Thursday, August 16, 2018
Ajit Pai testified today before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and issued this statement.
But there has been controversy over claims that the FCC comments section in 2017 was hit by a DDOS attack, which caused to the comments to be misproportioned. Those claims seemed to be largely discredited.
Pai has lashed at the chicken little claims that the sky would fall and that telecom companies would cut off speakers whom they did not control if the regulations were relaxed. That has not happened so far. Pai made similar comments at the Cato Institute in June. But political pressure on tech companies over especially extreme right-wing content could be brought to bear on telecom, too, it would seem.
Monday, August 06, 2018
Recent competition for full cable, and then banning of "extremist" or "fake news" sites on social media, may cause telecoms to see a business advantage to throttling
Although I certainly support competition and streaming services offering low-cost packages that consumers want if they don’t want to pay for full cable plans, I do see how this could affect the net neutrality issue with the formal restrictions gone (except for notification).
Consumer Reports latest issue has a guide to other services, and earlier CR had an article on how to negotiate with cable companies. But there is a potential dark side to all this.
Telecom companies (as well as streaming companies) could play this game to. In some countries (without net neutrality) smart phone plans sometimes offer certain video and social media platforms without the full Internet already, at low cost. If more consumers really want this, telecoms could gradually find that it makes business sense to offer reduced access to the Internet or parental controls, and gradually get away from letting everyone “legal” connect (as is the case now)
The banning today of Alex Jones by YouTube and Facebook and Apple, as well as Amazon’s recent cutoff of sales of Nazi materials, and past incidents involving white supremacy sites (Daily Stormer), it’s pretty easy to imagine activists pressuring telecom companies to cut off sites like Alex Jones. That could again lead companies into thinking more about throttling. Blacklisting can spread like the Spanish flu. The ban seems to have started with Apple and spread. Should Tim Cook (or David Hogg) have so much power? YouTube says it followed its community standards strikes policy with Jones.
The more radical part of the Left has a very mixed idea about free speech. They need it to organize their own groups and recruit. But they see individualized speech as a tool of the privileged to oppress minorities, and big Tech is more sensitive to these arguments than you would think. (Think about Google and James Damore.)
Thursday, August 02, 2018
I guess six weeks into the Net Neutrality “repeal” we should look at whether there have been any violations against the volunteerism.
In fact, there had been small, localized violations of the principle for years, but they generally didn’t affect many users. Here’s a story on the Free Press from Timothy Karr, link.
Comcast is limiting some video use by user hotspots, which matters mostly when customers are traveling and believe hotspots are more secure than a hotel system, It has to do with fees paid to Verizon. Of course, when I travel, I usually don't have time to watch movies in a hotel room. But I did watch a Cato conference from a hotel room in Texas May 31, and I switched over to the hotel system. Not the safest thing to do.
We’ll keep watching. Again, we would be concerned over the future of small or personal sites over time.
These links came from a fundraising email from FFTF Aug. 1.
Thursday, July 26, 2018
I got an email from Fight for the Future about Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) has taken money from telecoms but refused to sign a discharge petition to vote for a modified net neutrality bill in Congress.
Here is their link. They want to raise money for a highway billboard campaign, especially in Nebraska and the midwest (I have a lot of ties to KU and Kansas).
I’ll leave the decisions on donations to the judgment of the visitors.
Friday, July 13, 2018
USTelecom, a trade association of seven major telecom companies, wants to have the right to starve smaller ISP’s out of existence (including community or municipal owned), according to story on on Engadget by Nicole Lee, tweeted by Electronic Frontier Foundation, by rolling back part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (which contains Section 230) that requires them to sell unbundled network elements (UNE’s) to smaller companies.
Ernesto Falcon had written about this problem on June 8 for EFF, as a “fight for their lives” of smaller companies.
It’s pretty easy to imagine who this jives with the network neutrality “repeal”.
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
I’ll pass along “Fight for the Future” group’s emergency link and let the visitor decide.
The group FTFF writes about Brett Kavanaugh’s views on network neutrality, which it says are a misinterpretation of the First Amendment. “ ISPs are like newspaper editors, empowered to decide what speech is suitable to share and what isn’t. This, simply put, is nuts. It’s like saying the electric utility can decide what we can plug in and what we can’t.” I think he is comparing a telecom to a cable service that just doesn’t carry all possible channels. (Comcast doesn’t carry OANN, for example, and I’ve brought this up with both companies. But there is a difference between cable service and Internet/web access. Kavanaugh does allow the idea of regulation telecoms that have no competition in their service areas.
