Skip to main content

FCC and Net Neutrality

The FCC announced today that they would be reversing their decision on Net Neutrality, which to me personally is a big deal. This decision will take place on December 14th, 2018.

Note: This post has been edited.

News Rollup


  • NYT Article here and WP article here
  • The Oatmeal has a link here 
  • http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

Why Does This Matter

John Oliver has done a couple of episodes on Net Neutrality here, here, and here

If you want another source, the ACLU has a link here that explains the details as well as PBS here.

I'll offer my own explanation here: Net Neutrality is the idea that you should be able to access content on the internet equally - at the same speed and quality, regardless of the content you are viewing. This means in practice that you can visit YouTube at the same speed and quality as when you're visiting JoeBobsBlog.com; regardless of the content you're viewing, you get it at the same speed and quality.

Revoking Net Neutrality changes all that. Instead of providing for equal access to all content on the internet; now imagine that your internet provider can offer you "bundles" for your internet. For example, suppose that Comcast wants to sell you a "premium" bundle for access to Twitter, YouTube, Google, and other sites. Any time you visit those sites your bandwidth will not be throttled or prioritized over content being served from other sides.

Internet providers love the idea of revoking net neutrality. The comment argument is that it costs more to serve content from sites like YouTube, Netflix, or elsewhere and that this allows them to pay for these services. But that's not completely true. Yes it costs money to serve content from high traffic sites, but there are more sinister problems with this notion of regulating traffic to consumers.

In actual practice, what this more likely means is a less free internet. You may not buy into that notion at the moment; but think for a moment what this means in practice. If you hate the idea of bundles from your digital provider now (think Cable channels), then you're really going to hate the idea of your internet provider limiting the speed and quality (think a shit ton of buffering for not paying the extra fee for "premium" sites) for non "bundled" sites.

In addition, there's an ideological issue here that a lot of people appreciate. The internet was created originally as a medium to freely share ideas. You're on this blog, for example, which generates no money (well except for Google, but I personally don't get any money from this blog) and has no special arrangement with your internet provider. In a world where net neutrality no longer exists, you may not be able to access sites that you prefer to get reliability. Think of university sites for example, or other places that you want to get information. Sites that share differing views or concepts can basically be black-balled from being able to share their content if all the internet providers collectively decide to prevent you from being able to access the site (or not to assure "quality" access to the site, i.e slow load times, buffering, and so on.)

What To Do

If you think this idea sucks, and I personally think it does, you can do a few things. You can contact the FCC at their website here. The actual docket item is 17-108 which is here. You can leave a comment or elsewhere on the FCC's site you can file a complaint. 

An even better medium is to actually call them. The Contact Page is here. The phone number is 1-888-CALL FCC (225-5322).

In addition, the ACLU has pointed out that you should call and email your Congress person. Tell them to contact the FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, and tell him that you believe revoking Net Neutrality is a terrible idea. You can also email the chairman via the Contact Page that I just linked to as well.

Finally, tell all your friends and family about A) what this is B) why it sucks and C) to tell their public officials as well as contacting the FCC and asking them to reverse their decision.

Letter to Senators / Representatives

[The following is a letter I've composed to my senators and representatives. You're welcome to take this as a basis for yours or as inspiration for your own letter.]

Dear Senator,

I am writing to ask that you please talk to the Federal Communications Commision chairman Ajit Pai and ask him to please keep Net Neutrality in place and not repeal it. This is under docket 17-108. Please advocate for us before December 14th when the FCC meets to vote on this matter.

Net Neutrality ensures that the internet is a free and open space for ideas and commerce, which is an American ideal.  Repealing net neutrality means that businesses will be able to essentially dictate what consumers can see and read online and have access to. While business argue that the repeal of net neutrality is needed so that they can charge for costlier higher bandwidth content, in practice this opens the internet up to predatory business behavior by companies - something we need the role of government to prevent. 

