China most definitely does not. Even if they did, it'd be unenforced. State-run tech services would get preferential treatment. Actually, that's how it works now.
> I don't want NN because then everyone will think the internet is just fine, when NN is a joke of a solution that doesn't even cover anything more than the FTC already covers.
The FTC won't stop ISPs from slowing access to content they don't own. ISPs are communications services and rightly monitored by the Federal Communications Commission.
> You are quite naive if you think NN is a solution to censorship. Browse eff.org for more than a few minutes to see that NN doesn't even scratch the surface of underlying issues.
I don't think the above commenter was claiming NN is a solution to censorship, rather that without it, content is more silo-ed and access becomes more difficult, adding to the censorship problem. Censorship is a human problem that tech can help with.
ISPs are communications services just like trucks are communications services because they carry mail and shipments. No. The internet is far more complicated than postage, and the FCC is not equipped to handle it.
> China most definitely does not. Even if they did, it'd be unenforced. State-run tech services would get preferential treatment. Actually, that's how it works now.
So you realize that a good name doesn't make a good policy. That's a good step.
> I don't think the above commenter was claiming NN is a solution to censorship, rather that without it, content is more silo-ed and access becomes more difficult, adding to the censorship problem. Censorship is a human problem that tech can help with.
You aren't going to lose access to your favorite polemic website or torrenting because of NN or lack-thereof. That would be immediately met by FTC lawsuits. Far more critical to censorship is YouTube demonetization and SEO shinanigans, but I don't see the front-page of reddit giving a damn about subreddits being blocked from the "Hot" feed.
This already happened. Comcast was injecting forged RST packets into BitTorrent connections - and after lying about it for a while they were stopped by the FCC, who cited network neutrality rules in their decision.
The FCC is both equipped and specifically Congressionally authorized to regulate broadband, and has been doing so for years even outside of the ”network freedom”/“open internet” regs.
The FTC, on the other hand, is not equipped to handle it, and (at least per the recent FTC v. AT&T ruling) is statutorily barred from regulating it to the extent that major ISPs happen to also be common carrier telcos, as the prohibition on FTC regulating common carriers applies to the whole org, not just its common carrier operations.
> You aren't going to lose access to your favorite polemic website or torrenting because of NN or lack-thereof. That would be immediately met by FTC lawsuits.
No, it wouldn't. There is neither evidence nor reasoning supporting this suggestion, just wishful thinking. In fact we know it is false, because (aside from the recent case suggesting that they are barred from acting in this area) they have in fact not done so (instantly or otherwise) in any of the instances of blocking which have occurred.
Believe it or not, that's exactly its congressional mandate!
Trade happens over the highway system, too. That doesn't take away from the NHTSA's authority to regulate it. Just because trade happens over the Internet doesn't somehow make it magically not-communication.
Y'know... the first C in FCC?
The FTC covers nothing in this domain, and there is recent appellate case law which suggests that they could not act in it without significant change to the statutes governing their authority.
I thought the FTC tried to, but a SCOTUS ruling gave the sole responsibility for this to the FCC?