The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: GuitarStv on November 22, 2017, 07:58:44 AM
-
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-exclusive/fcc-chief-plans-to-ditch-u-s-net-neutrality-rules-idUSKBN1DL21A (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-exclusive/fcc-chief-plans-to-ditch-u-s-net-neutrality-rules-idUSKBN1DL21A)
" FCC chief Ajit Pai, a Republican appointed by President Donald Trump in January, said the commission will vote at a Dec. 14 meeting on his plan to rescind the so-called net neutrality rules championed by Democratic former President Barack Obama that treated internet service providers like public utilities. "
" With three Republican and two Democratic commissioners, the move is all but certain to be approved. Trump, a Republican, expressed his opposition to net neutrality in 2014 before the regulations were even implemented, calling it a “power grab” by Obama. "
" Pai said his proposal would prevent state and local governments from creating their own net neutrality rules because internet service is “inherently an interstate service.” "
This might actually be the worst thing Donald Trump has done as president . . . and it's not like there's a short list of terrible stuff to choose from.
-
I'm pretty worried about this one, because it's not "sexy" enough to attract the attention of a lot of voters. And of course, with the holiday season starting, people are likely to be even less engaged and informed than they usually are.
-
Yeah, this is alarming and supremely fucked up. Literally nobody is in favor of this or stands to gain except the big ISPs (and those like Pai that are in their pocket).
-
Yeah, this is alarming and supremely fucked up. Literally nobody is in favor of this or stands to gain except the big ISPs (and those like Pai that are in their pocket).
There has been a groundswell of support for getting rid of Net Neutrality in the last little while in FCC comments. Oh wait:
" Schneiderman said in a tweet his office has been investigating a "massive scheme" over the last six months to "corrupt the FCC's comment process on net neutrality by impersonating 100,000s of real Americans."
In the letter, Schneiderman wrote that the process the FCC has "employed to consider potentially sweeping alterations to current net neutrality rules has been corrupted by the fraudulent use of Americans’ identities — and the FCC has been unwilling to assist my office in our efforts to investigate this unlawful activity."
"Specifically, for six months my office has been investigating who perpetrated a massive scheme to corrupt the FCC’s notice and comment process through the misuse of enormous numbers of real New Yorkers’ and other Americans’ identities."
"Such conduct likely violates state law — yet the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence in its sole possession that is vital to permit that law enforcement investigation to proceed." " - http://thehill.com/policy/technology/361509-ny-ag-probing-massive-scheme-to-influence-fcc-on-net-neutrality-with-fake (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/361509-ny-ag-probing-massive-scheme-to-influence-fcc-on-net-neutrality-with-fake)
-
VPN will still let people around this stuff, though, right? I haven't heard anything about the USA threatening to make VPN illegal like China.
-
VPN will still let people around this stuff, though, right? I haven't heard anything about the USA threatening to make VPN illegal like China.
It would, until Comcast decides to block (or throttle) VPN traffic on your line unless you pay $25/mo extra for the VPN package. And this would allow them to do that without penalty.
And dorks like you or I might consider a VPN an option, but most don't know and don't care so it would more than just another layer for them.
-
On one hand, I'm glad something out of last week's terrible FCC policy changes is getting some notice, but the neutrality thing is only a small chunk and a bit of a distraction to a much bigger problem. They basically gutted the Lifeline program last week, both phone and internet, citing claims of reducing "fraud" which the changes will do nothing to address (and ignores and undermines the results of the actual policies put in place for qualifying for service this past year). More on this in a minute. They also abolished regional media monopoly ownership paving the way for vertically integrated propaganda saturation, gave the green-light to telcos to abandon maintaining older communications infrastructure that serves nearly 50 million people (mostly rural) without notice, and approved a non-backwards compatible television broadcasting upgrade that almost no current televisions can support with only a five year transition after its approval to a spec that obliterates viewer privacy as well as allows broadcasters the ability to turn on your television for you.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/sorry-poor-people-the-fcc-is-coming-after-your-broadband-plans/ (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/sorry-poor-people-the-fcc-is-coming-after-your-broadband-plans/)
https://www.wired.com/story/the-fccs-latest-moves-could-worsen-the-digital-divide/ (https://www.wired.com/story/the-fccs-latest-moves-could-worsen-the-digital-divide/)
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/lawmakers-demand-investigation-into-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai/ (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/lawmakers-demand-investigation-into-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai/)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-television-technology/fcc-approves-tv-technology-that-gives-better-pictures-but-less-privacy-idUSKBN1DG2XF (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-television-technology/fcc-approves-tv-technology-that-gives-better-pictures-but-less-privacy-idUSKBN1DG2XF)
The Lifeline issues are massive, especially given most Lifeline customers in this nation have to subscribe to the very third party providers the FCC is trying to get rid of. Why is that? Because earlier in the year, AT&T stopped providing Lifeline services in every state they weren't obligated to provide the service in. This is a pending change that's going to impact nearly nine million financially insecure families very soon. Outside of Conde Nast (Ars Technica, Wired), I've seen very little coverage of this issue either outside of the industry trades... and I live in a state where last Friday's decisions had immediately negative impacts on a not-unsubstantial portion of the population.
Pay attention, folks, this is news that's going to radically impact the MVNO and third-party ISP markets as well. You know, all the providers we use around here to help keep costs lower?
So yes, the loss of net neutrality is bad, but only a part of a far uglier larger picture going on. We've already been sold out. It's over. Even if we preserve net neutrality, the market stranglehold and competition killing has already happened in one week that kicked the most financially vulnerable people in this nation to the curb without a second thought. Our own communications infrastructure is actively being weaponized against us.
-
VPN will still let people around this stuff, though, right? I haven't heard anything about the USA threatening to make VPN illegal like China.
It would, until Comcast decides to block (or throttle) VPN traffic on your line unless you pay $25/mo extra for the VPN package. And this would allow them to do that without penalty.
And dorks like you or I might consider a VPN an option, but most don't know and don't care so it would more than just another layer for them.
Correct, a VPN would not stop this as the link between your computer and your VPN still travels through your ISP first. It's very likely that VPN traffic would be severely throttled, otherwise you could simply watch Netflix through your VPN with no penalty.
-
I know we all like to blame Trump for everything, but Ajit Pai was appointed by Obama at the suggestion of Mitch McConnell. Yes, Trump appointed him the head of the FCC, but Obama originally appointed him to the commission.
Obama knew his views, and Ajit Pai has been voting against net neutrality for awhile now. No big surprises here.
"Pai voted against the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order, classifying Internet service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, which bars certain providers from "making any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.""
Here's a little humor to offset the horror that this may actually happen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggasfCOmQK8
-
I know we all like to blame Trump for everything, but Ajit Pai was appointed by Obama at the suggestion of Mitch McConnell. Yes, Trump appointed him the head of the FCC, but Obama originally appointed him to the commission.
Obama knew his views, and Ajit Pai has been voting against net neutrality for awhile now. No big surprises here.
"Pai voted against the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order, classifying Internet service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, which bars certain providers from "making any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.""
Here's a little humor to offset the horror that this may actually happen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggasfCOmQK8
The commission is always split 2 from minority party, 3 from majority party and my understanding is that the president is limited in his options to those recommended by the leaders of the parties. If that's who McConnell recommended, Obama's hands were more or less tied. Or do I misunderstand this ridiculous process?
-
I know we all like to blame Trump for everything, but Ajit Pai was appointed by Obama at the suggestion of Mitch McConnell. Yes, Trump appointed him the head of the FCC, but Obama originally appointed him to the commission.
Obama knew his views, and Ajit Pai has been voting against net neutrality for awhile now. No big surprises here.
"Pai voted against the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order, classifying Internet service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, which bars certain providers from "making any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.""
Here's a little humor to offset the horror that this may actually happen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggasfCOmQK8
"Though an Obama appointee, Pai does not share Obama’s progressive views and is by no means someone Obama would have chosen to lead the commission. Rather, there’s a tradition of letting the minority party pick two commissioners, since the majority can only legally hold three seats; in nominating Pai — at the recommendation of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican — Obama was sticking to that tradition."
https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/23/14338522/fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-donald-trump-appointment
Obama continued the practice of letting the minority party get two picks on a 5 person committee. Pai was a Republican pick as a member of the committee advanced as part of that practice. It's a pretty thought for Trump voters and Bernie-or-busters to try to shove the blame on Obama to make themselves feel better about the steaming trash pile of policies advanced by Trump appointees. If anyone reading this cared about net neutrality, the candidate to vote for was Clinton. If she were president, Pai would not be head of the FCC, three members would be democrats, and net neutrality would not be headed for the dumpster. Both parties are not the same on this issue, and this was discussed during the campaign. I am enraged about this and will not give Trump voters a pass. I have seen this BS about Obama appointing Pai without the full context.
