How To Fight The FCC On Net Neutrality (Opinion)

95

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Joe Pishgar is the Community Director of Tom's Hardware US. He oversees the number one tech enthusiast forum in the world.
  • Colin_10
    This change would give the telecoms the same authority over your internet as they currently have over your TV packages. There is a reason I don't bother with a cable package, and I do however have Netflix/HBO/Hulu/Amazon. If this change happens the telecoms won't be able to resist adding microtransactions to our favorite sites. We can't rely on the good will of corporations since they are mostly there to provide wealth for shareholders, their boards legally have to vote in favor of increasing profits and if EA is any example, they simply cannot lay their hands off microtransactions and we all saw how that turned out.
    Reply
  • ausiophill
    http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/19/net-neutrality-nothing-corporate-power-grab/
    Reply
  • knightmike
    We're so <mod edit>. The corporations won.

    <Moderator Warning: You've been a member here long enough to know better than to use that language
    Reply
  • carcharocles_theory
    Getting a 404: page not found error. Hopefully this doesn't mean they're responding to criticism by shutting down communications.
    Reply
  • jpishgar
    That link should be https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express - will change it shortly. Thanks for the catch!
    -JP
    Reply
  • chugot9218
    With so much fake news going around I thought I should provide some context to TheFederalist (per Wikipedia, just as, if not more valid than TheFederalist *snark off*):

    The Federalist was co-founded by Ben Domenech and Sean Davis; senior editors include David Harsanyi and Mollie Hemingway.
    As of September 28, 2017, The Federalist had a "black crime" tag, which aggregated articles related to criminal activity by African-Americans. Dan McLaughlin of National Review, a former Federalist contributor, defended the "black crime" tag on the grounds that it was not very noticeable and that "over a couple of years the tag appeared on only five or six posts."
    In March 2006, Domenech was named as a blogger for The Washington Post, where he would write from the conservative point of view. But only three days after his appointment, on March 21, 2006, Domenech resigned his position, when evidence surfaced that he had earlier plagiarized work that had originally appeared in The New Yorker, The Washington Post, the National Review, and other publications. The Post said it did not know about his plagiarism when the newspaper hired him. Jim Brady, the-then executive editor of Washingtonpost.com, said he would have fired Domenech had he not first offered to quit, because the allegations of plagiarism made it necessary to "sever the relationship."
    More recently, Domenech was involved in a journalism scandal that resulted in the removal of his work from The Washington Examiner and The Huffington Post when it was disclosed that Domenech received $36,000 from Joshua Trevino, a conservative pundit and lobbyist, to write favorable opinion pieces about the government of Malaysia without disclosing the relationship.

    No wonder the right is so familiar with fake news, they are the main producers.
    Reply
  • chugot9218
    Also, why do these useless comments that provide no commentary other than to link to some obviously biased website continue to be featured comments.
    Reply
  • chris.ransdell
    I've been on the net for a LONG time (back when PPP was a big upgrade over SLIP etc!)... I feel like the Internet has done very well for itself (and for mankind) as it has been (almost entirely self regulated in terms of policy and governance).

    My understanding is that the current net neutrality policy was just implemented at the end of the Obama administration. Even if it was at the start of the Obama administration, that is over 20 years after the Internet was pervasive and full of large corporate players. If, over the course of 20 years, there haven't been very many successful attempts at implementing selective pay to play filtering or widespread discriminatory speed restrictions, why is it suddenly the end of the Internet if we don't have extensive net neutrality rules now? It feels like something we're supposed to be very worked up about because 'THEY', the talking heads of the tech world, have decided that the way the Internet has worked since the start (mostly self regulated) is suddenly in desperate need of a bunch of new government regulation.

    Honestly interested in why I seem to be the only tech person who doesn't see this as a clear and present danger because I view the lack of rules to be MORE in line with the Internet's origins and success.
    Reply
  • kiniku
    I don't understand how a government takeover of a service is a win for any industry or people.
    Reply
  • chugot9218
    Please explain how net neutrality as implemented by the Obama administration conflicts with the idea of a free and open internet, all you offered was hyperbole and innuendo. The "self-regulated" internet in the US is ranked 9th in average speed, must have been more of Obama wanting to lead from behind I am sure.
    Reply