- Jan 2018
-
doc-0s-c0-docs.googleusercontent.com doc-0s-c0-docs.googleusercontent.com
-
If US legislators and net neutrality advocates really want to protect the rights of internet users, they should call for the removal of barriers to entry for up-and-coming ISP
Making the internet more fair for all ISP's and allowing for competition for bigger ISP's, plus protecting the rights of the users by allowing them a free/open internet.
-
consumers would simply choose ISPs that allowed them to access the entire internet or at least the websites that they wished to see. Individual consumers would still decide what they access on the internet and how
It would be similar to cable plans where you choose which plan lets you see the channels you want (or the websites in this case).
-
The only reason it has accrued the economic power to do so in the first place is because it has provided a valuable service or product that has proven popular w ith consumers over the long-term.
This could turn the higher up and more popular ISP's into almost a monopoly for the internet. The internet has become an important resource to the people of this day and age and it not being free would not help the smaller companies.
-
a ‘fast lane, slow lane’ internet would emerge where internet users would eschew websites unable to pay for priority service in favour of those that are.
Continues to describe how the internet service wouldn't be fair to smaller sites, in turn making them way slower, and causing people not to go to them due to the lack of browsing speed.
-
bloggers, niche news sources and small websites generally—will be priced out of the market for priority service and consigned to a much poorer internet experience.
Taking away net neutrality will make it way harder for small business and "niche news sources" to be able to run their sites and they will be way slower due to high costs to run them.
-
sor Timothy Wu in 2003, is that every byte of data on the i
Saying that while everything on the internet is different yet they should be treated with the same respect.
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
-
doc-0g-c0-docs.googleusercontent.com doc-0g-c0-docs.googleusercontent.com
-
Finds that the public interest is not served by adding to the already-voluminous record in this proceeding additional materials, including confidential materials submitted in other proceedings
Stating that the public isn't interested in seeing the information from other proceedings similar to this since there is a lot of record already.
-
Finds that transparency, combined with market forces as well as antitrust and consumer protection laws, achieve benefits comparable to those of the 2015 “bright line” rules at lower cost.
The FCC is trying to push that it's cheaper for the companies (ISP's) to not tell their users about everything and be completely "transparent"
-
Requires that ISPs disclose information about their practices to consumers, entrepreneurs, and the Commission, including any blocking, throttling, paid prioritization, or affiliated prioritization
Currently, the ISP's have to notify internet users about any changes they make to the service; however, that would be taken away if this passes.
-
Restores broadband consumer protection authority to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), enabling it to apply its extensive expertise to provide uniform online protections against unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive practices.
The bullet point is stating that the FTC is protecting/fighting against unfair practices toward users.
-
FCC today also adopted robust transparency requirements that will empower consumers as well as facilitate effective government oversight of broadband providers’ conduct
This is saying that the ISP's (Internet Service Providers) can hide/not inform customers about what they are getting into with the contracts.
-