Welp, that thing we were hoping wouldn’t happen happened. Remember when the internet was considered a resource equally available? On December 14, the FCC voted on the Restoring Internet Freedom Order to repeal net neutrality regulations.
Some Republican Congress members’ last-minute requests for delay were ignored, and the vote went on as scheduled since those opposed were outnumbered by other Republican supporters.
As expected, the vote was split 3-2. Republican members Aji Pai, Michael O’Reilley, and Brendan Carr voted for repeal, while Democratic Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel voted to protect net neutrality.
If left unchallenged, Title II protection for net neutrality will be repealed. Title II is part of the Communications Act, put in place in 1934. In 2015, the FCC passed the Open Internet Rule, which reclassified Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as telecommunications companies.
Basically, the internet is classified as a utility, and is subject to the same regulations as other utilities like gas and water. Internet-specific regulations include prohibiting ISPs from blocking or impairing access to legal content and from playing favorites with internet traffic.
However, if this is overturned, ISPs will no longer fall under regulatory procedures of the Communications Act.
Supporters insist that removing regulations will help increase investments in the broadband industry.
Instead of seeing the internet as a public resource, it’s viewed as a product in the free market system. Except oops, since ISP competition was driven down years ago by consolidating broadband infrastructure, there is no free and open market for the internet.
Major corporations own most of the ISPs, and local competition was effectively shut out with the consolidations. Around 50 million households only have one choice of a high-speed ISP in their area.
Now those companies can really have fun playing monopoly.
Without regulation, ISPs can control how quickly you get webpages, download speed, data limits, and even access to sites.
Theoretically, they can block you from accessing competitor information, and essentially censor news by blocking certain topics and content.
They can even redirect you to sites when you’re trying to do something else, like that awful Yahoo malware that redirects whenever you’re trying to Google something.
Deregulation will likely lead to internet “fast lanes,” where companies must pay higher amounts to give their users faster access to websites and services.
While supporters of the repeal can pretend this won’t lead to an internet hierarchy that will disproportionately put minorities, women, and rural communities at a disadvantage, we’ve already seen it happen. In the days before net neutrality, ISPs implemented a cornucopia of fees, data-capping, censorship, and blocking that pretty much ruined everything for everyone.
Problems with unregulated ISPs is why a majority of Americans and Congress support keeping net neutrality in place.
So how did this vote make it on the floor in spite of overwhelming protest?
Evil stepsisters Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T have been lobbying the FCC for the last nine years, collectively spending half a billion dollars to end regulatory oversight. Hey, remember that one time we were worried about FCC Chariman Ajit Pai being a patsy for Verizon so they could push their own interests on the country?
Over 70 percent of Americans lack high-speed internet access, or can only get it from one provider. Deregulation won’t lead to a flourishing, competitive marketplace. It just means companies like Verizon can charge users more for access to certain sites, throttle internet speed, and restrict access to streaming sites.
Net neutrality is so contentious that during the vote, the room was evacuated for about ten minutes due to security threats. But the fight isn’t over. There’s a small chance the U.S. Court of Appeals could overturn the repeal.
However, depending on how the appeals go, the repeal may remain place, or only partially overturned.
It’s unclear how this will all play out or when it will take effect, but if net neutrality is killed for good, we’re taking another step closer to living in a technology dystopia.
Loss of internet access is used as punishment for those who abuse it
(TECH NEWS) Internet access is becoming more of a human right especially in light of recent events –so why is revoking it being used as a punishment?
When one hears the word “punishment”, several things likely come to mind—firing, fees, jail time, and even death for the dramatic among us—but most people probably don’t envision having their access to utilities restricted as a legal repercussion.
Unfortunately, that’s exactly what’s happening across the country—if you consider Internet access a utility.
In the past, you’ve probably heard stories about people awaiting trial or experiencing probation limitations being told that they are not to use the Internet or certain types of communication. While this may seem unjust, the circumstances usually provide some context for the extreme nature of such a punishment; for example, it seems reasonable to ask that a person accused of downloading child pornography keep off the internet.
More recently–and perhaps more controversially—a young man accused of using social media to incite violent behavior during country-wide protests was ordered to stay offline while awaiting trial. This order came after the individual purportedly encouraged people to “[tip] police cars”, vandalize property, and generally exhibit other “riot”-oriented behaviors.
Whether or not one reads this post as a specific call to create violence—something that is, in fact, illegal—the fact remains that the “punishment” for this crime in lieu of a current conviction involves cutting off the person involved from all internet access until a verdict is achieved.
The person involved in this story may be less than sympathetic depending on your stance, but they aren’t alone. The response of cutting off the Internet in this case complements other stories we’ve seen, such as one regarding Cox and a client in Florida. Allegedly, the client in question paid for unlimited data—a potential issue in and of itself—and then exceeded eight terabytes of monthly use on multiple occasions.
Did Cox correct their plan, allocate more data, throttle this user, or reach out to explain their concerns, you may ask?
No. Cox alerted the user in question that they would terminate his account if his use continued to be abnormally high, and in the meantime, they throttled the user’s ENTIRE neighborhood. This kind of behavior would be unacceptable when applied to any other utility (imagine having your air conditioning access “throttled” during the summer), so why is it okay for Cox?
