When Tom Wheeler, chairman of FCC(Federal Communications Commission) expressed his idea on proposing a new Net Neutrality rule, the Internet exploded with rage and 20 top Tech Giants including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon, eBay and Facebook wrote a letter to the FCC asking to stop the rule to put into effect, warning them of handicapping innovations and making the Internet side with wealthy people while depriving others.

The FCC’s intent with the new Net Neutrality rule will allow broadband carriers acting as gatekeepers and charging Web sites a payola payment to reach customers through a “fast lane.” which is exactly what US president Obama warned against. There has been a huge public outcry against the new rule and people have critisized the new rule as “Net Discrimination Rule” rather than Net Neutrality rule, stating that it will profoundly change the Internet as a platform for free speech and small-scale innovation. It threatens to make the Internet just like everything else in American society: unequal in a way that deeply threatens our long-term prosperity.

Merely hours after the tech giants wrote a letter to the FCC warning against the implementation, nearly 138 high – profile Venture capitalists, including Coursera, GitHub, Mozilla and BitTorrent joined hands with the tech giants, to make things veen worse for the FCC’s chairman. The letter addressed to him cites-

“Instead of permitting individualized bargaining and discrimination, the Commission’s rules should protect users and Internet companies on both fixed and mobile platforms against blocking, discrimination, and paid prioritization, and should make the market for Internet services more transparent.”

The companies terms these rules as a “grave threat” to the internet. The full letter, which contains the full list of all companies against this rule. Making matters even worst is the fact that few senators blasted the rule stating that

Unfortunately, we fear that specific provision of NPRM may be insufficient to accomplish the task. The current internet is a free market of products and ideas unparallelled in human history and FCC must preserve the type of Internet access that allows the market place to thrive….. changing the rules wold eradicate net neutrality, not preserve it. Anytime one group of packets is favored on an IP network, the rest of the packets, by definition, discriminated against…”

The full letter written by 10 senators including Wyden, Warren, Franken, and Booker can be found here. People have gone ahead and created a petition to remove Tom Wheeler from the FCC chairman position, which shows the impact of such rule. Experts say that it is infact possible for Tom Wheeler to invoke the Title II to make this rule come into force, should the 706 authority fail and that would be extremely detrimental to the internet once and for all, making the risks very real that would make almost impossible for startups and small companies reach out to it s customers and fail miserably even before they have the chance to try.

We request the readers to put in your thoughts on this in the comments below, as this seems to be the second time the Internet will go on strike, after the SOPA protests in 2011. Interestingly, Wikipedia which was the major force behind the SOPA protests did not sign on this letter for unknown reasons.

About The Author

Related Posts

33 Responses

  1. FCC Chairman faces animosity over Net Neutrality rule

    […] Dozens of Venture Capitalists and Tech Giants join hands against FCC’s Net Neutrality rules […]

    Reply
  2. Nate McNhol

    Yet another way the freedom of Americans is up for grabs.

    Reply
  3. scottxx1122

    well at least the venture capitalists are ONLY interested in MONEY,
    so why would one listen to them?

    Reply
  4. isotropic

    It seems like the only equality we have left, and they want to take it away.

    Reply
  5. beancube2010

    So we know Zionists are inside FCC.
    We know they tried those SuperPAC to trade our election among the richest 1% in the last election.

    Reply
  6. Defending the Open Internet – NDTV | iNews Article

    […] net neutrality, th&#1077 FCC's chairman increasingly stands aloneWashington Post (blog)Dozens &#959f Venture Capitalists &#1072n&#1281 Tech Giants join hands against FCC's Net …Th&#1077 Westside T&#1072&#406&#1077Th&#1077 FCC Won't Delay It&#1109 Net Neutrality Vote […]

    Reply
  7. GreenTea

    bandwidth is a commodity, not a right. but it is the consumer who should pay for it, as they have always done. both the content provider and the infrastructure provider should and do charge
    the consumer. sorry, but “no free lunch” is firmly based in physical law, and to ignore it invites catastrophe. what is it with people who think they can ignore copyrights and also want free service?
    that’s really infantile.

    Reply
    • Frank Chan

      so a toll road company could restrict lanes… if you pay enough you can use the 3 normal-fast lane, if you can’t then you slog it out in 1 lane at 3mph… you are correct in your assessment of capitalism, but remember pure capitalism is just as harmful as pure communism (at least communism could have been great if we humans weren’t so lazy + greedy)

      Reply
      • TheBaldr

        5 company represent more than 80% of Internet traffic. Netflix(32-33%) Google/Youtube(18-19%), Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter. Netflix just announced they are going to introduce 4K streaming, which would use almost twice the bandwidth. Is it right that these companies should be treated as equals slowing down the internet to the other million companies out there? Net Neutrality awesome idea, horrible in practice.

      • Beo

        No, the problem with the American model–when it comes to bandwidth–is that instead of using the billions of dollars they make by charging us, the customers using their service, to invest in better infrastructure, they hoard the money for pure profit. It is clear that Netflix, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter, new innovative companies, are leaps and bounds ahead of the IP providers, who are holding the internet back on purpose so that they can now charge (extort) business into paying fees for traffic over their lines and cables.

      • GreenTea

        sorry pal, but you sound like the typical liberal propagandist, demonizing the large companies. your assertions are not backed up by fact.

