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
