The proposal shows how the new rules will comply with other laws and government policies to provide the most freedom.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is skeptical this is a good proposal, freedom-wise. Skepticism is good. They have yet to publish their opinion on whether this proposal will add to our freedom or detract. I’ll have to wait to see what they say.
For now, each of us has to decide if the media and politicians are playing us against our best interests and taking away freedoms.
History and freedom are generally left out of the Net Neutrality debate. Unfortunately, the debate has devolved to a battle of tweets and sound bites with little real substance and few caring about facts. That is the only way most can promote a political agenda. But, what is the pertinent history?
The most important single fact is that for most of the Internet’s life it has been free and unregulated. Only for the last 2-years has it been over-regulated.
An important part of freedom and the engine that has lifted the most people out of poverty is the free market. Shortly after the birth of America, Adam Smith (economist-philosopher 1723-1790) was writing about economics and how the free market naturally evolves when feudal (fascist) oppression is removed. He used the term free market in his writing about human nature and enlightened self-interest. (The Wealth of Nations). He thought government control of the economy was a really bad idea. He promised freedom and hard work would allow you to attain whatever you desire if you could keep oppressive governments off your back. The government was ONLY to be a referee and keep everyone honest.
About a hundred years later Karl Marx (economist-Hegelian philosopher) in challenging Smith’s ideas ran into the problem of trying to make the free market sound bad and changed to using the word Capitalism in place of the free market. He thought humans were a mess and government should control everything to achieve the highest human ideals. He promised utopia if all control were given to the government.
Those descriptions are deliberate oversimplifications.
In 2015, Net Neutrality was a way to give control of the Internet and the system that supports it to the government. The Democrat ideology of ID Politics comes into play dividing the consumer and provider rather than treating them as equals under the law.
In place of people having a choice in how the Internet is run and paid for, the government will take that freedom and tell everyone how it will be done. If the government gets it wrong, citizens will only be able to change it if they can get an act of Congress. Think about how many things the government has messed up and gotten wrong.
Obama’s idea was to give control of the Internet to the U.N. A voting group dominated by dictatorships and anti-democratic ideals. In 2015 Pia was the one FCC board member standing in his way. Anyone following the FCC rules meetings is aware of the efforts of the Democrat members’ attempts to give control of the political content allowed on the Internet to the FCC, government. That would very likely have been the end of free political, if not all, speech on the Internet.
Today the lack of understanding of government, economics, business, and the ideal of citizens in a country being free from government dominance is creating amazing distortions. Pia in fighting for everyone’s freedom is condemned as bad using bogymen and stories of how much more it will cost you.
If you are truly interested in an Internet of low cost, improving quality, and innovation you need to understand what the debate is about and what is actually being proposed. Get past the agenda driven media telling you what they think it is.
I think the long-term view is more important than the short term. Plus, freedom and the free market are always better than a bureaucratic dictatorship.