The FCC is about to kill net neutrality. It's time to protest
verizonprotests.com
verizonprotests.com
Thanks but no thanks. I'm glad this is getting repealed. This stinks of a trojan horse for more government control of the internet that would ultimately lead to censorship. I'll take my chances with Comcast et. al. rather than hand things over to the mother of all monopolies we call the government, especially with the anti-free speech forces in play today.
The things Ajit Pai says [1] make much more sense to me than the hysteria coming from Net Neutrality proponents.
Source: Comments from your Source [1], which, btw, is a PAID ADVERTIZEMENT, not an 'Interview'.
The fact that he was a Verizon lawyer does not refute the things he's saying. It makes him an expert on the law in that domain, which is what qualifies him to be FCC chairman in the first place. Similar to how Alan Greenspan was a managing director on Wall Street before becoming chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the career trajectory of virtually every other federal agency chairperson.
And the threat of ISPs selling our information is no greater than it was before "Net Neutrality". This is something that can be resolved as it has been with contract law and consumer choice -- same as with Google, Apple, etc. -- there's no need for the government to be involved at the federal level. In my mind, regulatory capture and censorship are much greater threats with the federal government becoming involved.
Edit: the laws we do need to focus on are the bans on municipal broadband. This is what's stifling competition at the local level and preventing more competition and better consumer choice. That is where the focus of effort should be, in my opinion.
What's next ? Supreme court judges "sponsored" by Monsanto ? Wouldn't really be any worse than this, really.
> This is something that can be resolved as it has been with contract law and consumer choice -- same as with Google, Apple, etc. --
> there's no need for the government to be involved at the federal level
You're talking about monopolists. If anybody could open a telco (which isn't possible for physical reasons) then perhaps this would be an argument.
But you cannot let monopolists "offer" contracts and expect a fair and balanced result.
First of all, the Patriot Act was a complete joke. It is a slap in the face to this country, and a great living example of how "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety", so using that as a "positive point" is actually the very opposite. But I'm not worried about the Patriot Act right now, so we'll move on from it.
Without Net Neutrality we end up with a world like this: https://i.imgur.com/0jXF92k.jpg
Now before you lose your mind and start shouting "hypothetical!" much like our problematic Ajit Pai has been slinging, this is very much a reality for those stuck under that ISP. [1] THIS is what can (and very likely will) happen if US Telecoms and ISPs are allowed to repeal Net Neutrality.
This isn't a joke anymore, this isn't a "well let's hear both sides first" kind of situation. This is an "act NOW" or we will lose the magic that made the internet the great connecting network of this planet.
Many topics on HN are open to debate, this is not one of them. Not protecting or supporting Net Neutrality is the tech worker equivalent of being an "anti-vaxer". The fact that you are supporting the insanity that the current FCC Chair is pushing, it terrifies me that you are anywhere near my line of work.
So we'll push back, we'll make the calls, we'll get the feet on the ground, because the comment you've painted is a horrifying reality where the powerful Telecoms tax every aspect of life.
How is prohibiting ISPs from blocking their customs from accessing lawful content, prohibiting ISPs from throttling lawful content, and prohibiting paid prioritization going to lead to censorship?
Those are the main rules from the 2015 Open Internet Order. There are a few other less important rules in the approximately 8 pages of the Order, so if that is where you think the risk of censorship resides, feel free to point out the details.
(If you are confused by me saying 8 pages, because you've seen Pai and others waving around a 300-400 page document and claiming that it was the 2015 Open Internet Order...they were being intentionally misleading. That document was the actual rules, all 8 pages of them, plus a long analysis of the legal background for regulating net neutrality, and responses to the issues raised in the millions of comments received).
Now, see the history of television and radio.
No, it isn't. Laws and regulations are different things, and while Title II provides lots of pages of regulatory authority, the 2015 Open Internet order, as well as actually providing the Title II classification, adopts the specific regulations under Title II authority that the FCC would apply.
The suggestions that other authorities that were specifically not used would somehow attach themselves to the internet is dishonest FUD (but that's pretty much all the anti-neutrality camp has ever had.)
I worked at a small ISP in Utah called XMission a while ago. We were pushing net neutrality hard when it came up last time. We didn't seem at all worried about the barrier for entry and growth.
I was an x-mission customer till we moved into a condo that is only serviced by Google Fiber.. I'm still happy with Google, but I'd love to support X-mission when possible, they're truly a standout company imho.
Now you can get wonky news from a source you don't trust for Free because it's 'included' in your package OR you can pay an extra $10 per month to get the other sites, and you may need to pay $5 per site that you want to visit.. Paywall nightmare.
But the worst is-- now Verizon has full control of your political beliefs because they're ONLY allowing you to view specific content UNLESS you pay. THAT IS CENSORSHIP!
This is not a good thing.