We Pay ISPs to Use the Internet, NOT to be Used or “Reached”

In the battle for fake net neutrality, there are also non-political motives behind this disguised attempt to take away our freedom. These ideas were best expressed by George Takei, an actor and activist, in a 2014 interview with WaPo that touched on the subject of net neutrality (2):

“Brian Fung, WaPo: Would you be open to paying a toll — or would AARP be open to paying a toll — to Internet providers to reach your audience?

George Takei: Well, this audience was built not by them, but by our efforts, by our creativity. And once we have that audience built, they want to charge us for it? … a policy has to be created to deal with the fact that access to large numbers of people was built by us, using platform.”

Apparently, some in Hollywood regard us as property they have built and own.  They want the government to protect their “ownership rights.”  The order FCC-15-24 puts the FCC in control of the U.S. internet, leaving the private companies that had built it with little more than the title but with just enough to blame them for everything that will go wrong.  Such “regulatory framework,” first implemented by Mussolini’s fascist regime, was applied by the Obama administration in many areas.  To repeat, nobody proposes to charge content providers to reach the audience, provided the audience is willing to be “reached.”

Takei words are not a fluke.  The BattleForTheNet has adopted not only this ideation but also his exact words.  Its website states that net neutrality regulations should prevent ISPs from “charging apps and sites extra fees to reach an audience.

2 thoughts on “We Pay ISPs to Use the Internet, NOT to be Used or “Reached”

  1. This is such a misreading of the interview that I can only fathom it is intentional. The Washington Post asks about ISPs charging content creators a toll in order for customers to reach their content, and Takei says that ISPs don’t have any right injecting themselves in between content creators and customers, but somehow it is Takei arguing for no such toll that is attacking rights?

    Can someone honestly provide an argument for how your Internet Service Provider charging businesses extra or else they be cut out or hampered from competing with other websites is “more free?” It isn’t. It’s allowing your ISP to govern which websites you get to access and how fast you get to get there.

    1. This post does not argue against net neutrality. It makes point that some content creators wanted to get from FCC more than net neutrality, and brings the accurate and full quote from Takei interview as an illustration of that.

Comments are closed.