Saturday, July 07, 2018
I’ll pass along Broadband for America’s call to reject H.R.joint resolution 129, in Congress, here. Here is the associated discharge petition to express disapproval of Pai’s weakening of net neutrality rules, effective June 11.
Thursday, June 21, 2018
California net neutrality gutted by lobbyists, would even allow telecoms to charge publishers for connection
In a rather disturbing development, Electronic Frontier Foundation reports that lobbyists have gutted the supposed California net neutrality bill, according to a story by Ernesto Falcon
The changes not only allow some paid prioritization (which is OK in limited circumstances for really special uses) and zero-rating (which is OK if limited) but the possibility of connection charges to websites (probably managed through hosting companies).
Wired has a similar story, here.
But none of the major telecoms have actually tried to do this and all say they still don’t block or prioritize content.
Jon Brodkin had written in Ars Technica that Comcast wants paid prioritization to be allowed for “specialized services” (like medical emergencies, and example often given by Pai).
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
David Hogg ties net neutrality end to voter right suppression; EFF paper could mean this can make sense
The Washington Times reports that David Hogg has invented a conspiracy theory claiming that the repeal of net neutrality will empower large telecom companies to deny minority groups web presence to suppress the right to vote. Here is the story by Victor Morton.
But here is Hogg’s tweet. He could be reacting to the Ohio SCOTUS ruling (Issues blog).
On the other hand, Electronic Frontier Foundation has a critical article by Ernesto Falcon June 12 critical of ATT attempts to create zero-rating service for low-income consumers that would allow Internet access on one device only. It’s possible that Hogg’s comments (which appear out of context otherwise) are an elaboration of this story. People who are otherwise illiterate and who cannot afford access to information simply won’t try to vote. That makes sense. But this is a bit of what went on in the South in 1964 (when three civil rights workers were murdered in Mississippi).
These plans do exist overseas in some countries with weaker regulation, like Portugal.
Update: June 15
Here is my WP writeup on Ajit Pai's briefing at Cato Wednesday.
Update: June 15
Here is my WP writeup on Ajit Pai's briefing at Cato Wednesday.
Monday, June 11, 2018
Net neutrality has ended officially; Washington Post runs scare headline like a false flag, with story details that don't support the anxiety
Tony Romm has an eye-catching headline on the lower front page of the Monday Washington Post (June 11), making it look like a Sunday paper. It reads as “The Web as you know it may soon be altered”.
Online the title is more pertinent, in the Business Section, “Goodbye to Net Neutrality, Hello to an even bigger ATT”? Link (paywall) is here.
But the article itself says “For now, companies like ATT, Comcast and Verizon have said they would not block or throttle Web access or charge more for faster delivery of online content.”
And Tuesday, a federal judge will decide if ATT can buy Time Warner. Yet, ATT insists it has no economic incentive to hinder consumer access to remaining competitors, either on cable or on the Web.
So far, as of 10:30 AM EDT June 11, everything works normally.
I think there are strategic threats to individualized web operations like mine, but they come from the political climate, with is reacting to past extreme capitalism by trying to force solidarity among even future constituents of oppressed “groups”, by threatening individual speech. FOSTA is more serious than net neutrality; curiously the EU Copyright Directive could have big indirect effects here, and there are even other strategic threats regarding insurability and liability exposure that no one has discussed yet but that I am aware of from my own past. Stay tuned.
Activist groups like EFF need to attack these problems in combination, not “hands separately” like this was beginning piano lessons.
Friday, June 08, 2018
June 11 approaches (right after Washington is suitably distracted by the Capital’s Stanley Cup and gay pride weekend) and network neutrality officially ends, unless the House passes the Senate bill over the weekend.
Chad Marlow, for ACLU, says it will end with a whimper, like in Nevil Shute’s “On the Beach” (with "Waltzing Matida"). No, we don’t expect the telecoms to do anything rash on June 11, and furthermore they would have to announce it publicly, and they haven’t.
Inverse has a briefer article, and makes a whimsical warning about porn prices going up.
In the longer run, to see radical changes, telecom’s would need a business case for trying to control your media experience the way Facebook tried. This really doesn’t make sense right now, to me at least.