The overarching issue in most cases stems from Internet provider availability; in many areas, clients have one realistic option for an Internet provider, thus allowing that provider to set prices, throttle data, and impose restrictions on users free of reproach.
Anyone who has used Comcast, Cox, or Cable One knows how finicky these services can be regardless of time of use, and running a simple Google speed test is usually enough to confirm that the speeds you pay for and the speeds you receive are rarely even close.
In the COVID era in which we find ourselves, it is imperative that Internet access be considered more than just a commodity: It is a right, one that cannot be revoked simply due to a case of overuse here, or a flaw in a data plan there.
How to personalize your site for every visitor without learning code
(TECH NEWS) This awesome tool from Proof lets you personalize your website for visitors without coding. Experiences utilizes your users to create the perfect view for them.
What if you could personalize every step of the sales funnel? The team over at Proof believes this is the next best step for businesses looking to drive leads online. Their tool, Experiences, is a marketer-friendly software that lets you personalize your website for every visitor without coding.
Using Experiences your team can create a targeted experience for the different types of visitors coming to your website. The personalization is thought to drive leads more efficiently because it offers visitors exactly the information they want. Experiences can also be used to A/B test different strategies for your website. This could be a game changer for companies that target multiple specific audiences.
Experiences is a drag-and-drop style tool, which means nearly anyone on your team can learn to use it. The UX is meant to be intuitive and simple, so you don’t need a web developer to guide you through the process. In order to build out audiences for your website, Experiences pulls data from your CRM, such as SalesForce and Hubspot, or you can utilize a Clearbit integration which pull third-party information.
Before you go rushing to purchase a new tool for your team, there are a few things to keep in mind. According to Proof, personalization is best suited for companies with at least 15,000 plus visitors per month. This volume of visitors is necessary for Experiences to gather the data it needs to make predictions. The tool is also recommended for B2B businesses since company data is public.
The Proof team is a success story of the Y Combinator demo day. They pitched their idea for a personalized web experience and quickly found themselves funded. Now, they’ve built out their software and have seen success with their initial clients. Over the past 18 months, their early-access clients, which included brands like Profitwell and Shipbob, have seen an increase in leads, proposals, and downloads.
Perhaps the best part of Proof is that they don’t just sell you a product and walk away. Their website offers helpful resources for customers called Playbooks where you can learn how to best use the tool to achieve your company’s goals be it converting leads or engaging with your audience. If this sounds like exactly the tool your team needs, you can request a demo on their website.
3 cool ways bug-sized robots are changing the world
(TECH NEWS) Robots are at the forefront of tech advancements. But why should we care? Here are some noticeable ways robots are changing the world.
When we envision the robots that will (and already are) transforming our world, we’re most likely thinking of something human- or dog-sized. So why are scientists hyper-focusing on developing bug-sized (or even smaller!) robots?
Tiny robots could assist in better drug delivery, as well as conduct minor internal surgeries that wouldn’t otherwise require incisions.
We’ve all heard about the robot dogs that can rescue people who’ve been buried beneath rubble or sheets of snow. However, in some circumstances these machines are too bulky to do the job safely. Bug-sized robots are a less invasive savior in high-intensity environments, such as mine fields, that larger robots would not be able to navigate without causing disruption.
Much like the insects after which these robots were designed, they can be programmed to work together (think: ants building a bridge using their own bodies). This could be key in exploring surfaces like Mars, which are not safe for humans to explore freely. Additionally, tiny robots that can be set to construct and then deconstruct themselves could help astronauts in landings and other endeavors in space.
Well, perhaps the most important reason is that insects have “nature’s optimized design”. They can jump vast distances (fleas), hold items ten times the weight of their own bodies (ants) and perform tasks with the highest efficiency (bees) – all qualities that, if utilized correctly, would be extremely beneficial to humans. Furthermore, a bug-sized bot is economical. If one short-circuits or gets lost, it won’t totally break the bank.
Something scientists have yet to replicate in robotics is the material elements that make insects so unique and powerful, such as tiny claws or sticky pads. What if a robot could produce excrement that could build something, the way bees do in their hives, or spiders do with their webs? While replicating these materials is often difficult and costly, it is undoubtedly the next frontier in bug-inspired robotics – and it will likely open doors for humans that we never imaged possible.
This is all to say that in the pursuit of creating strong, powerful robots, they need not always be big in stature – sometimes, the tiniest robots are just the best for the task.
Opinion Editorials1 week ago
Declutter your quarantine workspace (and brain)
Opinion Editorials2 weeks ago
Minimalism doesn’t have to happen overnight
Business News5 days ago
Everyone should have an interview escape plan
Opinion Editorials2 weeks ago
Online dating is evolving and maybe networking will too
Business Entrepreneur6 days ago
Small businesses must go digital to survive (and thrive)
Tech News5 days ago
How to personalize your site for every visitor without learning code
Business News4 days ago
You should apply to be on a board – why and how
Tech News2 weeks ago
4 ways startups prove their investment in upcoming technology trends