In summary: elections have consequences. Own your vote.
-
I know we all like to blame Trump for everything, but Ajit Pai was appointed by Obama at the suggestion of Mitch McConnell. Yes, Trump appointed him the head of the FCC, but Obama originally appointed him to the commission.
Obama knew his views, and Ajit Pai has been voting against net neutrality for awhile now. No big surprises here.
"Pai voted against the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order, classifying Internet service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, which bars certain providers from "making any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.""
Here's a little humor to offset the horror that this may actually happen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggasfCOmQK8
"Though an Obama appointee, Pai does not share Obama’s progressive views and is by no means someone Obama would have chosen to lead the commission. Rather, there’s a tradition of letting the minority party pick two commissioners, since the majority can only legally hold three seats; in nominating Pai — at the recommendation of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican — Obama was sticking to that tradition."
https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/23/14338522/fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-donald-trump-appointment
Obama continued the practice of letting the minority party get two picks on a 5 person committee. Pai was a Republican pick as a member of the committee advanced as part of that practice. It's a pretty thought for Trump voters and Bernie-or-busters to try to shove the blame on Obama to make themselves feel better about the steaming trash pile of policies advanced by Trump appointees. If anyone reading this cared about net neutrality, the candidate to vote for was Clinton. If she were president, Pai would not be head of the FCC, three members would be democrats, and net neutrality would not be headed for the dumpster. Both parties are not the same on this issue, and this was discussed during the campaign. I am enraged about this and will not give Trump voters a pass. I have seen this BS about Obama appointing Pai without the full context.
In summary: elections have consequences. Own your vote.
^^^^^^^^ yes
-
Thanks for the info, I am unfamiliar with the process. I am not a trump voter, but do like to question things.
Do you think contacting senators will do anything for the vote with it being split 3/2? Do they have influence over the commission?
-
Thanks for the info, I am unfamiliar with the process. I am not a trump voter, but do like to question things.
Do you think contacting senators will do anything for the vote with it being split 3/2? Do they have influence over the commission?
Currently there are only three people on the FCC commission. The Republicans Pai and O'Reilley both want to get rid of Net Neutrality and they have enough votes to make it legal (not all five people need to be appointed for a vote to take place).
-
I'm really not excited about it one way or the other. On the consumer side what people forget is that we didn't have net neutrality until very recently and it was really a non-issue. It got a lot of press due to fears of what could happen though. I've been on both sides of it. I'm a home consumer, I've been in charge of corporate telecom, I've also been in mangement at an ISP. On the provider side it's all doom and gloom about the expense and headache of being declared a public utility. It's really not as bad as all that. Does it drive cost up, sure, a little. Not enough to get excited about though.
-
I'm really not excited about it one way or the other. On the consumer side what people forget is that we didn't have net neutrality until very recently and it was really a non-issue. It got a lot of press due to fears of what could happen though. I've been on both sides of it. I'm a home consumer, I've been in charge of corporate telecom, I've also been in mangement at an ISP. On the provider side it's all doom and gloom about the expense and headache of being declared a public utility. It's really not as bad as all that. Does it drive cost up, sure, a little. Not enough to get excited about though.
If it was a non-issue, they wouldn't be working so hard to pass it.
-
VPN will still let people around this stuff, though, right? I haven't heard anything about the USA threatening to make VPN illegal like China.
It would, until Comcast decides to block (or throttle) VPN traffic on your line unless you pay $25/mo extra for the VPN package. And this would allow them to do that without penalty.
And dorks like you or I might consider a VPN an option, but most don't know and don't care so it would more than just another layer for them.
Correct, a VPN would not stop this as the link between your computer and your VPN still travels through your ISP first. It's very likely that VPN traffic would be severely throttled, otherwise you could simply watch Netflix through your VPN with no penalty.
Would they do that, though? A lot of businesses use VPNs (as I do for my job). Wouldn't that be an issue? Also, wouldn't they have to have to target specific VPN services? In that case, it would be like whack-a-mole.
Honest question. I'm unsure about this.
-
On the bright side, you might get some very cheap dedicated internet subscriptions which could work great for IOT applications. Also free "internet" might become a thing.
-
VPN will still let people around this stuff, though, right? I haven't heard anything about the USA threatening to make VPN illegal like China.
It would, until Comcast decides to block (or throttle) VPN traffic on your line unless you pay $25/mo extra for the VPN package. And this would allow them to do that without penalty.
And dorks like you or I might consider a VPN an option, but most don't know and don't care so it would more than just another layer for them.
Correct, a VPN would not stop this as the link between your computer and your VPN still travels through your ISP first. It's very likely that VPN traffic would be severely throttled, otherwise you could simply watch Netflix through your VPN with no penalty.
Would they do that, though? A lot of businesses use VPNs (as I do for my job). Wouldn't that be an issue? Also, wouldn't they have to have to target specific VPN services? In that case, it would be like whack-a-mole.
Honest question. I'm unsure about this.
I think deep packet inspection could identify VPN traffic without too much trouble. Only a few moles to whack then instead of thousands.
-
Shared from Reddit:
“There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated. I'm going to steal a comment previously posted by /u/Skrattybones and repost here:
2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.
2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.
2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)
2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace
2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)
2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
The foundation of Reason's argument is that Net Neutrality is unnecessary because we've never had issues without it. I think this timeline shows just how crucial it really is to a free and open internet."
-
My vision is that you muricans will wind up paying:
$60/month fee for connecting to the internet
$5/month fee for search
$20/month fee for access to social networks
$20/month fee for access to netflix
If you want all access (access to anything the ISP doesn't like and that's not in the basic packages) that's a
$60/month fee for a prosumer package.
If you want VPN, that's another
$25/month for enhanced privacy
The monetization opportunities are startling once you remove all the pesky regulation. maga.
-
My vision is that you muricans will wind up paying:
$60/month fee for connecting to the internet
$5/month fee for search
$20/month fee for access to social networks
$20/month fee for access to netflix
If you want all access (access to anything the ISP doesn't like and that's not in the basic packages) that's a
$60/month fee for a prosumer package.
If you want VPN, that's another
$25/month for enhanced privacy
The monetization opportunities are startling once you remove all the pesky regulation. maga.
Sadly, an awful lot of our traffic gets routed through the US. We're going to feel pain from this too, I suspect . . .
-
Thanks for the info, I am unfamiliar with the process. I am not a trump voter, but do like to question things.
Do you think contacting senators will do anything for the vote with it being split 3/2? Do they have influence over the commission?
An ounce of prevention is worth of pound of cure. The best way to restore net neutrality after the near-certain vote to repeal it is to elect democrats.
Don't forget that the Senate voted earlier this year along strict party lines to remove FCC privacy measures that prevented ISPs from selling your browsing data to advertisers. Who wanted to let them do this? 50 Republicans. Who voted against letting advertisers have access to your private data and for increased internet privacy? 48 Democrats. Still think that both parties are the same?
I'm sending a plea out into America to every edgelord Bernie-bro, every antivax Stein voter, every "how bad could Trump be" lulz voter to consider that your votes have an impact on policy. Your elected representatives know that your angry phone calls won't mean squat because voters almost never hold them accountable at the polls. Is internet privacy important to you? Is a free internet your issue? Only if you vote like you mean it. When should you start? November 6, 2018. Or December 12, 2017 if you live in Alabama.
-
I don't think it will matter, but you can send your opinion directly to the fcc through a direct link set up some time ago by John Oliver:
www.gofccyourself.com
And yes, voting for the party who will not pull this bullshit is ultimately much more important.
-
Cory Doctorow wrote an interesting piece over at BoingBoing: https://boingboing.net/2017/11/26/rule-of-law-not-shills.html
TL;DR the FCC can't change rules without a reason, and has yet to articulate a reason for eliminating net neutrality. Obviously, when something gets to court it could go either way, but it's more complex than "Ajit Pai said so."
I have little (no) hope that it won't sail through the FCC as-is, especially given the shenanigans around the public comments, but I'm hopeful the courts will knock it down (again). Even with the Supreme Court tilted right, this is still a pretty important commerce and regulator-behavior issue.