But the Cato Institute will do a digital interview with Ajit Pai on Wednesday, June 14 at 6 PM EDT, announcement here.
Monday, May 21, 2018
Back on March 5, 2018, even the “liberal” Washington Post questioned activists who claim that the sky will fall if network neutrality is repealed, in this article by Salvador Rizzo.
“If you don’t restore net neutrality, you’ll get the Internet one word at a time.” Indeed.
The Post seems reassuring that even with no action, the major telecoms have pledged not to change anything, for now.
But what about down the road?
There are disturbing questions these days as to who should be allowed online, inasmuch as private companies have been willing to ban some users based on associations. True, you don’t want neo-Nazis. But it can be a very slippery slope. Maybe you don’t want amateur content at all. Some guilds don’t.
Saturday, May 19, 2018
Ernesto Falcon of Electronic Frontier Foundation has explained “the path to victory” in the House of Representatives with an explanation of the discharge petition process, here.
The article suggests that representatives tend to be responsive to calls asking them to sign the petition. Once they commit to doing so, they have to sign a document that is continually updated and is visible online, here.
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
The Senate has voted today under the authority of the CRA to overturn the FCC “repeal” of Obama’s 2015 network neutrality rules, 52-47. The AP story was carried here by WJLA.
The attempt to reverse Ajit Pai’s “light touch” is likely to face a tough sell in the House. Ryan does not want to allow this to come up for a vote, so it needs a discharge petition first (so did the Senate).
Techcrunch has an explanation of how the discharge petition process will work, here.
In practice, it really looks like tech companies will not be in a hurry to make major changes for a long time because of uncertainty, litigation threats, and a belief their consumers want most of what neutrality offers (which a few special exceptions).
Congress ought to be able to figure out that some specific kinds of preferred service (like for medical providers in emergencies) would not undermine consumer or small business use.
FEE (Foundation for Economic Education, a libertarian group) pushed an article “Let’s end net neutrality once and for all in America” May 15, bad timing. FEE says things were fine before 2015 with Obama’s rules, but companies may have been on their best behavior.
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Here is a link where you can tell where your two Senators and House Representatives stand on undoing the Net Neutrality “repeal”. All three of mine support restoring net neutrality.
For what it’s worth, activists say that personal phone calls are more effective than letters or emails, and letters are more effective than emails. Tweets and Facebook messages are not effective.
I have a problem with “Take Action” calls, because there are too many intersecting issues. The FOSTA issue may be more of a ‘threat” than the net neutrality issue, in practice, so I don’t like to waste “capital” on one group’s issue, which leads to misleading messages.
Thursday, May 10, 2018
Reuters is reporting that the FCC has announced that the “new rules” effectively repealing network neutrality will take effect on Monday June 11, 2018 – allowing time for the OMB review.
Reuters also writes that major telecom providers have said they will not block lawful content.
The Senate could vacate the FCC action by a vote that could happen next week.
Medium and FFTF wrote their own account here Medium admits that no changes would happen immediately, but that users would notice fewer startups. (There could be other reasons, like FOSTA/SESTA.)
On Pai’s video above, go to 6:46.
The rules would require telecom providers to announce any changes.
Cox (my provider at home) is not mentioned in the Reuters article but here is their own commitment statement from the end of 2017.
But Cox did announce price increases on some specificservices in January.
Wednesday, May 09, 2018
Electronic Frontier Foundation set out a “red alert” regarding the planned Senate vote in mid May to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn the 2015 Open Internet Order. A simple majority can apparently overrule the agency rule on Dec. 15. Thirty signatures can force the vote.
FTFF reports that the Senate just moved to force a vote, here.
Tuesday, May 08, 2018
Ernesto Falcon has an article (“The Big Lie”) May 4 from Electronic Frontier Foundation summarizing arguments some big ISP’s have made to state legislatures claiming they don’t make enough money, and that net neutrality will cause consumer bills to rise, link here.
EFF discusses a relatively small ISP in Chattanooga, TN that offers some of the fastest service in the nation, EPB Fiber Optics.
The article also describes an instance where ATT would not allow Google to use its telephone poles in some areas to enlarge its own new fiber optic service. Anti-competitiveness is reportedly denying some consumers optimal access.
