Hunter Schoonover

The FCC Is Gifting Away Your Free Speech

Hunter Schoonover

December 10, 2017

Someone you hate is getting an AWESOME present for Christmas… and you get to pay for it!

Update: The Federal Communications Commission officially repealed net neutrality rules with a 3-2 vote on December 14, 2017.

For months now, the Federal Communications Commission has been threatening to repeal the rules of net neutrality passed in 2015. On Tuesday, November 21, 2017, the announcement was made. They are going to carry that threat through.

The removal of net neutrality would be the end of equal access to the internet. It would benefit large corporate Internet service providers (ISPs), such as Verizon, AT & T, and Comcast, at the expense of their consumers and internet content providers, such as Google, Netflix, or even a small blog like this one. ISPs would be granted the power to charge customers premium fees to view certain content, allow large internet-based companies to pay for special treatment, and even amplify or silence voices as they choose. In other words, removing these rules results in a direct violation of the First Amendment.

The FCC’s vote to end net neutrality and our right to free speech will happen on December 14, 2017.

There is an alarmingly small window of time to become informed and take an educated stance on the subject of net neutrality, which is looked into at depth below. If you do not need an in depth look and are already aware of the negative effects removing it will have on our access to the internet, then please click here and jump to the “So, What Can We Do?” section.

What Even Is Net Neutrality? (Ima learn you a thing or two today, son)

Net Neutrality rules were passed by the FCC in 2015, then led by chairman Tom Wheeler. These rules classified access to the internet as a utility, a basic right if you will. Broadband access became classified as a telecommunications service, making it subject to “common carrier” rules.

Under net neutrality, an Internet service provider is not allowed to create a specialized filter for its consumers, only allowing content it deems fit to be delivered. Nor can it choose to amplify certain voices, and silence others. If a large majority of a provider’s shareholders and top-level executives were Republicans, the company is prevented from promoting its own agendas by purposely slowing down, or even completely blocking all Democratic websites and publications; the same rules apply if the company leaned towards the Democratic party and attempted to restrict access to Republican content. These rules also prohibit the provider from promoting web articles containing good reviews about the company while hiding ones that do not.

These regulations also lend a helping hand when it comes to protecting the smaller entities providing internet content for the world. Broadband providers are strictly forbidden from creating fast and slow lanes, and from providing special treatment to online platforms that pay large sums of money.

The net neutrality rules currently in place act as a safeguard for free speech and for the American Dream. It forces companies must play a nonpartisan role as they take on the responsibility of delivering internet content to consumers. Under net neutrality, Internet service providers are required to give equal internet access to everyone.

Why the FCC wants to remove it (because they’re fucking stupid?)

The reasoning behind the FCC’s decision is fairly straightforward and even admirable: They believe the government should not have as much control over something like the internet. In today’s capitalist world and democracy, it is considered a big no no when governments start taking too much power and control. Sometimes, it can even be dangerous.

To prevent these dangers from arising, the government’s current tight grip would be released, turning the internet into a more “pro-competitive” market. The companies would regulate themselves based on the concepts of competition and capitalism.

“The FCC will no longer be in the business of micromanaging business models and preemptively prohibiting services and applications and products that could be pro-competitive,” Mr Pai told Reuters, adding that “We should simply set rules of the road that let companies of all kinds in every sector compete and let consumers decide who wins and loses”.

These rules of the road he mentions would mean that the FCC would not be letting the internet realm run rampant. They are proposing that companies would be required to state everything they are doing in a direct manner. They also want to ensure that customers do not get these companies do not abuse customers by setting a baseline of services that broadband providers would be required to provide at every tier level. This baseline can be compared to something like a minimum hourly wage.

Chairman Ajit Pai was appointed by Trump to chairman of the FCC because of his stance on things like net neutrality. He believes that the free market is enough to regulate Internet service providers. If internet service providers are doing something that is wrong and not just, people will simply switch providers. Even the largest corporations will be forced to regulate themselves for fear of losing their customer base. If everyone really loves Netflix (which they really fucking do), and Xfinity decides to block Netflix, slow it down, or even charge customers more for access to it, people can simply boycott one company in favor of another.

