Net neutrality is back. It’s still a corporate welfare scam and internet censorship enabling law
On July 28, U.S. Senators Ed Markey (D-MA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), along with U.S. Representative Doris Matsui (D-HI), introduced a bill to reclassify ISPs Internet from Title I “Information Services” to Title II “Common Carrier Services”.
Why this bill? Because the term “Net Neutrality” sounds good among those who don’t bother to look into the details.
Why now? Because Democrats are playing all the cards in the game as they look for ways to stem their likely hemorrhage in November’s midterm elections.
In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission issued an “Open Internet Order” magically turning ISPs into “public carriers” and requiring them to treat some, but not all, network traffic “neutrally.”
But since the rule was unilaterally imposed by one FCC, it could be removed by the next. One of the few happy outcomes of Donald Trump’s election as president in 2016 was the appointment of a new FCC chairman and the removal of the rule.
The new law, if passed, would require, rather than simply allow, the FCC to impose “net neutrality” on America.
What is “net neutrality?” It’s really three different things, none of them good.
First, it’s corporate welfare for companies whose business models involve pushing lots of bits (like high-definition video streaming) through the internet and into your home, and who’d rather not foot the bill for the infrastructure to transport their product.
Second, it is the camel’s nose of internet censorship shoving its way into the regulatory tent of the administrative state.
Third, it’s a sexy desperately looking solution to a problem that doesn’t exist and never has. The internet has become progressively better and more accessible for 30 years now without it.
‘Net neutrality’ requires ISPs to treat certain data ‘neutral’: an email from your mother cannot be given higher priority than your neighbor’s weekend Stranger Things binge in all its glory 4k.
Instead of Netflix, or your neighbor, getting the bill for the bandwidth and infrastructure to meet your neighbor’s insane bandwidth consumption – or, God forbid, his screen freezes during the chorus of “Running Up That Hill” – your two ISP bills will go up to paying for bigger pipes. You can subsidize your neighbor and Netflix whether you like it or not.
Note that I said “some” data should be treated “in a neutral way”. Not all of that. The previous FCC order only mandated such “neutrality” for “lawful” content.
Who can declare content “legal” or “illegal”? For the most part, the FCC, though the occasional pro-censorship input from Congress is a given (hint: Sanctioned American Enemies of the Week content will be “illegal”).
The FCC will also be getting sage advice from the wellness queens of the aforementioned companies, who wouldn’t want you to get your movies and music from unapproved sources (i.e. sites that don’t earn them money). silver).
The purpose of the TERM “Net Neutrality” is to entice you to vote for people who seem to promise you something cool and even necessary.
The purpose of the “Net Neutrality” POLICY is to leave you with less money and less choice.