-
I don't think it will matter, but you can send your opinion directly to the fcc through a direct link set up some time ago by John Oliver:
www.gofccyourself.com
And yes, voting for the party who will not pull this bullshit is ultimately much more important.
Wow ... up to 22 million filings. Intelligent politicians would attach themselves to the opposition, you would think. But it barely seems to get a mention.
-
I don't think it will matter, but you can send your opinion directly to the fcc through a direct link set up some time ago by John Oliver:
www.gofccyourself.com
And yes, voting for the party who will not pull this bullshit is ultimately much more important.
Wow ... up to 22 million filings. Intelligent politicians would attach themselves to the opposition, you would think. But it barely seems to get a mention.
You would think. But their corporate bed-partners are more important to them.
-
I don't think it will matter, but you can send your opinion directly to the fcc through a direct link set up some time ago by John Oliver:
www.gofccyourself.com
And yes, voting for the party who will not pull this bullshit is ultimately much more important.
Wow ... up to 22 million filings. Intelligent politicians would attach themselves to the opposition, you would think. But it barely seems to get a mention.
You would think. But their corporate bed-partners are more important to them.
Agree. They wouldn't be if the voters held them accountable, but that's not how things work now. The net neutrality-minded crowd has a spotty voting record and is full of edgelords who think that saying both sides are the same exempts them from any civic responsibility and who pretend they will only bother to vote when (insert thing that will never happen like abolishing the electoral college). If you are such an edgelord, flex your muscles and become an important voting block instead. Make politicians fear you like how they fear racist old people. Right now, you aren't worth catering to because you don't bother to vote.
-
I don't think it will matter, but you can send your opinion directly to the fcc through a direct link set up some time ago by John Oliver:
www.gofccyourself.com
And yes, voting for the party who will not pull this bullshit is ultimately much more important.
Wow ... up to 22 million filings. Intelligent politicians would attach themselves to the opposition, you would think. But it barely seems to get a mention.
You would think. But their corporate bed-partners are more important to them.
Agree. They wouldn't be if the voters held them accountable, but that's not how things work now. The net neutrality-minded crowd has a spotty voting record and is full of edgelords who think that saying both sides are the same exempts them from any civic responsibility and who pretend they will only bother to vote when (insert thing that will never happen like abolishing the electoral college). If you are such an edgelord, flex your muscles and become an important voting block instead. Make politicians fear you like how they fear racist old people. Right now, you aren't worth catering to because you don't bother to vote.
Good lord, this 100%.
-
Agree. They wouldn't be if the voters held them accountable, but that's not how things work now. The net neutrality-minded crowd has a spotty voting record and is full of edgelords who think that saying both sides are the same exempts them from any civic responsibility and who pretend they will only bother to vote when (insert thing that will never happen like abolishing the electoral college).
I've said in the past that both sides have more in common than differences, but I'm typically talking about the people, not the politicians. There are few politicians that I agree with.
I'm conservative, and I'm struggling to come up a reason Net Neutrality is a bad thing. I read a Pros and Cons of it, but the Cons either seemed to apply as a Pro, or it didn't make sense. The only thing that comes close, is that less government intervention the better, except when protecting liberty, which NN does. I mean, it doesn't even promote capitalism, it promotes monopolies.
I was planning on staying out of the senate vote coming up here in Alabama, but maybe I'll just vote for the Democrat because of this ridiculousness.
-
For me, Net Neutrality is a really tough issue to decide on. I'm generally very anti-regulation, especially on a federal (i.e. "one-size-fits-none") level, but I recognize that there are edge cases where regulation is needed. In this case, many ISPs are monopolies or duopolies in their area, often because they have demanded (and received) exclusivity from the local government. In that way, they very much *do* need to be regulated like a utility. Also, because of their position as a mono/duopoly, and because the cable companies especially have other services tied to it, there's a tendency to abuse that monopoly position.
If the market were truly open and competitive, I'd be all against Net Neutrality. But it's not, and so I'm not.
I find it especially egregious that ISPs are demanding payments from the likes of Netflix, when their customers are already paying for that same data. That, to me, is slimy.
At the same time, I see the value in being able to treat different traffic differently--give lower latency to packets associated with online FPS's, allow larger buffers for video streaming, give higher priority to, say, business-critical traffic. But I see that as more of a hypothetical, future benefit.
-
At the same time, I see the value in being able to treat different traffic differently--give lower latency to packets associated with online FPS's, allow larger buffers for video streaming, give higher priority to, say, business-critical traffic. But I see that as more of a hypothetical, future benefit.
I don't see ISPs ever making it easier/faster to do anything online without paying ransom.
There's also a First Amendment element to this. The Internet has become a de facto public space, and it's in the public interest to treat various packets of data [speech] the same, without regard for their source.
-
So I'm going to pay more, right? And get shitty service, right? Slow lanes, data throttling, content discrimination, and all the rest, right? Sounds great, sign me up!
-
For me, Net Neutrality is a really tough issue to decide on. I'm generally very anti-regulation, especially on a federal (i.e. "one-size-fits-none") level, but I recognize that there are edge cases where regulation is needed. In this case, many ISPs are monopolies or duopolies in their area, often because they have demanded (and received) exclusivity from the local government. In that way, they very much *do* need to be regulated like a utility. Also, because of their position as a mono/duopoly, and because the cable companies especially have other services tied to it, there's a tendency to abuse that monopoly position.
If the market were truly open and competitive, I'd be all against Net Neutrality. But it's not, and so I'm not.
I find it especially egregious that ISPs are demanding payments from the likes of Netflix, when their customers are already paying for that same data. That, to me, is slimy.
At the same time, I see the value in being able to treat different traffic differently--give lower latency to packets associated with online FPS's, allow larger buffers for video streaming, give higher priority to, say, business-critical traffic. But I see that as more of a hypothetical, future benefit.
You're not the only one having a hard time deciding the issue. The survey of economists on this leads to a similar lack of certainty:
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii
The most popular answer is "I don't know."
-
I finally found something that makes some on why NN isn't great:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/27/john-conyers-net-neutrality-podcast
NN starts at 19 minutes, I wish there was a transcript.
Mostly it's about slowing down innovations, it's currently implemented in a vague manner, and there weren't that many instances of problems occurring beforehand that didn't already get resolved on its own. So it's not helping anything, and it's slowing down improvements.
It's also unlikely that you'll pay more or get worse service as OurTown suggests, since that wasn't happening before 2014.
-
I finally found something that makes some on why NN isn't great:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/27/john-conyers-net-neutrality-podcast
NN starts at 19 minutes, I wish there was a transcript.
Mostly it's about slowing down innovations, it's currently implemented in a vague manner, and there weren't that many instances of problems occurring beforehand that didn't already get resolved on its own. So it's not helping anything, and it's slowing down improvements.
It's also unlikely that you'll pay more or get worse service as OurTown suggests, since that wasn't happening before 2014.
How did it speed up innovation when AT&T and Apple decided to prevent iPhone users from using Skype? It was costing AT&T a lot of money to have those phone users using their phones with a competing technology. It took threats of FCC movement on the issue before they finally stopped doing that. Remember when Verizon decided to block people from using Google wallet? Probably coincidental that Verizon had a competing service, ISIS. Another instance of speeding up innovation?
-
I finally found something that makes some on why NN isn't great:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/27/john-conyers-net-neutrality-podcast
NN starts at 19 minutes, I wish there was a transcript.
Mostly it's about slowing down innovations, it's currently implemented in a vague manner, and there weren't that many instances of problems occurring beforehand that didn't already get resolved on its own. So it's not helping anything, and it's slowing down improvements.
It's also unlikely that you'll pay more or get worse service as OurTown suggests, since that wasn't happening before 2014.
How did it speed up innovation when AT&T and Apple decided to prevent iPhone users from using Skype? It was costing AT&T a lot of money to have those phone users using their phones with a competing technology. It took threats of FCC movement on the issue before they finally stopped doing that. Remember when Verizon decided to block people from using Google wallet? Probably coincidental that Verizon had a competing service, ISIS. Another instance of speeding up innovation?
If this happened before NN was enacted, FCC didn't have the power to threaten them, it was changed because of popular demand/bad press. If it was after NN was enacted, they are claiming popular demand/bad press would have fixed it. The claim of slow down innovations is because of the decrease of infrastructure spending since NN was enacted.
