It’s hard not to feel overwhelmed by the constant debates, ever-changing regulations and all-around controversy surrounding the steady advent of technology. Whereas a few years ago those matters might have felt almost philosophical in nature, nowadays their outcome can determine key aspects of our everyday lives. Now all eyes are on an issue which was supposedly already resolved – net neutrality, or open internet. Unfortunately, the common good once again doesn’t align with one of Trump’s administration priorities. As a result, at stake is the very way we interact with something as essential as the internet.

However, there is some good news. First, the matter boils down to fundamental democratic and moral stances, ones that hopefully we haven’t stirred that far away from. Second, resolving it is in the public’s hands, and this time it might even be for good.

Net Neutrality Ensures Equal Internet Access for All

Most simply put the net neutrality laws ensure the equal and unhampered access to the internet. Whether you’re a regular consumer of internet content or a service that provides it, internet service providers (ISPs) shouldn’t manipulate the way you use the internet to serve its interests. After successfully being sued by one of the biggest ISPs (Verizon), The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was forced to apply stricter laws f it wanted to keep net neutrality protected. And it did, by reclassifying all ISPs under the title II of the Communications Act as common carriers, basically like a utility, the same as gas or electricity.

Title II aims to help net neutrality prevent the two-tier Internet system. No “fast lanes”for the high rollers or “slow lane” for the other content providers who can’t afford the higher costs to compete with the already-established big boys in the Internet hood. This means ISPs are obligated to provide the same service to everyone – they can’t block consumers from accessing certain content and sites, or slow them down on purpose while speeding up others whose providers pay them more.

Even though this may seem pretty obvious for basic moral, legal and professional reasons, you’d be surprised how much opposition there is to it. There have been multiple examples in the past of ISPs interfering with the speed of certain content or even completely blocking their customers from reaching it because it was in competition with a service of their own. This is exactly why the Title II had to come in action in the first place and impose stricter laws.

Net Neutrality is an Enforcer of Democracy

Removing net neutrality laws would negatively affect far more people than it would affect positively. It’s as simple as that – a universal mathematical truth which is the foundation of democracy.

Net Neutrality Protects Consumers’ Content Options

Most Americans’ options of ISPs are limited to one or two. Without net neutrality would, ISPs can be the mafia in the little Internet neighborhood, bullying and calling all the shots. People would have very little choice of the content they consume for their very own leisure or work.

Net Neutrality is Startups’ Ticket Out of Their Catch-22

Almost anyone that has ever applied to work without relying on connections knows the feeling. To get a job, you need experience; to get experience you need a job. But if you can escape “the experience paradox” with determination and creativity, money tends to be a less flexible matter. Without net neutrality, the competing factor of content providers would be money rather their actual content. ISPs would be free to auction their “fast lanes” and startups will lose before the hammer is even raised. And ultimately, all of us will miss out on the innovations that remained confined within the imagination of aspiring entrepreneurs.

The Internet Animal Farm

Now net neutrality is in danger once again. This time the main culprit is Ajit Pai, the FCC’s new chairman, appointed by the Trump cabinet. And if the above information surrounding the issue hasn’t got your blood boiling yet, let me add a dash of conspiracy to the mix — it’s so obvious it feels almost like mockery. Pai is a former lawyer for Verizon, the very same ISP that sued the FCC and forced them to resort to Title II to protect net neutrality.

Orwell’s 1984 was considered an almost supernaturally precise warning, and it seems like it wasn’t a one-time hit. Pai’s ridiculous and even childish rationale, his outrageously inconsistent and lax points, but above all – how transparently feigned his whole act is, bear an uncanny resemblance with Animal Farm’s main antagonist. With its all-around display of impertinence, sense of entitlement, and apparent dishonesty, it’s as if Verizon have based their business model on the tweeds’ reign over the farm. Pai’s motifs are as self-serving and unfounded as the Animal Farm’s rules. He urges us to rely on something as unreliable as ISPs’ Terms and Conditions, which they’re free to change as they please. Many of the evidence of infrastructure decline he has quoted has been disputed by legally obligated ISPs’ staff, and without getting overly political, that should come as no surprise from someone in Trump’s administration.

The moral and legal stance here is crystal clear. Hopefully, any attempts of blurring it with fancy financial and technology terms only feel like offensive ridicule.

The Problem is Global 

Similar to the way technology has rooted itself deep in our existence, so has something else – greed. After all, isn’t that the origin of all wars, all conflicts, the extreme poverty and hunger we see today? The fact that two or more side couldn’t split the pie fairly, because the rich and powerful need to be even richer and more powerful, are depriving others of their fair share. So should it come as any surprise that this tendency has manifested itself into something as lucrative and influential as the internet?

Will Verizon be able to squeeze even more money out of the biggest content providers? Should we sympathize with Netflix for having to pay extra costs to ensure the top-quality experience of their millions of customers? Or are all those additional costs taxes, same as the ones we all pay, but for much smaller incomes? Should those highly profitable companies be our main concern?

The Internet is a Necessity

The internet has become a necessity rather than a luxury, and the law needs to treat it as such. Net neutrality’s regulations may not be perfect and might need polishing, but it’s certainly better than the current administration’s alternative. The internet is clearly a much better place for far more people with it than it would be without it. And isn’t that what democracy is – letting the common good prevail?

The FCC has once again invited the public to comment on their website as it did three years ago, and comedian John Oliver has once again taken steps to organize a movement to resolve this matter hopefully once and for all. Learn about the steps you can take towards an equal internet future at 15:27 in the video below.

