Net Neutrality: 'Father Of Internet' Joins Tech Leaders in Condemning Repeal Plan (theguardian.com)

More than 20 internet pioneers and leaders including the "father of the internet", Vint Cerf; the inventor of the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee; and the Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak have urged the FCC to cancel its vote to repeal net neutrality, describing the plan as "based on a flawed and factually inaccurate" understanding of how the internet works. From a report: "The FCC's rushed and technically incorrect proposed order to repeal net neutrality protections without any replacement is an imminent threat to the internet we worked so hard to create. It should be stopped," said the technology luminaries in an open letter to lawmakers (PDF) with oversight of the Federal Communications Commission on Monday. The letter refers to the FCC's proposed Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which removes net neutrality protections introduced in 2015 to ensure that internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon would treat all web content and applications equally and not throttle, block or prioritise some content in return for payment. The FCC's vote on the proposed order is scheduled for 14 December and it is expected to be approved. "It is important to understand that the FCC's proposed order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology," the internet pioneers state, adding that the flaws were outlined in detail in a 43-page comment submitted by 200 tech leaders to the FCC in July.

Comments

Legal Phrasing

[sconeu]

It's not phrased in legal terms, therefore Pai will ignore it.

Of course, if it was phrased the way he wanted, he'd find another reason to ignore it.

Re:Legal Phrasing

[mean pun]

Are you really insinuating that Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, and Steve Wozniak are shills? You're sure you're not a shill yourself?

Re:Legal Phrasing

[mean pun]

"obabas congress" is a rather misleading term. A better phrase would be "the congress that Obama had to fight and circumvent to get anything done".

Re:Legal Phrasing

[JohnFen]

"Light touch" regulation failed. ISPs began to abuse their positions, and that's why NN became a thing.

It's true that if we could somehow get a real competitive market in place where people had real options for where people get their internet service from, we wouldn't need anything like NN. I suspect that everyone (except the ISPs) would prefer that solution.

However, that appears to be an impossible goal. So, the next best thing is something like NN regulations.

The worst possible thing is the FCC's position of just letting the ISPs do as they please. The FCC is saying "fuck you" to us all -- either we have to be OK with bending over for the ISPs or we get to do without the internet.

Oh wait, you're serious.

[mcmonkey]

"It is important to understand that the FCC's proposed order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology."

It's not they don't understand. It's that they don't care. Or put another way, it's not a bug, it's a feature.

The powers-that-be behind the repeal of Net Neutrality know what the effects will be. They're counting on them.

Re:Does *anyone* actually support repeal?

[Tablizer]

Re:Does *anyone* actually support repeal?...besides Trump and Big Business / the cable providers I mean...

If Fox News, Rush L., Breitbart News, and their copy-cats say "it's good", most their readers/viewers will believe it uncritically.

If "the liberals" hate it, it must be good. It's being spun as a plot by liberals to gain control of the media and make government bigger, giving the gov't more power to force socialism on red states, outlaw Christmas, take away their guns, create welfare-dependent zombies who vote for more welfare, etc. Basically, an old-fashioned slippery-slope argument.

Their script is pretty predictable by now for anyone who has followed politics for a few decades.