- Calling it a rosebud does not make a turd not a turd
- Consider using Brave as free Web browser, alternative to Mozilla/Firefox and others
Trump appointee to head the FCC Ajit Pai is set on undoing Obama era “net neutrality “ regulations, favoring a more hands off role for the FCC. Accordingly the rent-seekers’ long knives are out. Confusion and propaganda are their allies.
Ask people whether they support “net neutrality” and many will say “sounds good to me,” with little or no understanding of what the term is used as cover for. A confounding rhetorical coup to some extent, it is like “pro-choice” — who isn’t in broad theory? But when the propagandists use the term they have a select purposeful intention – abortion on demand at any time for any reason. Conservatives have made some gains to expose the lies and hypocrisy behind purveyors of the term but it can be confounding.
Net neutrality is in its own way another abortion of language. The supporters do not want less government involvement in internet regulation, they want more. They do not want free unfettered market they want the mechanism of government control well established. They do not want the reduction in barriers to entry for technology companies as service providers and competitors they want favored treatment of their own. They want what will devolve to protected territory.
Net neutrality propagandists complain about gouging as if that ever made business sense while seeking their own protected “rents” from a position of market force and government influence. Follow the money trail of those who complain about others while advocating “net neutrality” and their committment to free and unfettered internet appears less than sincere. Look at who and what they support in furtherance of their just as self-serving advocacy of government control.
Informative reads on the subject. First up, via The Federalist:
How To Keep Your Online Browsing Unfiltered By Political Propaganda
By pushing so hard against half of the country, tech companies may have shown an Achilles heel, allowing freedom-centric competitors to get their feet in the door.
Alarms first sounded for conservatives when Mozilla, creators of the Firefox browser, fired their CEO over his financial support of California’s Proposition 8—a referendum against recognizing gay marriage that a majority of Californian voters passed.
The article refers to alternative browsers and search engines that are actually more neutral (not PC oriented) than what currently dominates the internet. The author suggests switching from Mozzilla to perhaps Brave – a browser that was started by a former Mozilla executive (see story). We are currently using it. It is at this point slower in some aspects but we delight in its automatic pop-up ad blocker and other features. Hopefully the speed will increase as we make whatever adjustments are necessary on the user end. Transition will take some time due to handling of bookmarks, which are transferable but which we have not quite learned to conveniently use as yet in using the platform. We had the same problems which worked themselves out, when we first switched to Mozilla years ago.
This article at The American Consumer (worthy site we will provide an ongoing link to) points out the confusion in people’s mind. Propagandists can count on elements of the media to provide a false impression of the subject through headline writing. The poll refered to, commissioned by Mozilla (see story above which references them) would not lend confidence to their position except as they can depend on superficial portrayals.
What Mozilla’s “Net Neutrality” Poll Really Tells Us – (excerpt)
Most Americans Do Not Trust the Federal Government to Govern Access to Their Internet
Virtually half the country does not trust the federal government to interfere with their internet access, which is precisely what the 2015 Obama-era order did when it relied on Title II classification of broadband internet access. Proponents of Title II Net Neutrality are calling for “the strongest possible” government oversight, but Mozilla’s own survey undercuts any claim to having wide support among consumers for this.
The site Information Station offers information on how government policies affect people, they have a relevent and worthy post:
Remove Government Regulations from the Internet–Net Neutrality Impedes Online Commerce
Conservative think tank Heritage Foundation back a few years ago posted:
Net Neutrality Rules: Still a Threat to Internet Freedom
CATO, a libertarian organization in a recent article about “net neutrality” offered a list of synopsis of articles with links explaining various objections to net neutrality. (excerpts from more extensive list)
• Gerald Faulhaber explains that service quality will suffer to the extent that internet access providers can’t charge more for streams that impose greater costs on the system.
• Dennis Weisman points out that internet regulation will likely protect competitors from competition rather than serve consumer interests, just like the old telephone regulatory scheme did.
• And Larry Downes argues that the movement to re-regulate telecom is propelled by some firms’ quest for rents under new regulation, and by the FCC wanting to regain its former political power and the benefits that come with it.
Hopefully, Pai’s efforts will mean that bad regulations on internet service will be thwarted before they have been allowed to take hold. However, the news isn’t entirely good. As this June 2016 post explains, an appeals court approved the Obama rate-of-return regulations despite previous court rejections of other attempts to regulate the internet under different provisions of the Telecommunications Act. The 2016 decision may complicate Pai’s attempt to reverse course.
Heritage, The Federalist and CATO oppose net neutrality. We trust their analysis.
R Mall
