kali o. wrote:I'll come back later to provide an actual in depth reply but...
Thirdly, it’s anti-democratic since it opens the door to political censorship.
Uhhh....What?
Yeah. You should read a little more on the subject.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... s-ajit-pai
What is net neutrality? It protects us from corporate power
Matt Stoller
Net neutrality is a rule against censorship and manipulation. The vote to repeal it would do real damage to our democracy.
Net neutrality is a rule against censorship and manipulation. It means that if you are a broadband provider, like AT&T, Verizon or Google Fiber, you cannot discriminate in favor of or against any of your customers. You aren’t allowed to carry the content or data of one website or video provider at one price and the content or data of another website or video provider at a different price. You can’t censor, throttle, or slow the carrying of data for any but technical reasons.
With net neutrality in place, whether you are a newspaper, a blogger discussing sexual assault, a video provider, or someone filming a public official at a town hall, Verizon or AT&T can’t slow or block your ability to put your content online and speak. Without it, they effectively can.
Net neutrality is a type of “common carriage” rule, and it is a bedrock of American democracy. More than a century ago, we had network monopolies like telegraph networks and railroads. Eventually, we regulated them via non-discriminatory principles very similar to net neutrality. In the 20th century, the regulatory framework for trucking, phone networks, airplanes, and electric utilities were also built on the principle of non-discrimination.
Then, as now, the threat was not just commercial, but political. During the 1876 presidential election, which formally ended Reconstruction, the militantly pro-Republican Western Union telegraph monopoly colluded with the Associated Press to throw a close contest to the Republican candidate, Rutherford Hayes, leading Democrats to begin calling the AP the “Hayessociated Press”.
In response, Americans put in place public rules to neutralize the power of these platforms. In the 1930s, for instance, Congress enacted federal legislation to stop AT&T from abusing its monopoly position in telecommunications. This legislative framework worked beautifully.
By the time the mass internet first emerged in the form of dial-up modems, AT&T could not block the use of its phone network to access it. It could not discriminate against you if you wanted to access, say, AOL or Compuserve. It could not choose to censor the websites you sought to visit or divert you to AT&T-approved content. We paid for the use of the network, not for AT&T to edit the public square.
In the mid-2000s, Michael Powell, chosen by George W Bush as FCC chair, eliminated important safeguards against telecom monopoly power, and set the stage for the removal of net neutrality-like common carriage protections in broadband. Competition in broadband died and the US, once the leader in broadband, fell behind the rest of the world.
For the next 12 years, as the fight continued, telecommunications corporations did sometimes censor traffic, but mostly they behaved. The telecom barons knew there would be a political reaction against them. They had to wait until their guy was firmly in power.
And now, he is.
The very same day Trump’s FCC chairman announced he was ending net neutrality protections, Comcast deleted from its website a public promise not to create internet fast lanes. In other words, now that the rules are poised to disappear, large telecommunications have decided to manipulate the flow of information in our society.
One thing this means is that you will get even less local news than now. As Matt DeRienzo, executive director of Local Independent Online News Publishers, wrote: “Big internet and wireless providers will be able to charge individual publishers for levels of speed and access, a scenario in which a handful of big companies with deep pockets could squeeze out” independent news publishers.
For years, Senator Al Franken has been one of the greatest defenders of net neutrality in the Senate. Recently, he took the brave step of proposing that those same basic principles be extended to tech platforms like Google and Facebook, which already have ample power to manipulate flows of information and news. Franken’s approach is the right approach, the one we should all adopt now.
The Trump FCC and the telecom barons think that once the rule has been changed, we will simply forget about it. But they are wrong. If they eliminate net neutrality, it will end up being the downfall of the telecom barons. Americans will soon conclude that the only possible way to address the damage Pai has wrought is to finally and fully break the power of the giants.
Americans have been here before. The power of Standard Oil once seemed unbreakable. But it wasn’t. Neither are today’s telecom barons.
Admittedly, it’s a worst case scenario, but one that should never have the possibility to be allowed to occur at any point in time.