Disbanding these rules would allow broadband companies to create tiered price schemes, tailored to their customers. Customers who only want things like access to Social Media, or Video Streaming would be able to sign up for those services and those services only without having to pay the full price for internet. So, a lower-income-class family that desperately needed access to research articles so that their children could do homework, could sign up for access to those sites and pay a lower fee than they would have to pay for access to the entire internet.

The theory is that the government’s strong grip on net neutrality is actually stifling growth of the internet, because people are seeing no real benefit in investing in making it better. It is often pointed out that the United States is only number 8 on the list when it comes to fast internet. It is because the market for faster internet is not very competitive and so corporations like Verizon, AT & T, and the like have no real motivation to improve the services they offer.

Gene Marks, over at Forbes may have put it best:

… [Comcast, Verizon and AT & T] have invested billions in the infrastructure that we now call the Internet. And they will continue to invest to make it better (and it needs to be better). But only if the motivation is there. And that motivation is return on investment for their shareholders. Let these companies spend their money, rather than taxpayer money, to improve this infrastructure and bandwidths. And let them charge more to the people who are willing to pay more.

From <https://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2014/05/19/why-net-neutrality-is-a-dumb-idea/#2e03990e6b41>

Marks does admit that those extra costs will end up being paid by the consumer; if a company has to pay more to deliver their product, that cost is considered to be a part of the manufacturing cost of the product. He continues on to argue that, in reality, the price increases consumers will see are minimal. For example, the battle between Netflix and Comcast that occurred in 2014 resulted in Netflix paying millions of dollars a year to Comcast. In months prior to the deal, Netflix noticed that the speed of content delivery to Comcast subscribers had dropped by more than 25%. Although it is widely believed that Comcast was purposely slowing Netflix down in favor of their own Xfinity streaming services, Comcast blamed the connectivity issues on the middlemen Netflix was using to deliver content to Comcast. This deal allowed Netflix to bypass these intermediaries and use Comcast’s services directly.

While this deal was being struck, there was lots of worry and upset because, in the end, consumers would be the ones that had to pay for this deal. Luckily, new Netflix customers only saw a mere one or two dollar increase per month. According to Marks, it all worked out for the best.

Marks also expresses his concern that, if given too much power, Internet service providers might begin to abuse it; He supports Ajit Pai’s idea to maintain regulation of the road.

It can also be seen that services such as Netflix and YouTube, which use more of the available bandwidth than may other services, should have to pay more because they are using more. An owner of a small house should not have to pay the same amount of taxes as someone who takes up more space with their 500 acres of property. The more you use, the more you pay.

The removal of net neutrality would not mean the end of all internet regulation, just those choking broadband companies to the point that they are not actively trying to improve the services they offer. It would embrace the American Dream and the capitalist foundation on which the United States was built. Price tiers would be implemented so that customers who currently cannot afford internet would have lower-priced options they could afford.

Pipe dreams never work (Although I am told weed can give you hallucinations, which are kind of like dreams)

The idea that the competitive market would regulate Internet service providers from extorting their customers ALMOST works. It works with most other things.

However, it does not work well in this case. A large majority of Americans have access to, at most, three Internet service providers . Many only have access to one. This means that if an Internet service provider starts screwing over their customers, many cannot simply switch to another. They will either have to forgo internet altogether or subject to the ISP’s demands.

The hope that more ISPs would emerge when they saw an opportunity to offer better service has already proven nearly impossible in the past. When Google tried to enter the market in certain areas, they were taken to court by AT & T… and lost! So, if the notorious giant Google could not even enter the market to offer another option to customers, what chance would anyone else stand?

The tiered price schemes mentioned earlier definitely have their appeal, because it is possible that those lower-income families would have the opportunity to afford at least some form of internet. This truly is great, after all it is always nice to help those less fortunate than others. It is also good to be a proponent for closing the gap between the lower and upper classes, giving everyone a more equal view on life. However, the tiered price scheme would only widen the gap.

Yes, the lower class would be able to afford that lower level, and only that lower level. The highest tier, which includes access to all of the internet would inevitably see a significant price rise, meaning that it would be even further out of reach for those lower-income families.

