Created
July 13, 2017 04:25
-
-
Save Signifies/6d50a2059d483c0bab39b8fe09026537 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Net Neutrality
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| So, I usually don't make posts like this on Facebook, but this one is truly important to myself and should be important to practically everyone in the United States and around the world. I'm talking about Net Neutrality. | |
| A great video explanation of what Net Neutrality is. (With CC) | |
| https://vimeo.com/222706185 | |
| Here are a couple of good articles. | |
| https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now | |
| https://www.battleforthenet.com/#widget-learn-more | |
| A decent video explaining the current status of NN. (With CC) | |
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak | |
| If you don't have the time or are in a rush, I recommend the first video I listed. It's a short but detailed synopsis of what you need to know and why. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
EDIT: Some comments regarding my original post.
MD:
Those are the intentions. My concern is that 'net neutrality' isn't the issue; the concept of regulating it by government action is the problem. If your highest concern is proliferation of Federal abuses of power and derelictions of duty, then the FCC adopting sets of rules to enforce "net neutrality" would be a problem, and the FCC adopting sets of rules to enforce a different version of Internet use (i.e., mandated payment for special access or enhanced speed/computing power) would also be a problem. Basically, I have no confidence in a large, unelected government agency subject to corrupting influences to make any good regulatory decisions. For that reason, I'd argue that FCC involvement should be as modest a footprint as possible, to minimize harm.
The same goes for transnational regulation, which would be even worse in principle than giving too much power to the FCC.
My response:
That's the trick if I'm understanding you correctly MD. It depends on who is in charge of the FCC, and in this case, President Trump appointed a new head of that department. While no one wants bigger government control, especially on these matters, having the right people in the right place is extremely beneficial. Without any rules at all, ISP's can pretty much go ham and begin charging customers for whatever they want. If I'm not mistaken we recently passed a few rules preventing such a thing, however, with the appointment of the new director that could possibly change, which leads to your point about "unelected government agencies" (ironically enough, each individual who in the past and currently have been appointed to this position, have ties to ISP's). I haven't heard of the Transnational regulation. Could you provide more data on this subject?
MD:
I'd cautiously agree with "right people in the right place," but that won't last. Next time the Dems. are in power, they'll screw the same system up for political advantage. It's what they do.
Objecting to a heavy Federal footprint isn't advocating for "no rules at all;" it's acknowledging that trust in the Feds should not be uncritical, demanding that the footprint of Federal regulation should be light, and that sometimes markets (if an ISP overcharges, change providers) work better than any government.
Transnational regulation refers to the system of international laws constraining free speech across national borders, enabling censorship of content, allowing multinational control of ICANN, and similar matters. Again, there need to be some rules -- just as few of them as possible.