You must have heard that the FCC and the Trump Administration is looking to end something called “Net Neutrality,” which is allegedly a safeguard to protect the Internet. In 2014, the laws were passed, allegedly providing a safeguard to unfair practices in telecommunication companies charging too much for the Internet.
While the Net Neutrality laws may not be what people need, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is certainly not to be trusted either. They are pushing the rollout of “5G,” the use of experimental, extremely high frequencies and even more, smaller, shorter cell towers to make our phones function.
The FCC’s push for 5G, which would be a horrible health situation for everyone, was well outlined in this video.
The whole Net Neutrality debate is complex because it’s difficult to understand what the Internet even is in the first place, and who currently controls it. It’s very convoluted and complex, kind of like trying to study the Federal Reserve.
Illustrative of a free thinker’s problems trying to comprehend the issue, here’s what independent journalist and author John Vibes had to say:
“below are two articles that share a different opinion about “net neutrality” than the ones that have been shared all over the internet in recent days. I’m still torn on this one and have not made up my mind because I don’t have enough technical knowledge of the subject, and although I pretty much oppose government regulation of any kind because I don’t think they have the right to exist, I’m not informed enough to know if the doom and gloom outcome that people are predicting is likely, or if its even possible, considering how cartelized the industry already is (due to prior regulation)
Again..im not sure how I feel entirely…feel free to discuss
Goodbye Net Neutrality; Hello Competition
Pro–Net Neutrality Graphic Makes Argument Against Net Neutrality“
Reading from the first article John cited:
“Internet socialism is dead; long live market forces.
With market-based pricing finally permitted, we could see new entrants to the industry because it might make economic sense for the first time to innovate. The growing competition will lead, over the long run, to innovation and falling prices. Consumers will find themselves in the driver’s seat rather than crawling and begging for service and paying whatever the provider demands.
Ajit Pai, chairman of the FCC, is exactly right. “Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the internet. Instead, the F.C.C. would simply require internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them.”
A Fed for Communication
The old rules pushed by the Obama administration had locked down the industry with regulation that only helped incumbent service providers and major content delivery services. They called it a triumph of “free expression and democratic principles.” It was anything but. It was actually a power grab. It created an Internet communication cartel not unlike the way the banking system works under the Federal Reserve.
Net Neutrality had the backing of all the top names in content delivery, from Google to Yahoo to Netflix to Amazon. It’s had the quiet support of the leading Internet service providers Comcast and Verizon. Both companies are on record in support of the principle, repeatedly and consistently, while opposing only Title II which makes them a public utility – a classic “have your cake and eat it” position.”
Reading from the second article John cited:
“But we don’t have to imagine what a world without “net neutrality” regulations look like. You just have to remember what 2014 was like.
The concept of net neutrality is often poorly understood. The “open internet order” promulgated by then-President Barack Obama was not based on the same principles laid out by law professor Tim Wu, who coined the term network neutrality. For Wu, it was obvious that “a total ban on network discrimination…would be counterproductive,” but that’s what the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) did in 2015, as Andrea O’Sullivan pointed out in Reason. It’s impossible to say exactly what kind of innovations such rules are thwarting, because they’re being thwarted.”
Both articles he mentioned are from Libertarian leaning websites, which usually have good perspectives on freedom but might lack a bit of objectivity elsewhere.
Then, researching Net Neutrality you’ve got articles like this one from IFL Science, bearing the headline “Something Horrifying Is About To Happen To The Internet – And You NEED To Pay Attention.” Reading from it:
“The Republican head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Ajit Pai, announced this week that the agency will seek to fully repeal Obama-era net neutrality rules. In a statement, he claimed that the Democrats imposed “heavy-handed, utility-style” regulations on the Internet, and they needed to be undone.
Not all countries have it, and Portugal recently made headlines for being a worrying case study of what happens when such laws are circumvented. Although technically bound by the European Union’s net neutrality rules, legal loopholes allow businesses there to sometimes ignore them.
A Lisbon-based telecommunications company took advantage of the government’s lackadaisical attitude and experimented with selling mobile Internet access in tiered packages. The cheapest packages, for example, permit only instant messaging or social media use; only more expensive combinations permit the user to access everything, from emails to music to video streaming and so on.”
Last year’s sudden invention of the phrase “fake news” is a testament to that. YouTube was destroyed this year. Even our freedom of speech and Internet freedom is most definitely in jeopardy, but don’t believe for a second what you hear about Net Neutrality before doing some hard research.