Author Topic: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?  (Read 10804 times)

Syonyk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3220
    • Syonyk's Project Blog
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #100 on: December 17, 2017, 10:22:46 PM »
I keep seeing these comically absurd predictions.

I don't recall any of this actually having been an issue before the first bill a few years back...

Citation needed?
My random project blog - ebikes, DIY, fans, and more: http://syonyk.blogspot.com

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10911
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #101 on: December 18, 2017, 07:41:11 AM »
I keep seeing these comically absurd predictions.

I don't recall any of this actually having been an issue before the first bill a few years back...

Citation needed?

MADISON RIVER:  In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

Maybe it's based on the natural continuation of past actions that ISPs made.  Actions that regularly hurt consumers with the goal of preventing innovation to increase their own profits.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2145
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #102 on: December 18, 2017, 07:51:01 AM »
You won't be able to use YOUR VPN of choice, you'll only be allowed to use the VPN software that the ISP sells you for a monthly service fee. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Linux won't be an extra cost.

If you're a subscriber to ACME ISP you can only use the current version Apple and Microsoft or Android products. For security of course...  Maybe a bit hyperbolic but having Trump in the White House despite his behavior tells me we are living in a new age.

Sorry, that's the provider across the street. The ISP on your side of the street has a 15-year exclusive contract with Blackberry.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

Raj

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Age: 23
  • Location: Toronto, ON
    • My Blog
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #103 on: December 18, 2017, 08:28:44 AM »
I'm still shocked that net neutrality actually got voted down, logically it fits with what's going on in Congress right now but I never thought it would get this bad.

Hopefully Canada doesn't follow suit but even if it doesn't the internet will definitely be negatively effected.

Hopefully it will be brought down up to the courts with more examination being done on Net Neutrality and how it's rather important to keep it, if only because of how important it is to the public.

Syonyk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3220
    • Syonyk's Project Blog
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #104 on: December 18, 2017, 08:54:02 AM »
...if only because of how important it is to the public.

Who?

Puh-blik? 

OH!  You mean the whining peons!  Yeah, fuck 'em.

</congress>

Suggestion: Now is a good time to be working on technologies to detect and route around restrictions.
My random project blog - ebikes, DIY, fans, and more: http://syonyk.blogspot.com

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3333
  • Age: 27
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #105 on: December 18, 2017, 09:02:18 AM »
Suggestion: Now is a good time to be working on technologies to detect and route around restrictions.
Let's just obfuscate all web traffic to look like HTTP traffic to the triple play premium package upgrade page on Comcast.net.

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #106 on: December 18, 2017, 09:15:40 AM »
Will HTTPS be good enough? Not techie enough to know personally.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3333
  • Age: 27
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #107 on: December 18, 2017, 09:24:53 AM »
Will HTTPS be good enough? Not techie enough to know personally.
Definitely not.  They'll still know where the traffic is going, just not the specific content.  HTTPS protects from someone skimming login info for example, but doesn't do much for traffic filtering/priority (unless they were hoping to dynamically scan content to replace all the guns with walkie-talkies).

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #108 on: December 18, 2017, 09:28:00 AM »
So VPN it is.

Noodle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #109 on: December 18, 2017, 09:31:18 AM »
I don't think we're going to know much until the lawsuits currently being filed play out. (And right now, it seems like any ISP who started messing with things would be handing the perfect marketing tool to their competitors, given how high feelings are at the moment.) I would not be at all surprised if one of the lawsuits ends up at the Supreme Court. Personally, I wonder if there will be a freedom of speech argument. A lot of people do not have the choice of multiple ISPs (this was my situation up until a couple of years ago, and I live in one of the biggest cities in the US) so if their provider starts throttling they do not have a lot of recourse.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10911
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #110 on: December 18, 2017, 09:37:23 AM »
So VPN it is.

