must treat all Internet traffice equally regardless of content. It is a content neutral regulation that prevents ISPs from curating, censoring, or favoring certain content over other content. So your argument is based on a premise of a regulatory regime that doesn't exist and is antithetical to the one that does.
You also make the incorrect assertion that the Internet we know and love developed without net neutrality. That is not exactly true. The FCC has always maintained that the ISPs had to treat Internet traffic equally and the ISPs did because they thought the FCC was authorized to regulate that aspect. In the early days the ISPs were also focused on building and expanding access and capacity. They weren't interested in competing with content producers so there were no issues. But now they are in direct competition and have incredible market incentives to abuse their gatekeeper roles. There are no market forces that would pevent them from abusing their regional monopolies except for net neutrality. I would rather have a governemnt agency oversseeing monopolistic companies that are annualy listed as the most hated companies in America. With the FCC we can resort to the Constitution, courts, the ballot box, and public pressure if they started going haywire and censoring content. What are you going to do if Comcast decides you have to pay as much for Netflix as you do for the cable tv subscription you are getting rid of? Are you going to drop Comcast? I doubt it because there probably is no other broadband provider in your area. If you are lucky enough to have two or more broadband providers you are one of very very few peope that do.
Two posts that will provide the reader with a accurate understanding of the issue:
https://steemit.com/politics/@digitalfirehose/how-to-re-frame-the-net-neutrality-debate
https://steemit.com/netneutrality/@matthew.allen/your-comprehensive-guide-to-why-we-should-preserve-net-neutrality
Fundamentally, thank you for your passion. While I disagree and will refute your assertions, I want you to know that this discourse is extremely healthy when people refrain from making personal attacks toward one another.
"The only think that is gauranteeing the type of open access to the Internet is net neutrality." <--- You mean the only thing guaranteeing "open access to the Internet" is government violence against any company that disagrees with following their rules. Effectively killing innovation and competition and raising prices.
"The FCC has always maintained that the ISPs had to treat Internet traffic equally and the ISPs did because they thought the FCC was authorized to regulate that aspect." <--- ISP's don't make assumptions about the law. It's either law or it's not. And since it's not, they don't need to pretend to behave in a certain way.
"What are you going to do if Comcast decides you have to pay as much for Netflix as you do for the cable tv subscription you are getting rid of?" <--- Seeing as this fear-mongering situation hasn't happened in the last several decades, I'm fairly safe in assuming it's not going to happen now. But if they were dumb enough to do this, I'm going to put blame where it belongs- my local government that prevented competition from reaching my neighborhood.
"I would rather have a governemnt agency oversseeing monopolistic companies" <--- Governments create monopolies.
Ok, first thanks for your introductory comments you are right...personal attacks do not help. As for the substance of your post and your reply - all you are doing is posting your libertarian idoelogical beliefs and trying to kind of superimposing them without accounting for the facts that inform the issue at hand: whether the FCC should repeal net neutrality by reclassifying ISPs as Title I Information Service. Your arguments don't help because you don't have the facts, which is interesting because you start by criticizing proponents of net neutrality for using generalities. Your whole argument over the span of two postings is done in generalities and does not address the facts but instead is an appllication of ideology detached from the issue at hand. Read these two pieces to understand the issue:
https://steemit.com/politics/@digitalfirehose/how-to-re-frame-the-net-neutrality-debate
https://steemit.com/netneutrality/@matthew.allen/your-comprehensive-guide-to-why-we-should-preserve-net-neutrality
Thank you for the articles I read them but they still ignore the fundamental problems which were created by government in the first place.
In this 2013 Wired article, the author points out how local government is to blame for the lack of ISP competition:
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/
We don't need Net Neutrality. We need fewer zoning laws and fewer regulations.