Tuesday, May 01, 2018
A group “Fight for the Future”, which I have mentioned here before, is encouraging supporters to place red alerts on their own social media pages (Facebook) and personal web pages. Here is their "Red Alert" link if you want to see it.
I don’t do this with my own sites because I want to behave like a “journalist”, so I say, with some irony given the issue, that I want to behave publicly with some irony. But that could be one reason why activists have a love-hate relationship with journalists, who can’t “join up” by definition.
The group has also encouraged mass calling of legislators and even hand delivering letters (bicycle messengers, sometimes with legs shaved, do that).
I'm generally reluctant to spend my own "lobbying capital" on just one issue just because I could get hurt by it. But maybe getting hurt means out for the season and career Tommy John surgery.
Note the Senate vote coming up the middle of this month.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
INCOMPAS, a trade association representing smaller telecoms, is joining a lawsuit against the repeal of network neutrality, and the venue was moved from the Ninth Circuit to the Federal Circuit.
Dell Cameron explains for Gizmodo in a surprising story here where he says the major media misses this entire development.
Apparently this could delay the “repeal” even further, or prevent it, until Congress passes some reforms.
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Jon Brodkin of Ars Technica gives a more detailed explanation of Ajit Pai’s allowing the net neutrality “repeal” languish with the OMB, largely over the transparency rules, here.
The OMB issue has already been covered here, but the writer conjectures that Pai wants to give Congress some reason for a “compromise” bill, allowing more paid prioritization, but the Democrats and the activists are ceding no ground.
Friday, April 20, 2018
Gigi Sohn has a detailed article on “broadcastingcable” explaining how a comment period on OMB regulations regarding rollback of network neutrality runs from March 27 to April 26, 2018.
Theoretically, a few changes from providers would be possible April 23, but throttling could not happen until after the OMB period and after transparent notification from ISP’s to consumers.
It doesn’t appear that any litigation or state laws would stop the administrative process associated with OMB review. There is a good theoretical question about how administrative law (vs. courts) could set any precedents.
Sohn indicates that so far major ISP’s have shown no interest in throttling.
We think they could eventually require sites to have security certificates (SSL’s) and possibly safety ratings. The SSL might be a useful tool to reduce the growing risk of foreign sabotage or hacking (as would the use of content delivery services like SiteLock and Cloudflare). Google says it wants to see the entire web on SSL by July!!
Update: April 24
Electronic Frontier Foundation explains this more thoroughly in a story by Katherine Trendacosta. EFF does not know when OMB will publish on the Federal Register and what the "final" cutover date would be.
Update: April 24
Electronic Frontier Foundation explains this more thoroughly in a story by Katherine Trendacosta. EFF does not know when OMB will publish on the Federal Register and what the "final" cutover date would be.
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
California is trying to enforce net neutrality within its own borders, with State Senator’s bill SB S822, and a California state Senate committee is trying to undermine the bill, according to EFF’s Ernesto Falcon.
Although the committee is sympathetic to preventing throttling, it seems to side with big telecom on its need to make money through some paid prioritization and zero-rated services.
Sunday, April 15, 2018
Here's something to watch. In providing a security certificate (SSL) to enable https everywhere for your site, your host may have to propagate a new IP address (especially if its not a free one).
There are many products to track propagation. Generally the certificate will not work until all telecom companies around the world have changed the A record IP. The http sometimes will not work either if there is CDS,
This means that after the "net neutrality repeal" rules take place on April 23, there is at least a theoretical possibility that a domestic (US) telecom could reject a site if it has announced it will do so in advance for some kinds of sites. This is something to watch for.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
I haven’t heard any more big news on holding up net neutrality repeal, but I also haven’t heard of any plans by telecoms to change anything (and even the new environment requires announcement and transparency).
But Ars technical referred back to its rather pessimistic December 2017 article, and recommends some OpenDNS tools, as run by Cloudflare, to stop any telecom sniffing, article by Sean Gallagher here. Apparently there are ways around throttling, too, if it ever happens (although Cloudflare has in at least one case refused at least one controversial customer, Daily Stormer).
OpenDNS is permissible with some telecoms, not others. It can also provide a useful tool for an Airbnb host to shield himself from any misbehavior online by guests.
Sunday, March 18, 2018
Litigation against net neutrality repeal consolidated; three telecom trade associations defend FCC with arguments; broadband "nutrition labels"
Jon Brodkin has a summary and explanation of the litigation, at least twelve lawsuits and counting, against the FCC over the Network Neutrality repeal, on Arstechnica, here.
