There are two kinds of people.
Those who want net neutrality, and those who don't know they want net neutrality.
This guy wants it, this guy wants it, even this guy wants it, he just doesn't know it yet.
Everybody talks about net neutrality and it seems enough has already been said, so it
might look like I am late to the party.
But I am making this to say something that hasn't been discussed yet.
Or not enough at least.
Net neutrality is a bureaucratic warfare.
I am going take you through the history and legality of the net neutrality rules.
Because I have no life, I've actually went through the legal documents behind net neutrality,
including but not limited to the 1934 Communications Act, the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the
Open Internet Order of 2010, net neutrality order of 2015, and the most recent draft order
to repeal net neutrality altogether.
And I'd wholeheartedly appreciate if you compensated for the lack of my social life
by commenting on and sharing this video.
Audience engagement doesn't just make the Youtube algorithm wet.
It would also make my nether regions engorge.
I split my talking points into 6 most evil lies about net neutrality that are used as
arguments against it and I present my counter-evidence to all of them to be used as weapons in the
battle for free and open Internet.
The battle isn't done until Trump signs the bill so let's not resign yet.
We have plenty to cover so here we go!
#1 Net neutrality is overreaching
Perhaps the biggest lie that triggered the whole repeal of net neutrality is that the
FCC rules are overreaching and that the regulation is just too long and complex.
But let's truly see how long the actual net neutrality rules are.
So you have this document coming from the FCC in 2015 that they say is when Obama ruined
the freedom of Internet.
That is horrendous, that's 400-page-long piece of legislation right there.
There is only one problem.
This is not 400 pages of net neutrality rules.
This is 400 pages of a very long, detailed, and in-depth analytical report that the FCC
had to make to justify their proposal in front of the Congress.
The vast majority of this stuff can be skipped if you are not interested in learning about
America's bureaucratic history and their arguments for net neutrality don't matter
to you.
But if you want to go straight to the rules, you just have to skip to the Appendix A, on
page 283.
This is what got voted on, and this is what got written into the law.
This is the very regulatory bit.
The rest of this document has nothing to do with being a regulation.
So let's count together how long this horrendous net neutrality regulation really is.
One.
Two.
Three.
Four.
Five.
Six.
Seven.
Eight.
That's it.
To put into a perspective, The Communications Act that established the Federal Communications
Commission in 1934 and gave this cunt a job, is 333 pages long, and the 1996 Telecommunications
Act is 128 pages of pure regulation.
And to get even bigger picture on this, the actual net neutrality rules don't even span
over the full 8 pages.
They barely cover more than half a page of text.
There are only four short legal paragraphs describing the rules of 'no blocking',
'no throttling', 'no paid prioritization', and 'no unreasonable interference or disadvantage
standard for Internet conduct'.
So the argument that the net neutrality rules are just unnecessary micro-managing over the
line regulation that needs to be cut off is just a big BIG lie.
Pai's proposal straight out deletes all of the net neutrality paragraphs, which cuts
the regulation by impressive 6 pages.
The commercial Internet started off of telephone
networks, which were tightly regulated and barred from any unreasonable blocking, interference,
or preference in content, services, applications and devices.
But when this technology was replaced by high-speed cable-broadband and DSL, the '96 Telecommunications
Act deregulated these to stir up competition.
This gave high-speed broadband providers strong incentives and opportunity to block and throttle
competitive traffic.
The first to become a victim of such practices were applications like "Voice over IP",
when Skype began offering telephone calls over the Internet for a fraction of the cost
of the landline or cell phone calls.
Then, big broadband ISPs started to implement termination fees to squeeze more money out
of the system by charging websites extra for connecting them to their customers.
Some ISPs with broadband commenced to block Virtual Private Networks, which were then
popular among firms to connect off-site workers to their company networks.
Comcast released a statement that they will block all VPN traffic, but offer their customers
to use their equivalent @Home Pro for an additional cost of $95 per month.
AT&T went full retard when they said this to their DSL customers in the early 2000s:
Examples of prohibited programs and equipment include, but are not limited to, mail, ftp,
http, file sharing, game, newsgroup, proxy, IRC servers, multi-user interactive forums
and Wi-Fi devices Customer shall not connect the Service or
any AT&T Broadband Equipment to more computers, either on or outside of the Premises, than
are reflected in Customer's account with AT&T Broadband.