For years now the internet has remained a place where content has been able to be viewed on equal measure - you can view any site or video at the same speed and quality as any other site. Removing this restriction actually restricts ideas, commerce, and innovation. The rise of Amazon, Youtube, Facebook, and Google could only have happened without internet providers dictating the content consumers can see at “premium” bundled prices. Google especially would have not survived in a repealed net neutrality world as at the time many search engines were competing for users. Having internet providers that “bundled” only special sites at special speeds would have killed sites that we know today.

Republicans have argued that the role of government should stay out of business, that government “burdens” business from succeeding. While that may be true in some cases, the role of government should also stand for what citizens and consumers cannot do alone - the ability to enforce fair practices. The internet has succeeded just fine for years with the notion to treat all content equality - all content is served by providers to consumers at the same speed and quality of connection (i.e. no buffering or dropped connections) for all sites and locations. There is no real reason to change this practice now and upcharge customers for specific sites on the internet and prevent them from being able to share and view new ideas, news, and uses online. Doing so stifles innovation which is completely un-American.

Thank you,

[ Signed ]

Express Comments on FCC and to Chairman of the FCC

I am writing to advocate for keeping Net Neutrality. This narrative that net neutrality is killing businesses from being able to innovate is a disguise to simply charge extra to customers and prevent them from being able to share and view ideas, news, and content equally. Repealing net neutrality is a blow to consumers and to internet companies themselves. 

It is un-American to repeal something that allows for innovation online and instead grants extra profits to what are essentially monopolies (only a few internet providers overall) in the United States is a crime to the American public. 

Repealing net neutrality shows to the American public that the FCC favors predatory business practices rather than freedoms for consumers to view and use the internet freely - not under some guise of “better plans” or “better bundles” for access to specific sites. 

This is at best a disingenuous idea and the repeal of net neutrality is in practice a troubling sign of what the FCC favors more - American greed from large corporations rather than the future needs of the American public.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tax Bill Rollup "The Tax Cut and Jobs Act"

Overview The GOP has been trying to push a major legislative agenda for the President sometime this year, and after the failure of the health care reform the next major issue is tax reform. This post is a roll up of information on the tax reform. There are two versions, the House version and the Senate version. The Senate version isn't officially a bill yet. Rollup and Points I wanted to do a quick roll up of the current GOP tax bills, of which there are two versions, the House and the Senate version. The latter link gives a nice comparison of the differences between the two bills. The NPR article on the Senate only version is here . We should note that the Senate's version isn't officially a bill yet. The CBO has done a score  on the House version which would add $1.7 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. The Hill has an article on that here . The House version also makes the corporate tax cuts permanent and reduces the corporate tax rate to 20% f...

Providing Context and Sanity To The Anonymity

Yesterday I was listening to the Adam Ruins Everything podcast, specifically this episode here , and it somewhat reminded me of this post I'd seen on reddit from the University of Indiana  here . The podcast referred to the " backfire effect ", which I believe really does happen when people's views are challenged. In addition to discussing the phenomenon, both Adam and his guest talk about ways online to try and combat the effect and to provide context to ideas shared online - basically to lessen the effect of trolls and such. For example, one method pointed out by the guest on the podcast was that a Norwegian news site will ask people to take a short quiz over the article that they just read before allowing them to comment. In a way, it's sort of a short test of reading comprehension. It limits people from just randomly seeing a headline and then commenting/reacting to the headline rather than reading the article. I thought it was kind of brilliant, but may not...

Protesting and Kneeling during the National Anthem

(Note: I did this as a Facebook post; I'm just re-posting here for historical reasons.) I’m going to go ahead and note right off that you and I are probably not going to see eye to eye on this issue. That’s okay; I’ve no intention of trying to “win” a discussion or anything; only to share concerns and thoughts. Civilized discussion I feel has really taken a turn for the worst lately, and I’d like to try and make effort and be civilized especially given the strong emotions both sides have on the issue. To my actual concerns: I empathize with the feeling that people have about the National Anthem; the actions of sacrifice. I do. I don’t think anyone who is protesting and kneeling has any intent of trivializing the men and women who’ve served. I’ve shared an article on my wall that gives the side of Kaep and Reid on why they started what they started. Here’s the thing about protesting: the intent is to cause people to take notice. People protest in all sorts of ways and in all s...