But three lobbying groups for the telecom industry have filed their “defense” of the FCC action as the lawsuits are combined into one. It appears that it is headed for the Ninth Circuit. Brodkin has another article here.
Technically the Net Neutrality rules expire April 23, pending one more OMB action. It is not yet clear if this litigation would stop the Net Neutrality reversal from going into effect that day. It seems unlikely that telecom companies would make any major changes immediately however. I personally think they may pressure publishers more into https and website safety rating.
Note the case about Charter in New York above Note the stuff about broadband “nutrition labels.”
Thursday, March 08, 2018
Salvador Rizzo has a perspective and analysis in the Washington Post today: “Will the FCC’s Net Neutrality repeal grind the Internet to a halt?”
Well, it this a grindhouse? The article really doesn’t consider the timing of litigation or possible Congressional action.
The article mentions various informal pledges from telecom providers, but believes that paid fast lanes will gradually develop.
The lack of good broadband in some rural areas is still and issue. Around Green Bank W Va, it isn’t wanted.
Tuesday, March 06, 2018
Democrats have introduced two bills to restore net neutrality, even if there is little chance of passage within 60 days – to make it an election issue this fall. These are Senators Chuck Schumer and Ron Wyde, (D-OR), Vice story here.
And Jay Inslee, of Washington State, has signed the first state network neutrality law, NYTImes story Monday here.
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
Monday, February 26, 2018
Brian Fung has summarized “what happens next” (in the Washington Post) now that Ajit Pai and his FCC rules are officially published in the (boring) Federal Register.
It doesn’t look like Congress can do much in 60 days (especially the House) but it sounds likely a federal court will probably stop the change by April 23.
Fung doesn’t think telecom companies are in any hurry to change things. (Would “throttle” mean block, or just slow?) Paragraph 244 of the FR paper takes up the idea that there is no valid business reason for throttling.
Friday, February 23, 2018
What if, post net neutrality, telecom companies throttle the NRA or gun stores, out of a private "political" motive?
Dell Cameron of Gizmodo reports that the NRA has awarded FCC chairman Ajit Pai a ceremonial gift rifle for his “courage”, news story here.
But Symantec and Lifelock and other private businesses (banks with Visa cards) have cut ties with the NRA out of social and political outrage.
I tweeted today, what if a telecom company, once the Net Neutrality “repeal” takes effect fully (April 23), refuses to allow the NRA website or any gun shop to connect, out of “political motives”?
I hope people understand where this can be headed. We saw tech companies block Daily Stormer last summer. This is a very slippery slope, between genuine moral outrage and political incorrectness or intersectionality.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Official publication of net neutrality "repeal" in FR occurs Feb. 22 and can take effect April 23 theoretically
Ajit Pai’s “Restore Internet Freedom” rules will officially be published on the Federal Register Thursday 22, 2018 (I had thought they were published already). Here is the web link.
Ars Technica has an article by Jon Brodkin.
Theoretically, the changes take effect April 23, 2018. But various groups and states will file petitions and lawsuits within ten days. The legal challenges will probably take a year. In the meantime there are efforts to introduce bills in Congress, which may not get through the House.
Telecom providers seem to suggest they do not intend to make any changes now. Yet the Ars Technica article warns that theoretically this is possible (telecoms would have to give notification) after April 23 unless a court intervenes.
The Verge has a detailed summary on how various telecom companies would behave. In general, there are no absolute guarantees, but it seems companies don’t have specific plans and are not in a hurry to make changes.
It's well to bear in mind that a lot of free services on the Internet (like Blogger, Wordpress, Twitter) we "take for granted" but their permanent existence cannot be guaranteed, and with some of these services I have started to wonder about the sustainability of their business models. A lot of things in life are like that, and so was Net Neutrality. You have to stay alert.
Monday, February 05, 2018
Monday, January 29, 2018
Today, when I misspelled a domain name – yes, that can be dangerous (typosquatting) Cox intercepted it and with a message that it cannot connect to a domain by that name.
This could be good – Cox is likely to be protecting consumers from typosquatting scams. In most cases, though, a non-existing domain is caught by the browser and a message is returned back from regular Internet tier DNS servers. Theoretically, this might have violated network neutrality rules in the past (until the repeal).
