For those who say, well, the new net neutrality order will fix everything, (assuming it makes it through various, expected court battles), I'll detail a few of the good things about the order as it relates to these charges, then give you the reality -- it doesn't fix most things.
Republicans are screaming like someone stole the champagne from the RNC refrigerator. Verizon and its fellow broadband providers, like Comcast, are screaming, too. They threaten to sue the FCC... again. But as I wrote here many months ago, such threats ring empty.
The FCC's decision is one of the most pro-business policies ever enacted by an agency under the Obama administration. Yet the so-called defenders of business refuse to see it.
Chattanooga has proven to everyone else that having a public option for internet, cable, and phone service is better for consumers. And though the big companies would never admit it, the competition that socialist local broadband networks provide is the heart of the free-market capitalism they claim to espouse.
By now, if the telecom companies had kept their promises we might well have a national broadband network that would be the envy of the world. Instead many consider the United States a laggard in high speed, affordable broadband.
The Internet is not black and white, and it is most certainly not sacred. We seem to have merely added more complexity to its already nuanced nature.
The battle continues. The history of media reform tells us that if we ignore core systemic problems like the power of monopolies and the lack of structural diversity, important protections like net neutrality can be short-lived.
While it is great that Net Neutrality principles, which means that they can't screw with your Internet service, may be put into effect, it belies the more pervasive problems -- you may not be able to afford (or want to pay for) that service or get that service or have a choice about who offers you that service.
On February 26th, 2015, Verizon put out a press release claiming that the FCC's Net Neutrality decision was a "throwback that imposes 1930's rules on the Internet". And they put out an additional release in the language of a telegraph to reinforce this view point.
Who should make decisions affecting the health and safety of our communities? Who governs? Conservative Republicans in Texas are split on the question.
The city, of all our geopolitical institutions, needs to reinvent itself for this new global age. The FCC decision gives them the incentive.
Escape to the Rockies in our latest latest Week to Week news quiz. Here are some random but real hints: That was Martin Landau; big ISPs aren't happy...
Once the entire Open Internet (Net Neutrality) rules are put out (we have only an outline as of this writing), you can expect a lawyers' banquet, a feeding frenzy where they will file and file and file.
Leave it to Washington, D.C., to hand Americans what is probably the greatest consumer victory from that town in a decade and then fail to show them the actual rules. There's no question that the FCC made history. The issue is how big of a win is it.
While there are some reasons for optimism, a looming renewed threat comes from those who failed to get SOPA legislation passed three years ago.
This is what democracy looks like. That's not something I thought I'd ever say about the bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission. After years of cronyism, corruption and cowardice, Thursday's vote for strong Net Neutrality rules at the FCC is unexpected if not unprecedented.