Some clarity on what net neutrality is

The Twitter-verse is going bonkers over today’s report that the Federal Communications Commission is considering getting rid of net neutrality.  That view is erroneous. The concept or principle of net neutrality is not being abandoned. What Chairman Pai is proposing is that the FCC stop applying the telecommunications rules found in Title II of the Communications Act to enforce net neutrality.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, internet protocol was being introduced into phone networks. Also, new local phone entrants such as cable companies and local network bypass companies were bringing new services into local markets. The issue was, how do we bill for the exchange of traffic ie data and voice traffic in such a way as to encourage competition. Regulators decided to lightly regulate the agreements that these companies entered into to exchange traffic. Some companies decided to exercise what was once called “bill and keep.” In other words, they wouldn’t bill each other for the exchange of traffic.

Over past 25 years, this traffic has increased. Phone networks needed the additional revenue to invest in networks that could keep up with traffic as well as compete with bypass providers like cable companies. Also, content providers and search engines were developing and spawning more traffic. Net neutrality grew out of this. In short, it has never been about democracy for the consumer. That’s a bullshit argument that a strategic communications expert made up in order to generate support from regulators to keep the exchange of traffic between the Googles and the Verizons low to non-existent.

The consumer is being used if you will as an excuse. Rates are going to stay where they are. The real issue is, smaller content providers who can’t pay broadband companies or content delivery companies the fees to move their traffic will fall to the wayside.

Consumers are being duped by Facebook and Google into supporting their argument for net neutrality. It is ironic that those companies use the “open internet” concept to design apps that spy on you….

Net neutrality’s transparency rules do nothing for Bitcoin

As transparent as Bitcoin’s underlying block chain process is for Bitcoin users, there is still a need for protecting the privacy of the user when moving Bitcoin from seller to purchaser. Current net neutrality rules on transparency may negatively impact the need for privacy.

Experts at Bitcoin.org warn the crypto-currency’s use to protect the IP addresses used during Bitcoin transactions. Including an IP address on a website or social network site may not be a good idea if maintaining anonymity is crucial. Once a Bitcoin address is used to receive a payment, the address becomes traceable along with all other transactions associated with the address.

Further, according to Bitcoin.org, since the currency’s users usually reveal their identity’s in order to receive goods or services (like a Klingon or Romulan starship decloaks before firing), Bitcoin addresses won’t remain fully anonymous.

Question is, as investment in Bitcoin and transactions using Bitcoin increase, why would the Federal Communications Commission pursue a net neutrality regime that includes an intrusive transparency requirement?

Current net neutrality rules require that broadband providers disclose certain details about network management including disclosures about congestion management practices and the types of traffic subject to those practices. Proponents of the transparency component of net neutrality rules argue that these rules protect consumers against misinformation about prices, services offered, and data speeds.

What isn’t discussed by net neutrality advocates is the slippery slope that transparency embarks on when it comes to Bitcoin. For example, as more consumers use broadband, and in particular mobile broadband to conduct Bitcoin transactions, should we put their anonymity at risk by requiring broadband provides disclose information about the data Bitcoin users send?

Bitcoin could become mainstream over the next ten years especially given its use of the blockchain. Should intrusive transparency rules be allowed to slow down this train?