Also, as far as the idea that Netflix and YouTube use more bandwidth and therefore should have to pay more than others can easily lead to the little guys never even standing a chance. It is true that a good analogy to this issue would be property taxes: The person with the bigger house does (and should) have to pay more taxes than the guy who takes up less land, but it does not mean that the man with the bigger house is granted a vote matters more than the other. When it comes down to voting, both of them are equal; each taxpayer’s vote counts for one vote.

In the internet realm, if Comcast continues to strike deals with companies like YouTube, Netflix, and the like, giving them access to faster pipelines than competitors, then a small starter company will never be able to strike those same deals because it will not have access to those exorbitant resources. The company paying more will be favored and given better access.

Although I used these large internet companies as an example of who might benefit more than others, some of these will definitely be suffering as well. Netflix, Google, and the like are supposedly investing millions of dollars to prevent the FCC from removing net neutrality. This is because rather than striking a deal with Netflix, Comcast can decide to completely eliminate Netflix from its available online options in favor of their own Xfinity streaming services. Verizon, the sole owner of the Yahoo! search engine can choose to block or slow down Google in favor of their own service.

While Gene Marks does make a good point when it comes to the consumers only seeing a small price increase, citing the Netflix-Comcast arrangement as evidence, he is actually failing to see the fault in that. The only reason Netflix was able to strike that type of deal in the first place is because they had the money to do so. A small company or single person entity trying to make headway in the internet world would not be able to accumulate that kind of money. And the only reason the price increase was so small is because Netflix has a large customer base on which to spread out the cost of that deal; a company just starting would not have access to that either.

Marks’ desire for the United States to get better internet is definitely one I support. I also believe that the ONLY way to do this is to create a more competitive market. However, allowing Internet service providers to extort their customers in order to create more profits is an extremely twisted way to generate investments.

Why are they even still doing this (Guys. Seriously. Wtf.)?

There is even so much more that was not touched on in this post that should be cause for great concern, such as the disappearance of about 50,000 comments submitted to the FCC expressing discontent for the removal of net neutrality. Or the comments submitted supporting FCC that seem to be bots using names of deceased citizens. Even more disturbing are the 22 million comments from citizens expressing their desire to continue government regulation and protection of the internet.

Despite all of these comments, chairman Ajit Pai has moved ahead with his plan to disband net neutrality.

Is it because he is Verizon’s little puppet? After all, prior to this job, he was one of their lawyers.

Is it because he is narcissistic? His limited knowledge seems to take precedence over the advice and expertise of true professionals.

Is it because he is just downright stupid? I mean… he is pretty dumb.

Or is it all three?

It is all three. The answer is all three.

In Conclusion (10 hours later)

The internet needs regulation. A strong government that protects its citizens and companies, big or small, and ensures that every man and woman is created equal and has an equal chance of success is something to cherish and preserve, not destroyed.

Surprisingly, another member of the Federal Communications Commission seems to have reached to the same conclusion. FCC commissioner, Jessica Rosenworcel, says:

Wiping out net neutrality would have big consequences. Without it, your broadband provider could carve internet access into fast and slow lanes, favoring the traffic of online platforms that have made special payments and consigning all others to a bumpy road. Your provider would have the power to choose which voices online to amplify and which to censor. The move could affect everything online, including the connections we make and the communities we create.

From <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rosenworcel-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal-20171122-story.html>

In a time of record inequality, now is when we need to be enforcing more control over companies that already have a monopoly over things, not less. We may even need to look into setting guidelines to help allow for the rise of more Internet service providers, creating a truly competitive market without the need to extort customers.

Net neutrality stands as a guard for free speech and equality. Removing this set of rules could very easily destroy free speech. We MUST do everything in our power to preserve it.

So, what can we do? (Surprisingly, more than just cry)

We need to make some noise. And I mean a hell of a lot of noise.

The removal of net neutrality can be seen as a direct violation of our right to free speech and press, and we need to treat it as such.

Time is running out to take a stance; the vote is happening on December 14.

Submit comments online:

http://act.freepress.net/sign/internet_wake_up_destroy/?source=what

Sign a petition:

https://action.aclu.org/secure/FCC_preserve_net_neutrality

https://action.aclu.org/secure/fcc-net-neutrality

https://act.credoaction.com/sign/Pai-netneutrality

Get out in the streets and protest:

http://verizonprotests.com/