In fact, I had thought that Pai had already published his “revolution” to the Federal Register, but the latest seems to be that it’s not all there yet.
I would notice that some offices and some public computers block "amateur" sites, but this has nothing to do with telecom's; this seems to be a workplace environment issue.
Thursday, January 25, 2018
Burger King put on its own demonstration on the demise of network neutrality this week, with a sham practice of making customers pay a premium to go to the head of the line. US News story here.
Although, paying more for an Ezpass lane (and drive alone) during rush hour seems OK (not to some commuters).
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
States sue to stop net neutrality repeal, predict telecoms will control content in court papers; Senate close on a vote
The attorneys general of twenty states have filed suit to stop the FCC’s network neutrality repeal, as they claim that the repeal would allow telecom companies become gatekeepers of what gets disseminated and seen, at their own profit. (Will this really happen?) Here’s the MSN story.
The Senate appears to have 50 out of 51 votes needed to approve a Congressional Review Act to stall the FCC’s decision.
Saturday, January 13, 2018
States want to introduce their own net neutrality, but legally Congress will probably have to let them
Cecilia Kang reports in the New York Times that a number of states are pushing back on network neutrality repeal, introducing legislation to protect consumers and small businesses or individuals seeking sustainability in their ability to reach customers or readers online as today. These states include California and New York, which tend to be trendsetters and affect large companies, as well as North Carolina, Illinois, Washington, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Nebraska. The list includes some red states. The story is here.
There are legal questions as to whether the FCC order would circumvent states who want to pass these laws, but that is one of the topics of upcoming litigation and Congressional debate.
There’s another video on the FCC’s pre-emptive attempt to override state laws, here.
Tuesday, January 09, 2018
House Republicans have a compromise on Net Neutrality, “The Open Internet Preservation Act”, introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Here’s a text of the Act.
The act would prohibit telecoms from throttling lawful web content, and would require them to obey state laws anywhere the do business, but would not allow the FCC to stop fast lanes or special packages or apps for targeted customers who don’t want everything.
Personally I think this is good enough (for me at least), but it isn’t playing over too well.
A good question could be whether telecoms could insist sites offer https or qualify as safe sites somehow. I don’t see that in the language now.
There is movement in the Senate to overturn the FCC order, as Se, Ed Markey (D-MA) has collared the 30 votes to force a vote on overturning the rules, MSN story.
Monday, January 08, 2018
Electronic Frontier Foundation informs us that the FCC has just published it’s “order” repealing Network Neutrality on the Federal Register.
Here is the official PDF of the order.
Here is EFF’s article and suggested manner of contacting Congress, link.
California has introduced its own bill to protect Net Neutrality, which would affect most large telecoms, here.
I don’t necessarily agree with the speaker’s conclusions in the video, but there may be something to it. You don’t necessarily have a constitutional right to be heard all by yourself without “earning it”.
Friday, January 05, 2018
EFF has tweeted a link to the dissent by FCC member Mignon L. Clyburn
The paper makes chilling reading. Note that Clyburn admits that maybe nothing happens for a while, until service providers start a gradual came of “Mother May I” and possibly cloak everything in nondisclosure agreements.
She notes well that small businesses won’t be able to pay off big businesses to be found more easily by customers, so they won’t be formed. The world would tend to move into the direction of structure oligarchy of power, like Russia.
She mentions sole proprietors, who are actually helped by the recent Trump tax law. But this could make it prohibitive for people to publish on their own like I have at some point in the future if the worst were to happen.
She also mentions the discrete communities whose issues might be hidden if they didn’t have equal access.
Yet we got by fine until 2015. Well, not quite. There were scattered abuses. Does web access itself need to be viewed as a utility? Is there some level of regulation that is logical and consistent with past policy?
But the very dependence on utilities puts us at an existential, singular threat that we haven’t face before.
Wednesday, January 03, 2018
Deve Coldewey of Tech Crunch writes that the FCC is still “tweaking” its network neutrality repeal” and “that’s normal”. The Yahoo link is here.
Let’s hope this means that, before publication in the Federal Register (which I remember so well from my days at Lewin) the FCC will include some language that telecom’s should not compromise lawful web access that exists today, even if some fast lanes are actually desirable (for medical purposes, maybe gaming, virtual reality, and the like), and certain flexibility in low-served rural areas is also needed.