It seems to me the governments argument is “we want to make sure you continue to have the freedom of the net protected from the major ‘corrupt’ corporations who might eventually one day want to restrict it. So take the power to restrict it away from them and give it to us…”
Your skepticism that these corporations would dare to be that “corrupt” is ill-founded.
They already
were being manipulative and controlling, arbitrarily, just to make more money.
Comcast, for instance, wanted Netflix to pay them money directly. Just because. When Netflix didn’t agree (why would they?), Comcast deliberately slowed down Netflix for its users. People were so irritated at Netflix that the complaints basically forced Netflix to comply and give Comcast money arbitrarily.
It’s that kind of manipulative, avaricious nonsense that Net Neutrality proscribes.
Imagine a world in which your Internet provider works like this:
etc.
We already have the freedom they propose, and in a free market society, if there is a need someone will come up with a solution. Hence we have both CNN and Fox and Breitbart and the Huffington Post…
The Internet was
not protected from this kind of arbitrary interference before; as mentioned, Internet providers had already started pulling this nonsense. So no, we did
not enjoy “freedom” in this area.
Politicians raising the specter of “big government” on this matter are those like Ted Cruz, who does so only because Comcast gave him campaign contributions, so he thinks he owes them.
There’s nothing Net Neutrality hurts for consumers, and it’s necessary to prevent arbitrary, autocratic manipulation of Internet data as described above.
Don’t be fooled by the Ted Cruz types.
I thought the net neutrality debate dealt with who would control bandwidth. If ISPs are allowed to favor profitable giants such as Netflix, and give them a priority share, smaller sites (such as this one - CAF) would load slower, or maybe not at all. I have heard it likened to a monopoly, where the big guys crowd out the little guys who are unable to compete financially, and it seems to me we will have far less diversity online if this is allowed to happen. But maybe I’m not understanding the issue.
No, you got it. Without it, they could eventually implement the throttling of bandwidth for anyone they don’t like. Perhaps anyone who doesn’t pay them a li’l extra to line their pockets further.
And they could reach a deal with Netflix under which, for a price, they’d restrict Netflix’s competitors from reaching you (by throttling their streaming, or charging them a prohibitive fee, or various other means).
Another great example. Want to watch Amazon Prime in that scenario? Too bad. Time Warner will make it digitally difficult.
Net neutrality requires that the internet be treated more like the telephone communication system. Phone service providers cannot charge you more based on who’s calling you. They cannot decide that they will allow calls from, say, telemarketers to get through with high sound quality (for a fee, of course), while degrading the signal for calls from your Aunt Josephine in Iowa, for example.
Exactly.
The proposal is to let the government control access to the internet.
No. It allows them to enforce regulations that prevent the sort of manipulation described above. That’s not controlling access to the Internet.
Unlike in, say, North Korea, we will always be able to access the Internet itself. There’d be a massive outcry if they prevented it, even more than when Net Neutrality was seemingly defeated a year or two ago.
Right now, internet suppliers give priority to those who are their biggest customers. That’s not unlike any business that gives volume discounts. But the internet providers do not exercise control of content.
You are incorrect, my friend. Control of content was already beginning to happen (see Comcast/Netflix example above).
The stated initial goal is to make sure that some companies that previously were only able to have slower access can get faster access. But once the control has been transferred, the government can exercise that control in any number of ways.
What are you afraid they’ll do? Block it in some places? Censor it? For a variety of reasons, that’s not going to work/happen, as I delved into above.
It’s not exactly legislation, and it’s not so secret. A summary is available
here, and the full text of the order is expected to be released shortly.
Exactly.