Just a few more just to keep things balanced:
http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/19/net-neutrality-nothing-corporate-power-grab/
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/01/court-correctly-rejects-rights-violating-net-neutrality-rules/
Redeemer,I read the articles you identified. On the issue of changes needed in order to increase competition we agree. But the here and now (specifically tomorrow) does not change the fact that ISPs have regional monopolies, have greater market incentives to capitalize on their gatekeeper roles by maximizing their ROI through network traffic "management", and would not be so hell bent on reversing net neutrality if they had no intention of implementing new pricing models that are based on manipulating network traffic.
That last part is an important observation. Ajit Pai and the ISPs are proclaiming as loudly as they can that (1) there is no history of ISPs abusing their role (which is false, remember that Title II reclassification came about because Comcast unilaterally blocked all BitTorrent traffic, challenging the then regulatory regime being used by the FCC to put net neutrality in place) and (2) that they will not be manipulating internet traffic between their networks, the Internet, and the consumer. In effect they are saying that it won't change anything. If so, then why the extreme efforts to reverse the policy in the face of overwhelming public opposition?
One has to look at the likely motivations of the actors in order to assess the veracity of their assertions and positions. It's like when one weighs climate science or the tobacco lobby. The ISPs without question are the only industy sector that will immediately reap the overwhelming benefits from getting rid of net neutrality; those benefits are maximizing revenue and profit generation from their network. And how do they do that? There are not that many viable options except for monetizing network traffic.
So my position is that until there is truly a competitive ISP market where consumers have choice and market competition incentivises a type of net neutrality without the need for government enforcement, the ISPs cannot be trusted to not abuse their monopolies, becasue if they truly don't intend to monetize network traffic, they would not be so hell bent on pursuing such an unpopular reform.
Ultimately, on the immediate need for net neutrality to stay in place we will have to agree to disagree. My frustration is that if my position were to prevail it would not increase the likelihood that the nightmare scenario I used earlier of Comast charging $15 to access Netflix coming about, whereas your positon does.
"My frustration is that if my position were to prevail it would not increase the likelihood that the nightmare scenario I used earlier of Comast charging $15 to access Netflix coming about, whereas your positon does." <--- In a decentralized, deregulated market, you can't claim to know the likelihood of anything. That said, we have a couple hundred of years government regulation to see that as the regulations increase so too does the number of monopolies, cost of goods, and the extreme decrease of innovation.
"then why the extreme efforts to reverse the policy in the face of overwhelming public opposition?" <--- Just because something has overwhelming support does not mean an idea is a good one. And many laws have been implemented or removed in the face of overwhelming support or opposition.
"But the here and now (specifically tomorrow) does not change the fact that ISPs have regional monopolies" <--- So why not work to solve that instead of support a law that also gives the FCC the ability to censor content as well as regulate the internet?
"The ISPs without question are the only industy sector that will immediately reap the overwhelming benefits from getting rid of net neutrality; those benefits are maximizing revenue and profit generation from their network" <--- That's a good thing. We want companies to succeed so they spend money on jobs and innovation. And once people finally get around to blaming their local government they'll finally have the competition they so want.
Net Neutrality was government propaganda in favor of government regulation. I'm so grateful they repealed it. But I have no delusions that the next time the political pendulum swings that the FCC will reinstate it. My only hope is that people are willing to go after their local government and repeal those onerous laws before they do so... making the propagandic need for Net Neutrality mercilessly moot (although that's like asking government to shrink itself).
Redeemer, the next pendulum swing is in process and after the 2018 midterms there is a real possibility of a veto-proof Democratic controlled Congress. At that point it will likely be codified by statute vs. regulation. Unless between now and then the courts find that this recent repeal was arbitrary. The absolute dirth of evidentiary support for the purported reasons for the rule change, as well as the bad faith conduct of Ajit Pai concerning the manipulating of the public comment period. One can hope.
