Net neutrality under serious threat
 |
| Some warnings |
This is something I have talked about in the past but not very recently, but it is of particular importance now: Net neutrality.
If you were online any time on Wednesday, July 12, you may have come across warning screens like those shown here. That's because July 12 was
a day of action to defend Net neutrality.
At least 234 websites representing corporations, activist groups, and plain folks spent the day trying to alert anyone who came by to the serious risk that Net neutrality may be killed off. Some of the nation's largest tech companies - such as Microsoft and Google - and some of the biggest online sites - such as Twitter, Snapchat, Netflix, Facebook, and Amazon -
took part.
Net neutrality, simply, is the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) treat everyone's data equally; a bit is a bit is a bit and every bit is the same as every other bit - whether that's a bit from an email from your mother, an episode of House of Cards on Netflix, a bank transfer, the day's news on your favorite newspaper's website, or whatever. It means that outfits such as Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon don’t get to say that
this data is sent more quickly than
that data because those sending
this data paid us extra money so all those who waiting for
that data will just have to wait and watch the spiral or whatever go around and around. Assuming, of course,
that data isn't for a site that has been blocked entirely for failing to come up with enough cash.
Put another way, it's the principle that a handful of giant corporations, riding on the back of technology actually developed by the federal government and some universities, can't manipulate the market - the market in this case being those companies and individuals who use the Internet - can't manipulate the market to line their pockets.
And if the business about "treating all data equally" still isn't clear, think of it this way: It's how your telephone works. All telephone calls are treated the same.
And for obvious reasons, outfits like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon hate the idea of Net neutrality and have been campaigning, lobbying, and suing against it for years.
Despite some short-term legal victories,
they failed. Due to a massive public outpouring of support for Net neutrality, in February 2015, the FCC voted to reclassify broadband service providers as "common carriers" under title II, meaning in effect they are regarded as public utilities, giving the FCC the ability to set rates, open up access to competitors, and more closely regulate the industry - and, most importantly here, to enshrine Net neutrality as law as part of those regulations.
So what's the problem?
The problem, in two words, is Ajit Pai. He is the new chair of the FCC whose only work experience outside of government was as general counsel for Verizon and he is full-out for repealing the 2015 regulations, leaving us at the mercy of the corporate overlords for who he used to work. He introduced a rule to do exactly that which is now in the period for public comments.
It is that proposed rollback of the 2015 rules that was the target of the day of action on July 12.
Net neutrality is, to be quite blunt, the spiritual heart, the philosophical core, of the Internet. It is the operating principle on which the Net was founded when it was just a federal agency and a handful of universities and on which it has grown. In fact, it is what enabled it to grow, the fact that it was equally open, and open
on an equal basis, to all participants, not just an elite handful of technocrats and technophiles. Yes, of course, it started that way, it started all technocrats and technophiles, but that principle of neutrality insured it was not going to stay that way.
And people know it. In fact, Net neutrality is overwhelmingly popular among Americans.
According to a recent survey from Politico and Morning Consult,
60% of Americans support the current rules and only 17% want to change them.
According to a poll done for Freedman Consulting, the figure is even higher:
77% support keeping the existing Net neutrality rules in place. In both polls, the support was bipartisan, with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents registering similar levels of support.
You want more evidence of how popular Net neutrality is? That July 12 day of action generated an astounding two million comments to the FCC backing it.
It's so popular, in fact, that Pai finds it necessary to claim that he supports "the principle" of net neutrality. He does that without being really clear about what that means and without laying out any means to enforce it except by proposing to turn enforcement over to the Federal Trade Commission - which lacks the authority to make rules and unless Congress proposes an entirely new law - something Pai knows as well as you ain't gonna happen anytime soon - could only enforce vague "principles" and then only on a case-by-case basis in response to a complaint, that is, after something has already gone wrong.
Pai has also, notably, frequently referred to the "open" Internet as if that was supposed to be synonymous with Net neutrality, but it isn't.
 |
| Ajit Pai |
Back in 2015, at the time the FCC was acting, a former chair of the commission, Michael Powell, who was even more overtly pro-corporate than Pai is, also referred to "open Internet principles," which he defined as "freedom to access content, to run applications, to attach devices, and to obtain service plan information" - "freedoms," which I noted at the time, did not include the freedom to access content
on an equal basis without being throttled or otherwise hindered because the site I was trying to access couldn't afford the big bucks that some other site could. In other words, did not include the freedom that was at the very heart of the issue.
Now we have another pro-corporate chair mouthing the same platitudes about an "open" Internet. Extreme caution is called for.
Especially because Pai has defended his desire to service the corporations with some pretty bizarre arguments which would cause most folks' jaws to drop were we not in the age of TheRump.
For example, he has said "we
cannot stick with regulations from the Great Depression that were meant to micromanage Ma Bell." I'll just say that the notion that Bell Telephone was "micromanaged" will come as a shock to anyone old enough to remember that the Bell System was broken up in 1984 because it was an illegal monopoly actively stifling competition - or, for that matter, anyone old enough to remember Lily Tomlin.