Although they won't be able to see the traffic you're sending and receiving, it is possible for an ISP to throttle all traffic across a VPN.  They're not really a solution.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3333
  • Age: 27
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #111 on: December 18, 2017, 09:41:16 AM »
I don't think we're going to know much until the lawsuits currently being filed play out. (And right now, it seems like any ISP who started messing with things would be handing the perfect marketing tool to their competitors, given how high feelings are at the moment.) I would not be at all surprised if one of the lawsuits ends up at the Supreme Court. Personally, I wonder if there will be a freedom of speech argument. A lot of people do not have the choice of multiple ISPs (this was my situation up until a couple of years ago, and I live in one of the biggest cities in the US) so if their provider starts throttling they do not have a lot of recourse.
The problem is that there often isn't competition, or at least proper competition.  In my neighborhood until this year, there were only two options, really shitty overpriced DSL, or Comcast.  Where I work, Comcast is literally the only option.  If Comcast started monkeying with traffic, most of their customers wouldn't have really have a choice.  That's the inherent problem that legislation like net neutrality is trying to address.  If ISPs had actual competition in more areas in this country, this would be much less of a big deal.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10911
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #112 on: December 18, 2017, 09:53:44 AM »
If ISPs had actual competition in more areas in this country, this would be much less of a big deal.

Even if you have two ISPs in your area to choose from, it's not necessarily a fix.  If you have ISPs A and B in your area, and A decides to throttle all Netflix related traffic and B decides to throttle all VOIP . . . you're still not really left with much option if you want to use both of those technologies.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3333
  • Age: 27
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #113 on: December 18, 2017, 10:25:34 AM »
If ISPs had actual competition in more areas in this country, this would be much less of a big deal.

Even if you have two ISPs in your area to choose from, it's not necessarily a fix.  If you have ISPs A and B in your area, and A decides to throttle all Netflix related traffic and B decides to throttle all VOIP . . . you're still not really left with much option if you want to use both of those technologies.
I'm not saying it wouldn't matter, but it would be less-bad than it is presently.  "Actual competition" in my mind is 3+ fairly comparable options.  My neighborhood now has three options, but they boil down to Crappy (ATT), Less Crappy (Comcast), and Good (fiber).  That's still not real competition, unless AT&T or Comcast get their shit together, but we'll see if that ever happens.

MrMoogle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1117
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #114 on: December 18, 2017, 10:41:10 AM »
I keep seeing these comically absurd predictions.

I don't recall any of this actually having been an issue before the first bill a few years back...

Citation needed?

MADISON RIVER:  In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

Maybe it's based on the natural continuation of past actions that ISPs made.  Actions that regularly hurt consumers with the goal of preventing innovation to increase their own profits.

If this article is true:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/14/the-fcc-just-voted-to-repeal-obama-era-n
then these issues will still be regulated:

Quote
Instead, the FCC will require ISPs to be transparent about their services, meaning that bandwidth throttling or other network management practices, which have sometimes been opaque to consumers, would have to be clearly labeled. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), meanwhile, would be empowered to regulate anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior, stepping in when internet companies make promises to provide a service that they do not keep.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10911
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #115 on: December 18, 2017, 10:45:54 AM »
I keep seeing these comically absurd predictions.

I don't recall any of this actually having been an issue before the first bill a few years back...

Citation needed?

MADISON RIVER:  In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

Maybe it's based on the natural continuation of past actions that ISPs made.  Actions that regularly hurt consumers with the goal of preventing innovation to increase their own profits.

If this article is true:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/14/the-fcc-just-voted-to-repeal-obama-era-n
then these issues will still be regulated:

Quote
Instead, the FCC will require ISPs to be transparent about their services, meaning that bandwidth throttling or other network management practices, which have sometimes been opaque to consumers, would have to be clearly labeled. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), meanwhile, would be empowered to regulate anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior, stepping in when internet companies make promises to provide a service that they do not keep.

We've already covered what the FTC thinks of that argument:

Quote
The Federal Trade Commission will not be able to fill the gap created by the FCC’s abdication of
its authority and sector-specific mandate. After-the-fact antitrust and consumer protection
enforcement by the FTC cannot substitute for clear upfront rules, especially given that vertically
integrated broadband ISPs have both the incentive and ability to favor their own content or that
of paid “partners” over the content of rivals.
  - Terrell McSweeny (Current Commissioner of FTC)
 https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1293263/mcsweeny_statement_on_net_neutrality_vote_-_dec_14_2017.pdf

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3333
  • Age: 27
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #116 on: December 18, 2017, 10:46:52 AM »
If this article is true:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/14/the-fcc-just-voted-to-repeal-obama-era-n
then these issues will still be regulated:

Quote
Instead, the FCC will require ISPs to be transparent about their services, meaning that bandwidth throttling or other network management practices, which have sometimes been opaque to consumers, would have to be clearly labeled. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), meanwhile, would be empowered to regulate anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior, stepping in when internet companies make promises to provide a service that they do not keep.
They way I read that, as long as they disclose to you *how* they are fucking you, they're free to continue the practice.