Customer acknowledges that any unauthorized receipt of the Service constitutes theft of
service, which is a violation of federal law and can result in both civil and criminal
penalties.
Throughout 2011 Verizon was blocking Google Wallet which almost cost the mega-behemoth
to kill their project.
Google was only lucky that T-Mobile and AT&T didn't follow suit.
And of course, Verizon did this to prioritize their own mobile payments service, which was
then called
And then there is this whole Netfilx vs Verizon saga.
When you subscribe to Verizon broadband, you technically didn't get access to the Internet.
You are paying for access to Verizon's network.
Verizon, invisibly to you, makes deals with other bandwidth providers and edge providers,
to exchange the traffic.
But because they have such a monopoly on end users, Verizon has the position to blackmail
edge providers into higher costs for exchanging the traffic between them and their customers.
There is a lot of politics behind the closed doors.
When Verizon had a beef with Netflix, it was because Netflix was competing with Verizon's
Redbox Instant.
And they wanted their customers to have better experience with Redbox rather than Netflix
without actually making a better service.
In the end, Redbox Instant shut down after 19 months since its release, because Verizon
did a shitty job at offering a good service and preventing criminal abuse.
Literally criminals used Redbox subscriptions to verify stolen credit cards.
So when the ISPs start charging customers for access to entertainment packages, the
reality is that it doesn't matter how much you pay Verizon for better broadband speeds.
Verizon wants to be a gatekeeper for edge providers to their customers so that they
can be the ones controlling the exchange of Internet traffic.
These deals depend solely on Verizon's business model and anti-competitive network management
practices.
No amount of your consumer money and begging is going to influence how Verizon treats Internet
traffic.
Which leads me to predict that this whole model of "Internet subscription packages"
that we so fear after the repeal of net neutrality won't be feasible in the long run.
That's because ISPs simply won't be able to blackmail edge providers into paying more
and ask customers to pay extra to access social media and online video at the same time while
breaking promises made to both.
Which would make the Federal Trade Commission to step in.
They'll either have to choose one, or they'll straight out give you a tightly limited ISP-filtered
version of the Internet, where all you'll be able to access are your ISP products and
affiliates.
So instead of accessing the Internet, we'll all be accessing Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, or
T-Mobile intranets.
#3
Net neutrality is unprecedented . It didn't exist before Obama.
This is so wrong on way too many levels that it's
unbelievable someone would say this with a straight face.
The first commercial ISPs in the 1990s had a special position as this was the time before
broadband came to play.
Most people had Internet access routed through telephone networks.
The FCC made a strong set of rules that were protecting the ISPs from any unreasonable
or unjust discrimination by the telecommunications operators.
If somebody wanted to become an ISP, they would have to prove they abide by an FCC requirement
called "Maximum Separation".
This was a principle decided on by the Commission after decades long proceedings discussing
how to regulate the new technology of computer networks.
These proceedings were called Computer Inquiries.
The computer Inquires were initiated in the 1960s at the time when the Internet's predecessor
– Arpanet – was going online.
The dilemma for the Commission was how and whether to regulate computer networks.
The source of authority for the Commission had been the 1934 Communications Act that
established the FCC to regulate the telecommunications and information industry and infrastructure
in the US.
The Act wanted to ensure that AT&T wouldn't use its monopoly in telecommunications industry
to hijack all other markets which depended on the telecommunications infrastructure.
The Act classified services between Title I, which was a light regulation, and Title
II bright-line regulation of common carriers.
The Maximum Separation rule prohibited businesses regulated under Title II to enter Title I
markets under the same entity.
"The FCC required that a carrier establish a separate data processing corporation, have
separate accounting books, have separate officers, have separate personnel, and have separate
equipment and facilities."
The Title II clearly specifies that all common carriers are prohibited to make
any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations,
facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly
or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable
preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or
to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable
prejudice or disadvantage."
The FCC was then free to define the specifics of what's reasonable and what isn't, what's
a just practice and what's a discrimination.