He also claimed that strong Net neutrality rules in the US
would give dictators an excuse to tighten their grip over the Internet in their countries - which I frankly think shouldn't even require a response beyond "Whut?"
And he said that the 2015 rules were established based on "hypothetical harms and hysterical prophecies of doom."
That does require a response, and it's that the fact is,
we had already seen those harms. There was nothing hypothetical about them. In 2014, during negotiations over access, Comcast throttled Netflix, slowing transmission speeds by nearly 30% until Netflix agreed to come up with the cash for a so-called "paid peering" deal. That deal and others like it were scuttled by the 2015 regulations, but it doesn't change the fact that the supposedly "hypothetical" harms, paying for access and being throttled when you don't, have already happened.
We have, that is, already seen what will happen if net neutrality goes by the boards. It won't happen all at once, of course, they know better than to spark a backlash even bigger than the actual current proposal to undo Net neutrality, which has gotten over 5 million comments, the vast majority of them negative. But it is what they are after and it is what they will do if not stopped.
The period for public comment on the proposed rule - which again, is to undo the 2015 rules securing Net neutrality -
runs through July 18. If there is still time, you might want to drop the FCC a line.
Oh, and if you're wondering why you haven't heard more about this? Part of the reason could be that NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC
are all owned by Comcast.
Despite some short-term legal victories, they failed. Due to a massive public outpouring of support for Net neutrality, in February 2015, the FCC voted to reclassify broadband service providers as "common carriers" under title II, meaning in effect they are regarded as public utilities, giving the FCC the ability to set rates, open up access to competitors, and more closely regulate the industry - and, most importantly here, to enshrine Net neutrality as law as part of those regulations.
And people know it. In fact, Net neutrality is overwhelmingly popular among Americans.
That does require a response, and it's that the fact is, we had already seen those harms. There was nothing hypothetical about them. In 2014, during negotiations over access, Comcast throttled Netflix, slowing transmission speeds by nearly 30% until Netflix agreed to come up with the cash for a so-called "paid peering" deal. That deal and others like it were scuttled by the 2015 regulations, but it doesn't change the fact that the supposedly "hypothetical" harms, paying for access and being throttled when you don't, have already happened.
Or rather, it will be good news if we get that far because there is a Footnote to this, because what the corporate lackeys in law firms could not accomplish, the corporate lackeys in Congress are trying to:
Let's start the week, as I usually manage to do, with some Good News.
As part of that, they wanted the courts to issue a stay enjoining the FCC from enforcing the rules while the case proceeded.
I have talked several times about the issue of net neutrality, the idea that all data on the internet should be treated equally, including my pleasure at the FCC vote last month supporting a strong version of the concept.
Starting with some Good News, as I try always to do, the FCC has voted to make net neutrality a legal as well as a philosophical reality. On Thurs, Feb 26, the agency voted to reclassify broadband as a public utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.
In a truly lame attempt at mockery, Verizon issued its response to the FCC's move in Morse code then offered a "translation" that looked like it had been done on a 1980s IBM manual typewriter using worn carbon paper. The statement itself was just another rehash of corporate PR bs, with the same moldy claims that the regulation will stifle innovation, harm consumers, and generally bring utter ruin and devastation to the technological world as we know it - without actually being able to specify a reason why.
Be aware, though, that the fight is not over. Outfits like Verizon and the rest have really, really deep pockets. And they are already cranking up the deception machine with its loudspeakers aimed directly at the public as they try to pressure Congress to overturn the rule.
Next up, the topic of Net neutrality, which for those of you who missed last week's show I'll explain very briefly it means that all information traversing the Internet is treated equally, with no one's information getting special access or special accelerated transmission speed over anyone else's.
GOPpers are "investigating" the rule-making process, claiming Obama improperly influenced the FCC, apparently by having an opinion on the matter. They are ranting about "big government" and how the FCC is using "legal contortions and lawyer tricks" to "take over the Internet." Meanwhile, industry groups and fronts are putting out ads claiming the proposal will lead to higher taxes and more government surveillance and their lobbyist minions are parading through the offices of FCC staff with the same old cliches about Net neutrality will "stifle innovation," even though innovation doesn't seem to have been stifled in the years that Net neutrality has been the practice.
I'll be brief on this, but it's important and I want to be sure I get it in. It's about Net neutrality.
Now it's time for one of out regular features, the Clown Award, given as always for meritorious stupidity.
Now for Updates on two things I talked about last week, things to which I'm returning because I think they are important enough to merit more attention.
That goes back to Milch's statement: "Verizon remains committed to the open Internet that provides consumers with competitive choices and unblocked access to lawful websites and content when, where, and how they want." Note carefully - note very carefully - that he declares a commitment to "unblocked" access but not to "equal" access. That is, while he clearly tries to make you think that there will be no changes at all no way no how, he very carefully avoids any commitment to Net neutrality, promising only "competitive choices," which, as we all learned long ago, is corporate-speak for "pay up or give up."
Posts
