Net neutrality (the OIO) was overturned today.
Lots of people are upset.
Lost of people are happy.
And almost no one has any idea what they’re talking about.
BTW: If … right now … you don’t know cold that there’s two agencies involved called the FTC and FCC, you should back way off on your opinions. I have found that a huge majority of people conflate these two, much to my dismay.
I will be the first to admit that my views on net neutrality are not fully formed. This is a tough issue, with many nice-sounding and seemingly innocuous pitfalls.
My observation, and it’s not baked enough to even qualify as an analogy, is that if you like your frequent-flyer program, and you approve of the last hotel discount you got, and you like that if you need more milk you can get a discount on a bigger bottle, then you should not favor net neutrality. If we had hotel neutrality, AAA would not be able to get you a discounted hotel room.
Maria Schneider has written a huge piece on this. She’s not an expert, but she’s way more informed about this than you or me. Here goes:
The truth actually seems to be this: the current contrived definition of “net neutrality” really means that ISPs are required to maintain, at their own expense (which is actually the consumer’s expense), a totally “open” set of highways, that are unobstructed by any natural market forces at all, so that Google can drive its fleet of Ferraris at high speeds, with absolutely no traffic rules. It makes Verizon (and therefore us, who pay Verizon’s bills), Google’s bitch. Those of us who use the internet for routine needs (e.g., basic news, government websites, job searching, and a video or movie here and there) end up subsidizing the high-end “luxury” uses of the internet (like heavy YouTube and PornHub use). It’s nonsensical.
Do yourself a favor. Take ten minutes and work through her longread at The Trichordist.