I am obviously no expert, so I really don't have any good answers for you. I'm just trying to summarize what they are claiming.
-
Also, no system is perfect. Just because it had some issues before, doesn't mean this fix is a better solution (either NN or killing NN).
-
How did it speed up innovation when AT&T and Apple decided to prevent iPhone users from using Skype? It was costing AT&T a lot of money to have those phone users using their phones with a competing technology. It took threats of FCC movement on the issue before they finally stopped doing that. Remember when Verizon decided to block people from using Google wallet? Probably coincidental that Verizon had a competing service, ISIS. Another instance of speeding up innovation?
Worth noting that a lot of the throttling/preferential treatment of traffic is done in a quiet, underhanded way. Sometimes it's hard to even determine if there's anything untoward going on behind the scenes.
Part of the theoretical point of regulation (at least good regulation) is to offer a level playing field for commerce, allowing companies with a good product to thrive or fail on their own merits. Giving a handful of huge companies outsize control over how the internet operates does the opposite.
-
I finally found something that makes some on why NN isn't great:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/27/john-conyers-net-neutrality-podcast
NN starts at 19 minutes, I wish there was a transcript.
Mostly it's about slowing down innovations, it's currently implemented in a vague manner, and there weren't that many instances of problems occurring beforehand that didn't already get resolved on its own. So it's not helping anything, and it's slowing down improvements.
It's also unlikely that you'll pay more or get worse service as OurTown suggests, since that wasn't happening before 2014.
How did it speed up innovation when AT&T and Apple decided to prevent iPhone users from using Skype? It was costing AT&T a lot of money to have those phone users using their phones with a competing technology. It took threats of FCC movement on the issue before they finally stopped doing that. Remember when Verizon decided to block people from using Google wallet? Probably coincidental that Verizon had a competing service, ISIS. Another instance of speeding up innovation?
If this happened before NN was enacted, FCC didn't have the power to threaten them, it was changed because of popular demand/bad press. If it was after NN was enacted, they are claiming popular demand/bad press would have fixed it. The claim of slow down innovations is because of the decrease of infrastructure spending since NN was enacted.
I am obviously no expert, so I really don't have any good answers for you. I'm just trying to summarize what they are claiming.
This happened before Net Neutrality was enacted, and the FCC absolutely did have the power to threaten them . . . particularly as this was coming on the heels of the FCC telling Comcast to stop throttling p2p traffic (https://www.computerworld.com/article/2532555/networking/fcc-rules-against-comcast-p-to-p-throttling.html (https://www.computerworld.com/article/2532555/networking/fcc-rules-against-comcast-p-to-p-throttling.html)) without telling subscribers.
Your claims of reduced infrastructure spending are not supported by the telecommunications companies:
- In December 2015, AT&T’s CEO told investors that the company would “deploy more fiber” in 2016 than it did in 2015 and that Title II would not impede its future business plans.
- In December 2016, Comcast’s chief financial officer admitted to investors that any concerns it had about reclassification were based only on “the fear of what Title II could have meant, more than what it actually meant.”
- That same month, Charter’s CEO told investors, “Title II, it didn’t really hurt us; it hasn’t hurt us.”
- Just a few days after the election, Cablevision and Suddenlink’s parent company Altice reaffirmed its plan to deploy FTTH [fiber-to-the-home] service to all of its customers and told investors that it remained “focused on upgrading our broadband networks to drive increases in broadband speeds and better customer experience.”
(https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/ (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/))
So we have a pretend risk of reduced infrastructure spending, that is demonstrably not true . . . and a real risk of allowing companies to perform anti-competitive acts provides which hurt innovation, that have occurred.
-
First all, I'm not against the current implementation of NN, I'm just trying to poke holes in your argument. I'm trying to learn :)
This happened before Net Neutrality was enacted, and the FCC absolutely did have the power to threaten them . . . particularly as this was coming on the heels of the FCC telling Comcast to stop throttling p2p traffic (https://www.computerworld.com/article/2532555/networking/fcc-rules-against-comcast-p-to-p-throttling.html (https://www.computerworld.com/article/2532555/networking/fcc-rules-against-comcast-p-to-p-throttling.html)) without telling subscribers.
Weren't similar rulings reversed because they were unconstitutional? Until ISP were moved from telecom to utilities, did the FCC have authority to do what they tried to do? Anyway, whatever happened, it got fixed without the NN in place.
Your claims of reduced infrastructure spending are not supported by the telecommunications companies:
- In December 2015, AT&T’s CEO told investors that the company would “deploy more fiber” in 2016 than it did in 2015 and that Title II would not impede its future business plans.
- In December 2016, Comcast’s chief financial officer admitted to investors that any concerns it had about reclassification were based only on “the fear of what Title II could have meant, more than what it actually meant.”
- That same month, Charter’s CEO told investors, “Title II, it didn’t really hurt us; it hasn’t hurt us.”
- Just a few days after the election, Cablevision and Suddenlink’s parent company Altice reaffirmed its plan to deploy FTTH [fiber-to-the-home] service to all of its customers and told investors that it remained “focused on upgrading our broadband networks to drive increases in broadband speeds and better customer experience.”
(https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/ (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/))
So we have a pretend risk of reduced infrastructure spending, that is demonstrably not true . . . and a real risk of allowing companies to perform anti-competitive acts provides which hurt innovation, that have occurred.
If I recall correctly, the claim was that there was a 6% drop in infrastructure spending from 2015 to 2016, not that less fiber was run, or what the CEO thought NN's impact was. Both can be true. You can run more fiber and spend less than the previous year. If NN added cost, they potentially could have run even more fiber without it.
I'm sure there is a cost somewhere, whether it's on the ISPs or through taxes. Even if two people agree on the benefit and agree on the cost, they can still disagree on which one they prefer.
-
There's also a First Amendment element to this. The Internet has become a de facto public space, and it's in the public interest to treat various packets of data [speech] the same, without regard for their source.
Not to mention that much of the fiber/copper deployed for internet use is run on public right-of-way, in a similar manner as electric transmission lines. In my opinion, that alone should require ISPs to be regulated like other monopoly utilities, although lack of internet service might not be "essential" like water/gas/electric.
I think one of the fortunate realities about the NN debate is that content demand is shifting (less desire for massive Pay-TV packages, more OTT alacarte consumption), and the integrated providers see tiered internet service as a way of offsetting declining pay-TV revenue while also stymieing the growth of Netflix and Amazon. From a business perspective, it's brilliant, because whoever controls the copper/fiber really controls data access. If I was a Verizon exec, I would definitely start to optimize search traffic over Yahoo at the expense of Google, like exempt Yahoo search queries from monthly data caps etc to try and capture more ad revenue. And that's not even too nefarious an idea that could easily dent Google's bottom line if any significant number of Verizon's 100 million phone/internet/TV subscribers were to change their behavior in a significant way.
-
There's also a First Amendment element to this. The Internet has become a de facto public space, and it's in the public interest to treat various packets of data [speech] the same, without regard for their source.
Not to mention that much of the fiber/copper deployed for internet use is run on public right-of-way, in a similar manner as electric transmission lines. In my opinion, that alone should require ISPs to be regulated like other monopoly utilities, although lack of internet service might not be "essential" like water/gas/electric.
I think one of the fortunate realities about the NN debate is that content demand is shifting (less desire for massive Pay-TV packages, more OTT alacarte consumption), and the integrated providers see tiered internet service as a way of offsetting declining pay-TV revenue while also stymieing the growth of Netflix and Amazon. From a business perspective, it's brilliant, because whoever controls the copper/fiber really controls data access. If I was a Verizon exec, I would definitely start to optimize search traffic over Yahoo at the expense of Google, like exempt Yahoo search queries from monthly data caps etc to try and capture more ad revenue. And that's not even too nefarious an idea that could easily dent Google's bottom line if any significant number of Verizon's 100 million phone/internet/TV subscribers were to change their behavior in a significant way.
Didn't one of the mobile carriers exempt [insert streaming platform] traffic from data usage? My memory is fuzzy on it.
-
Then there’s this...
https://www.themaven.net/theintellectualist/news/400-000-comments-in-favor-of-ending-net-neutrality-came-from-russia-31ftYojr9UmKKwgax9klmw
-
Holy shit, what's going to happen to free porn?
