Net Neutrality: Why You Should Fear The Tier
Christopher Stark
Information Week
9/18/2014
The end of Net neutrality would hobble today's businesses, increase costs for customers, and stifle the potential for future innovation.
Scientists tell us not to worry about ebola in Africa, yet many Americans are panicking. Many technologists warn that the FCC's Net neutrality ruling could be detrimental to our lives, yet -- aside from one comic's directive that briefly overwhelmed the FCC website -- Americans are largely blasé. We seem to have a tendency to blow the benign out of proportion while viewing catastrophic forecasts skeptically, even when it's in our best interest to heed the warnings.
So let me be clear: It's not just large technology companies that will suffer from the proposed "fast-lane" Internet, but every single person using the Internet -- for work or leisure, on a computer or a mobile device.
With a fast-lane option, Internet service providers (ISPs) are incentivized to throttle Internet speeds and then demand more fees for uninterrupted access. Fast lanes create opportunities for manipulation that will serve only those with the deepest pockets. It is a policy that is intentionally worded for ultimate confusion...
Showing posts with label Internet neutrality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet neutrality. Show all posts
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Sunday, February 02, 2014
Google has decided I'm worthy of recognition in its Google Alerts
Update: The joy didn't last too long. Google has gone back to keeping my blogs out of its Google Alerts system. Somebody with clout must have got to them again. But the good news is that there's a great alternative: Talkwalker.
I'm not blacklisted anymore! Google has decided I'm worthy of recognition in its Google Alerts.
And who is responsible for this free speech victory? The FBI, apparently!
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz seems to have convinced Google that my blogs were damaging Stutz' reputation, so about two or three years ago Google banned my blogs from its Google Alerts.
Except for a couple of blips, Google has been nice enough to allow my blogs in its search results, but it wouldn't send out alerts on my posts.
But this morning I got a Google alert regarding one of my blog posts.
Google must have decided that if the FBI is taping the conversations of a Stutz law firm lawyer, then the public has a right to the information I have about the law firm.
This morning they sent out alerts on this post: Dan Shinoff meeting with Manuel Paul and Loreto Romero was secretly taped as part of FBI investigation re San Ysidro School District
But the question remains, how much other information is being kept from the public by Internet companies whose lawyers want to please big law firms who complain about people like me?
Monday, September 09, 2013
Should private companies control what we can see on the Internet? Net Neutrality Goes on Trial: Verizon v. FCC
Do Internet providers have the right to control whose voice can be heard? Ironically, they risk becoming responsible for porn and other illegal activities on the Internet if they start controlling access.
Net Neutrality Goes on Trial: A Guide to Verizon v. FCC
By Joshua Brustein
Bloomberg Business Week
September 09, 2013
A federal court will take up a major challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s attempt to regulate the Internet today, with oral arguments in the dispute between the U.S. government and Verizon Communications (V) over the validity of an order that set regulations on net neutrality. The decision by the three-judge panel could very well reshape the economics of the Internet, the way it is regulated by the federal government, and the stature of the FCC itself.
The case is a major step in a years-long battle over the idea that Internet providers should not be able to play favorites among the different types of traffic passing through their networks, dubbed net neutrality in debates over the years. The FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order (PDF) set out rules guiding Internet providers, and Verizon quickly challenged on constitutional grounds and over claims that the FCC lacked the authority.
It’s about how powerful the FCC should be: People who have been following the case say that most of the action will happen in the debate over whether the FCC has the authority to regulate the Internet. This is also where the stakes are highest. Three years ago the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia—the same court that is hearing the case on Monday—ruled that the commission hadn’t proven it had such legal power in a case brought by Comcast (CMCSA). This led to the Open Internet Order, and a major question before the judges today is why this case should be any different.
The FCC’s main argument is that it has the authority to do things to speed up the development of a better telecommunication system, a responsibility the government has used to enact rules that will keep Internet providers from choking off innovations brought about by content makers and other companies that don’t own the infrastructure of the Internet. FCC supporters also argue that if Verizon can charge companies for better access on crowded networks, the company actually has an incentive to keep broadband capacity down. Verizon argues that more regulations are hardly the way to bring about speedier innovations.
If the judges aren’t persuaded by the FCC, it could have an impact far beyond net neutrality. The commission is taking on all kinds of Internet-related issues—like privacy, fraudulent billing, and universal broadband access. Stripped of its authority to pursue any of this, the government would be losing a fair chunk of its overall power. “This is not a narrow question about net neutrality, it’s a much broader question about the FCC’s relevance,” says Gigi B. Sohn, the head of the advocacy group Public Knowledge.
On the other hand, the judges may be reluctant simply to grant the FCC power to regulate the Internet, according to Dave Kaut, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus & Co. “It wouldn’t be surprising if they push the FCC on the limits,” he said. “I don’t think they’re going to give the FCC carte blanche.”
It’s about the first amendment: Among Verizon’s arguments against the Open Internet Order is the contention that it violates the company’s rights under the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment. Appealing to the First Amendment is particularly novel. Verizon is arguing, in a nutshell, that part of its role as an Internet provider is to pick and choose the services it wants to provide. These are editorial decisions, the company says, and should be protected as free speech. This irritates proponents of net neutrality, who see themselves as trying to guarantee that companies like Verizon don’t themselves squash free speech by squeezing the services passing through its wires.
Verizon doesn’t have many examples of how it has used its editorial judgment in its Internet-service business. The free speech argument could also open the company to liabilities that it currently avoids by claiming to be a neutral conduit for information—a common justification invoked to protect Internet companies from responsibility for illicit material found on their networks. If Verizon claims to be the editor of its Internet service, couldn’t it be held responsible for copyright violations and other illegal content it allows its customers to access?
Net Neutrality Goes on Trial: A Guide to Verizon v. FCC
By Joshua Brustein
Bloomberg Business Week
September 09, 2013
A federal court will take up a major challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s attempt to regulate the Internet today, with oral arguments in the dispute between the U.S. government and Verizon Communications (V) over the validity of an order that set regulations on net neutrality. The decision by the three-judge panel could very well reshape the economics of the Internet, the way it is regulated by the federal government, and the stature of the FCC itself.
The case is a major step in a years-long battle over the idea that Internet providers should not be able to play favorites among the different types of traffic passing through their networks, dubbed net neutrality in debates over the years. The FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order (PDF) set out rules guiding Internet providers, and Verizon quickly challenged on constitutional grounds and over claims that the FCC lacked the authority.
It’s about how powerful the FCC should be: People who have been following the case say that most of the action will happen in the debate over whether the FCC has the authority to regulate the Internet. This is also where the stakes are highest. Three years ago the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia—the same court that is hearing the case on Monday—ruled that the commission hadn’t proven it had such legal power in a case brought by Comcast (CMCSA). This led to the Open Internet Order, and a major question before the judges today is why this case should be any different.
The FCC’s main argument is that it has the authority to do things to speed up the development of a better telecommunication system, a responsibility the government has used to enact rules that will keep Internet providers from choking off innovations brought about by content makers and other companies that don’t own the infrastructure of the Internet. FCC supporters also argue that if Verizon can charge companies for better access on crowded networks, the company actually has an incentive to keep broadband capacity down. Verizon argues that more regulations are hardly the way to bring about speedier innovations.
If the judges aren’t persuaded by the FCC, it could have an impact far beyond net neutrality. The commission is taking on all kinds of Internet-related issues—like privacy, fraudulent billing, and universal broadband access. Stripped of its authority to pursue any of this, the government would be losing a fair chunk of its overall power. “This is not a narrow question about net neutrality, it’s a much broader question about the FCC’s relevance,” says Gigi B. Sohn, the head of the advocacy group Public Knowledge.
On the other hand, the judges may be reluctant simply to grant the FCC power to regulate the Internet, according to Dave Kaut, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus & Co. “It wouldn’t be surprising if they push the FCC on the limits,” he said. “I don’t think they’re going to give the FCC carte blanche.”
It’s about the first amendment: Among Verizon’s arguments against the Open Internet Order is the contention that it violates the company’s rights under the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment. Appealing to the First Amendment is particularly novel. Verizon is arguing, in a nutshell, that part of its role as an Internet provider is to pick and choose the services it wants to provide. These are editorial decisions, the company says, and should be protected as free speech. This irritates proponents of net neutrality, who see themselves as trying to guarantee that companies like Verizon don’t themselves squash free speech by squeezing the services passing through its wires.
Verizon doesn’t have many examples of how it has used its editorial judgment in its Internet-service business. The free speech argument could also open the company to liabilities that it currently avoids by claiming to be a neutral conduit for information—a common justification invoked to protect Internet companies from responsibility for illicit material found on their networks. If Verizon claims to be the editor of its Internet service, couldn’t it be held responsible for copyright violations and other illegal content it allows its customers to access?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)