Regardless, I understand the sentiments and their political inspiration, but that still doesn't make them anymore relevant applicable to the threat posed by the elimination of net neutrality and the change of classification to Title I Information Service from Common Carrier:
"In a decentralized, deregulated market, you can't claim to know the likelihood of anything."<--- Of course you can. The markets do it on a daily basis. We also have a history of conduct, recent statements, market incentives, and admissions in litigtion that the ISPs INTEND to do exactly what we are concerned about, i.e. abuse their role as gatekeepers and prioritize, throttle, and censor content where it is in the interest of the ISPs and their shareholders. There is little prognosticating here. The ISPs will slowly introduce changes. They will make subtle adjustments to their terms of service that will be vague and ambiguous to the 1-3% of customers that reportedly read the terms of service. There is no question they will do it, the question is how far will they go.
"Just because something has overwhelming support does not mean an idea is a good one."<---Can't argue with that logic as a general proposition. But there really isn't a debate as to whether net-neutrailty is good. If the value basis is a free and open Internet where neither government or private industry is able to discriminate different Internet content, net-neutrality is GOOD. We have the history of the Internet (which has ALWAYS operated with a form of net neutrality under governement regulation. It was not always called "net netrality" but the principle of treating all traffice equally was the prime component. It was the legal challenges to those regulations that actually ended up in the classification of ISPs to Title II Common Carrier and what we call net-neutrality).
"...a law that also gives the FCC the ability to censor content as well as regulate the internet?"<---This is just a bizarre statement because it is a complete lie. The FCC has absolutely zero ability to censor content. It is also a lie that the FCC has any ability to regulate the Internet. The FCC cannot regulate the Internet. In fact, I cannot think of a single governement entity in the United States that regulates the Internet. The FCC's authority extends to the interstate delivery of the Internet. So it has no authority to censor content or content creators. Up until yesterday's repeal of the Title II classification the FCC was required to intervene and PREVENT any censorship.
Ask yourself this question: If the FCC had the ability to censor the Internet, why have they not censored terrorist web sites, racist groups, or pornogeraphy? IN FACT the arguments and fears of government censorship are the height of bullsh*t. Tell us any time that the governement tried to or was successful in censoring anything. Remember the First Amendment? That applies to the government. It doesn't apply to private companies. So your paranoid, libretarian, fear of governement censorship has absolutely zero basis in reality. In the ENTIRE HISTORY of this country, there have not been any examples of successful censorship. And more telling is the number of times where it may have tried to censor anything can be counted on one hand. Pornography, the Pentagon Papers, WiKi Leaks, etc. etc. etc. The complete disingenuous and spiteful nature of that single argument says a lot about those that adopt it: either they have no understanding of history or are fear mongering in a gross and debasing manner.
"We want companies to succeed so they spend money on jobs and innovation."<---In return for letting them control what information we have access to and the opportunity to censor on a level that we could never imagine from the government as long as they tell us they are censoring material in their terms of service? You apparently do not value the Internet as it is and has been because of net neutrality principles. You are asking and endorsing and happy that the ISPs will now commodotize the Interent and actively discriminate against content for whatever reasons they want with no governement oversight. And while I have agreed with your concerns about local government regulation of rights of way, it is only a part of the problem (and not as big as I think you believe). So in the meantime, nobody (you included) has provided a reason for the need to get rid of net neutrality while the market conditions, e.g. regional monopolies, exist and which compound the the harm to consumers, e.g. you, me, and every person that subscribes to an ISP. So are the relatively small number (and speculative) of jobs worth that trade off? If so , please just move to Russia where the oligarchy is well established; really you don't have to wait for the collapse of our republican democracy.
I would love to read something more about the issue of local regulation of rights of way...it might be somethign you would research and write a post about. I think it deserves more attention since I am one of the very few who lives in the remainig expansion area for Google Fiber that Google has committed to build out before calling it quits. In the meantime, I assume you are willing to pick up the tab on the Netflix surcharge Comcast is likely to impose, so where should I send my bill when it comes? I'll accept a check and I don't even need to see your ID.
Congratulations @redeemer! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCongratulations @redeemer! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP