With cellular data, and internet connectivity, being such an integral part of social communication, and business interaction, information needs to be free flowing, not marketed and restricted. Whether you are against, or in favor of Net Neutrality, everyone needs to have all the information to make an informed decision. This blog will focus on the affects of how repealing Net Neutrality will lead to regulating, and restricting the public. As well as, how these changes may negatively affect new innovation in the future.
Equal access to online information is once again under serious threat. John Oliver encourages internet commenters to voice their displeasure to the FCC by vi...
On the show Last Week Tonight (which airs weekly), host John Oliver dives deeper into the decision makers behind the repeal of net neutrality. The new FCC commissioner (hired by President Trump), Ajit Pai, has been know for anit-regulation prior to taking this position. Finding fault in much of what was said by Commissioner Pai, Oliver sheds light on Pai’s background as previous lawyer for Verizon, the primary driving force behind the repeal. Although sprinkled with adult language, Oliver smartly presents the open power given to the internet/cellphone service providers. Some of these companies higher executives have made statements implying that net neutrality did not actually affect them in any way.
Shoutout to dbrand! Get The Grip for 50% Off!: http://www.DeFrancoGrip.com Taking Our A's and Putting Them In Your Q's…: https://youtu.be/CZgHbTfALLo Checkou...
Philip Defranco breaks down exactly what net neutrality means to consumers, discusses lawmakers, as well as companies for and against the return of net neutrality. While arguments on both sides have legitimate stances, and facts available; the benefits for the Internet service providers (ISP), greatly outweighs, the benefits alleged for consumers, and new innovation. One argument claims that the repeal of net neutrality will afford smaller ISP’s the ability to expand and provide a better service. On the other side of the coin, online businesses that depend on internet, and cell phone usage, may be regulated by one company, while have steady access with another. This could cause a partnership with online media, and streaming services with ISP’s, in order for a company to access higher tiered access, they would have to pay a premium to internet/cable providers.
Advocates look to Golden State to help preserve equal playing field on the internet after FCC dumped Obama-era rules
In uncertain times, one state has realized that the repeal of net neutrality has given potentially unfettered power to internet service providers. California, a blue state, has agreed upon legislation that aggressively promotes the continuation of net neutrality. Senator Scott Weiner’s (D), came under fire when major items were removed. These provisions, requiring data to be equally distributed at the point of initial entry into the network, rather than internally with the company. The second “zero rating,” which bans providers from restricting specific data to a cap, which would drastically limits the available data once it reaches that cap. The pricing for a higher tiered service would drastically affect start up companies, online businesses, and customers, that rely on an open internet. This bill is hopefully the beginning of a domino effect, moving from state to state, placing pressure on service providers, and the three branches, to re-address the ruling on net neutrality.
Colorado's Mike Coffman signs a petition to force a vote on a measure to restore the Obama-era rules. Backers still need about 40 more members to sign on.
On the 17th of this month, House Representative Mike Coffman (R-Colorado) became the first Republican to sign a petition that would reverse the decision made by the FCC to repeal net neutrality. This continues a trend of crossing party lines to affect change in the fight to keep the internet unrestricted by service providers. While Coffman rallies for a change, he is working to pass a bill which would reclassify, and restructure the old rules applied to the Obama-era net neutrality laws. Slowly progress is being made in the right direction, but many protesters argue that this bill places to much regulatory power into the hands of the FCC. As this bill, and others of the same nature, work to get support, they will require combined support of both parties, including the backing of the President. Any progress, is good progress, and these talks show promise in the fight to maintain a product that does not restrict, or throttle internet services to the community.
“BREAKING: The first House Republican is joining the movement to save #NetNeutrality and @USRepMikeDoyle's resolution to fully restore the rules now has bipartisan support. The tide is turning. The pressure is mounting. The floodgates are open.”
While many republicans are following suite, and sticking with the ruling of the republican controlled FCC, Representative Mike Doyle (R) is going against the tide, and fighting to restore order.
The net neutrality repeal officially took effect on Monday. Here's what it means and what's really at stake.
Just in case you have been living in a box over the last year, or have not bee paying attention to the news. If you are part of the media generation, the repeal of net neutrality matters more to you than you know. This article will hopefully help to open your eyes by introducing you to exactly what net neutrality is, what has changed, and what this means to you moving forward.
As of July 4th 2018, the Internet as we know it might be dead for good.
The European Parliament is passing a new Copyright Directive.