But the most important aspect was defining which providers of what service should be
classified as common carriers and follow the Title II regulations.
And this is what started the bureaucratic warfare that had both principles for and against
net neutrality developing alongside each other.
The FCC wanted all traffic to be treated equally, while at the same time, they wanted to stir
up competition and innovation that would boost America's economy.
We have to remember that this was set deeply in the Cold-War era when the US's goal was
to out-compete the Soviet Union.
They couldn't allow their enemy to have any technological advantage over the US.
Basing their logic on the authority of the Act, the FCC sought for a dichotomy of classifications
– to differentiate between services that should be tightly regulated and those that
shouldn't.
At first they started looking at this from a technological standpoint.
They identified communications processing as a basic service that should be regulated
and data processing as an innovation, an enhanced service, that should be left to the competitive
market.
Basic services were communications networks, and enhanced services were everything more
built using the communications infrastructure.
But this created odd problems.
Technologies are used interchangeably as they develop and innovate, until they become indistinguishable.
Many basic services were both data and communications processing and the same went for the enhanced
ones.
One thing that became clear though was that the data processing market was highly competitive,
but also completely dependent on the communications market, which was monopolistic.
Keeping this dichotomy logic in mind, the Commission realized it had to look at the
issues from the standpoint of different markets, and not different technologies.
The FCC took to focus on different markets and identified three layers – the telecommunications
market, the ISP market built on top of that telecommunications infrastructure, and the
Internet content market enabled by the ISP market.
The FCC then decided that its position should be to protect competitive markets from anti-competitive
practices of monopolistic markets.
To protect other markets, the first layer was decided to fall under the Title II regulations,
because they were monopolistic and had both incentives and opportunities to be anticompetitive.
The second layer was vastly deregulated, because the FCC saw the potential of thousands of
ISPs entering this competitive market.
Finally, the third market, which is were Google, Skype, Facebook, or you and I operate, was
completely left out of the Communications regulations.
If anybody from a monopolistic market wanted to enter an unregulated competitive market,
they would have to prove maximum separation.
Finishing Computer Inquiries in 1986, it is safe to say that without these safeguards,
the commercial Internet might have never been possible.
It would've been immediately hijacked by the monopolies in the communications market
like AT&T entirely.
The principle that the FCC should regulate monopolies to protect innovation proved to
be extremely successful for the 1990s Internet.
At its peak year of 1998, households in North America had access to over 7,000 independent
ISPs.
But when high-speed broadband entered the market, things started to change.
In 1996, the US government adopted new Telecommunications Act, which took on the same dichotomy the
FCC laid out in the Computer Inquires.
To keep things simple, basic services were classified as telecommunications, regulated
under Title II, and enhanced services became information services lightly regulated under
Title I. Exclusion of broadband from Title II meant
Maximum Separation was no longer a requirement for a monopoly to enter an unregulated market.
The Bush Administration saw a rampage of ISP mergers and acquisitions.
When the courts upheld the FCC's decision to relieve cable and DSL broadband from Title
II in the early 2000s, the Commission adopted Internet Policy Statement where it outlined
four principles to "encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open
and interconnected nature of the public Internet".
These principles focused on the exclusive choice of consumers and not the ISPs to:
1. access the lawful Internet content
2. run applications and services
3. and connect legal devices that do not harm the network
the 4th rule entitled consumers to competition among network, service, application, and content
providers.
These principles turned into policy rules when the FCC subjected Verizon and AT&T to
honor net neutrality, after they merged with MCI and SBC.
These rules were strictly codified in the agreements made between the FCC and each of
the corporations, but they eventually expired in 2008.
Newly appointed FCC Chairman Genachowski took this Internet Policy Statement to codify net
neutrality in the Open Internet Order in 2010.
FCC adopted three net neutrality rules – no blocking, no unreasonable discrimination,
and the transparency requirement.
However, the FCC based its reasoning on the ancillary authority of the Title I regulations
of information services.
This means that broadband ISPs were still classified under Title I. Title I doesn't
specify any concrete regulatory guidelines, but the FCC can take various interpretations
of different approvals from Congress to implement its rules until somebody challenges them in
court.