-
Holy shit, what's going to happen to free porn?
http://www.newsweek.com/how-does-net-neutrality-help-porn-and-netflix-understanding-republicans-call-717776
-
I think part of the problem (in addition to the lack of competition) is a lack of transparency on the part of the ISPs. If Verizon is throttling Netflix without telling their customers, that sounds like grounds for a class-action lawsuit. If you (as an ISP) are going to monkey with someone's internet connection, whether it be throttling a competing video service or collecting/selling customer browsing habits, you gosh darn better well be telling people about it.
-
There's also a First Amendment element to this. The Internet has become a de facto public space, and it's in the public interest to treat various packets of data [speech] the same, without regard for their source.
Not to mention that much of the fiber/copper deployed for internet use is run on public right-of-way, in a similar manner as electric transmission lines. In my opinion, that alone should require ISPs to be regulated like other monopoly utilities, although lack of internet service might not be "essential" like water/gas/electric.
I think one of the fortunate realities about the NN debate is that content demand is shifting (less desire for massive Pay-TV packages, more OTT alacarte consumption), and the integrated providers see tiered internet service as a way of offsetting declining pay-TV revenue while also stymieing the growth of Netflix and Amazon. From a business perspective, it's brilliant, because whoever controls the copper/fiber really controls data access. If I was a Verizon exec, I would definitely start to optimize search traffic over Yahoo at the expense of Google, like exempt Yahoo search queries from monthly data caps etc to try and capture more ad revenue. And that's not even too nefarious an idea that could easily dent Google's bottom line if any significant number of Verizon's 100 million phone/internet/TV subscribers were to change their behavior in a significant way.
Didn't one of the mobile carriers exempt [insert streaming platform] traffic from data usage? My memory is fuzzy on it.
A few blanks could be filled. Facebook, ardent defenders of net neutrality, tried to pay some South American ISPs to not count Facebook usage in data usage.
-
If my neighborhood has only one ISP to choose from then they better damn well not throttle any website or service I want to use. I'm not paying more to utilize certain services over my "broadband".
-
If my neighborhood has only one ISP to choose from then they better damn well not throttle any website or service I want to use. I'm not paying more to utilize certain services over my "broadband".
That's certainly a nice sentiment, but I'm not sure how you plan on actually implementing this sound strategy.
-
Seems this is Trump related as NN has already been gone for a couple years now. Internet providers have been free to do whatever they wanted and haven't done anything because, presumably, people would be pissed off and find another company, ask for another company to come into that market or stop using that service.
This is one of things where the market seems to be working, at least for now.
-
Seems this is Trump related as NN has already been gone for a couple years now. Internet providers have been free to do whatever they wanted and haven't done anything because, presumably, people would be pissed off and find another company, ask for another company to come into that market or stop using that service.
This is one of things where the market seems to be working, at least for now.
Until a much cheaper service which offers only the top 50 websites at full speed and the rest with limited speed. Good enough for 90% of users, but this makes it very hard for any other service to join that top 50.
-
Seems this is Trump related as NN has already been gone for a couple years now. Internet providers have been free to do whatever they wanted and haven't done anything because, presumably, people would be pissed off and find another company, ask for another company to come into that market or stop using that service.
This is one of things where the market seems to be working, at least for now.
Until a much cheaper service which offers only the top 50 websites at full speed and the rest with limited speed. Good enough for 90% of users, but this makes it very hard for any other service to join that top 50.
What if the FCC adds so much regulation that ISPs can no longer be profitable and we all lose internet. You can come up with scary scenarios on either side, whether or not it's likely is another thing.
I don't see how your scenario would make the service "much cheaper," since probably 95% of usage is already through the top 50 websites.
-
I don't live or die by the internet. Like cable TV I can cut the cord until some other service appears that promises not to nickel and dime its customers.
Or - we collectively get our money's worth. My three closest neighbors could pay the jacked up price - but only one price - and share our connection.
The ISP looses two customers out of three.
I'd be happy to host the router and ensure its uptime.
-
What if the FCC adds so much regulation that ISPs can no longer be profitable and we all lose internet. You can come up with scary scenarios on either side, whether or not it's likely is another thing.
Except one side isn't completely divorced from facts. ISPs are profitable. Given the lack of competition, they need to be regulated like other utilities, which are also profitable.
-
Seems this is Trump related as NN has already been gone for a couple years now. Internet providers have been free to do whatever they wanted and haven't done anything because, presumably, people would be pissed off and find another company, ask for another company to come into that market or stop using that service.
This is one of things where the market seems to be working, at least for now.
NN is gone for a couple of years? The current NN rules were adopted in 2015. So, the opposite of what you said. NN has been IN EFFECT for a couple of years. I'm curious as to where you got the impression that NN has been gone for the last two years. Can you provide a source for that statement?
The below timeline gives some great examples of the market "self-regulating" before and after NN. Now that NN is going away, Ajit Pai has already indicated that he's not going to step in and enforce those prior 2015-2017 decisions against ISPs.
https://lifehacker.com/what-happens-when-broadband-companies-self-regulate-1794710098
It's amazing to me that people are all "oh-the ISPs will respond to market pressure" Have you ever dealt with a cable company? Hell, I'd rather argue with a health insurance company. ISPs aren't going to respond to shit.
If your impression is that the market has been working for the last couple of years, it's more likely that NN has forced ISPs to change their practices. I don't know if that's true, and that lifehacker article tells me that some ISPs were willing to see how far they could push the FCC. But, the decisions seemed favorable to NN, and I think that it's a tragedy that these rules are going to be unwound. There's a lot I won't forgive my fellow countrymen for after they voted for Trump, and this is in the top 5.
I'm going to keep saying this: vote for Democrats, whenever you can. Republicans have shown you that they won't protect the internet. Ajit Pai wouldn't bother to wipe his ass with protests and internet comments. Why should he? He's not bound to do what the public wants. The only way to change FCC leadership is to elect a Democrat to the White House. All this anger right now? Fine-but the right time to express that anger was in November, 2016. And the next right time is November, 2018. And if you didn't bother to vote in the last election, have a good, long talk with yourself and do better next time. If you've never voted, register to vote today.
-
NN is gone for a couple of years? The current NN rules were adopted in 2015. So, the opposite of what you said. NN has been IN EFFECT for a couple of years. I'm curious as to where you got the impression that NN has been gone for the last two years. Can you provide a source for that statement?
The below timeline gives some great examples of the market "self-regulating" before and after NN. Now that NN is going away, Ajit Pai has already indicated that he's not going to step in and enforce those prior 2015-2017 decisions against ISPs.
https://lifehacker.com/what-happens-when-broadband-companies-self-regulate-1794710098
I think another part of the lesson here is that we need to legislate some of these regulations, rather than letting agencies make rules that have sweeping effects over important stuff like the Internet. Hell, at a certain point maybe we need an International Treaty.
-
NN is gone for a couple of years? The current NN rules were adopted in 2015. So, the opposite of what you said. NN has been IN EFFECT for a couple of years. I'm curious as to where you got the impression that NN has been gone for the last two years. Can you provide a source for that statement?
The below timeline gives some great examples of the market "self-regulating" before and after NN. Now that NN is going away, Ajit Pai has already indicated that he's not going to step in and enforce those prior 2015-2017 decisions against ISPs.
https://lifehacker.com/what-happens-when-broadband-companies-self-regulate-1794710098
I think another part of the lesson here is that we need to legislate some of these regulations, rather than letting agencies make rules that have sweeping effects over important stuff like the Internet. Hell, at a certain point maybe we need an International Treaty.
Agreed. If it's important enough to regulate, it's important enough to have accountable, elected officials making that decision rather than unaccountable political appointees. If you ask me, *no* agency should have rule-making authority, only enforcement authority.
-
Agreed. If it's important enough to regulate, it's important enough to have accountable, elected officials making that decision rather than unaccountable political appointees. If you ask me, *no* agency should have rule-making authority, only enforcement authority.
I understand some rule-making authority at the agency level. Mostly because you can't shouldn't legislate every detail of every little thing. It's also a good argument for having people who know what the hell they're doing working in/running the various important agencies (looking at you, Rick Perry).
-
Seems this is Trump related as NN has already been gone for a couple years now. Internet providers have been free to do whatever they wanted and haven't done anything because, presumably, people would be pissed off and find another company, ask for another company to come into that market or stop using that service.
This is one of things where the market seems to be working, at least for now.
Until a much cheaper service which offers only the top 50 websites at full speed and the rest with limited speed. Good enough for 90% of users, but this makes it very hard for any other service to join that top 50.
