Net Neutrality and the Future of the Internet

Net Neutrality is a regulation the FCC has put into place which prevents ISPs from favoring one website over another with bandwidth. Recently court has ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to enforce Net Neutrality which leaves the field open for a lot of the ISPs clamoring to impose data caps on internet usage.

This guy makes some point about it and its a frightening thought



Commercial sites can be favored over un-affiliated sites by limiting data usage through packages similar to TV. Want unlimited access to social networking sites like Facebook and Google plus? Buy our social pack for X amount each month. Like a site that isn't included on one of our packages? Too bad, use your data to visit it and eventually go over at which point we'll slow your speed to a crawl. It could effectively make impossible to visit certain sites or at the very least make it undesirable.

One of the great things about the internet is its power to give virtually anyone an avenue to speak from. I don't really even watch TV anymore and get most my entertainment from channels on Youtube and such. Publishers and networks don't have this strangle hold on media anymore and now they try their hardest by changing the laws to regain control.

I'm going to try and stay informed on all this. It's disheartening to think of a future where the internet is limited and as tightly structured as television. We're out here in the wild west where anything is possible. The future has yet to be written; we need to protect the internet from these companies and their dinosaur business models.

It just makes me think of this.

Originally the Internet was non-commercial..

The Net is under attack from all directions- those with vested interests in narrowing it down and heavily regulating it are of course those who most profit from it- and they are doing their damnest to curb the free movement of information.
Information has always been power and wealth- and right now its sloshing about the planet for free on a massive scale never before seen or predicted- and they dont like it.

Then on the other side we have individual countries- in the UK you can get arrested for all sorts online as the law treats anything you put online, wherever you put it as 'publishing'- so technically there is no internet chat in the UK, everything- Twitter ect is publishing and falls under the complexity of laws for that and the individual can fall foul of laws originally meant for broadcasters and national press.
And on top of that you have laws about internet trolling, abusive comments or violent comments, racism, sectarianism ect - all of which are punishable in the uk with jail time.

This story was sent to me on Facebook today:

REPORT: Evening Broadcast News Shows Ignore Net Neutrality Ruling

Though it's hardly a novelty that the mainstream media news is heavily filtered, it's still worth noting.

Doesnt sound good does it?   

Pettytyrant101 wrote:And on top of that you have laws about internet trolling, abusive comments or violent comments, racism, sectarianism ect - all of which are punishable in the uk with jail time.

I think the UK's Internet freedom troubles have more to do with a political culture that is more in favor of morality laws/nanny state-ism than attitudes towards the Internet.

The net neutrality stuff bothers me more but I fear it's a losing battle to fight for that. Though this does nothing to diminish my respect for those who are working to preserve net neutrality.

Only somewhat related, but the US federal government is apparently interested in handing over more power over the Internet to international agencies like ICANN. On the one hand, I think turning the Internet over to global governance is a good idea, but on the other hand, organizations like ICANN don't have a ton of accountability so I wouldn't call them an ideal solution either.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26033686

Still might be a step in the right direction.

I'm certainly hopeful that this will be a positive sign for the Internet.  I wonder what the motivation behind this move was.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was budgeting.

I think a lot of it is pressure from other governments and international bodies after the Snowden leaks.

And whilst I dont trust the new lot any more it is probably better (sadly) to have lots of different groups trying to corrupt their own ends, than one group being able to corrupt it as much as they like for one end, theirs.

I think a provider should have as much freedom to be open or to filter as they want.

But they should have to publish a description of how they filter, and eventually the market will end up favoring those that are open.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:it is probably better (sadly) to have lots of different groups trying to corrupt their own ends, than one group being able to corrupt it as much as they like for one end, theirs.

Democracy

halfwise wrote:I think a provider should have as much freedom to be open or to filter as they want.

But they should have to publish a description of how they filter, and eventually the market will end up favoring those that are open.

The problem is that there still won't be much choice in providers.

halfwise wrote:I think a provider should have as much freedom to be open or to filter as they want.

But they should have to publish a description of how they filter, and eventually the market will end up favoring those that are open.

Free market forces are wonderful when all is in balance, but they break down as the community of providers moves toward monopoly, as it already is.

The monopolies should be broken up, like Ma Bell. Then there is the infrastructure hump.  Once phone lines went everywhere it was possible to open up phone service.  I think we are not too far from the same point with internet cables, fiber optic, etc.

Unfortunately since Reagan the motion has been towards deregulation rather than regulation of monopolies. You see it in every major industry.  Comcast (and its subsidiaries) is now the only practical high-speed internet provider in great parts of this country, and they're spreading a LOT of money around Capitol Hill to keep it that way.  (That's a major reason why I'm still using a dialup provider by the way, and even they've consolidated so that there's only one option for me.   )

Capitalism is like a horse: powerful enough to do amazing things, yet safest if reined in.

halfwise wrote:I think a provider should have as much freedom to be open or to filter as they want.

But they should have to publish a description of how they filter, and eventually the market will end up favoring those that are open.

I don't think the idea that deregulated companies will try to undercut each other by offering low prices and/or better service has been born out by recent history.

See Dave's comment on monopolies.

Not sure what you mean there, Halfy. Dave's comment sounds fairly pro-regulation to me.

I'm certainly not a lover of regulation for it's own sake.

I think of myself as an enlightened anarchist. I'm happy to try not having any rules at all,  up until the point where  the kiddies demonstrate that they can't play well together.

Then somebody needs to step in and enforce fair play.  That's exactly how we ended up with anti-trust laws in the first place.

And I think we've reached that point again. 

Eldorion wrote:Not sure what you mean there, Halfy.  Dave's comment sounds fairly pro-regulation to me.

exactly. You said the theory of competition due to de-regulation has not been borne out by history, and Dave explained why: monopolies (or something near them). There are assumptions behind capitalism, and contradictory as it sounds, the free market only works as it's supposed to when regulation ensures those assumptions are valid. Monopolies are not the free market.

The way I see it is any institutions which will involve humans, so currently all of them, should be designed from the start with first and foremost the assumption everyone will try to corrupt it, bend it, twist it and search out loop holes in it for their own ends.
That should be the starting point as its what happens every time anyway.

Secondly all such laws should be easy to change, so that when unforeseen loop holes are exploited they can quickly and easily be shut down.

And thirdly an entirely independent board whose members can have no private sector funding of any kind should act as monitors and arbitrators of a system keeping a beady eye out for ways a system might be being abused. And its members should be replaced on a five year basis.