When the Commission wanted to hold Verizon and Comcast accountable for violating these
rules, they were challenged in court and essentially lost, because they were applying Title II
regulations to services classified as Title I.
The ancillary authority proved to be insufficient.
To end these shenanigans that could potentially allow the FCC to regulate everything on the
Internet under its ancillary authority, Anthony Wheeler decided in 2015 to reclassify ISPs
as common carriers under Title II.
This gave net neutrality solid legal standing and barred the FCC from overreaching.
Under Title II, the FCC cannot use its ancillary authority to regulate markets beyond this
classification.
Which means that edge providers are safe from government regulation, but monopolistic ISPs
need to be put in check.
The net neutrality rules of 2015 didn't bring anything new to the table, but rather
relied on the precedence that the ISPs should be barred from blocking, throttling, paid
prioritization, and unreasonable discrimination.
The FCC never wanted to regulate technology, but rather protect the markets from monopolies
upon which innovation in other markets depended on.
So the most logical move for the Commission today would be to reopen the proceedings,
and consider implementing safeguards to protect the Internet market from the ISPs.
Because basically, the ISP market is controlled by the same people who took over the telecommunications
market.
Instead, Pai is moving it into an opposite direction, setting it back into the early
Cold-War years.
His proposal to repeal net neutrality altogether goes against the logic of the FCC to prevent
telcom monopolies from controlling the US economy.
Repealing net neutrality eliminates regulation
No repealing net neutrality doesn't eliminate regulation.
All it's doing is that it changes how the agency defines ISPs.
It's a classification warfare.
Yes classification does affect how they approach things but in legal systems everything is
about the right interpretation of the law.
So for example, classifying ISPs under Title II to make them follow net neutrality rules
gives the FCC clear bright lines on what it can and cannot do.
But what's more is that the mere presence of these rules in the Title II doesn't necessarily
means the agency has to apply them at every instance.
There's this clause about "the public interest" in the Section 10 of the Act,
which kind of opens the room for more adjusted implementation of the rules.
Likewise, classifying ISPs under Title I makes it look like the FCC has to regulate less,
but then again, the law is interpreted differently depending on the agenda of those engaged.
The Commission can take its ancillary authority that grants its permission to justify certain
regulations based on principles set by similar preceding cases approved by the Congress.
That's how some net neutrality rules used to be enforced before the reclassification
of ISPs as Title II services in 2015.
But what's more troubling is that the FCC sometimes relies too heavily on this ancillary
authority to the point it can be much more dangerous than in cases under Title II regulations.
For example, using broad and open definitions in its previous orders, the FCC was giving
itself enough legroom to pressure ISPs to enforce copyright law in their network management
practices.
Which is of course a dangerously slippery slope, because ISPs are best at transferring
bits and not interpreting the copyright laws.
As the Electronic Frontiers Foundation warned in 2011, such regulatory practices could make
ISPs expediently target traffic that could be regarded carrying infringing content.
We know this would be a disaster because the UK has been doing this for a while now and
it sucks.
Not so long ago, the FCC tried to implement so called "broadcast flags" that could
have made it impossible for people to make digital recordings, make their own stations
with hardware of their own choice, or burn digital content lawfully.
This would have given copyright holders immense control over what people could and couldn't
own and could and couldn't do with technology they already own.
Thanks to the digital rights advocates fighting this at the court, the judges ruled that the
FCC lacked the authority to enforce this regulation.
But if nobody challenges the Commission in court, they'll do whatever they want.
Pai doesn't eliminate the FCC regulatory overreach.
He just positions the regulation where it was found to be ineffective 5 decades ago.
Free market will take care of net neutrality.
That's what the regulators thought in the 1990s when they forgot to not allow big ISP mergers.
This lie is the easiest to dispute.
86 percent of Americans had access to fixed broadband at top speeds of 25Mbps or greater
but only 37 percent of them had access to two or more providers.
Only 3 percent of the US population could get those speeds on mobile and all of them
had only one choice of provider.
94 percent of Americans got at least 10 Mbps as top speeds for fixed broadband but only
70 percent of them had at least one more option than Soviet Russia.