MrMoogle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1117
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #117 on: December 18, 2017, 11:52:17 AM »
*snip*

We've already covered what the FTC thinks of that argument:

Quote
The Federal Trade Commission will not be able to fill the gap created by the FCC’s abdication of
its authority and sector-specific mandate. After-the-fact antitrust and consumer protection
enforcement by the FTC cannot substitute for clear upfront rules, especially given that vertically
integrated broadband ISPs have both the incentive and ability to favor their own content or that
of paid “partners” over the content of rivals.
  - Terrell McSweeny (Current Commissioner of FTC)
 https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1293263/mcsweeny_statement_on_net_neutrality_vote_-_dec_14_2017.pdf
But there weren't clear upfront rules to begin with.  I agree that having clear upfront rules would be the best solution, the problem is it is difficult to come up with those.

If this article is true:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/14/the-fcc-just-voted-to-repeal-obama-era-n
then these issues will still be regulated:

Quote
Instead, the FCC will require ISPs to be transparent about their services, meaning that bandwidth throttling or other network management practices, which have sometimes been opaque to consumers, would have to be clearly labeled. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), meanwhile, would be empowered to regulate anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior, stepping in when internet companies make promises to provide a service that they do not keep.
They way I read that, as long as they disclose to you *how* they are fucking you, they're free to continue the practice.
That's true.  But then backlash will be much quicker than compared to when they weren't disclosing it. 


Combining both of these comments: I agree it's not perfect, but we're humans, nothing is ever perfect.  I think it's good enough, although I'd also agree what we had in place was also good enough.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10911
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #118 on: December 18, 2017, 12:00:55 PM »
*snip*

We've already covered what the FTC thinks of that argument:

Quote
The Federal Trade Commission will not be able to fill the gap created by the FCC’s abdication of
its authority and sector-specific mandate. After-the-fact antitrust and consumer protection
enforcement by the FTC cannot substitute for clear upfront rules, especially given that vertically
integrated broadband ISPs have both the incentive and ability to favor their own content or that
of paid “partners” over the content of rivals.
  - Terrell McSweeny (Current Commissioner of FTC)
 https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1293263/mcsweeny_statement_on_net_neutrality_vote_-_dec_14_2017.pdf
But there weren't clear upfront rules to begin with.  I agree that having clear upfront rules would be the best solution, the problem is it is difficult to come up with those.

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about.  This 400 page document listed the clear upfront rules regarding net neutrality that the FCC was previously enforcing:  http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

They are what Pai has rescinded, so now we're in a situation where there are no clear and upfront rules anymore.




I agree it's not perfect, but we're humans, nothing is ever perfect.  I think it's good enough, although I'd also agree what we had in place was also good enough.

While I agree that nothing is ever perfect, that alone can't be used as justification for any action.  Putting companies with a track record of abusing public trust in charge of monitoring themselves and making up their own rules is not a 'good enough' solution.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10911
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #119 on: December 18, 2017, 12:17:11 PM »
List of states suing the FCC over this (so far):

Washington
New York
California
Illinois
Oregon
Massachusetts
Iowa
Kentucky
Delaware
Pennsylvania
DC
New Mexico

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2610
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #120 on: December 18, 2017, 02:41:56 PM »
List of states suing the FCC over this (so far):

Washington
New York
California
Illinois
Oregon
Massachusetts
Iowa
Kentucky
Delaware
Pennsylvania
DC
New Mexico
Interesting.  What grounds are they basing the suit on?

