Thoroughly not supported

The head of the Federal Communications Commission Ajit Pai is proposing removing the net neutrality rules, or open internet rules. The FCC board will, I think, vote on it in mid December. That board has 3 GOP members and 2 Dems.

Removing the open internet rules means that an internet service provider (ISP), a company that connect your computer or phone with the internet, can do such things as:

* Charge you extra for certain content, such as a competitor’s streaming service, because they want to prod you to use their own streaming service.

* Instead, they may slow down the info from certain sites (like competitors), enough that using those sites become irritating to use.

* Or they may simply block some sites. One big internet company, ClearChannel, is owned by fundamentalists. And we know what kinds of sites they would want to block.

I’m lucky that I live in an area that has (I think) four companies that could connect me to the internet. If I get pissed off at the current one (and opposing an open internet is a big reason) I can switch – even though doing so will be a pain because I’d have to change my email address and so many websites I visit are geared to that address.

But two-thirds of American consumers have only one choice of provider. These companies are monopolies.

Melissa McEwan of Shakesville calls this “dreadful news.” “Kyriarchy” is a word she uses for what I call ranking – the widely held belief that some people are supposed hold a societal rank over others.

One of the most dangerous potential outcomes of subverting Net Neutrality is that media with the broadest potential audience — i.e. kyriarchy-upholding garbage, which makes money hand over fist — will be the most cheaply accessible, while specialized media — i.e. kyriarchy-challenging material, which struggles to turn a profit — will be the most expensive, since media producers invested in social justice don't tend to get rich from their work.

That kyriarchy-challenging material refers to any site run by any minority (black or ethnic, LGBT, feminist, Muslim, etc.) that challenges white male supremacy. We may lose our diverse voices.

That prompted a response from reader Ignatius Cheezburger:

The other concern being that if the ISP happens to endorse or support certain political or cultural views as a matter of corporate policy, that ISP can now selectively filter certain content for priority delivery that is in keeping with their views and other content that runs contrary to those views for lower priority delivery, or no delivery at all. For example, NARAL or Planned Parenthood suddenly finds its alerts and updates getting bounced from all of its members within the ClearChannel family. Not good. Not good at all.

McEwan urges us to make noise in Congress and mentions ways to do so. I’ve done it and urge you to do it to.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, in a series of tweets, notes how thoroughly this move by Pai is not supported by the public – 1000 small business owners, investors, and tech startups. 900 video creators whose content is viewed by 240 million viewers. 200 international businesses. 52 racial justice, civil rights, and human rights organizations. Dozens of ISPs across the country. 120,000 libraries. Privacy organizations. Attorneys General from a dozen states. 60 mayors. National Association of Realtors. 1.52 [ETA] million comments in opposition left on the cumbersome FCC website versus only 23,000 in favor. 77% of Americans (73% of GOP and 80% of Dems) as shown by a poll.

So if the public and virtually every facet of Internet culture (including ISPs) oppose the FCC’s plan, then why are we even going down this path? To put it simply: the FCC is not serving the public interest but is rather serving the interests of the very few but massively vertically integrated ISPs that support the current agency’s agenda.

Put another way: campaign cash.

In reply Paul Geffen tweeted:

Also the interests of the government in controlling access to information and communication.