On Thursday, the FCC is scheduled to vote on a proposal that would allow ISPs to charge some corporate providers for a guarantee that their content will be delivered in a so-called fast lane. While I agree fully with the aims of the protestors, I consider it important that we base protest on the facts. Sadly, since this issue has been used for fundraising, disinformation abounds. Let’s begin with what I call above average mainstream coverage.
By 9:30 Tuesday morning, Washington was already well on its way to a hot and sticky afternoon. For the handful of protesters camped out in front of the Federal Communications Commission, the heat was all worth it.
The demonstrators are calling on the FCC’s chairman, Tom Wheeler, to abandon a proposal that allows Internet providers to charge content companies like Dropbox and Google extra for speedy and reliable service. They set up shop on a small strip of concrete and grass outside the FCC building on Maine Avenue in Southwest. When I visited, drivers whizzed past on a highway onramp just a few feet from the curb. While the traffic didn’t feel unsafe, it kept the protesters mostly hemmed in. Orange and white tents from REI dotted the perimeter. It was hard to see whether anyone was inside them taking refuge from the heat.
Drawing inspiration from the Occupy Wall Street protests of a few years ago, the demonstrators are asking the agency to reclassify broadband providers as utility companies, which would allow the government to issue a ban on speeding up or slowing down types of Internet traffic. The FCC is considering rules that would prohibit companies from blocking traffic but could give them the freedom to offer faster service to Internet companies like Netflix and Google that chose to pay a fee.
Wheeler has defended the proposal, saying that he won’t hesitate to regulate broadband companies more strictly if the situation demands and that he is following the roadmap laid out by a federal court that struck down the FCC’s old net neutrality rules in January.
"The FCC must reclassify the Internet as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act," said Kevin Huang, the campaign manager for the consumer group Fight for the Future. Huang had been camped at the FCC for the past two days. "Anything less is just ‘net neutrality’ in air quotes."… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Washington Post>
In lots of the advertising I’ve seen, blame is being pinned on the Obama administration, The Democratic Party, and the FCC. All three have consistently favored Net Neutrality. We would not have this situation had a Republican dominated appeals court not struck down current FCC rules and ordered the FCC to propose rules that allow for a “fast lane”. The people behind this mess are the Republican Party and the greedy content providers that want to charge extra for preferred treatment, like Comcast.
Some of the advertising I’ve seen makes it appear that, if we don’t donate by Thursday, we’re about to lose Net Neutrality, and our Internet access is about to slow down. That is simply not true. The most that will happen Thursday is that the FCC will vote to PROPOSE the new rule. That does not end Net Neutrality. It is likely what will happen, because immediately reclassifying the Internet as a Title II common carrier will not satisfy the Republican court order. The danger of the win it all NOW tactic is that people will likely think we lost, if the FCC does propose the rule, and the less informed may give up. If the new rule is proposed it will BEGIN a lengthy period of public comment. That is the time when the real fight over reclassification is most likely to take place, and it is a fight we all need to join. This matter is far from being settled.
Finally, I fully support the protestors who are demonstrating for Net Neutrality.
12 Responses to “Don’t Neuter Net Neutrality!”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Thank you, Tom Cat, I have been following this for years now. Each time something comes up and needs a court ruling the issue gains a little more attention, but not enough to get the really big crowds to show up at the FCC today. I find that amazing, so many people use the Internet everyday and yet do not inform themselves of this critical issue.
I think the biggest problem is the laws themselves, we do need new laws and those laws should be written along the lines of the laws that stood for so many years that protect the air wavers for the end user. The Internet is still languishing in a lost land, where many judges are unsure of how to rule, and the companies are simply mining for higher profits. This is an issue that needs to be broken down and taught to the American public. Education makes for a better and more informed public, currently being left search for a black cat in a dark room with no flashlight. Of course the equally uninformed republicans are trying to make this into a fully ideological discussion, most them don't understand either.
So, What Is Net Neutrality?
It’s the idea that Internet service providers such as Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable should treat all online traffic running through their pipes equally. Big companies such as Netflix and Google don’t get special treatment. With net neutrality, Google, for example, is stuck in the same traffic in those pipes as your grandmother’s blog.
The opposite of net neutrality is a “pay to play” approach that allows, say, Comcast to charge extra for a “fast lane” that bypasses other Internet traffic. In other words: If Hulu, for example, pays Comcast to make sure “Nashville” gets to your house faster than TV shows travelling in the slow lane, that’s not net neutrality.
Those who support net neutrality want the FCC to treat Comcast et. al. like “common carriers” — public utilities like those that provide telephone service, water and electricity. Common carriers, in theory, provide basic services on equal terms for a fair price.
Those who are against net neutrality would rather the FCC treat Comcast and its brethren as an “information service,” which the FCC has less power to regulate.
…..and more–>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/05/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-net-neutrality/
Great comment!
Money is not free speech together with Citizens United stifles our ability to voice our opinion and eat too… sigh
Thanks TC
As I said in a comment to the FCC myself, the Internet IS a public utility for me. With limited mobility, I depend upon it much more than I can depend on the phone, and about as much as I depend on water and electricity. But you don't have to have limited mobility, or limited anything, to depend on the Internet (and I don't mean be addicted to it, I mean seriously use it to maintain your life).
Comcast and other providers already make too much money off consumers. What they want would totally limit my access to the internet.
Thanks, TC, and Kit for the explanations. Now that I now Republicans are behind the issue I am even more uncomfortable.
Know, not now. sorry.
Thanks Kit and TC for clarifying the information.
No one party should have preferential access to the internet. Companies like Comcast are simply trying to generate profits . . . more and excessive profits.
From http://www.netneutrality.ca/about-net-neutrality
As I anticipated, the FCC obeyed the court ORDER, and the real reclassification fight begins.
For me the internet is a public utility. I could not have carried my A/C to my car that I do not own and cannot safely drive, if I did own it. I need the internet to provide the day to day necessities of life. That is true for most people, noy just the disabled ones. The Republicans argue that it isn't a public utility, because not everyone has it. Bull! Not everyone has electricity either.
We need to fight against this combined with Citizens United… We will have no voice and money is not speech… 😥