I am not familiar with exactly what the current rules are but apparently, if the effort currently is to end a current government regulation, then it is probably a good thing. Most government intervention in the economy results in LESS competition and LESS free trade and any time one restricts access to the buying public, the result is higher prices for consumers and less choice.
The internet has brought about monumental change in our society and culture and many aspects of our economy. And like almost all change, some of it is beneficial and some of it is not. The more free and open and unfettered the internet and access thereto becomes, the better for the public. But, that does not mean that everything about the continuing expansion and intertwining of the information 'super highway' will be pleasant or 'good' in the eyes of many. The uncontrolled disemination of information has its risks as has been so apparent in recent years with the explosion of 'news' from sources not all that reliable and often those sources have ulterior motives and hidden agendas. Lies, slander and lible, defamation, misrepresentation and other destructive or harmful information and misinformation is rampant in our society today. The speed of false rumors and outright fabrications to be circulated amongst the populous is unprecedented in world history.
As bad as this may be, it is almost not debatable that having any government in control as the speech regulator would be the beginning of the end of freedom for all. The legal system is decades behind the curve in providing mechanisms for proper redress of libel and slander in this environment, not so much because there are no tort actions that would provide remedies for wrongful internet communications, but rather that the ability to publish without appropriate identification of those creating the speech enables the malicious ones to avoid accountability. And coupled with the ability to rapidly spread the malicious utterances maximizes the damage done. This sort of thing was not possible prior to the internet's arrival.
The inhibition of monopoly power by the biggest players in the web world is certainly a worthy effort but the focus has to be the maintenance of competitors to enter the marketplace and not, in the process of controlling those, making it more difficult or impossible for new entrants. But, there is an ever growing government interest in preventing the people from exptressing their dissatisfaction with government intrusion into their lives. Keeping voices of dissent from being heard is the biggest single threat to liberty and the diminution of individual civil rights and freedom in general.
The broad overview of current rules (not sure if the new FCC Chairman's directives have taken effect yet) states that the internet is to function like a public utility.
Public utilities just provide service to people who pay. Public utilities do not decide which customers get preferred service.
Under new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, he wants to re-classify how the internet is defined. He wants to move it away from the "public utility" model and allow internet providers to prioritize which traffic has the best/fastest speeds. There are also regulations protecting consumers and our privacy. Those are on the chopping block also.
net neutrality, a rule created in 2015 that prevents internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against internet traffic.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/technology/trumps-fcc-quickly-targets-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=0
The reason net neutrality is so important is because is keeps the internet free where all ideas can compete. In business, a little mom and pop place can appear in the same search as a mega-corporation offering the same good and/or service.
Once net neutrality ends, internet providers will then get to dictate which content you see. This will invariably cause businesses to get into a bidding war because obviously, you'd want your company to appear at the top of any search. When businesses start paying more and more to make sure their traffic/sites are the priority, they're going to raise prices on consumers.
If companies can't, or won't, pay the prices internet providers demand, access to their sites will be slowed down or restricted altogether.
Basically, doing away with net neutrality gives ISPs a free pass to engage in legalized extortion.
And it's not just businesses at risk either. Free speech will be stifled. Imagine if content that criticizes Trump is completely restricted and denied. You may, in a moment of delusion, think that would be great. But imagine what you would think if it was Obama, and those on the left in power, and they wanted to stifle your criticism of them? You'd be rightfully outraged.
A free, neutral, and open internet is the only way to go. Yes, that means that groups like isis, nazis, and other disgusting hate-mongers have their content equal to content promoting tolerance and peace, but that's what freedom means.
84HuskerLaw, please read up on net neutrality and join the fight to keep the internet free and neutral.