MrMoogle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1117
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #121 on: December 18, 2017, 02:46:15 PM »
*snip*

We've already covered what the FTC thinks of that argument:

Quote
The Federal Trade Commission will not be able to fill the gap created by the FCC’s abdication of
its authority and sector-specific mandate. After-the-fact antitrust and consumer protection
enforcement by the FTC cannot substitute for clear upfront rules, especially given that vertically
integrated broadband ISPs have both the incentive and ability to favor their own content or that
of paid “partners” over the content of rivals.
  - Terrell McSweeny (Current Commissioner of FTC)
 https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1293263/mcsweeny_statement_on_net_neutrality_vote_-_dec_14_2017.pdf
But there weren't clear upfront rules to begin with.  I agree that having clear upfront rules would be the best solution, the problem is it is difficult to come up with those.

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about.  This 400 page document listed the clear upfront rules regarding net neutrality that the FCC was previously enforcing:  http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

They are what Pai has rescinded, so now we're in a situation where there are no clear and upfront rules anymore.




I agree it's not perfect, but we're humans, nothing is ever perfect.  I think it's good enough, although I'd also agree what we had in place was also good enough.

While I agree that nothing is ever perfect, that alone can't be used as justification for any action.  Putting companies with a track record of abusing public trust in charge of monitoring themselves and making up their own rules is not a 'good enough' solution.
I've read multiple articles that the original rules were not clear.  Of course that is subjective.

Putting government officials with a track record of abusing public trust and very little experience in the actual field in charge of monitoring and making up rules is also not a great solution.  These are also not elected officials, so there is less accountability to the public.

You're going to have a human making decisions somewhere.  It depends where you have more trust, in your government or in a company.

Noodle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #122 on: December 18, 2017, 03:01:47 PM »
I don't think we're going to know much until the lawsuits currently being filed play out. (And right now, it seems like any ISP who started messing with things would be handing the perfect marketing tool to their competitors, given how high feelings are at the moment.) I would not be at all surprised if one of the lawsuits ends up at the Supreme Court. Personally, I wonder if there will be a freedom of speech argument. A lot of people do not have the choice of multiple ISPs (this was my situation up until a couple of years ago, and I live in one of the biggest cities in the US) so if their provider starts throttling they do not have a lot of recourse.
The problem is that there often isn't competition, or at least proper competition.  In my neighborhood until this year, there were only two options, really shitty overpriced DSL, or Comcast.  Where I work, Comcast is literally the only option.  If Comcast started monkeying with traffic, most of their customers wouldn't have really have a choice.  That's the inherent problem that legislation like net neutrality is trying to address.  If ISPs had actual competition in more areas in this country, this would be much less of a big deal.

Oh, absolutely. I was thinking of it more in the sense that all the big ISPs sell a lot of other things too--cell phones and television service and landline phone service, etc with all kinds of hungry competitors nipping at their heels...who would love to use the "Buy from us! We're not evil!" marketing tactic. Not entirely logical, but since when is marketing and PR logical? If I were the CEO of a big ISP right now, I'd be inclined to lay low until everyone's moved on to the next outrage, and then bring out my predatory tactics.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10911
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #123 on: December 18, 2017, 03:10:48 PM »
I've read multiple articles that the original rules were not clear.  Of course that is subjective.

Maybe instead of reading articles about them, you could check out the actual rules that I posted.  They're not too bad.

Putting government officials with a track record of abusing public trust and very little experience in the actual field in charge of monitoring and making up rules is also not a great solution.

This is quite a claim.  Are you able to provide a list of government officials who have abused public trust for net neutrality?  I was able to provide one pretty easily for the companies that did so.

These are also not elected officials, so there is less accountability to the public.

Right, these are appointed officials . . . who are appointed by people who are elected to the public.  They cannot make descisions without a full and public accounting being made.  As opposed to private companies making their own decisions with no oversight.  This is not really comparable from a transparency point of view.

You're going to have a human making decisions somewhere.  It depends where you have more trust, in your government or in a company.

You are drawing false equivalencies.  It depends where you have more trust, in clearly outlined rules that were established by the government for all to follow . . . or in ad hoc rules determined by the companies who are supposed to adhere to them, without any clear mechanism of enforcement.





List of states suing the FCC over this (so far):

Washington
New York
California
Illinois
Oregon
Massachusetts
Iowa
Kentucky
Delaware
Pennsylvania
DC
New Mexico
Interesting.  What grounds are they basing the suit on?

