G&M: What the U.S. net-neutrality repeal means for Americans and Canadians (2017-Dec-15)
« Canada has firm protections for net neutrality in place and political support for the rules is strong. … …the government has announced plans to review both the Telecommunications and Broadcasting Acts over the next few years. »
in manitoba there is only really 2 major ISPs and one has been throttling torrent upload speeds for a decade or more, probably both do now, so how is that treating all internet traffic equal? i don’t expect much to change because of this.
here is an interesting titled WHY NET NEUTRALITY IS AN UNNECESSARY FRAUD
To begin with, “net neutrality” is a loaded and inaccurate term. It was coined by Tim Wu, a far-left lawyer and university professor who ran for New York Lieutenant Governor in 2014 on a socialist platform and campaigned for Bernie Sanders during the presidential race last year. Wu invented the concept of “net neutrality” as a solution to a nonexistent problem.
Everyone wants a free and neutral Internet, but “net neutrality” has nothing to do with this. Net neutrality refers to Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, which regulates what are referred to as “common carriers,” utilities that hold de facto monopolies and thus are required to adhere to standards of open access and use. Title II originally governed such things as phone service and electricity, but two years ago, the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order decreed that they applied to Internet service providers as well.
As Gab founder Andrew Torba has pointed out, existing legislation does not prevent ISPs from charging different rates for different types of services, which net neutrality advocates claim will become reality should the FCC end it. All “net neutrality” does is force ISPs to treat all Internet traffic equally. This benefits edge providers such as Google and Facebook by letting them avoid paying their fair share for bandwidth, while financially hurting ISPs:
For that matter, the nightmare scenario in which ISPs charge consumers extra fees to use certain services has never occurred in the U.S. or any other Western country. Despite net neutrality having only been law for two years, American ISPs have never sold Internet service like it was cable TV, forcing consumers to purchase individual packages. Indeed, the only two countries I could find where this model is used are Turkey and China, two non-Western countries whose governments strictly regulate online speech and censor websites on their own.
To put it simply, net neutrality is corporate welfare. Google, Twitter, Facebook, Netflix and other edge providers support it because it gives them a discount on their operating costs at the expense of ISPs, who must pay to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure that makes the Internet possible to begin with. Net neutrality has as much relevance to consumers as Coke vs. Pepsi, and net neutrality defenders are nothing more than useful idiots for Silicon Valley.
Returning Freedom Of Speech To The Internet
Net neutrality defenders who claim that ending it will allow ISPs to censor the Internet don’t have a leg to stand on either. As Ajit Pai himself has pointed out, pro-net neutrality edge providers such as Google, Twitter, and Facebook have spent the past three years heavily censoring the Internet by manipulating search algorithms and banning right-wing users, under the guise of cracking down on “hate speech” or combating “fake news.”
Indeed, here’s a sampling of how left-wing social media sites and search engines have been censoring people at the same time they’re crying about net neutrality ending:
- Twitter is preparing to purge all right-wing users on December 18 by using “smart cookies” to track users Internet activity and ban them for visiting sites they don’t like, even if they’re not violating Twitter’s own terms of service. The site has already un-verified several major right-wing figures such as Richard Spencer, James Allsup, and Laura Loomer, while banning Baked Alaska and Blonde in the Belly of the Beast.
- Google has de-ranked RT and Sputnik for spreading “Russian state-sponsored propaganda” with no evidence to support their claim, an act of American/globalist imperalism.
- YouTube briefly banned Styxhexenhammer666 and several other major hosts, before reversing the bans and claiming it was a “glitch.” The site has also been “sandboxing” videos by pro-white media outlet American Renaissance, making them impossible to search for on the site or even be seen on AmRen’s own channel.
The FCC’s own filing against net neutrality cited Gab being banned from the Google Play and Apple stores for “hate speech,” Twitter banning an ad from Tennessee Republican Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn, and the Daily Stormer being banned from numerous domain registrars as examples of how edge providers have abused their power in order to control thought and speech online.
These companies hold a monopoly on worldwide Internet communication and use: it is virtually impossible to most people to get by without using at least one of them in some capacity. And yet Google, Twitter, and Facebook want to manipulate and censor information online while claiming to be defenders of a free and open Internet? The chutzpah is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
The reality is that U.S. law already has a precedent for forcing both edge providers like Google and Twitter as well as ISPs to allow any and all speech on their platforms, making net neutrality completely unnecessary. Contrary to the leftist/libertarian argument that these corporations can ban whoever they like due to the “free market,” the Constitution establishes set limits on how private entities can behave towards those who use their property.
In 1946, the Supreme Court decided the case of Marsh v. Alabama, in which a Jehovah’s Witness was arrested for trespassing because she was distributing religious literature in Chickasaw, Alabama, a town that was wholly owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. Marsh argued that because the town’s roads and sidewalks were the only means by which she could exercise her freedom of speech—and because the town of Chickasaw had been open to public use in all other respects—the trespassing arrest violated her rights under the First Amendment.
In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh’s favor. Justice Hugo Black decreed that private entities do not have the right to ban speech on their property if they happen to own a monopoly on the means by which speech can take place. Black also argued that the more that private entities open their property up to public use, the fewer rights they have to control or ban what people do on that property.
Given that Google, Twitter, Apple, Facebook, and other edge providers are publicly-accessible entities that have deliberately pushed for monopoly control over the Internet, it’s clear that Marsh v. Alabama prohibits them from censoring right-wingers. The statute also applies to ISPs, since they wield a monopoly over Internet access. All it would take to shut down online censorship is a halfway-decent lawyer arguing that these left-wing Big Tech companies are literally violating the Constitution.
Indeed, Ajit Pai’s comments attacking Twitter and Google have scared leftists into thinking that the FCC will go after edge providers next.
From a freedom of speech perspective, net neutrality laws are completely unnecessary, since free speech rights on ISPs and edge providers are guaranteed by Marsh v. Alabama. Given that net neutrality completely failed to keep Google, Facebook, and other Silicon Valley giants from censoring the Internet—and their current howling in support of net neutrality—it’s possible that the existing regulations have done more harm than good.
Not My People, Not My Problem
Unlike in years past, it is unlikely that net neutrality defenders will be able to win over the FCC. While the cause of a free and open Internet used to unite leftists and right-wingers, the heavy-handed censorship by Google et al. in the name of fighting “hate speech” in the past three years has woken countless people to the fact that net neutrality is a fraud.
Ultimately, the net neutrality debate is not a battle of free speech vs. censorship, or consumer rights vs. corporations: it’s two groups of crony capitalists fighting over who will exercise more power over the Internet. The outcome of this fight doesn’t matter to the average American since it will have little if any impact on our lives. If you’re an advocate for net neutrality, you are a tool of corporate interests and nothing more.
Let’s hope you are right.
The fact that Armpit whatshizface at the FCC is a former lawyer for Verizon, I think, I don’t feel comfy with him making decisions.
Typical Trump appointee. Sucks badly!
99%
it portrays the fight as tech companies who are responsible for majority of traffic vs ISPs who actually have to pay to maintain the infrastructure the traffic is on. i’m perfectly fine with ISPs passing costs on to huge tech companies instead of the consumer, they can afford and should be paying a fair share.
if the guy was from verizon he probably understands better than anyone the huge burden put on ISPs from these tech companies that receive ridiculous subsidies and tax breaks from governments, while censoring anyone they don’t like on their platforms (youtube, facebook, etc) as hate speech or fake news. fuck google and fuck microsoft too.
I don’t think we have the luxury to say that net-neutrality is unnecessary. This closely relates to freedom of speech (and to communicate freely).
EFF is respected authority that is fighting for freedom on the internet for pretty long time…
This is their campaign:
Thanks Joe.
People need a voice.
We are constantly being threatened with, or actually suffering from, the loss of that voice these days.
99%
the proponents of net neutrality (google, facebook, et al) already practice censorship or any speech which goes against their point of view. i don’t believe net neutrality has anything to do with free speech, or my or your internet usage will noticeably change due to the repealing of net neutrality by the FCC. if your ISP blocks a certain thing you can always choose a different one.
europeans and people in UK can already be thrown in jail for comments they made online, in the short 2 years ‘net neutrality’ was a thing.
no one has lost a voice they had last week
No one is going down without a fight these days!
i think ‘net neutrality’ benefits the tech companies a lot more than it benefits consumers. my ISPs already throttle certain traffic (torrents etc), you can be snooped on without a warrant if using VPNs or tor, service providers already deny service to anyone they dont like under grounds of ‘fake news’ or ‘hate speech’ so i fail to see what protections we had a week ago which we don’t have now. why doesn’t the EFF start an ISP with the stated policy of never throttling or blocking anything? they’d make a killing if it’s such a big issue. here’s a telling quote from the CEO of cloudflare in response to dropping the daily stormer as a customer, during the time of ‘net neutrality protection’
““Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn’t be allowed on the Internet.”