What if the FCC adds so much regulation that ISPs can no longer be profitable and we all lose internet. You can come up with scary scenarios on either side, whether or not it's likely is another thing.
I don't see how your scenario would make the service "much cheaper," since probably 95% of usage is already through the top 50 websites.
It would be much cheaper because facebook, google, and Netflix are sponsoring it. Facebook already wanted to give a facebook only free internet somewhere in Africa but was blocked because of net neutrality. So what you end up with is an internet where fewer people who pay a premium are fully connected and the rest will only use the big sites. So it will be very hard for any new service to come up as they would either have to pay a lot to get into the cheap/free bit of internet or have their customer base restricted to the people willing to pay more. That will hurt competition and innovation and will likely raise the price of full internet access.
-
Seems this is Trump related as NN has already been gone for a couple years now. Internet providers have been free to do whatever they wanted and haven't done anything because, presumably, people would be pissed off and find another company, ask for another company to come into that market or stop using that service.
This is one of things where the market seems to be working, at least for now.
Until a much cheaper service which offers only the top 50 websites at full speed and the rest with limited speed. Good enough for 90% of users, but this makes it very hard for any other service to join that top 50.
What if the FCC adds so much regulation that ISPs can no longer be profitable and we all lose internet. You can come up with scary scenarios on either side, whether or not it's likely is another thing.
I don't see how your scenario would make the service "much cheaper," since probably 95% of usage is already through the top 50 websites.
It would be much cheaper because facebook, google, and Netflix are sponsoring it. Facebook already wanted to give a facebook only free internet somewhere in Africa but was blocked because of net neutrality. So what you end up with is an internet where fewer people who pay a premium are fully connected and the rest will only use the big sites. So it will be very hard for any new service to come up as they would either have to pay a lot to get into the cheap/free bit of internet or have their customer base restricted to the people willing to pay more. That will hurt competition and innovation and will likely raise the price of full internet access.
This is the real danger. Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc. already basically run the show even with net neutrality in effect; this would allow it to be far more direct and insidious. Would it be OK if Maytag paid ComEd (my electricity utility) so that my rate was lower, but my refrigerator had to be a Maytag (or else pay a premium)? I'd say no. Maytag and ComEd might disagree, but they'd be the only ones. Internet access is becoming as important a utility as electricity. I can't conduct business without an internet connection.
I'm glad Facebook didn't get away with Facebook-only internet access anywhere. That's terrifying. "This internet connection brought to you by Facebook" would have been fine (Facebook still benefits with more people connected and better connected; that's the Google strategy), but Facebook-only would be incredibly antithetical to everything the internet stands for.
-
I have a feeling that either 2 things will happen:
1. The BigTechGiants will start their own ISPs and implement paid priority lanes.
2. The BigTechGiants will buy the existing ISPs and implement paid priority lanes.
Invoking one of the Murphy's Laws:
3. Only an act of Congress will break up the monopolies in media and internet.
I don't see any other end state. Corporations are people and they have feelings and wants and needs. And they have all the money to lobby and buy the politicians that we elect. Meanwhile, over 300 Millions of us can't afford 1 lobbyist.
We've been divided by the wolves; slaughter time is coming.
-
Seems this is Trump related as NN has already been gone for a couple years now. Internet providers have been free to do whatever they wanted and haven't done anything because, presumably, people would be pissed off and find another company, ask for another company to come into that market or stop using that service.
This is one of things where the market seems to be working, at least for now.
Until a much cheaper service which offers only the top 50 websites at full speed and the rest with limited speed. Good enough for 90% of users, but this makes it very hard for any other service to join that top 50.
What if the FCC adds so much regulation that ISPs can no longer be profitable and we all lose internet. You can come up with scary scenarios on either side, whether or not it's likely is another thing.
I don't see how your scenario would make the service "much cheaper," since probably 95% of usage is already through the top 50 websites.
It would be much cheaper because facebook, google, and Netflix are sponsoring it. Facebook already wanted to give a facebook only free internet somewhere in Africa but was blocked because of net neutrality. So what you end up with is an internet where fewer people who pay a premium are fully connected and the rest will only use the big sites. So it will be very hard for any new service to come up as they would either have to pay a lot to get into the cheap/free bit of internet or have their customer base restricted to the people willing to pay more. That will hurt competition and innovation and will likely raise the price of full internet access.
Fair enough, it's possible, I still don't think it's very likely. I just think there's a bunch of irrational fear on both sides.
-
On the other hand, Google is putting in fiber, so that may be the first step. Personally, I can't wait for it. I'm currently paying $50/month for 10Mb downloads with Comcast. I would love some competition here.
-
On the other hand, Google is putting in fiber, so that may be the first step. Personally, I can't wait for it. I'm currently paying $50/month for 10Mb downloads with Comcast. I would love some competition here.
I think this is the crux of it. In a healthy, competitive sector of the economy, regulators can use a light touch (i.e. focus on health and safety, legal accounting practices) and stuff generally works out pretty well for the public. Telecom isn't a healthy, competitive sector of the economy.
-
On the other hand, Google is putting in fiber, so that may be the first step. Personally, I can't wait for it. I'm currently paying $50/month for 10Mb downloads with Comcast. I would love some competition here.
Fiber has been deployed in my area this year by a regional ISP. They were only able to get around Comcast/AT&T "exclusivity agreements" (monopolies) by the fact that they are 100% fiber and not technically deploying either "phone" or "cable." I dropped Comcast and signed up literally the first week it was available in my neighborhood. I now pay $70/mo (free installation) for 1000mbps down and 250mbps up (they do have cheaper, slower plans). Competition is good. Hopefully Comcast gets the memo and notices people leaving and will actually do something about that. I don't want one better ISP (though they are great; I had an actual script-free pleasant phone conversation with their lead marketing guy in our area), I want actual competition between ISPs driving service to be better and cheaper. With "exclusivity agreements" being so commonplace in our country, it's unfortunately very uncommon, so regulation is key to not getting boned by the big ISPs. Usually it's between zero and one cable ISP and between zero and one DSL ISP in a given area and that's it. For me in particular, AT&T DSL in my area is a joke, expensive as hell for slow speeds, so Comcast was the only real option before, and as any current or former customer of Comcast can tell you, dealing with them is pretty similar to getting a root canal, except less fun.
-
On the other hand, Google is putting in fiber, so that may be the first step. Personally, I can't wait for it. I'm currently paying $50/month for 10Mb downloads with Comcast. I would love some competition here.
I think this is the crux of it. In a healthy, competitive sector of the economy, regulators can use a light touch (i.e. focus on health and safety, legal accounting practices) and stuff generally works out pretty well for the public. Telecom isn't a healthy, competitive sector of the economy.
It's amazing what a competitor can do. I am currently with Spectrum on an Internet-only 25 Mbps plan for $40/month. They're increasing it to $65/month after the 1 year promo to entice me to sign up for a double/triple play account. Frontier FiOS had a Cyber Monday offer for 100 Mbps internet for $30/month, 1 year contract, $75 installation fee. Told Spectrum to either match the competition or extended the existing plan for another 12 months. They said they're not allowed to go lower than $55/month. "Manager" said they're seeing customers move to the competition. Every 12 months I bounce back and forth between the two ISPs. There's always a deal going on.
I just wish Google Fiber or municipal broadband or a 3rd alternative existed. I've seen the power of that in London, where internet, TV, electricity, water, gas competition means price wars and efficiency gains.
-
On the other hand, Google is putting in fiber, so that may be the first step. Personally, I can't wait for it. I'm currently paying $50/month for 10Mb downloads with Comcast. I would love some competition here.
Fiber has been deployed in my area this year by a regional ISP. They were only able to get around Comcast/AT&T "exclusivity agreements" (monopolies) by the fact that they are 100% fiber and not technically deploying either "phone" or "cable." I dropped Comcast and signed up literally the first week it was available in my neighborhood. I now pay $70/mo (free installation) for 1000mbps down and 250mbps up (they do have cheaper, slower plans). Competition is good. Hopefully Comcast gets the memo and notices people leaving and will actually do something about that. I don't want one better ISP (though they are great; I had an actual script-free pleasant phone conversation with their lead marketing guy in our area), I want actual competition between ISPs driving service to be better and cheaper. With "exclusivity agreements" being so commonplace in our country, it's unfortunately very uncommon, so regulation is key to not getting boned by the big ISPs. Usually it's between zero and one cable ISP and between zero and one DSL ISP in a given area and that's it. For me in particular, AT&T DSL in my area is a joke, expensive as hell for slow speeds, so Comcast was the only real option before, and as any current or former customer of Comcast can tell you, dealing with them is pretty similar to getting a root canal, except less fun.