      • Beo

        H says, without offering any repudiation of my argument….

        What a joke.

      • Frank Chan

        in the same breath you demonize the “large” companies such as google, netflix and amazon for “hogging” the bandwidth due to their INNOVATION. you defend the clearly greedy, technology stifling , free market stifling , competition stifling , growth stifling practices of the ISPs

        this is blatantly protectionist for ISPs ONLY.. the only way a conservative would support this if Fox news said so… or because Obama is against it

      • T.J. Duchene

        I’ve worked for multiple ISPs, so I can tell you that they already handle this issue by throttling the connections of individual customers, as per their service agreements.

        That’s not the problem with this issue, and saying otherwise misses the point.

        The problem is that if you allow the FCC to create a system of tiered bandwidth, the smaller companies and individuals will not have a chance to innovate a new product in the same market, versus the resources of larger firms such as Google or Netflix. They won’t be able to afford the next speed tier, which will lead to loss of customers – and then sell out or completely lose the new business.

        Internet has been a hotbed for venture capitalist investment, with IT being one of the few sectors that has seen actual growth in this recession. This rule would turn that into the same sluggish economy as the rest of the U.S.

        There are also a concern over free speech, with ISPs being able to block or throttle connections in favor of companies and persons with deeper pockets. The easiest way to kill a democracy is to keep people’s opinions from reaching everyone else. This would allow the wealthy to dominate what has been up to this point, at least a free medium.

        What this rule does, is essentially allows ISPs like Comcast, etc to charge more for less without being legally liable for predatory or discriminatory business practices.

      • GreenTea

        don’t even worry about the free speech thing. it does not exist on the internet, because service providers already delete free speech under the terms of their so-called agreements that are in direct contradiction to the First Amendment.

      • T.J. Duchene

        Hi, GreenTea! =)

        If I am not mistaken, from a legal standpoint, service providers are not bound by restrictions on censorship or by the First Amendment, so there is no contradiction. The Bill of Rights only applies between the elected governments and the people of the United States.

        My concern here is that a tiered Internet could possibly create an environment where only the wealthy have access to information, and where service providers could sidestep existing legal protections on a state and local level by simply withdrawing bandwidth until normal access to a site is too difficult, creating a chilling effect on free speech, unless you pay more, of course.

        Have a pleasant evening.

      • GreenTea

        and bandwidth has nothing to do with free speech. anything worthwhile can be expressed a 300 baud.

      • Frank Chan

        people that want 4k streaming will buy internet service that supplies it. If you as an ISP can’t supply that, then obviously you won’t even be in that market. Or you can set bandwidth or total download limits which also effectively takes you out of the 4k market

        This allows other ISP’s with higher capabilities (google fiber) to jump in the fray… the hallmark of innovation and free market

        if you can’t cut it or don’t want the competition or you want to STAGNATE in technology growth and capabilities like what the ISPs are pretty much doing, then you want this terrible “net neutrality” plan

      • GreenTea

        no, a closer analogy would be that everybody gets a Lamborghini to drive, even if they can’t make the first payment. that’s the same as your net neutrality. Look, it all begins with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you want increase order,
        you must expend energy. That’s life, Frank.

      • Frank Chan

        the customer already paid for their share… look at every ISP, grandma’s buy 1 Mb/s, occasional youtuber 5 Mb/s, streamers go for like 15 Mb/s and gamers 45 Mb/s etc…

        so its the fault of google, netflix, etc that they are popular?

        your lambo example, how the heck does that apply? people that want lambos buy it (45 Mb/s) they need it, they can afford it. others just have chevy cobalts (5 Mb/s

        again with the toll road… your “net neutrality” is dictating which lanes are available to who… and punishing/profiting off people that like to drive to popular destinations

  8. Craig Smith

    FCC head Tom Wheeler was a LOBBYIST for the industry he is now supposed to regulate.
    This is like putting a wolf in charge of the hen house.

    Reply
    • Suggarstock

      He was a lobbyist 40 years ago. More recently, he’s been a go between contributor for politicians from the cable Industry. Not someone, we should trust the Internet with.

      Reply
  9. darknesscrown

    The largest tech firms will not back down on this. They want your money and honestly believe that THIS is how it’s supposed to work. Everywhere else in the world, the internet is a public utility. People pay AT LEAST half for the same speeds and bandwidths Americans do, and get more reliable service. In this hellscape we call a country, companies like Verizon, Comcast, and TWC would be delighted to give you better service and connections IF YOU PAY FOR IT. It’s ludicrous. Thanks Congress.

    Reply
  10. Turk February

    Yea Leonard, it’s a poor vs rich thing obviously, since most of the biggest internet companies (multi-hundred billion dollar companies) are against the proposed rules. Get your head out Of your ass.

    Reply
    • darknesscrown

      Verizon and Google are were actually two of the firms that proposed doing away with neutrality all-together. Unintended consequences.

      Reply
    • Craig Smith

      Yea Turk, you are either a corporate shill, or you have your head so far up your own ass that you can blow little brown shit bubbles.
      Keep drinkin’ that Kool-Aid.

      Reply
    • Frank Chan

      correct logic but applied incorrectly… in this case there is a bigger and greedier group, the ISPs

      Reply
  11. Leonid Barchai

    Lets see if once again, the will of 99% of america is made irrelevant by the financial contributions of the 1% to the chairmans wallet.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.