There are a variety of concerns . . .
- The new FCC's redefinition of ISPs from a public utility, “information services” which is inaccurate (according to the judgement of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2016)
- The abdication and handoff of the FCC's mandated responsibility to another agency (the FTC) that has neither the resources nor manpower to take it over
- The FCC is pre-emptively preventing state and local governments from enacting their own net neutrality rules, which is probably outside of the powers of the FCC.
- that the information about millions of fake pro-net neutrality comments (many of which were submitted from Russian IPs) which the FCC was supposed to be reviewing before making their decision was hidden from the public, and the FCC under Pai actively blocked investigation into the matter.

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #124 on: December 18, 2017, 04:49:49 PM »
At least we got ajit eating popcorn in front of a green screen out of it.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Location: Canada
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #125 on: December 26, 2017, 12:38:50 PM »
I'm still shocked that net neutrality actually got voted down, logically it fits with what's going on in Congress right now but I never thought it would get this bad.

Hopefully Canada doesn't follow suit but even if it doesn't the internet will definitely be negatively effected.

Hopefully it will be brought down up to the courts with more examination being done on Net Neutrality and how it's rather important to keep it, if only because of how important it is to the public.

Canada currently doesn't have Net Neutrality. Ours is marginally stronger. We have a weaker version of NN that prevents ISPs from blocking or snailing websites; but they can still preference their own service or debase others'. In theory, the USA's existing laws cover this (blocking/snailing) under anti-trust legislation.

I really hope any lawsuits about NN burn before seeing an appeals judge. It is outrageous to sue a executive federal agency for not having a regulation. It's absurd. Regardless on one's stance on NN, I hope one can agree with me on this.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2145
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #126 on: December 27, 2017, 06:05:41 AM »
I really hope any lawsuits about NN burn before seeing an appeals judge. It is outrageous to sue a executive federal agency for not having a regulation. It's absurd. Regardless on one's stance on NN, I hope one can agree with me on this.

I think it's more about challenging their interpretation of the law and/or forcing them to enforce it. Also, there are parameters around agency rule-making. One of them is that they can't change regulations because they feel like it. Nobody has even attempted to articulate any kind of change since the last time we decided NN stuff. A halfway competent judge is going to smack Ajit Pai upside the head. So I give it a 50/50 of passing judicial review.

Also, we really, really need crystal clear legislation on this.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

Raj

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Age: 23
  • Location: Toronto, ON
    • My Blog
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #127 on: December 27, 2017, 06:15:08 AM »
Canada currently doesn't have Net Neutrality. Ours is marginally stronger. We have a weaker version of NN that prevents ISPs from blocking or snailing websites; but they can still preference their own service or debase others'. In theory, the USA's existing laws cover this (blocking/snailing) under anti-trust legislation.

I really hope any lawsuits about NN burn before seeing an appeals judge. It is outrageous to sue a executive federal agency for not having a regulation. It's absurd. Regardless on one's stance on NN, I hope one can agree with me on this.
I know Canada doesn't have Net Neutrality exactly as ours falls under the broadcast act instead.

I'm afraid I can't quite agree with you on hoping the lawsuits burn.

I'm hoping that even if it fails it will draw enough attention in order to prevent it from going through.

Still that's not the best attitude especially since it opens the doors to other problems if it does get through.

I think it's more about challenging their interpretation of the law and/or forcing them to enforce it. Also, there are parameters around agency rule-making. One of them is that they can't change regulations because they feel like it. Nobody has even attempted to articulate any kind of change since the last time we decided NN stuff. A halfway competent judge is going to smack Ajit Pai upside the head. So I give it a 50/50 of passing judicial review.

Also, we really, really need crystal clear legislation on this.
I agree 100% if it was an actual part of the law it wouldn't be subjected to problems like this, where a common issue most people agree on becomes a political statement instead.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Location: Canada
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #128 on: December 28, 2017, 08:02:21 AM »
There is a massive difference between a judge saying "the executive branch cannot do X" and "the executive branch must do X" or "the executive branch must interpret the law in such a way." It's the legislature's job to legislate, the executive executes, and the judicial judges. Branches are vestigial if you say one can do the others' job. As may have been alluded, you don't want to give the judges that much power. If one does, when a president gets six or seven judges on the bench they'll legislate for the next few decades even if the legislature's majorities and president changes party.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2017, 08:04:59 AM by kayvent »

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2145
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #129 on: December 28, 2017, 09:31:34 AM »
There is a massive difference between a judge saying "the executive branch cannot do X" and "the executive branch must do X" or "the executive branch must interpret the law in such a way." It's the legislature's job to legislate, the executive executes, and the judicial judges. Branches are vestigial if you say one can do the others' job. As may have been alluded, you don't want to give the judges that much power. If one does, when a president gets six or seven judges on the bench they'll legislate for the next few decades even if the legislature's majorities and president changes party.

