December 22, 2017 – Fort Russ News – Paul Antonopoulos – Translated from Nova Resistencia.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – Network neutrality came to an end in the United States in December 2017. In Brazil, it was deployed in 2014 and in the US in 2015. “Net neutrality” is basically a set of principles that, transformed into laws, guarantee the non-discrimination of data that travels over the network and thus preventing it from being more expensive based on content.
In other words, it prevents the internet from becoming a kind of cable TV, where the signal provider decides what package of content to provide. With neutrality, who decides what to charge or are not directly the content producers, for example, Netflix and sites in general.
Non-neutrality, which is what existed before 2015 in the US, does not guarantee the formation of monopolies, as the liberals (who, of course, are on the Teles / Isp’s side). In the United States, contrary to the popular myth, there is a large internet monopoly, which is controlled by ComCast / TimeWarner, and it is only not greater due to the strong municipal legislation that uses the iron hand on the operators. To make matters worse, the biggest Internet providers in the United States are also those of cable TV: it’s as if here in Brazil, Globo, Oi, Vivo were all one company.
There is also the perverse argument about the data packet issue, which it returns from time to time, whenever operators want to make the services more expensive (remember the data-bound controversy and package-selling?). This argument treats broadband, and internet traffic in general, as if it were a commodity of limited quantity, such as water (during rationing) or some ore, whose price varies by quantity consumed.
Remember that internet traffic is like a highway that many cars pass through, so the state or toll company’s obligation is to keep it large enough for the cars to go through, and that’s what you pay for broadband (for example, 10gb / second). The company’s obligation is to ensure the speed of 10 gigabytes of data, regardless of the “type” of data or where it comes from, since, in practice, the flow is the same.
The argument used by the Teles / ISPs, and repeated by the liberals (obviously), treats the teles as if they were freight carriers who charge a percentage for the type and size of cargo taken, which is a slight inversion.
Imagine that a tolling company says, “You make a lot more money when you ship 10 pounds of gold than when you send 50 pounds of lead, so we’re going to charge an extra 10% when you get gold over here.”
In short, the end of network neutrality means that large corporations have immense power over the type of content that is accessed by each user, as well as the amount of data that is transmitted. It is an almost absolute power. And the liberals are defending this as an extension of “freedom.”
Fortunately, this kind of controversy begins to make clearer what the real interests of the liberals are. It is not our interests, it is not the interests of the worker, it is not the interests of the producer. The only beneficiaries of the net neutrality are the large capitalist corporations, and it is exclusively to them that liberal discourse serves.
The liberal dream is to exchange the state’s money for the private market forces. The end of net neutrality is just one more step in the implementation of demo-liberal totalitarianism.