Don’t panic. Despite leftists’ Chicken Little proclamations, last week’s FCC repeal of “Net Neutrality” does not mean the end of the internet as we know it. Before the federal regulations were adopted a little more than two years ago, web access was affordable and unrestricted – and in fact didn’t need regulating. Now that the Orwellian rules have been dumped, access will remain affordable and unrestricted.
Much like the “Affordable Care Act,” “Net Neutrality” basically means the opposite of what it sounds like. The carefully chosen terminology, a clever ruse to fool people into thinking it was exactly what it wasn’t.
Essentially, the rules reclassified the internet as a public utility (giving the FCC free reign over every aspect of the web). Here’s a pretty good explanation of the basics from Logan Albright at Conservative Review ~
Basically, net neutrality prevents broadband providers from charging different prices to different consumers and from slowing down or speeding up certain connections on a selective basis. Supporters of the regulation claim this is necessary to prevent big companies from paying for an “internet fast lane” that consigns the little guy to slower connection. But in fact, what paid prioritization really allows is not an internet fast lane, but a way for ISPs to compensate for the companies that hog a disproportionate amount of bandwidth.
For example, Netflix and YouTube, by streaming huge amounts of video every second of every day, consume a gargantuan amount of bandwidth that could be allocated to other, smaller competitors. Paid prioritization would allow ISPs to charge them a little bit more for the privilege and pass the savings along to more bandwidth-friendly sites. Under net neutrality, however, the bandwidth hogs get to keep sucking up all the internet’s oxygen cheaply, while their competitors effectively subsidize their use. There are also performance issues, because if Netflix isn’t allowed to pay for better, faster service, it will be more likely to experience outages at peak times.
For this reason, companies that use a lot of bandwidth tend to favor net neutrality — it saves them money. Amazon, with its Prime streaming service, YouTube, and Netflix were all major supporters of the regulation when it first went into effect. Apple, which operates AppleTV, is also a supporter, probably bearing in mind future ambitions for expanded video streaming.
So by government decree, the regulations sought to collectivize the net, all users great and small – regardless of need or desire – subjected to equal treatment. Of course large service and content providers love Net Neutrality because it rigs the system in their favor. It disadvantages smaller start-ups, discouraging innovation – the very lifeblood of the internet.
Back in May, the Competitive Enterprise Institute released a report that not surprisingly found Net Neutrality Leads to Higher prices, Less Innovation ~
• The Internet flourished precisely because it was free from federal government control
• The rules force ISPs to treat all data transmitted over the Internet in the same manner. However, not everything on the Internet is treated equally by consumers
• ISPs are better equipped at finding innovative solutions to solve network congestion than federal regulators. Net neutrality has “thwarted such exploration, ultimately reducing innovation and consumer choice.”
• As a result of net neutrality rules, companies are restricted in how they can manage Internet traffic on their own networks.
• If the FCC rule is left intact, it will prevent you from getting free stuff like sponsored data from your wireless provider
The report pointed to Europe’s broadband market as an example of what Americans shouldn’t want to happen here ~
It has long been regulated like a utility, and they now have half as much investment in wireline service as the United States, and their average mobile broadband speeds are 30 percent slower than what Americans enjoy.
Most of the low-information crowd freaking out over the repeal of Net Neutrality seem to think the regulations somehow guaranteed freedom of expression. And yet for the last couple of years we’ve been seeing less of that – conservative voices at least – are being increasingly censored, by social media giants, YouTube, and even search engines. Look how far Twitter’s position on free speech has evolved in five short years ~
Twitter’s first executive in the UK, Tony Wang, described the company in 2012 as “the free-speech wing of the free-speech party.”
Now Sinead McSweeney, Twitter’s vice president for public policy and communications in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, has said it’s “no longer possible to stand up for all speech.”
How is squashing opinions the Left doesn’t like any sort of “neutral?”
Weird though, it almost seems like calling the government regulation of the Internet “Net Neutrality” was deliberately calculated so the Resistance would be triggered into indignant protests when the evil conservatives repealed it…
More and more the Left’s reaction to anything they disapprove of is characterized by drama, hyperbole and hysterical threats. Never any sort of civil debate (mainly because they’re wrong on every issue) they throw tantrums like angry children; the only avenue left to them to try and get their way.
In the case of Net Neutrality they’ve outdone themselves ~ Republicans Continue to Receive Death Threats From Net Neutrality Supporters ~
A New York man was arrested for making a death threat against Rep. John Katko over the net neutrality debate, the latest in a string of threats from advocates of the liberal policy […]
“Listen Mr. Katko, if you support net neutrality, I will support you,” Patrick Angelo said, according to a complaint filed in federal court. “But if you don’t support net neutrality, I will find you and your family and I will kill… you… all. Do you understand? I will literally find all… of… you and your progeny and just wipe you from the face of the earth.” […]
Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai has received numerous threats since announcing the agency’s intention earlier this year to repeal the Obama era rules that expanded federal regulation over the internet.
And last week, as the FCC was getting ready to vote on repeal, the hearing was actually interrupted by a bomb threat!
The lawless antics of these radical net neutralizers should give more sensible proponents pause. Can we all agree that this is not how sane people settle their differences? If you resort to unnecessary violence, you automatically discredit your cause.
Unfortunately, the low-information crowd tends to make snap judgments based on emotionally-charged sound-bites. Here’s a video that might help dispel the agit-prop they’ve been fed ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ted Cruz patiently tried to explain all this to Luke Skywalker last Sunday 
~
.@HammillHimself Luke, I know Hollywood can be confusing, but it was Vader who supported govt power over everything said & done on the Internet. That's why giant corps (Google, Facebook, Netflix) supported the FCC power grab of net neutrality. Reject the dark side: Free the net! https://t.co/nARkMvIEYk
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 17, 2017
(I don’t think it worked. Hamill has gone over to the net neutralizer dark side.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Related:
ObamaNet – the fix was in
Access Blocked: Can’t get to “Conservative Worldview” from here
YouTube: “Pay no attention to those conservatives behind the curtain. We don’t.”
Debunking the Left’s Myths on Net Neutrality
Net neutrality’s impact on free porn could be significant, experts say ~ Bummer. The “free” stuff might not be any more. Gee, no wonder Pornhub and similar sites have been vocal about fighting against the repeal of net neutrality.
Tech Companies That Support Net Neutrality Aren’t as Virtuous as You Think