Yeah Google has started in my area, I don't know when they will get to me yet. I will definitely switch when it happens, even if I lose some of my mustachian cred. Across the street, there is another option, where $50 will get 60Mb download (ball park), I'm not sure why my neighborhood doesn't have that provider as well. These are all local issues though and aren't going to be fixed (or hurt) by NN.
-
On the other hand, Google is putting in fiber, so that may be the first step. Personally, I can't wait for it. I'm currently paying $50/month for 10Mb downloads with Comcast. I would love some competition here.
Fiber has been deployed in my area this year by a regional ISP. They were only able to get around Comcast/AT&T "exclusivity agreements" (monopolies) by the fact that they are 100% fiber and not technically deploying either "phone" or "cable." I dropped Comcast and signed up literally the first week it was available in my neighborhood. I now pay $70/mo (free installation) for 1000mbps down and 250mbps up (they do have cheaper, slower plans). Competition is good. Hopefully Comcast gets the memo and notices people leaving and will actually do something about that. I don't want one better ISP (though they are great; I had an actual script-free pleasant phone conversation with their lead marketing guy in our area), I want actual competition between ISPs driving service to be better and cheaper. With "exclusivity agreements" being so commonplace in our country, it's unfortunately very uncommon, so regulation is key to not getting boned by the big ISPs. Usually it's between zero and one cable ISP and between zero and one DSL ISP in a given area and that's it. For me in particular, AT&T DSL in my area is a joke, expensive as hell for slow speeds, so Comcast was the only real option before, and as any current or former customer of Comcast can tell you, dealing with them is pretty similar to getting a root canal, except less fun.
Yeah Google has started in my area, I don't know when they will get to me yet. I will definitely switch when it happens, even if I lose some of my mustachian cred. Across the street, there is another option, where $50 will get 60Mb download (ball park), I'm not sure why my neighborhood doesn't have that provider as well. These are all local issues though and aren't going to be fixed (or hurt) by NN.
They are local issues, but those local issues are everywhere, and are part of the reason regulation for net neutrality is needed. If there isn't a competitor to switch to, the monopoly holder can do whatever they want without recourse.
If my grocery store starts only selling bruised tomatoes because they get them for cheaper, I'll go to the other grocery store. If it was the only grocery store in town, I'd have to either go without tomatoes or eat crappy tomatoes unless I wanted to move. Luckily, grocery stores in my area have plenty of competition, and tomatoes aren't as necessary to modern society as internet access (sorry tomato enthusiasts) so anti-tomato-bruising regulation is not necessary.
-
Interesting take on the issue:
Stratechery (https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/)
The author is pro net-neutrality but agrees with returning the ISPs to Title I classification (he agrees with Ajit Pai - at least in this specific instance).
He also explains how changes to other facets of the American internet landscape could be more beneficial to consumers. Stuff like actual competition between ISPs.
-
Interesting take on the issue:
Stratechery (https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/)
The author is pro net-neutrality but agrees with returning the ISPs to Title I classification (he agrees with Ajit Pai - at least in this specific instance).
He also explains how changes to other facets of the American internet landscape could be more beneficial to consumers. Stuff like actual competition between ISPs.
I know your not the author of the article, but could you explain the logic behind this line because I don't seem to get it?
"Again, zero-rating is not explicitly a net-neutrality issue: T-Mobile treats all data the same, some data just doesn’t cost money."
To me that kind of sounds like... T-Mobile treats all data the same, except in this one way in which they treat some data differently... which seems... disingenuous?
-
Interesting take on the issue:
Stratechery (https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/)
The author is pro net-neutrality but agrees with returning the ISPs to Title I classification (he agrees with Ajit Pai - at least in this specific instance).
He also explains how changes to other facets of the American internet landscape could be more beneficial to consumers. Stuff like actual competition between ISPs.
I know your not the author of the article, but could you explain the logic behind this line because I don't seem to get it?
"Again, zero-rating is not explicitly a net-neutrality issue: T-Mobile treats all data the same, some data just doesn’t cost money."
To me that kind of sounds like... T-Mobile treats all data the same, except in this one way in which they treat some data differently... which seems... disingenuous?
Correct, I’m not the author.
If I had to hazard a guess I would say that the nuance they’re trying to highlight is that zero-rating certain content doesn’t give that data priority on the network during times of congestion, it simply doesn’t count towards your monthly data allotment.
For it to be a net-neutrality concern in the authors eyes, at least according to my interpretation, the zero-rating services would need to be paying T-Mobile for priority access such that their service wouldn’t be impacted during times of congestion.
Take YouTube for example, as I think they’re one of the zero-rated services. If the T-Mobile network is congested then YouTube videos will suffer just as much as the video your uncle Dave hosted on his own website. Whereas if YouTube were paying for priority access then T-Mobile would prioritize the YouTube video over uncle Dave’s.
Again, this is just my interpretation of the articles based on my limited understanding of the topics at hand (i.e. I’m talking out of my ass.)
-
Correct, I’m not the author.
If I had to hazard a guess I would say that the nuance they’re trying to highlight is that zero-rating certain content doesn’t give that data priority on the network during times of congestion, it simply doesn’t count towards your monthly data allotment.
For it to be a net-neutrality concern in the authors eyes, at least according to my interpretation, the zero-rating services would need to be paying T-Mobile for priority access such that their service wouldn’t be impacted during times of congestion.
Take YouTube for example, as I think they’re one of the zero-rated services. If the T-Mobile network is congested then YouTube videos will suffer just as much as the video your uncle Dave hosted on his own website. Whereas if YouTube were paying for priority access then T-Mobile would prioritize the YouTube video over uncle Dave’s.
Again, this is just my interpretation of the articles based on my limited understanding of the topics at hand (i.e. I’m talking out of my ass.)
Okay, I think I understand the argument a bit better now. I was kind of with him up until that point, but I have to say I disagree with his interpretation of net-neutrality if you're correct about it. I don't think the term net-neutrality is understood by most people to apply only to the specific situation of prioritizing certain traffic during congested times. Instead, I'm pretty sure that most people understand it as a principle that all data be treated the same in all ways (except the obvious exceptions for illegal content and such). Which I think is why I feel that the statement was disingenuous.
-
Okay, I think I understand the argument a bit better now. I was kind of with him up until that point, but I have to say I disagree with his interpretation of net-neutrality if you're correct about it. I don't think the term net-neutrality is understood by most people to apply only to the specific situation of prioritizing certain traffic during congested times. Instead, I'm pretty sure that most people understand it as a principle that all data be treated the same in all ways (except the obvious exceptions for illegal content and such). Which I think is why I feel that the statement was disingenuous.
It's helpful if you remember the Internet is not a big truck, it's a series of tubes. Each packet of data is a water molecule flowing through the tube. Where it came from and where it's going are largely irrelevant to how it moves through the inter-tubes.
-
Correct, I’m not the author.
If I had to hazard a guess I would say that the nuance they’re trying to highlight is that zero-rating certain content doesn’t give that data priority on the network during times of congestion, it simply doesn’t count towards your monthly data allotment.
For it to be a net-neutrality concern in the authors eyes, at least according to my interpretation, the zero-rating services would need to be paying T-Mobile for priority access such that their service wouldn’t be impacted during times of congestion.
Take YouTube for example, as I think they’re one of the zero-rated services. If the T-Mobile network is congested then YouTube videos will suffer just as much as the video your uncle Dave hosted on his own website. Whereas if YouTube were paying for priority access then T-Mobile would prioritize the YouTube video over uncle Dave’s.
Again, this is just my interpretation of the articles based on my limited understanding of the topics at hand (i.e. I’m talking out of my ass.)
Okay, I think I understand the argument a bit better now. I was kind of with him up until that point, but I have to say I disagree with his interpretation of net-neutrality if you're correct about it. I don't think the term net-neutrality is understood by most people to apply only to the specific situation of prioritizing certain traffic during congested times. Instead, I'm pretty sure that most people understand it as a principle that all data be treated the same in all ways (except the obvious exceptions for illegal content and such). Which I think is why I feel that the statement was disingenuous.
