Hello, Kossacks!
There is a must read article over at Vox that expands on the concepts I blogged about when it comes to explaining Net Neutrality, how the interconnections negotiated by Netflix wouldn't be covered under Net Neutrality as we know it, and provides amazing explanatory graphics that visualize exactly what sort of harm an FCC "fast lane" would cause.
As Timothy B. Lee states:
Yet Wheeler's decision to water down network neutrality regulations isn't even the biggest threat to the open internet right now. The internet itself is changing in ways that threatens to make the conventional net neutrality debate almost irrelevant. In recent weeks, Netflix has agreed to pay first Comcast and then Verizon for private connections directly to their respective networks. Netflix signed these deals under protest, charging that it had been coerced to pay "tolls" just to deliver content to their own customers.
That might sound like a net neutrality violation, but the practice doesn't actually run afoul of the network neutrality rules advocates have been pushing for the last decade. Those rules ban "fast lanes" for content that arrives over the internet backbone, the shared information super highway that carries the bulk of the internet traffic today. But what Netflix paid Comcast and Verizon for amounts to a new, private highway just for Netflix traffic. Conventional network neutrality rules don't regulate this kind of deal.
These private connections are going to be increasingly important to the American internet in the coming years. That might force net neutrality proponents to go back to the drawing board. Otherwise they might win the battle for net neutrality and still lose the war for a level playing field on the internet.
He lays out the problems myself and others have been warning you about:
There's also a danger that large internet service providers will abuse their monopoly power. Most of the leading American broadband companies also sell paid television services that compete directly with online streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Instant Video. Network owners might be tempted to relegate online video services to the slow lane to prevent them from becoming a competitive threat to their lucrative paid television businesses. Or they might charge competing services a big markup for access to the fast lane, ensuring that they won't be able to undercut them on price.
A final problem is that a multi-tiered business model could give ISPs perverse incentives. An ISP might be tempted to make its slow lane slower — or at least not upgrade it very quickly — to encourage content companies to pony up for fast-lane status.
...and above all else, I really encourage you all to follow the link and read the article, because the infographics there do an amazing job at giving you a visual image of what these different proposals all look like.
While this doesn't address the zero-rated data threat on the wireless end of things, I have yet to find a more complete explanation of the Net Neutrality and open Internet battle.
So what can you do about it?
Stay informed. Daily Kos has been great about keeping this issue at the forefront, both with the Front Page crew and other posters. Read articles about the issues. Educate yourself and others on why we need a neutral, open Internet.
Petition the FCC and White House. Make sure our leaders and their appointed officials are aware of the strength of our will when it comes to this issue.
Prepare to boycott companies that don't support a neutral and open Internet. If we can't keep the laws and regulations on our side, we'll have to hit them in the pocketbook.
Get involved. This is our future. Act like it.