Tomorrow, the European Parliament will vote on a proposal that will decide the future of the open Internet in Europe. The proposal is supposed to protect net neutrality, the principle that keeps the Internet an open and free platform, but it contains dangerous loopholes that threaten the future of free speech, innovation and democracy in Europe.
We write not to add to the onslaught of commentary on the merits of the rules--which are not yet public--but rather to address the legitimacy of the FCC's decision-making process. To cut to the chase: there's no evidence of a process foul in this case.
Some think we shouldn't do everything possible to protect the Open Internet from the predatory schemes of big ISPs. I disagree. I think we should protect Black independent digital voices, by any means necessary.
Accessibility, and specifically high-speed Internet accessibility, changes lives. Which is why it is so important to continue to offer accessibility options to those who would otherwise be left behind.
The Federal Communications Commission insists that its priority as a regulatory agency is to ensure the rights of the largest telecommunications companies to profit where profit can be made. The FCC isn't proposing Network Neutrality, it's legalizing discrimination.
The surest way to stop progress towards real broadband competition is if the FCC's work grinds to a halt in a miasma of political and legal opposition. That's quite possible if it reverses a decade of precedent and reclassifies broadband. And that would be just the beginning of the process.
This week on "Legalese It," Mike breaks down how the Feds lost net neutrality and what it means for the control of the Internet
Net neutrality is dead. At least that's the verdict of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.