The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia fully upheld the prior FCC’s net neutrality rules on June 14, 2016.
These weedy rules prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so-called paid internet fast lanes. Without network neutrality, ISPs can legally create a tiered internet where some sites will load faster than others.
Right now, for example, ISPs are banned from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates. Remove this rule, and Comcast would be able to provide its NBCUniversal affiliate faster movie streaming than, say Netflix. It’s hard to know who owns what in today’s fast-changing media empire wars. For example, one of the websites I visited for information on this story contained a footnote, saying, “Comcast, through its NBCU arm, is an investor in Vox Media, which owns this website.”
Pai’s rollback also scraps the legal foundation that the FCC’s old Democratic majority adopted in 2015 to tighten federal oversight of internet service providers, and it would get rid of the so-called general conduct standard, which gives the FCC authority to police behavior by ISPs it deems unreasonable. According to Ars Technica, Comcast is already the most hated company in America, so apparently the way they're screwing consumers is considered reasonable.
The only people who seem to want Ajit Pai's revisionist policy are the people at companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T. Incidentally, these companies routinely give immense amounts of money to members of Congress. Here in Eastern Washington, Cathy McMorris-Rogers (R-WA5) and Dan Newhouse (R-WA4) are grateful recipients.
Americans can contact their elected representatives and ask them to urge the FCC take action to protect network neutrality with strong legislation. Unless, that is, you live in the 4th or 5th Congressional Districts, where Representatives Newhouse and McMorris-Rogers have made their intentions known. They’re going with the big money players.
You’ll be better served by going directly to the FCC and commenting on the proceeding, which is known (I kid you not) as “Restoring Internet Freedom,” Proceeding 17-108, https://tinyurl.com/m99426b.
4 comments:
I submitted a comment. This is the reply.
Thank you for your submission to the FCC Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Please Note that your filing will not be available for searching until it has been reviewed and posted by the FCC.
Confirmation Number: 20171122175704443
Proceeding(s): 17-108 : Restoring Internet Freedom
Filer(s): Richard Badalamente
Brief Comments: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia fully upheld the prior FCC’s net neutrality rules on June 14, 2016. These rules prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so-called paid internet fast lanes. Without network neutrality, ISPs can legally create a tiered internet where some sites will load faster than others. Leave the rules in place until legislation can be passed.
Check @AGSchneiderman twitter post.
"Over the last 6 mos, my office has investigated a massive scheme to corrupt the @FCC's comment process on #NetNeutrality by impersonating 100,000s of real Americans."
FCC unwilling to cooperate with investigation.
Flood Newhouse's Twitter account with messages. Here's my first.
@RepNewhouse Stop the FCC from rolling back #NetNeutrality rules until Congress comes up with suitable legislation.
Folks, this is a letter I wrote to our Congressional delegation: Senators Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, and Dan Newhouse. If you are interested in this issue, please feel free to use it as a template for our own letters.
The net neutrality issue seems arcane to many of us; we are not sure what the fuss is all about. This is my own current view about possible/probable effects on the citizenry if current proposed rules are implemented. Those who know about this issue should weigh in for the sake of our education.
Cheers,
Chuck Lo Presti
If implemented, the plan from Trump’s FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to end net neutrality would be catastrophic for the open internet, and in fact for free speech and a free press in the 21st Century.
Net neutrality is the core principle that protects our free speech on the internet, and ‘Title II’ of the Communications Act is what provides the legal foundation for real net neutrality. Without strong Title II net neutrality rules, Big Cable companies like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T will be able to slow down and block websites, or charge sites extra fees to reach an audience — fees that will get passed directly to our citizen consumers. This amounts to de facto censoring of what we see and do online. Big Cable will be able to curtail free and open expression on the internet. This will likely affect online publishing and political campaigning, giving the loudest voice to political interests with the most money rather than with the most merit.
The U.S. public overwhelmingly supports net neutrality, regardless of political affiliations. I believe the public does not want to see the internet, a space where the exchange of ideas, democratic participation and the ability to organize has flourished, turn into a corporate-controlled Big Cable.
Remember that the internet itself was originally funded by the U. S. government, with tax-payer dollars, and therefore belongs to the public. Changing these net neutrality rules amounts to supporting and enclosure of public goods by private interests, and this is wrong.
As your constituent, I urge you to strongly and publicly oppose Pai’s plan to end Title II net neutrality protections. Please do not become a part of this plan to sell out the internet to Big Cable.
Post a Comment