The judiciary interprets
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Location: Canada
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #130 on: December 28, 2017, 11:58:49 AM »
There is a massive difference between a judge saying "the executive branch cannot do X" and "the executive branch must do X" or "the executive branch must interpret the law in such a way." It's the legislature's job to legislate, the executive executes, and the judicial judges. Branches are vestigial if you say one can do the others' job. As may have been alluded, you don't want to give the judges that much power. If one does, when a president gets six or seven judges on the bench they'll legislate for the next few decades even if the legislature's majorities and president changes party.

The judiciary interprets

I would say interpreting is equal to judging in the framework of the judicial branch. The judiciary interprets only to see if rectification is needed when there is a claim that an action of a government entity damaged a party. (They are reactionary in nature as opposed to the legislature who can write new laws with lots of explanatory text at will.) I don't think one can say that the government not doing something (omission) is damaging in the same sense of an active action (commission) would; otherwise, one could in theory sue the USA Federal government for not having a carbon tax, not implementing the United States Child Benefit (à la the CCB), or other laws that it haven't been put on the books.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2017, 12:03:16 PM by kayvent »

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2145
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #131 on: December 30, 2017, 05:12:42 AM »
There is a massive difference between a judge saying "the executive branch cannot do X" and "the executive branch must do X" or "the executive branch must interpret the law in such a way." It's the legislature's job to legislate, the executive executes, and the judicial judges. Branches are vestigial if you say one can do the others' job. As may have been alluded, you don't want to give the judges that much power. If one does, when a president gets six or seven judges on the bench they'll legislate for the next few decades even if the legislature's majorities and president changes party.

The judiciary interprets

I would say interpreting is equal to judging in the framework of the judicial branch. The judiciary interprets only to see if rectification is needed when there is a claim that an action of a government entity damaged a party. (They are reactionary in nature as opposed to the legislature who can write new laws with lots of explanatory text at will.) I don't think one can say that the government not doing something (omission) is damaging in the same sense of an active action (commission) would; otherwise, one could in theory sue the USA Federal government for not having a carbon tax, not implementing the United States Child Benefit (à la the CCB), or other laws that it haven't been put on the books.

And you think rolling back net neutrality doesn't count as doing something? It's demonstrably harmful to the average consumer.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #132 on: January 09, 2018, 12:15:18 PM »

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-senators-force-vote-on-net-neutrality/

People keep saying that both parties are the same, and yet the only sponsors on this bill to restore net neutrality rules are democrats. 

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1096
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #133 on: January 09, 2018, 12:33:52 PM »
All 49 Democrats are on board - just need two measly Republicans to jump rank and vote against the end of net neutrality.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 50k miles for $2k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2610
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #134 on: January 09, 2018, 01:44:51 PM »
All 49 Democrats are on board - just need two measly Republicans to jump rank and vote against the end of net neutrality.
Well, it's not quite that simple--generally speaking, they have to get to 60 votes to close debate, before they get to the "actual" vote, per the rules they set for themselves.

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #135 on: January 09, 2018, 02:06:26 PM »
Data used to be cheap and they got me hooked. Now that I can't live without it they take it away leaving me a withering mess suffering massive data withdrawal, sucking dicks for a few measly Mbs of data. If you see this message please send help.

8=====D~




Fireball

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 198
Re: Net Neutrality is going to be dead shortly?
« Reply #136 on: January 09, 2018, 05:27:12 PM »

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-senators-force-vote-on-net-neutrality/

People keep saying that both parties are the same, and yet the only sponsors on this bill to restore net neutrality rules are democrats.

People keep saying that, and those people are woefully misinformed.