Skip to main content

#9: Net-neutrality

Chapter 14 is about access and talks about the term "net-neutrality." Net-neutrality, as defined by the book is "The principle that holds that Internet service providers (ISPs) should be completely detached from content sent over their networks. Under this principle, ISPs should allow access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and make no attempt to favor or block particular products or services," (Tedford and Herbeck 464). Today, the Federal Communication's Commission (FCC) "plans to remove the current ban on throttling, blocking or prioritization schemes, and revoke the internet conduct standard, which allows the commission to investigate zero-rating plans," (Engadget). This would mean that ISPs would be responsible for publicly disclosing whether they're blocking, throttling or prioritizing any online content, but it wouldn't prohibit those behaviors. The hope is that this will give consumers a clearer picture of providers and help them make a more informed decision when choosing between them.
This is problematic for many reasons. ISPs wouldn't be required to report these practices if they were classified as "reasonable network management." This would give providers an almost "loophole" if they were able to legitimize their practices; something "they've all done" according to Jessica Conditt for Engadget. It also puts too much power in the hands of ISPs by trusting their transparency too much. I think this gives big companies another way to stay in power at the expense of consumers. By not banning them, it encourages them to cover up their bad practices instead of eliminating them. At a time when we can't trust anything we're told, I think laws enforcing blatant transparency benefit our society much more than this leap of faith from the FCC.

Sources:
Conditt, Jessica. “This Is What Transparency Looks like without Net Neutrality.” Engadget, 22 Nov. 2017, www.engadget.com/2017/11/22/net-neutrality-transparency-fcc-ajit-pai-proposal-isp/.
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed. Strata Publishing, INC., 2017.

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 28, 2017 at 8:39 AM

    I agree that it is scary how the government wants to put so much control into the hands of big companies like Verizon, Comcast and Sprint. By doing this, it gives power to big media conglomerations which directly affects our democracy and rights to freedom. The government is in a way, allowing censorship of what consumers will consume on the internet. This will be very fatal for social movements and particularly marginalized groups of individuals. Net neutrality is a new term since the internet has been invented, but nonetheless extremely important to maintain our democracy and freedom.
    The new FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai is the leader that is trying to end net neutrality regulation and allow bing ISP companies to pick and choose which sites they want their consumers to be able to reach, along as they are "transparent" about it. They can do this in many ways, like slowing down internet speeds when trying to reach certain sites. By doing this, they can control the consumer and this will benefit them in the long run as it censors what we can and cannot read and consume. The freedom of speech is at stake right now, and I personally believe that everyone needs to be aware of this scary issue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousNovember 29, 2017 at 2:03 PM

    Personally I think that Net Neutrality can disrupt the very foundation that America sits on. When Freedom of Speech is in question, giving the power to bigger companies would systematically allow them to push their ideologies and morals, even religion on to people. If they have this full power, and for instance Comcast is monopolized, they can choose whatever website fits their agenda and further the traffic to those specific ones. Transparency is completely thrown out of the window, and I do not think that given the chance, ISPs would act how ever they wanted. This would diminish the value of small business that use the internet for exposure. The internet should not be regulated and become a monopoly. There are rules against institutions that become monopolies, why is it okay to make ISPs one?

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousNovember 29, 2017 at 4:06 PM

    The potential repeal of net neutrality seems problematic on a number of economic, political and first amendment grounds. With nearly 80% of U.S. counties having either no ISPs or only one ISP that offers a standard internet speed (FCC, 2015), it's worrisome that consumers who already have a limited number of providers could see the price of their internet increase even more. Advocates for the repeal of net neutrality argue that lifting these regulations will allow providers to better differentiate their services and increase competition, but a lack of those ISPs to begin with doesn't set the foundation for doing this.

    One interesting example I came across that demonstrates the impact this repeal could have on consumers' access to press is the market for ISPs in Portugal where there's a lack of net neutrality regulations. In this country, ISPs split up their services into different "packages" that are then subsequently charged for about 5 euros each. These separate packages contain individual services for "music," "social," "messaging," and a number of other categories. Theoretically, repealing net neutrality in the United States would give ISPs the power to mirror this model and put publications like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal behind a paywall. This restriction on access to the press is worrying because it effectively limits access to reputable information and makes it harder for publications to exercise their first amendment rights.

    Sources:

    ISPs and counties: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/

    Portugal: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-portugal-internet-20171127-story.html

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more