Which is a competition as strong as the possibility of an oligopoly forming between those providers.
So the meaningful number is that only 28 percent of Americans who get at least 10Mbps have
access to ISP competition of three or more providers.
Mobile is doing somewhat better, but only for low speeds of 3 and 10 Mbps or more.
There is no free market competition of broadband Internet providers in America.
Most providers enjoy either a monopoly or a duopoly, which in either case, sucks for
both users and edge providers.
Net Neutrality is a leftist issue Pai is a Republican, appointed as the chair
of the FCC by Trump.
The snake hates net neutrality so much, that he took to call it "Obama's heavy-handed regulation".
As if Obama invented net neutrality, or as if net neutrality was somehow a leftist issue.
Far from it.
On February 8 2004, then-FCC chair Michael Powel appointed by Republicans, gave his "Four
Internet Freedoms" speech, where he listed that users of the Internet should have: 1.
Freedom to access lawful content,
2. Freedom to use applications,
3. freedom to attach personal devices, and
4. freedom to obtain service plan information.
In other words, broadband Internet access service providers shouldn't discriminate
traffic based on content, applications, or devices, and that they should be transparent
about their management practices.
Sounds familiar?
Following these principles, a North Carolina DSL provider was fined for blocking a VoIP
program then called Vonage under the Bush Administration in 2005.
The Computer Inquiries were initiated under President Johnson and continued all the way
to the Reagan's time.
They're the ones that set the principle that the FCC should prevent monopolistic markets
from harming competitive markets.
The architect behind the Internet Policy statement of 2005 was a Republican appointee, and gave
founding principles to the net neutrality rules in the Open Internet Order of 2010 under
Obama.
So no.
Net neutrality isn't a leftist issue, it isn't a rightist issue, it isn't a party-line
issue.
This principle is so universal and fundamental as fuck…
The bottom line Are the net neutrality rules perfect?
Probably not.
There can still be some fine-tuning done.
But no regulation is perfect and presence of some debatable practices don't justify
dismantling a regulation altogether.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't even need the government to regulate ISPs.
We'd have the free market.
I'd always prefer to vote with my wallet than have a government agency somewhere deciding
what's right and what's wrong for me.
That's my default position when it comes to issues like this.
But right now there is no free market at the ISP level.
Big ISP corporations were actively pursuing monopolistic position for over two decades
now, so that they'd get to this point where they could dictate everything to everybody.
I see net neutrality as a temporary solution that should be repealed when and only when
we develop a coherent strategy to bring back free market into the telecommunications and
Internet industry.
This, however, is not achievable right now, given the limits of the infrastructure.
It's hard to bring new providers into developed cities only to dig over infrastructure again.
But there could be a possible innovation in the future that would allow more prudent Internet
access service that could really bring competition back to play.
Until that time comes, let's stick together with this net neutrality as our social contract with the ISPs.
For more infomation >> Sức khỏe - Công dụng tuyệt vời của Nếp Cẩm với phụ nữ ✔ - Duration: 4:17. 
For more infomation >> Cười không nhặt được mồm ║ Những pha chơi ngu hài hước bá đạo nhất ─ #10 - Duration: 4:22. 
For more infomation >> খালেদার রায় নিয়ে সহিংসতার পরিকল্পনা! - Duration: 3:58. 
For more infomation >> 3 adornos navideños de papel – 3 paper Christmas decorations - Duration: 10:44. 
For more infomation >> Pietro Lombardi: Süßes Ständchen für Söhnchen Alessio - Duration: 3:02. 
For more infomation >> Мультики для детей Игрушки Щенячий патруль Герои в масках Подарок для Деда Мороза Мультфильмы 2017 - Duration: 6:27. 
For more infomation >> Best Movie | Me Thao in its Golden Time | English & Spanish Subtitles - Duration: 1:44:09. 
For more infomation >> Daniela Katzenberger: Heißes Busen-Foto bringt Fans in Wallung - Duration: 4:38. 
For more infomation >> Tụng Kinh Vô Lượng Thọ với Thầy Thích Trí Thoát .Kinh Phật Hay Nhất - Duration: 3:12:01. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét