Net Neutrality May End In a Few Weeks! An Ideological Struggle At the ISP Level? How About A Steem Powered ISP? :)
Net neutrality is the concept that internet service providers should operate a level playing field, so that ISP customers' access to all websites is even and website operators cannot gain unfair speed boosts simply by paying more money to ISP companies. The US FCC has been heavily pressured (and highly likely also bribed) to dispose of net neutrality, to make way for... well...
This has been a 'discussion' that has been ongoing for a long time. Many millions of comments have been written on the topic and the body of internet users appears to generally be in support of keeping net neutrality. The argument is that without net neutrality, small website operators may be completely unable to serve their users and will have no possible way to compete with large website operators. The result may be a massive change to the internet whereby only the mega corporations can afford to run functional websites - it could very well be a major death knell for the internet since only a relatively small number of corporations own and operate the hardware that runs the internet backbones and they would effectively be able to determine how we use the web!
This episode of John Oliver's show on net neutrality gives an entertaining overview:
The latest news is that the FCC is voting on a set of regulations soon to end net neutrality and it may even mean that ISPs can literally just block websites that they don't want the world to see!! Run a website that criticizes Time-Warner? Well, you won't see that on a Time-Warner Internet connection! What if you criticize the fundamental business practices of large corporate entities? Maybe all of them will block you!
As someone who knows very well that Google and other large corporations have employed numerous mechanisms to subtly bury or censor a wide variety of material for years - this is deeply concerning. Ironically, publicly these corporations say they are pro-net-neutrality - but behind the scenes they may think differently since they would be among the few corporations who can afford to get the premium connections and who would have board room sway to make sure nothing they do gets blocked.
But consumer advocates and Net media companies including Facebook, Google and Netflix are concerned that telecom and cable companies could give preferential benefit to their own services and content.
source: USA Today
Does this honestly sound like a realistic concern?
"Casino gamblers are concerned that casinos might let them win too often under the new rules!"
Exactly! ;)
Ideological warfare
All this should be particularly interesting to Steemians since Steemit is allegedly designed along an anarcho-capitalist ideological vision whereby there are as few rules as possible to attempt to create a free market of exchange - which is essentially the objective of the FCC in removing the regulations. The issue though, as with all such ideological visions is that they do not always work in every last detail of every situation.
It's all very well to say that corporations should be free to operate as they prefer, but what about when our society is designed to rely on internet tech as a lifeline as important as electricity or food? If all regulation is removed, then a massive amount of power will suddenly be shifted into the hands of a tiny group (as if they didn't already have enough power!). I have recently been falsely accused of being a communist on Steemit (super LOL) whereas in truth I am a problem solver and it is not communist to point out flaws with untethered capitalism - especially when they really exist.
To deny that an unregulated capitalist system can quickly result in de facto dictators and empires that literally crush the skulls of millions in just as nasty a way as communism has already one - is to deny basic logic. The skull crushing might not be of the literal 'tanks driving down streets' form that comes with some communist regimes, but it is equally dangerous. The 'soft kill' control by 'market forces' that are not really free at all, but are instead heavily guided by oligarchs from behind the scenes is no more of an improvement on anything than any (often badly designed) regulations are.
I am not 'pro-state' at all - but we have inherited a legacy 'state' and a massively complicated set of 'accounts' and 'balances' out of that which don't just disappear because we decide to remove regulations. The idea that real freedom will magically occur when all such regulations are gone is extremely naive and it is more likely that freedom will increase for those who already have most of it and will decrease for everyone else.
What's the answer?
I don't see any real need for ISPs to be able to throttle and block websites at their leisure and preference - except to make them more profitable. Since I personally don't care much whether they are profitable or not, it makes no difference to me if they are regulated - but it does make a difference to me if they block me and throttle what I want to look at. So from that perspective I am pro net neutrality.
On the flipside, in the interests of minimizing state control - my suggestion is to look at ways of opening up web services to the public so that corporate domination cannot pose a problem to free speech and liberty of everyone who is not part of that corporate control system. The challenge is how to devise a system that is not state controlled, but that is also not open to the exploitation that so often arises by corporate control.
Perhaps it is possible to use blockchain technology to crowdfund new ISPs that are 'open source' and not owned by anyone - a voluntary ISP that respects anarchistic principles? Laying down new cables under the ocean is probably prohibitively expensive for such a project, but there may be space available for other tiers of ISP services to be run in such a way.. SteemISP anyone? :)
Wishing you well,
Ura Soul
Buy My T-Shirts, Gifts & Other Clothing Here.
View My Witness Application Here
Well, we are screwed now. I'm hopeful that ISPs block some sites that a random high ranking senator uses, and we get a law protecting consumers from greedy corporations.
as far as i am concerned, it is more likely that these 'chosen ones' will simply have their own uncensored net like in north korea.
Damnit, that's very likely. Damnit..
A positive effect is that this will only accelerate the development of decentralized internet solutions.
I haven't seen a single decentralized ISP solution yet... but I would love to see that offered!
You nailed it with your last thought. We need to decentralize the internet.
It will require a significant level of new technology I think which bypasses the dinosaur age of heavy undersea cables (maybe home launched mini satellites with frikin lazers will work!).
It will be some sort of wireless solution on a hardware level
Awesome, appreciated. It's very informative post,
Thanks! You are welcome.
Net neutrality is being lobbied for by the biggest names in internet censorship. Google, facebook, YouTube. They have poured money into it and I don't see them defending a free and open internet, or trying to fight censorship in any way.
And you see ISPs on the other side fighting against it.. I don't see Time Warner Cable, now Spectrum (same garbage, different name), Fighting to protect consumer rights after price gouging consumers for decades.
It essentially created a "department of internet" giving control of bandwidth and opening the doors to whatever regulations they want to tac on in the future. What's next, government licensing to have a website? An analogy would be two people trying to use the postal service. One person is trying to mail a letter, the other a 50 lb package. The letter is cheap and Light and arrives quickly while the package is more expensive and takes longer. Then the government passes a law saying the letter has to arrive at the same time and for the same price as the package. This means the letter won't arrive as quick and will cost more to subsidize the larger package. the letter is small internet business, the package is facebook and google. Net neutrality makes it more difficult and expensive for small internet business and start ups while Making it cheaper for huge cooperations. The FCC didn't regulate the internet at all until a few years ago and we had absolutely no cases of ISP's throttling smaller websites. This only became an issue when Netflix and facebook got pissy that they had to pay more since a huge percent of internet traffic goes to their sites. That is when they decided to pour millions to fight it and gave their cause the nice sounding name of "net neutrality". The free and open internet has been one of the greatest innovations ever, all we need is the government making innovation more difficult and expensive.
Um. You're ok with ISPs charging fees to Netflix, then Netflix charging consumers, but not OK with the government mandating internet speeds be equal (because what does that actually cost? Next to nothing?)..
Yeah, I'm sorry, your argument is depressingly contradictory and flawed.
By the way, corporations already own most of the URLs in the .Com space, which has been regulated for the better part of 15-20 years. Did you not live through the domain wars time when people were buying certain domains simply to sell them at an extreme premium at a later date when someone wants to use them?
I thought ICANN was a private non profit? Either way their is a huge difference in issuing URL's for the .com space and controlling bandwidth for all internet traffic. My "depressingly contradictory and flawed" argument was that throttling of websites making them inaccessible was not an issue before the legislation in 2015, which you offered no rebuttal to. An example of this happening would be a solid argument that might convince me to change my position. Giving government control over the flow of information is scary to me. At least their are multiple ISP's so if throttling and censorship ever becomes an issue, there will be other companies competing for the business of consumers upset about the censorship. If we give government the power and they decide to abuse it, there is no recourse.
There's no competition. Either you have fiber laid down or not. And the cost to enter the space is not worth it.
The legislation arose, as you stated, from the throttling of Netflix because ISPs were threatening to destroy the streaming of Netflix if they didn't pay ISPs for the right to be a service provider.
I didn't realize that was something that needed to be said, since you said it for me.
That's exactly my point! Netflix was pissy because they had to pay more than a small website for the massive data their site used. They funded a campaign, gave it a nice name and let social media lobby the government for them. This wasn't a grassroots movement. the only companies being threatened were huge cooperations that have the majority of internet traffic. Now they can't be charged more than a small online startup. There was no cases of ISP's censoring websites or deciding what you see and don't see on the internet which is how net neutrality proponents are framing it.
Soooo, you want to pay more money to be a Netflix subscriber? Do you think the money would actually have been paid at the end of the day by Netflix? No. Consumers would have paid for it.
Do you not know how to do math, or understand how business works?
I don't trust the government, but I trust big business even less. In the last week, almost as if they knew about this in advance, my ISP has had latency problems and on a few occasions, I've had problems getting on at all.
Human nature being human nature, I can totally see the ISP's blocking third party news sites and independent journalists.
Yes, you can bet that the vested interests know the outcomes already, it usually comes down to either who they have bribed or who they know - in which 'secret society' behind the scenes.
Not a bad idea.
Nice post! It does seem it a backhanded way of censorship to me. This has been ongoing for a while as you say. Corporate take over of the internet but people just let it happen unfortunately, seems like it might be too late. But there is still time
We shall see!