The post Net Neutrality is an Enforcer of Democracy appeared first on FactoryTwoFour.

Right now, there’s a war being waged against the level and fair internet we love. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are working to pass through their plans for a “free and open internet” which would significantly roll back current FCC regulations which protect the internet we enjoy today. Don’t let the name fool you — their “free and open internet” plans are anything but.

Essentially, the changes they’re seeking would mean ISPs would be free to do two things key things they’re currently legally barred from. First, internet-based companies and services could be charged different amounts based on the discretion of the ISP, and second, some data could be favored over other information, based on the company or service it’s coming from.

ISPs argue that some data-heavy services like video and music streaming put an undue load on their infrastructure, and that they should be allowed to charge these companies more money, so that they can supposedly use those earnings to reinvest in better infrastructure. But this is nothing but a ruse so they can charge Pandora, Netflix, Spotify, and YouTube more in order to do business.

Imagine if Skype was forced to pay exorbitant fees when it was founded in 2003? That would have almost certainly prevented it from growing into the innovative — and needed — service it is today. So what other new and innovative products and services could we lose if net neutrality is not protected? What innovations will we lose out on forever because the cost of doing business and taking a risk is too high?

Net neutrality must be protected so that the innovation we’ve grown to love — and honestly, expect — from the internet continues to flourish indefinitely.

Upholding net neutrality is imperative to not only innovation, but also the free flow of information and ideas on the internet. Undoing current net neutrality rules would allow ISPs to favor the data of companies that pay them more — or they themselves own — over their competitors. Just imagine if Time Warner Cable (an ISP) ensured that Hulu (a company that it owns a stake in) streamed faster and at higher quality than Netflix. What if Verizon Internet would load TechCrunch articles (which it owns) far faster than its arch rival Gizmodo?

Such a scenario would undoubtedly lead to changes in the way we consume media, as the players the ISPs choose to give favor to would out compete all the other sources we’d have chosen if there was a level playing field. Of course, smaller companies that do not have enough cash to play ball would likely be lost in the ethereal void of slow loading pages and limited data transfer speeds.

***

So it’s time to stop reading and take some action. Here are a few links to help you get started:

John Oliver’s Website: www.gofccyourself.com

Contact your House and Congressional Representatives with this easy to use form: https://resistbot.io/

Donate and get involved with one of these great groups:

https://www.eff.org/      https://www.aclu.org/      https://www.freepress.net/

https://www.fightforthefuture.org/      https://www.publicknowledge.org/

The post Innovation, Fairness, and Choice: The Case for Net Neutrality appeared first on FactoryTwoFour.

If you’re like me, you kind of understand what net neutrality is about, but you kind of also don’t really care too much about the subject because, let’s face it, net neutrality is a ponderous phrase – it frankly just doesn’t sound like something worth caring about.

With the topic getting a lot of media play over the last few weeks, the time is right to work through that apathy and learn a little about the subject.

Come along and learn with me.

What is Net Neutrality?

In the most basic of terms, net neutrality means that all data on the internet should be treated equally. That means no matter what site you’re visiting, no matter what internet service provider (ISP) you’re using, that data will all be treated the same way.

A little more detailed explanation is that no ISP has the right to block your access to any website or slow the delivery speed of a website in favor of another site.

Net neutrality also means that your ISP cannot create “fast lanes” that force content providers — say a business such as Netflix — to fork over extra fees to deliver that content at an increased speed to the end user.

If you’re interested in reading about the origin of the phrase “net neutrality,” feel free to check out the 2003 paper from Columbia Law professor Tim Wu.

Why Should You Care?

Okay, so the concept of net neutrality is simple, and yes, that system is currently in place, but that could change and change soon.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has announced that he wants to roll back those rules.

If that does happen it could hurt consumers. For one, ISPs could institute a “fast lane” and a “slow lane” for content and charge a premium for access to the “fast lane.”

Another way end users could be affected is through throttling. For instance, if an ISP has its own streaming video service it could slow the delivery of a competitors streaming service, therefore forcing the end user to either wait for a slow feed to load or opt to use the ISP’s service.

ISPs would also be free to block content. That means if the folks in charge of your ISP lean a certain way politically, they could decide to block content from the opposition. This would be especially harmful to grassroots organizations looking to get their message out to supporters and the general public.

Perhaps most importantly, if these rules are rolled back, innovation could be affected. Small businesses often work under very tight budgets, and they shouldn’t have to worry about adding a line to that budget so an ISP does not bury its website. To the same point, large established companies could easily pay ISPs to push their content ahead of their less established competition.

The Bottom Line

No one is saying these things will happen if net neutrality is rolled back, but they could happen, and that should be enough to make all internet users that support the free and equal dissemination of information nervous.

The FCC will take a vote on May 18 regarding net neutrality. This vote, which is expected to pass, will move Pai’s plan on to the public comment period.

***

Education is just the first step. Now it’s time to get involved in the Net Neutrality fight. Here are a few links to help you get started:

John Oliver’s Direct Website: Go FCC Yourself

Contact your House and Congressional Representatives with this easy-to-use form.

Donate and get involved with one of these great groups:

The Electronic Frontier Federation

The American Civil Liberties Union

Freepress

Fight for the Future

Public Knowledge

The post Why You Should Care About A Dull-Sounding Topic appeared first on FactoryTwoFour.