in

More thoughts on Net Neutrality…

(home network image from wikilinks)

Again, I am not going to launch into a rant, I am concerned but not angered. The reality of removing net neutrality is two-fold. The first is that it allows governments to insert themselves into the overall process more than they are now. That increases the potential delivery of security and more secure services. Companies also find this to be critical from a profit perspective as they will make considerably more money.

Security isn’t everything, although I do understand the what and why of the security issue. There is a global problem (Terrorism) and a global problem (radicalization) that we have to figure out. But I suspect the concept of increasing the vigilance won’t decrease the impact of radicalization. Angry people remain angry and in fact, when you limit their access or worse make them pay more, they will, they are angry. Anger isn’t an easy problem to solve. Perhaps we could examine the actual issues driving the anger rather than limiting the how of the anger.  We see the impact of the anger all around the world now. It isn’t just terrorists; it sometimes seems like it is all the time. It isn’t just terrorists. The anger has spread to the general populace around the world.

Net Neutrality is simply a way information can get out quickly. It is, however, part of the disinformation problem.

Hopefully, I would think that the FCC will consider the financial and social impact of this decision. Today they are in the process of holding hearings. It is not the time to flood the FCC website with bot attacks. It is time for reasoned conversations about the cost of the problem and the reality of the impact. The business case for net neutrality is freedom of information. The support of those who get their information from the internet, because they can’t afford more than one connection to the world. We cannot force those who cannot afford to do things, to have to do without. The other side, however, is that we need to do something about the overall security management of the internet.

IMHO the instantiation of a commercial internet, removing net neutrality rules, will impact those who are disadvantaged now. It will greatly benefit the few.

Oh, brave new world to have people such as this in it. (Aldous Huxley).

What do you think?

6 points
Legend

Written by DocAndersen

I am a long time blogger and technology poster.I focus on what is possible, but I also try to see what is coming. In recent years I have been focused on sharing the memories of my family, as part of my Family History Project.

9 Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. Outside of those invasions of privacy under the aegis of anti-terrorism, ISPs are meant to be unaware of the content you are viewing. How is that not content agnostic? Yes, the NSA can listen in on your phone conversation but AT&T can’t legally do that. Same deal with your ISP, last I heard…

    But issues of privacy aside, how can the FCC justify variable rates of billing when they don’t even own all the backbones and networks the data is traversing?

  2. Huxley is an excellent choice for a quote here, although I went with Orwell on my Net Neutrality rant. The repeal of Net Neutrality will have zero effect on security, as ISPs are already required to surrender browsing records when served a warrant, so don’t believe any of that nonsense. The only reason to repeal Net Neutrality is so that telecommunications companies can overcharge you for certain types of traffic, and nothing else

    Greed. Plain and simple

      • The patriot act and other such laws already give the government more power than they need to invade the privacy of any citizen under the auspices of national security, so the repeal of net neutrality will do nothing to increase security, it would simply allow more parties to legally invade your privacy. Since none of those parties are law enforcement, the gain wouldn’t be in security, it would be financial…

    • More or less; when your ISP is content aware, the can bill or block certain types of traffic differently, as opposed to being content agnostic like they are now. Even if this were not an invasion of privacy (which it most certainly is) this is a clear instance of the FCC being a tool for big business

      • As some that works in US Government as a consultant we have to be really careful here.

        Under the provisions of the patriot act, there are now limits on your privacy when it comes to a number of things.

        1. Posting a theatening remark online about a Government Official will result in someone from law enforcement contacting you. In China and many other places you would be arrested, in the US they are simply going to call and say, please don’t post things like that.
        2. The “content agnostic” remark is one I would advise you to reconsider. First, providers are not content agnostic. No matter what people say, no one is.

        You raise good points, but the goal has to be to stop the FCC’s goals with logical agruments that answer the concerns (Security) and allow for the internet to remain free.

Leave a Reply