It’s odd to me how these two issues are tangled together. Throttling and censorship are different issues, but lumped together. Throttling and bandwidth limits are common with cell phone services. Censorship can be gotten around, there are dark sites out there that require special access. Also as @legalcanada pointed out, nothing stops these services like YouTube and Facebook from censoring content.
It is amazing how quick people defend giving up freedom out of fear. We can police our own actions on the internet like we have done. If they want a censored area you can pay to play in why they make sure no one will harm you they can build it and charge you to be there. That isn’t what they are asking for. If OverGrow is deemed a threat, and Comcast provides it, the Government body responsible for censoring can tell Comcast quit offering that terror producing channel. It is a control move. The ones they want to control are the tax payers. (their commodity needed to fund government)
the whole thing about net neutrality is ‘all internet traffic should be treated equal’ but its already not the case and already internet providers are able to charge more for different services etc.
yes, that is already the case and has been for a long time. while i do not agree with it or am happy about it, i feel most liberties have already been completely stripped and there is nothing stopping them from shutting people down or blocking certain services to certain people (geolocation etc)
i could be completely wrong but i see it as a corporate struggle they are portraying as a fight for consumer freedoms when i don’t see it having that much affect. i already stay away from any services that are hosted in USA (prefer to stay out of 5 eyes and co all together) and avoid social media, netflix and the rest.
net neutrality has only been a thing for 2 years and prior to that there was no ‘slow lanes’ or blocked access. internet providers have already stated this will not affect how they operate for consumers, because they could just go somewhere else. i’m also in canada who has ‘strong net neutrality laws and political support’ (ya right…) so probably don’t fully understand the issues.
like reading all of their points against ending net neutrality, i don’t even believe any of these protections exist to begin with.
they already throttle traffic. they already cherry pick what information is available and who gets access to what service. why should google or facebook who use majority of the traffic and monetize that for their own benefit get a free ride on the internet while the ISPs have to raise consumer prices to maintain the infrastructure? i must be missing something
I could choose to have a facebook or google account, I can’t choose my ISP. There is only one in my area. I don’t have TV and I don’t have a land line telephone. Just internet. Already costs $86 US every month. Not worried about my ISP’s well being!
How many choices do you have for fast ISP’s? Most people only have one. The elimination of net neutrality regulation only benefits ISP’s. It will allow them to charge more for their services. Whether that is by charging consumers directly or charging companies like Netflix and Google more the end result is that the public suffers.
It’s a handout to The ISP’s and eventually you will end up paying more for less because of it. It doesn’t really have anything to do with freedom of speech or censorship…yet.
Time to build the Othernet!
i don’t believe that’s the case. I would much rather them charge the companies generating the majority of the traffic (services which i dont even use) than the consumers. it could be argued the reason you’re paying such high rates is because of net neutrality the past few years.
i paid $10 a month for high speed internet for years. i would cancel my service and tether my unlimited data phone plan until they would call back and offer the special again for another 12 months. this was only 4-5 years ago. now its also way over 50$ a month. because bandwidth and usage has skyrocketed and they weren’t allowed to charge anyone besides the consumer. and i was online gaming (WoW, CS, LoL) and downloading torrents on my tethered phone connection and it wasn’t too slow.
what about satellite internet?
i think anyone having a monopoly is a bad thing, be it isps or other service providers. we need an open and free internet. the technology exists. i think mesh networks seem like a good solution. we need innovation, hopefully this situation will spur some innovation and be a catalyst for actual change with the way internet runs and is operated.
I would personally be afraid of doing this if I was verizon or another current ISP, because removing net neutrality would more likely push high traffic sites to build there own ISP. Big corporation vertically integrate all the time already to save them money. I doubt removing net neutrality will spur more new ISP’s, outside of the high traffic site, to come into the market place on a broad level, but it might spur smaller websites.
Well I assume by your user name that you are Canadian, so this doesn’t really apply to you at all.