On July 12th, 2017 various large social media networks and digital content providers partook in a “Battle for the Net” campaign to help spread awareness about the possible shortcomings of losing Net Neutrality if certain big businesses and FCC Chairman Ajit V. Pai get their way.
CNBC compiled some of the more recognized names and faces supporting the Battle For The Net campaign, which managed to garner more than 2 million comments and widespread support from a number of content creators, comedians, pundits, activists and celebrities. You can also sign-up to support the campaign right now by visiting the official Battle For The Net website.
For people still confused about the topic, thankfully there are some simple videos out there to help guide you in the right direction.
Philip DeFranco spent just over two minutes not only explaining what Net Neutrality is, but some of the ways in which broadband corporations can use these measures to screw over people, throttle net services and make the online ecosystem a living nightmare for anyone who can’t afford to make it heaven.
While Facebook, Twitter, Google and Amazon have all come out in support of Net Neutrality, others have made cases explaining why they’re against it. Speaking to BBC, former Stack Exchange programmer Ben Collins told them that it should be about the free markets determining who lives and who dies when it comes to corporations offering broadband services, not the neutrality of internet infrastructure…
“Fundamentally we want free markets to work, and that the best way for that to happen is for there to be little regulation,” […] “In the history of the internet there was basically no regulation until this came in, and from my perspective it seems like the only reason we changed things at a fundamental level is because some people were nervous that we might get charged a bit more for fast internet access.”
There is market pressure on Comcast and the other providers not to treat their customers poorly,” […]”A lot of the arguments in favour [of net neutrality] seem to boil down to me that ‘I want better internet access to my house’. The market will provide this but it takes time.”
What Collins fails to account for is that if people already have serviceable internet why would they need to wait and get stuck with throttled service so that it can take time for the market to finally offer them competitive service at a decent price?
Collins also fails to account for the fact that companies like AT&T, Time-Warner and Comcast are currently running monopolies or duopolies in some regions, where people don’t have much of a choice but to sign up with one or the other for net service. In that regard, your pricing and speeds are at the mercy of Comcast’s greed.
Speaking of Comcast… BBC linked to a post made by David L. Cohen, senior executive vice president at Comast, which was published back in April of 2017, praising FCC Chairman Pai for wanting to put more of the control back into the hands of broadband telecommunications companies instead of legislation, writing…
“We applaud both Chairman Pai for launching this proceeding and Commissioner O’Rielly for his thoughtful support. It is time to put this net neutrality debate to rest. The existing FCC rules, the new rulemaking proceeding, and our ongoing commitment to abide by legally enforceable net neutrality protections provide a bridge to the time when Congress acts and finally resolves this issue through bipartisan legislation.
“We all need to step back from the partisan rhetoric that has too often impeded rational discussion on net neutrality. There is widespread consensus on what strong net neutrality rules should look like. It’s time for all of us to work together to protect American consumers and to advance those important principles without a misguided Title II overhang.“
Most consumers don’t trust Comcast or Time-Warner not to throttle speeds for competing services such as HBO Go, Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime or the WWE Network. Without Net Neutrality, big telecoms corporations can effectively throttle, speed up or slow down various internet destinations, forcing people to pay more for access to certain services, or force certain companies to pay more in order to provide better access to consumers.
This sort of technocratic plutocracy isn’t the sort of thing most customers trust will be handled well and to their benefit if Net Neutrality is dissolved in favor of letting the corporations run the digital asylum.