Net Neutrality Win

A lot of the tech news I’ve linked here has been a bit of a downer, but today we can celebrate: FCC votes for net neutrality, a ban on paid fast lanes, and Title II. This is not an outcome I would have bet on a year ago.

15 replies on “Net Neutrality Win”

  1. Good? Hardly. There was no wave of abuses that needed correction, no class-action called for; the abuse angle is and was always a myth. Now that the government can regulate the Internet, get ready for taxes, fees, licenses, and “fairness” (you know, just like they have on college campuses). Oh, and get ready for the waivers. There are always waivers available to the well-connected (especially if they’re campaign bundlers). And how about that transparency? But you probably didn’t want to read the regulation anyway. Right?

  2. It’s one of those things that one gets excited for at first glance, but then waits for the “but” or the wolf in sheeps clothing.

  3. This is a trojan horse.
    The fed.gov NEVER gives more than it takes.
    Wait ’til the dust settles. The FCC will be Internet dicktators [sic].
    I don’t trust the fed.gov farther than I can throw it; I am wimpy.

    Every modern bill passed does the opposite of what it is named. res ipsa loquitor.
    Only a fool trusts in ANY government.

    Beware of the man who says, “I am from the government; I am here to help you.” Watch your back, your ass and your wallet.

  4. Do you really think it is a good idea to hand over control of the Internet to the censorship arm of the federal government? This isn’t “Net Neutrality”. This is handing over the Internet to the mafia. I’m not a fan of the entrenched communication companies, but the FCC is like Al Capone as compared to script kiddies. This is not a victory for the free and open Internet, but the FCC has just played us all like a fiddle.

  5. Why does it take over 300 pages of regulation to to do what you say the FCC has done? Why are we applying a law written 80 years ago to technology that didn’t exist when the law was written. Congress must act, the FCC has over-stepped their authority.

      1. No. I’m a Libertarian. I’m completely against any new government intervention in the internet. The more you regulate something, the less business will innovate to provide new and better services to their customers. Any regulation of the internet will open us up to the potential of a new “fairness” doctrine. Remember how there has been a lot of talk about “fairness” on the airwaves? Yeah, not a good thing for free speech.

      2. If the companies were doing good stuff when they were un-regulated, I’d be more open to the idea of leaving them alone, but ISPs do really crummy stuff to their subscribers, and if they were able to do what they want (fast lanes) it would have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship, with new companies and startups getting hit the hardest.

        Check out this paper about the economic incentives of net neutrality:

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2010.00107.x/abstract

        And this page is also a good read:

        http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

  6. There’s nothing to celebrate about adding the internet to the list of public utilities, especially when there was no problem to be fixed that hadn’t already been fixed by existing regulation.

    Forget censorship, which is still likely w/ the government, and consider what added taxes adding the internet to Title II will allow for.

  7. I’ll try not to feed the trolls, but I’ll simply say all the nonsense about taxes has been refuted repeated (by the Wash Post and FCC Commissioners). And this has nothing to do w fairness doctrine. Those who want to live in a country without regulations, move to Afghanistan. The notion that all regulations are bad makes no sense; I am happy for the FDA’s existence every time I eat food or take medicine. Do you guys complain because taxis (also common carriers) have to take anyone who flags them down and charge them the meter price rather than price-gouging people in remote or dangerous areas? Do you complain that Title II applies to wireless phone service, so you can call anyone you want without blocking? If there was a “government takeover” of cell calls, it happened in 1993 at least, and we’re all calling one another happily.

    Also, Matt: Automattic’s work to keep the Internet open and free is deeply appreciated by those of us who understand net neutrality. Your legally filed comments were excellent. Your leadership on the West Coast unparalleled. Thank you!

    1. A promise from a bureaucrat not to do what they now claim that they have the authority to do is hardly a refutation of a prediction of what will happen, Marvin. Nor is dissenting opinion trolling in and of itself.

Comments are closed.