Article 13 #CensorshipMachine will impose widespread censorship of all the content we share online. Art, fanfiction, parodies, remixes, mashups, memes, etc.. Anything that you do not hold the rights over will be taken down.
Article 13 would force all online platforms to police and prevent the uploading of copyrighted content, or make people seek the correct licenses to post that content. Internet platforms hosting large amounts of user-uploaded content must monitor user behaviour and filter their contributions to identify and prevent copyright infringement.
Such filters will be mandatory for platforms including YouTube, Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit and Instagram, but also much smaller websites.
(x)
This doesn’t just affect Europe. The content creators you love are going to be in hot water for sharing their art and writing with you online. Any and all content that doesn’t belong to us will be filtered. Even memes are at risk, as the person who took the original photo may want to file complaints against any platform that allows it to be used without permission. But it goes even further than that.
Last Tuesday (19th June 2018) a group of more than 70 people who have played important roles in building the internet and developing it (Tim Berners-Lee, Vincent Cerf, Jimmy Wales, Mitchell Baker…) into what it is today addressed an open letter to the members of the European Parliament:
“As creators ourselves, we share the concern that there should be a fair distribution of revenues from the online use of copyright works, that benefits creators, publishers, and platforms alike.
But Article 13 is not the right way to achieve this. By requiring Internet platforms to perform automatic filtering all of the content that their users upload, Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users. […] The damage that this may do to the free and open Internet as we know it is hard to predict, but in our opinions could be substantial.”
Here is the original Article 13. It’s even scarier. / Link 2
Here is how to contact your MEPs.
Here is a full list of everything that will be affected.
Europe is facing a huge problem, and unlike with Net Neutrality, the world doesn’t seem to care.
While I agree that copyrighted content needs to be protected, Article 13 will open the door for governments to legally scrutinize and prohibit any information they deem to be protected. This includes information that is not directly linked to copyrighted material, but will fall into a grey area, that will be under the speculation of the policing body.
Perhaps the most hilarious scene in the history of TV
Purely a parody of technology, this scene from “Silicon Valley,” portrays a potential real scenario of failures related to connectivity. This is just a glimpse of what affect repealing net neutrality will begin to have on our daily lives.
The internet was supposed to operate outside communications monopolies. Now it is run by giants — and net neutrality didn’t stand a chance, our tech columnist says.
The current technological landscape afforded to us, plays right into the hands of large corporations (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft). This country has proven time, and time again, that it is not the just, or right decision that will prevail, but the financially capitalistic. Even while net neutrality was in effect, those calling the shots were the very companies offering the technology (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Comcast). This is where we find the rub, those same companies now have the capability to slowly alter how we view, access, and receive information. While the media groups monitor, and scrutinize companies, awaiting any infractions, there will likely not be any changes in the short run. The problems to be faced, may not be in our current future, but fall into the laps of the next generation. Just as we look to provide an ample and safe environment to protect our children, we should also be fighting to maintain their rights to information, censorship, and a free market.
These are the rules that were repealed on June 11.
The original rules laid out a regulatory plan that addressed a rapidly changing internet. Under those regulations, broadband service was considered a utility under Title II of the Communications Act, giving the F.C.C. broad power over internet providers. The rules prohibited these practices:
BLOCKING Internet service providers could not discriminate against any lawful content by blocking websites or apps.
THROTTLING Service providers could not slow the transmission of data because of the nature of the content, as long as it was legal.
PAID PRIORITIZATION Service providers could not create an internet fast lane for companies and consumers who paid premiums, and a slow lane for those who didn’t.
Original Article by Keith Collins at the New York Times.
With Net Neutrality repealed, the power moves from the hands of the public, and into the grip of big business. Placing control into the hands of the major cable and internet providers opens the door for specific blocking by these companies, to increase traffic on sites that they own, or are paid to promote. By throttling, these same companies look to regulate their customers by prohibiting speeds to areas that they deem necessary. Since the companies currently maintain both cable and internet services, which basically run along the same cable and frequency, they are capable of controlling what gets allocated to which area. The repeal gives them the ability to do just that, create a tiered lane for premium paid services, which affords much faster speeds. Whereas the other, minimized lane, would be left for those who can not afford the prices the companies are able to charge. Customers are already paying a premium for access to certain speeds to access the entire internet. It is not up to the internet service providers (ISP) to dictate where, when, and how quickly any individual can access their service, especially when the company is the one solely profiting off of the customer.
Net Neutrality @jacobhipp-blog - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
