Net Neutrality should be no secret

 

Let’s pause momentarily for a sigh of relief. Kitten videos, brownie recipes and independent films are safe – for now. The  Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently voted in favor of protecting the right to indiscriminate Internet service. This means that Congress and corporations like Verizon and Comcast cannot provide “fast lanes” to pump up their profits.

The equality in speed and filter of all websites is commonly referred to as net neutrality. It prevents Comcast from swallowing smaller fish like Hulu, Netflix and other, much smaller companies. If ISPs (internet service providers) got away with this, then instead of businesses like Netflix who charge just under $10 a month for their services,  expect to pay more like $45.

If you were trying to start a blog, it would have been difficult to gain loyal readers who would wade the slow connection if big businesses were allowed to create shortcuts.

The argument allowing monopolies to create fast lanes as a part of the free market is invalid, because eventually it would be harder for young markets to enter the ring. That isn’t so free, now, is it?

At The Advocate, we are in favor of the open Internet. We see net neutrality in synergy with freedom of speech, simply because the Internet is our main channel for globally communicating our ideas and perceptions.

What if big businesses didn’t care for certain political or ideological platforms? They could invest money into creating a fast circuit to steer consumers to the information they prefer to be dispersed.

So, we applaud the FCC for its sensitivity to the people’s demand for Internet equality, but that doesn’t mean we should bow down and kiss its members’ feet quite yet.

Unfortunately, the FCC has yet to release the official pertinent document detailing the rules protecting the equality of the public’s domain.  Its lack of openness on the topic of open Internet is shady. What kind of a catch is there to keep the playing field level?

After we’ve gone hoarse voicing our concerns to the FCC and our ISPs, it looks like we must plead once more, only this time to know the details of the FCC’s decision.  We have right to know who’s behind all of the policies. We have a right to know how those policies will affect our buffer, and how they will protect us against corporate fraud.

The government shouldn’t intrude on our freedom of speech, or in this case, the outlet of free speech, unless it’s coupled with violence and danger, as in inciting riots. But that’s why we have a Constitution that lets the people know the basic legislations and our rights. Anything that is changed in terms of those basic laws should be updated in the Constitution as well as in other legal documents. It is therefore wrong for Congress to have rules in place, such as in Internet neutrality, without informing the public.

The Internet is a public domain. We, the people, own it. Not only would ISPs sacrifice trivial things like brownie recipes, but non-dominant groups, say, people of color, would lose their voice in the overbearing mass marketing flood the Internet has become. What if ISPs made the Internet more about expanding the market for profit, instead of sharing freedom fighter stories that help us understand and fight the injustices in the world? The Internet impacts our daily life and knowledge. If net neutrality were to be compromised, how much less attention would we pay to real world matters just because it’s easier to open Amazon and buy crap?

You can’t put a price on humanity.

*Include other reasons for why the internet should continue to be an open market. Expand on the use of the internet for startups, truly small businesses and entrepreneurs. These small business create more jobs, etc. Another reason is that an open internet allows communities of color to tell their stories and rally for social justice. Mainstream media does not provide an equal platform and only a handful of broadcast stations are owned by people of color.