With full 1984 doublespeak the FCC calls it “Net Neutrality,” but there is nothing ‘neutral’ about it. In fact, small businesses, nonprofits, ministries and churches could find themselves stuck in the slow lane of the information superhighway; or to the furthest extreme, completely blocked by Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
Forget about live streaming your church services or building your online platform, if Net Neutrality comes to pass, none of this will matter anymore. An open and equal Internet is the backbone of what has made the online world so great. Are you an aspiring writer? Journalist? Videographer? Animator? Consider yourself muscled out by publishers with the FCC’s proposed new world web.
Let’s break it down into simpler terms and you’ll see what I mean. Let’s start talking about Net Neutrality by hearing from our favorite YouTube explainer guy, CGP Grey:
Internet Citizens: Defend Net Neutrality
[tentblogger-youtube wtt2aSV8wdw]
[YouTube]
This makes sense, doesn’t it?
We want to avoid this:
And here’s another take, from Vi Hart:
Net Neutrality in the US: Now What?
[tentblogger-youtube NAxMyTwmu_M]
[YouTube]
Now the FCC’s ruling on Net Neutrality took an interesting twist this week. While the above image may not happen — consumers being charged directly — the neutrality of the Internet is still at stake:
“Net neutrality refers to the principle that Internet providers should not block or slow certain websites. But Wheeler’s proposal has sparked a firestorm for allowing providers like AT&T and Verizon to charge companies like Google and Facebook for faster delivery of their content. That has many asking if the final rule will actually amount to true net neutrality.”
So while the FCC’s actions may not allow carriers to penalize content creators, it would allow them to sell an advantage to others. Doesn’t that give us the same result? I think so. It creates a disparity that should not exist on the Internet.
As The Verge pointed out: “The real battle for net neutrality just began.”
The Real Battle for Net Neutrality Just Began
“Now that it’s passed, the proposal will move into a 60-day public comment period, followed by 60 more days for response. Senior counsel Gigi Sohn has previously said the agency hopes to have a framework in place by the end of the year.”
Preserving data equality means equal speed for all data. Tell the FCC that you support Net Neutrality without a designated fast lane. ISPs should be regulated as Common Carriers and required to provide an equal level of service and should not be allowed to selectively adjust Internet bandwidth or throughput based on any criteria.
Paul Alan Clifford (@paulalanclif) says
Video streaming (both live and recorded) and podcasting are particularly vulnerable to this. Call your congress people today!!! We’ve got to stop this in whatever way is possible.
Sean Deminski says
Your biased and uneducated view on net neutrality is appauling.
It represents not just a “everything should be free culture” but more of a “someone else should pay for it” culture.
What has sparked innovation in the internet is the pursuit of profit. I,f like what you purpose, the intenet becomes a public utility, or private one regulated by the government, forget about companies like Comcast and Verizon improving their grid. And forget about other companies like Google and Facebook getting into the game and creating new technology, why would they?
Clearly we are in a tech bubble, look at what companies like WHATS APP are being sold for… that’s money that’s not being invested into new technology.
Personally I think it’s wrong for companies like Facebook and Google to be valued more than the companies that put the actual wires in the ground to provide access to those sites.
Phil Schneider says
I want to reply to this, but I really don’t know what half of it has to deal with what’s included in this post. Treating ISP’s as a common carrier would not make them a public entity, and all private entities are under some government regulation. Consumers have signed up for Internet service expecting to have access to the Internet, not have pro-rated or tiered access to certain parts of it.
Eric Dye says
Facebook and Google are NOT valued more than the companies that put actual wires in public property and then charge residents to use those lines. Are the home appliance companies held in higher regard than the electric company?
Also, I think it’s wrong for Facebook and Google to be valued more than lesser known service (as currently proposed tiered services) because they are willing to fork over money to Comcast and Verizon.
A ‘biased’ opinion? Yes. Opinions are bias in nature. ‘Uneducated’? Considering what I’ve presented in comparison to what you’ve proposed, it seems a rather “trollish” response.
🙂
Sean says
Well I definitely don’t want to come off as “trollish” and fully apologize for the tone.
I admit I was a bit charged in my response and respect that Church mag is usually pretty open to discussing different ideas.
The topic does generally get treated with an emotional appeal, labeling “Comcast and it’s buddies [Verizon?]” as the enemy. I do believe there is another side that isn’t getting much press, where maybe there are other reasons besides greed and “monopoly” for why this is being purposed.
Personally, I think it’s unfair to require a company (Comcast) to provide a service (Netflix, Hulu, etc) that directly eats into their own profit (cable tv). I would rather see people who don’t want to pay for cable, just not watch as much TV. instead of trying to game the system, and then complain when the system catches up (not this post)
If Net neutrality is advanced, I see the end of unlimited bandwidth.
The real question is what would this mean for churches or The Church? I think it would make it harder for churches who “dabble” with internet ministry, but easier for those who take it seriously enough to invest in it. I imagine churches across the country ask that question everyday… dabble? or invest? (and partly why Churchm.ag exists)
again, sorry for the poor ediquate (and spelling LOL!)
Phil Schneider says
I think you’ve brought up some really good points, especially about Comcast losing profits due to delivering services like Netflix.
I look at this in two ways: 1) It seems unfair to the consumer to provide intentionally inferior service for some content without disclosing this in plain English to the consumer. 2) Comcast is in a bad position. They are tasked with delivery a competitors content, since Netlfix is essentially a direct competitor to Comcast. I don’t think I’d trust any company in that position.
KC Procter says
Sean – really appreciate your follow up comment and think you make some great points. Glad to have you as a ChurchMag fan.
I’m kind of in the middle on net neutrality because I’m trying to see both sides. However, where Comcast is concerned (as an existing customer), I pay for a specific internet speed/bandwidth regardless of the content I’m consuming. I’m not a big Netflix user (once or twice a month??), but if I’m paying Comcast for access to the internet, limiting the speed of certain sites would be like AT&T making me pay extra for call clarity when I’m on the phone with a relative vs tech support.
If internet providers wants to charge customers more who use more bandwidth that’s their right. Just like AT&T can charge a customer more if they exceed the limit of their data plan. However, the content flowing on that bandwidth is none of their business.
Does that make sense? I need a nap and don’t know if I did a good job.
-KC
Eric Dye says
Good points, KC. I think KC’s telephone analogy is good, moreover, we can look at media history to see where this is headed – as we’ve been here before.
When TV came onto the scene (excuse the pun), they said it was going to be the end of radio and film. While it did require evolution on the part of all the involved mediums to separate themselves from the pack, I think we would all agree that innovation won out and the consumer got the best end of it. Remember, people used to ‘watch the news’ at the movie theatre, not to mention radio’s complete transformation in program format.
As for today, for cable companies to fight Netflix and video streaming with Net Neutrality is a losing battle. Technology will find a path of least resistance and technologies will emerge that will bypass Comcast and others easily. If cable companies really want to win at this, they need to focus on creating content consumers find good enough to consume, instead of trying to block other creatives.
I’m proud that ChurchMag is a place that allows disagreement, discussion, and brotherly loves. Thank you for voice, Sean. 🙂
Michael Beil says
So, where’s the ISP that Eric will now be providing to common folk?