Letter: Protect net neutrality
The FCC’s proposal to allow internet service providers, like heavy-hitters AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, the power to cripple internet traffic will become a nightmare for content providers, emerging platforms, and contrary opinions.
We can all easily recall disputes with cable providers that resulted in blacked out channels. The FCC’s plan from Chairman Ajit Pai will encourage that on the internet.
Internet service providers, who also provide cable TV services, will have the ability to throttle Netflix, FoxNews, ESPN, and Youtube. Content providers already paying for access, bandwidth, and hosting will now pay protection money to access that last mile.
Consumers also paying for access and bandwidth will hardly matter after a contract dispute erupts. If a blacked out channel is an inconvenience today, imagine internet service providers and content providers duking it out online by blocking each other.
Rural areas, new to high-speed technology, will accept crawling speeds as the norm while the video-on-demand services their internet company provides work smoothly regardless that all data could be served from the same location. But for an additional $10/month Netflix works flawlessly, too.
The sad news is that eventually, we will not know any alternative. With the power to make websites disappear, opinions that challenge the ISP narrative will be silenced. Much like forming a worldview based on consuming only one news channel, being forced into a narrative by your internet provider would be just as myopic. And with internet service providers having this privilege, expect extreme ideologies to want to control it by attempting to veto expression they find offensive.
To raise awareness, a coalition of online communities and companies will participate in an online protest to take place July 12. Some of the companies involved include Amazon, Reddit, Netflix, and Etsy.
A fair and open internet insures everything traveling through it is just 1s and 0s, letting the customer decide how and with what they want to consume their bandwidth. Help protect Net Neutrality at https://www.battleforthenet.com.
Joe Huddleston
Jasper, Ind.
I am of the opinion if this were to happen many a user will drop off the net. I for one will certainly do so.
Unfortunately Tom, a (very) few people will do that but not enough to matter. Life in the current era requires internet access too much to be able to drop off like that. It is also not plausible to suggest switching to a provider who won’t charge for special access since internet providers are given exclusive access to an area (in exchange for coverage which is important) so there are not many options, if any at all, to vote with your dollars. There is also the fact the most of the charges won’t be shown directly to the end user as most of the special access fees will be paid by the content providers just so their service won’t be slowed down which gets passed on to the users indirectly by higher fees for the service (Netflix will be $10 more a month for all users just so they can stream data at reasonable speeds) which has the effect of reducing competition because the barrier for entry for providing a service increases greatly. In the interest of competition and American freedom: I am for net neutrality and hope you reconsider your position and strongly support net neutrality.
I would like to think so, but unfortunately what you end up getting is people claiming that NN supporters are fighting when they are getting something free.
As another example of abuse, accessing the internet from our phones is new and many of us pay to increase our data caps.
However, T-Mobile and AT&T is offering zero-rated Netflix. Meaning, you can watch as much as you like and it not count towards your data cap. They frame it to sound like like you are getting Netflix bandwidth for free.
But what you are really paying for is artificial scarcity.
To explain, if I can watch 50GB of Orange is the New Black from Netflix without causing problems to the cellular ISP then how is that demonstrably different than watching 50GB of Vudu. https://www.wired.com/2016/11/att-time-warner-deal-shows-time-stop-zero-rating/
Comcast cable is attempting the same thing with Netflix, currently. Comcast as also tested data caps in some markets. https://www.wired.com/2016/07/comcasts-netflix-deal-open-new-front-net-neutrality-war/
This scenario demonstrates that the data caps are artificially being imposed to drive up costs. The only real cap we need experience is speed (aka bandwidth).
Cellular providers did the same thing with SMS messages (which was essentially piggy backing on background traffic) and people are still paying for SMS bundles, today.
Possibly so, but foreboding speculation – however ominous as it seems or appears – sometimes has a way of bucking reality. For instance, look how long we’ve been told Social Security is in its end stages – it was supposed to run out starting decades ago and several times hence according to all the experts and naysayers. It’s still alive and, if not well, working. Computers were supposed to end paperwork and paper trails if not the paper-need business altogether, but the reality of it is that the computer has generated more paper trails, needs and paperwork than you can shake a stick at. On this, we’ll see.
Yes, either way it won’t be the end of the world, but I think it is pretty clear one option is better than the other. I believe both of the examples you provide are arguments for taking action to support net neutrality. Social security was supposed to run out at the given state of social security, so we took action and raised social security taxes and thus prevented the problem before it occurred. Foresight saved SS. Computers do in fact reduce paperwork and make tracking data easier so much so that we have greatly increased the data tracking in the past couple decades far beyond anything we have had before. Some segments do not truly use computer form filling, but that is because they decided to NOT take action (requiring a paper form to be filled out only to turn around and enter into a computer later is deciding to not use paperless computer entry). So as you can see, some forethought and planning was able to avert some negative consequences (SS shortfall, reduced data collection). We’ve seen what internet provides will do if they are not made to provide a neutral network (throttling competition, etc), I still believe the choice is still clear as to the better option.
Wow, lawmakers fighting for their lobbies not the people/consumers, I’m shocked. Thought this was all supposed to be all about the people after January 21? Guess not. When we gonna get that hot repeal and replace action? What about some of that sultry wall stuff? Or…most importantly it seems to some of you…when we gonna “LOCK HER UP”? Lots of promises unfulfilled and nobody holding anyone to his word. Politics as usual, glad you all drained that swamp!
Have we forgotten it’s our national conviction that we are all created equal, endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Only we, the people, through the instrument of our democracy, can form a more perfect union. The freedom to chase our individual dreams through our sweat, ingenuity, and imagination. It is our imperative as a nation to strive together as well, to achieve a common good, a greater good for all Americans. The concept of America is what led patriots to choose republic over tyranny, pioneers to trek west. It’s what pulled immigrants and refugees across oceans and the Rio Grande. It’s what pushed women to reach for the ballot. It’s what powered workers to organize. It’s why GIs gave their lives at Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima; Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan — and why men and women from Selma to Birmingham were prepared to give theirs as well to promote civil rights.
America has always been defined by forward motion, acknowledging our founding creed to embrace all, and not just some, with liberty and justice for all. Net neutrality defines freedom and liberty.