Without NN, it's not just during high-congestion times that traffic can be (and has been) throttled. The throttling is basically a way for the ISP to double-charge for the traffic they're delivering.
-
Sadly, an awful lot of our traffic gets routed through the US. We're going to feel pain from this too, I suspect . . .
We invented the internet and we reserve the right to wreak havoc on it as our corporations wish.
-
Good day to revive this thread!
-
https://gizmodo.com/read-the-dissenting-opinion-of-the-fcc-commissioner-try-1821290547 (https://gizmodo.com/read-the-dissenting-opinion-of-the-fcc-commissioner-try-1821290547)
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16776308/susan-collins-angus-king-net-neutrality-vote-delay-letter (https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16776308/susan-collins-angus-king-net-neutrality-vote-delay-letter)
-
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html
Well, that son of a bitch did it.
-
“Your internet Thursday afternoon will not change in any significant and substantial way,” Michael Powell, president of NCTA-The Internet and Television Association, said in a call to reporters ahead of the vote.
Well, no kidding. It isn't the state of the internet tonight and tomorrow that I'm worried about . . . it's what a long period of legal backroom dealings to prioritize and penalize companies will do to innovation and user's rights. Telecom companies haven't really been very good at policing themselves in this regard historically:
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.
-
Yesterday an acquaintance of mine on social media commented on a friend's post about loss of net neutrality by basically saying, "So, what is the deal with this exactly? I keep hearing people talk about it like it's a bad thing, but I don't really know what net neutrality is."
And this, my friends, is why the FCC feels completely able and entitled to screw us over. Because those of us who care about it -- especially those of us who care enough to bother learning what it means and actually act -- are still in a pretty small minority. And they know it.
Meanwhile, while that small minority is fretting about loss of net neutrality, the GOP-controlled Congress is busily finalizing the tax plan hoping people are busy looking in the other direction.
Sigh.
-
I'll be the usual party crasher: Good riddance to another sneaky misnamed government-overreach power grab. The only good thing about 'net neutrality' was a good name & marketing campaign. The Net did just fine since the time Al Gore invented it till O admin 'neutered' it under a mis-applied law from 1934. Investment & innovation started tapering off immediately.
I do like this guy's analysis though obviously not his own belief on the topic
https://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/223495-the-shifting-world-of-net-neutrality/fulltext
"Regardless of one’s business, legal, or social opinions, it is clear the network neutrality debate is yet another example of technical and business change rapidly outstripping outmoded laws, while powerful social and economic forces are at play. The nexus of digital privacy, transnational data flows, and the scope of extraterritorial legal reach is yet another. We badly need updated legal frameworks that reflect current realities and that are sufficiently flexible to accommodate rapidly evolving technologies."
The move to FTC, requiring clear explanation of what you're buying (like any other consumer product), is awesome.
-
The Net did just fine since the time Al Gore invented it till O admin 'neutered' it under a mis-applied law from 1934.
. . . except that it wasn't doing just fine, all of those instances I listed above happened. Many of which were roadblocks to innovation.
Investment & innovation started tapering off immediately.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/ (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/)
-
1) . . . except that it wasn't doing just fine, all of those instances I listed above happened. Many of which were roadblocks to innovation.
2) https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/ (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/)
1) No, that is competition. ISP's will have to declare those under FTC rules.
2) OK, finances can be cooked to show whatever the chef wants.
-
1) . . . except that it wasn't doing just fine, all of those instances I listed above happened. Many of which were roadblocks to innovation.
2) https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/ (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/)
1) No, that is competition. ISP's will have to declare those under FTC rules.
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 (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1293263/mcsweeny_statement_on_net_neutrality_vote_-_dec_14_2017.pdf)
2) OK, finances can be cooked to show whatever the chef wants.
The people who we should trust with no oversight related to the internet services cannot be trusted to publicly state the truth?
-
Its like each week is playing a game of "hold my beer" with previous week to see who can fuck shit up the most.
-
I don't know why Ajit Pai is so eager to make sure future internet giants are more European, but he's certainly going about it the right way.
-
This is probably everything you need to know about Ajit Pai, the FCC chairman who has been pushing to kill net neutrality.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/364884-fcc-chair-dances-with-pizzagate-proponent-in-video-promoting
"FCC Chair Ajit Pai appeared Wednesday in a video promoting his impending net neutrality repeal, dancing with Martina Markota, a video producer for The Daily Caller, who has a history of promoting the so-called "Pizzagate" conspiracy."
Just when I think I can't get any more fucking disgusted with this administration and everyone associated with it, they prove me wrong. Every single time.
-
And now we wait for my ISP to block SlingTV because they don't like that I'm not using them for television.
On the bright side we'd eliminate another bill LOL
-
...
Just when I think I can't get any more fucking disgusted with this administration and everyone associated with it, they prove me wrong. Every single time.
And next week is taking notes on how to top this week.
-
I guess we'll have to break out the shortwave radios again for international news... ;)
-
Yesterday an acquaintance of mine on social media commented on a friend's post about loss of net neutrality by basically saying, "So, what is the deal with this exactly? I keep hearing people talk about it like it's a bad thing, but I don't really know what net neutrality is."
And this, my friends, is why the FCC feels completely able and entitled to screw us over. Because those of us who care about it -- especially those of us who care enough to bother learning what it means and actually act -- are still in a pretty small minority. And they know it.
Meanwhile, while that small minority is fretting about loss of net neutrality, the GOP-controlled Congress is busily finalizing the tax plan hoping people are busy looking in the other direction.
Sigh.
The same handful of companies own the ISPs, TV, print, and online publications. There has been close to zero coverage of net neutrality on my local stations and newspaper. Talk about fair and balanced reporting.
This is basically herding the sheep single-file so that we can be counted and kept tabs on. Yu will receive the appropriate information at the relevant time.
Read ""Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman" in Harlan Ellison's Paingod and Other Delusions. Read the other shorts stories too; I promise you they are fantastic.
-
These people have some nerve. So much for caring about states' rights.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/
-
These people have some nerve. So much for caring about states' rights.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/
We abdicate our responsibility for regulating these companies. Also . . . nobody else can ever regulate these companies since that's our responsibility.
-
I'm glad I subscribe to a small VPN service. It's provided me with a lot of privacy up to this point and now it'll be helpful in new ways.
-
I'm glad I subscribe to a small VPN service. It's provided me with a lot of privacy up to this point and now it'll be helpful in new ways.
Many VPN servers IPs are well known; Hulu, for example, won't let me watch shows when I'm on a VPN.
It'd be simple for an ISP to throttle VPN traffic too.
-
I guess we'll have to break out the shortwave radios again for international news... ;)
I keep reminding people that about the only properly independent method of communications we have is HAM radio. It relies on nothing but clear(ish) frequency ranges, and lets you literally talk around the planet on a few watts of electric power.
It seems useful. :)
-
I guess we'll have to break out the shortwave radios again for international news... ;)
I keep reminding people that about the only properly independent method of communications we have is HAM radio. It relies on nothing but clear(ish) frequency ranges, and lets you literally talk around the planet on a few watts of electric power.
It seems useful. :)
I've been spending less time on the Internet and more on my ham rig... With FLDIGI and MMSSTV free apps you can send pictures, do "chat" on PSK31, etc. I've hit South America from Ohio with 10 watts of power and a dipole antenna made of speaker wire strung across my patio. :-)
-
I'm glad I subscribe to a small VPN service. It's provided me with a lot of privacy up to this point and now it'll be helpful in new ways.
They'll just throttle all VPNs unless you pay the VPN fee.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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.
-
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.
-
Will HTTPS be good enough? Not techie enough to know personally.
-
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).
-
So VPN it is.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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:
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:
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 (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1293263/mcsweeny_statement_on_net_neutrality_vote_-_dec_14_2017.pdf)
-
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:
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.
-
*snip*
We've already covered what the FTC thinks of that argument:
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 (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:
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.
-
*snip*
We've already covered what the FTC thinks of that argument:
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 (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 (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.
-
List of states suing the FCC over this (so far):
Washington
New York
California
Illinois
Oregon
Massachusetts
Iowa
Kentucky
Delaware
Pennsylvania
DC
New Mexico
-
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?
-
*snip*
We've already covered what the FTC thinks of that argument:
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 (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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
At least we got ajit eating popcorn in front of a green screen out of it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
All 49 Democrats are on board - just need two measly Republicans to jump rank and vote against the end of net neutrality.
-
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.
-
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~
-
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.