So, over the last week there have been more articles written on the impending vote.
One techno-geek who's bucking the average techno-geek trend, writes that Pai's proposal actually does one simple thing: deletes some redundant rules. In other words, the previous section of the Net Neutrality rules already covers what Pai is asking to be deleted; so this techno believes the change will have little, if any, effect. In his opinion, the only thing that's changed is, like I've written above, service providers' comments like the one from Comcast (where they change from saying they won't implement fast lanes, to now saying they won't impose anti-competitive fast lanes).
Another article identifies that the same Republicans who opposed the net neutrality rules, spouting things like "it's over 400 pages long" (when in reality, the actual rules are only 8 pages; the rest of the document explains each of the rules), are now supporting Pai's proposal - which is over 200 pages long, and obviously just limits the explanatory parts.
And my favorite article, which supports the first paragraph above, is about Google and Amazon. Remember, there are two parts to net neutrality: Content and Service. Amazon, Google, Netflix, Facebook, et al are the Content providers; Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Time-Warner, et al are the Service Providers.
If you have Amazon devices, and are trying to visit YouTube, you may see a message that says "YouTube will no longer work on this device after January 1." This is because Google is feuding with Amazon. Remember, these are both content providers. In other words, you have two content providers who are opposing the FCC proposal next week and are allegedly staunch supporters of net neutrality, that are limiting what you and I, the consumers, can access.
In other words, what they're saying is, net neutrality applies to Service Providers, not Content Providers.
Does anyone else think this is hypocrisy?
As I think I've mentioned previously, the problem with implementing government regulations over the internet, is that Congress doesn't understand the internet. Secondarily, the internet doesn't really fit the model of either the FCC or the FTC; so who should be the regulatory body is also grossly misunderstood.
So in the long run, I can't offer an opinion to anyone about which way to go on this. I support the overall concept of net neutrality; as a communications and information medium, especially in this day and age, no one should be limited from being able to access information or engage in communication. I acknowledge, understand, and even support that Content Providers and Service Providers are companies that need to make money in order to grow and provide better service. HOWEVER, when both the Content Providers and Service Providers are paying lip service to Net Neutrality, there's only one final conclusion: Net Neutrality is a myth, and the consumer will always be at the mercy of Content Providers, Service Providers, or both.
