We the People, for Net Neutrality

A LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FCC.

Greetings friends! I find it fitting my first post on Steemit would be related to the internet!

The internet is a beautiful thing. What with all the kittens, sex kittens, pizza kittens...there's alot to appreciate on the World Wide Web. The complexity of the internet lies within it's simplicity: You post something, you upload something, it's there. You want to check out who lost the battle of Waterloo? It was Napoleon of course (sorry my dude), and you'd be pleased as punch to know you can find it with just a simple keyword search on Google: "Who Won Waterloo"

Three words and the press of the Enter key, and you're exposed to over 1,000,000 pages containing those keywords or relating to them.

1,000,000 pages.

A FUCKING MILLION.

I wonder if many of us have ever even read 100,000.

Why do I bring all this up about the good ol' Net?

Well, because the internet as we know it is in pretty big danger (HYSTERICS COMMENCE).

Net Neutrality, or "Keep the internet free, fuckers" is a pretty big thing. How big?

Well, for those of you joining us late in this topic, net neutrality is the idea that all connections/data from or to any legal website should be as open and usable as the next.

For the last 15 years (a.k.a the maturing time of the internet, God bless you Rick Roll), the F.C.C has taken a widely pro-free stance regarding net neutrality.

With net neutrality, for example, AT&T is required to allow you to watch movies on YouTube with the same data speeds as it allows you to watch U-verse programming.

Without net neutrality, AT&T is not required to allow you to visit YouTube at all, but, don't worry, the powers at be know you're gonna want all the content YouTube is going to have to offer, so they'd be happy to allow you to access YouTube again at the same speed you watch U-verse...for a price.

Now let's be clear, just because net neutrality may get revised into something new (hhhhngnnggggnnngggg), doesn't mean that this dystopic future will come about.

BUT WHAT IT DOES MEAN:

Is there is now a possibility that it can.

At the current moment, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (Ajit Pai), has advanced plans to revamp our policies regarding net neutrality. I implore everyone to get in contact with their local congressmen and implore them to stop the actions being undertaken by the FCC.

You can also email Mr. Pai yourself at Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov

WRITE A PERSONAL LETTER TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND THE CHAIR PEOPLE OF THE FCC.

I sent this earlier today, I had to.

Letter:

"Good day Mr. Pai, I hope this letter reaches you well.

Lately I have bourne witness to many a story commenting on your desire to rescind the terms and conditions related to net neutrality and the internet as a utility in favor of transparent stipulations regarding throttling and access from ISPs.
In essence, I understand what you want to do benevolently. You wish to require that ISPs and data network providers show consumers what their practices are as far as limiting or opening connections go. You want to restructure the utilities that these ISPs operate through as a classification seperate from a utility/carrier, and allow for relaxation of the market restrictions.

While I appreciate the laissez-faire approach to our economy, this move will be harmful in the long run to our economy.
It's almost assured that through allowing ISPs to limit or unlimit seperate connections to lawful websites you will create a setting that encourages ISPs to set up higher prices on their services with the rationale that they can now choose who/what entity they (solely for example) wish to allow access to.

In the short run this is an advantageous tactic, I'd say. Creation of new tiers of internet service at different price points create different systems of moving money, and ultimately this can increase the revenues of ISPs, increase the amount of taxes they spend, and as well serve to allow greater corporate freedom in exercising their wishes over their businesses.
That's only the short run though as I will elaborate on further shortly. Mind you that any and all additional revenue to the federal or state level governments will come as a result of taxes already levied or new fees/taxes added, and both of these are not very Republican in nature to impose if you toe the party's original line.

So if you won't raise taxes or ask for new taxes to be levied on these new tiered systems (by the way if you did, I'm sure consumers will have to foot the bill by the corporate logic), what does the government have to gain from these new regulations and policies regarding net neutrality?

So we discussed, albeit very briefly, the short term advantages.

Now let's talk about the long term disadvantages.
In the long run, information will be stifled. It's akin to the olden days of yon, where in order to learn (or cite something, even for a paper) one usually had to go to the library in order to search book after book for a small fact. Some have actually had to purchase additional educational materials in order to, let's say, find a single answer you were looking for.

While the more consumers spend, the more money is moving, it doesn't mean that that economic shift is for the better of all parties involved.

If we limit the internet by allowing internet providers the freedom to pick and choose what data speeds they can leverage for whatever site, we effectively stifle our self interests as individuals in favor of economic development. As we discussed, doing so can be beneficial to the statistics sheet of a country, but true benefit lies deeper than numbers alone.

Combining legislation that aims to reduce corporate taxes (an item on the agenda of Congress) combined with allowing corporations to control the otherwise "free" internet with money as the impetus, we effectively cut American citizens out of the picture, and that is where your interests are founded Mr. Pai.

We aren't going to get to reap the fruits of the additional money we will spend each month to continue doing what we've been doing previously for less money. The interest in rescinding net neutrality lies only in short term self-interested economical affairs and serve no conducive end towards a utopic goal.

There doesn't seem to be any benefit to this revision, should it pass, past stating that "ISPs will be required to show what and how they throttle their speeds."

That's not even really a benefit. It's actually more like a threat that's actualized and documented rather than just spoken.

"We're gonna limit your videos today and instead of having you wonder if we did or not we're going to make sure you know and justify it by saying your service tier doesn't afford a higher speed or that website. "

Isnt it your job to enable better communication and advance our infrastructure, not to enable the profiteering of our corporate interests?

What do you get out of this? What do you feel will come from this situation? I have been keeping close tabs on your reasoning and of yet I haven't quite realized what the long term gain is here for the general public.
I can easily tell you the long term gain for ISPs and even more so for government "security" (it's easier to police an internet that isn't so integrated, interestingly).

I stand to reason Mr. Pai that if you change the rules regarding our internet, the fallout for (not to mention from, beware) our country and people will be tremendous. I implore you to keep to your oaths and do right by the people you've promised and contracted to serve, not the corporate entities who serve a monetary purpose.

Again, I hope this message reaches you well.

Please make the right choice
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME HERE "