FCC to vote on scrapping Net Neutrality

[Grapemask]

This proposal/vote to repeal NN is just a idiotic stance to have. Once Republicans are out of the White House this will just be reversed.

That said, I hate the current narrative being pushed about WHY repealing it is BAD. The reasons given are nothing short of fearmongering and mostly blatant lies.

But when you are fighting multibillion dollar companies with lobbyists and shills at all level of our government, I guess you have to bring out the big guns to compete.

I donate to outlets that are Pro-NN and are doing a good job at it. Not these clickbait sites that make you fill out a copy/pasted generic response.

I hate that Pai is just ignorning all the comments against him, but I can understand what he is saying.. kind of. Most of the responses are automated. Both FOR and AGAINST NN. Since those people put ZERO effort into making a valid argument for or against, I have no issue disregarding those pre-filled out comments.

But to the people that wrote a literal book length email/letter (such as myself and a lot of my colleagues) to their representatives and to the FCC I feel completely betrayed. I put A LOT of thought into my arguments for keeping NN and regulating ISPs. For Pai to just ignore them because he disagrees with them should be a fire-able/jail-able offense..

They're not really lies or entirely fearmongering, so much as they are assuming the absolute worst of the worst will happen right away. No, the US won't immediately shift to packaged internet; the most immediate changes will likely be at the back end to the likes of Netflix and Amazon and other streaming providers. At the front end, users may immediately see a charge from ISPs for streaming content providers.

The rest will be more gradual, but it probably won't get as far as that Portugal ISP's model in its entirety. It'll begin with a "simplified internet" package, which can only access social media and email, targeted towards the elderly and other "light" internet users. Over time, more packages will be offered, and the price for unlimited will go up in order to shunt you towards these packages, because they lower the ISP's bottom line while increasing their profit. It'll turn the internet model into a mix between the US cell phone and the US cable television and satellite models, but it won't fully turn it into the "EA nightmare scenario."

But the largest issue will be on the back end, in the deals between ISPs and corporate entities, and the ensuing warfare between big corporation and small businesses, and the pure cannon-fodder that will be individual web creators. That kind of capitalism will dwarf anything the end consumer will be dealing with, and unless Pai's net neutrality repeal includes a phonebook-length list of regulations to curtail that behavior - which in his WSJ op-ed, he has indicated he has no interest in doing; he thinks another agency such as the FTC should worry about that - it will not be pretty.

But yeah, it is both infinitely enraging and infinitely depressing to know that it's like yelling into a void. Pai will not change his mind, and the representatives in Congress do not care, either. And infuriatingly, Pai has made clearly he has no idea what his office is for. In the WSJ op-ed, he clearly indicates that he believes his role is to embolden and enable the free market, yet the FCC's legislatively-empowered mission statement is nearly the polar opposite. In his response to the accusations that he has been having improper private contact with corporate entities since becoming chair, he draws party lines and rails against Democrats, yet his position is not supposed to be politically affiliated. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS MAN?

[Sinyc]

They're not really lies or entirely fearmongering, so much as they are assuming the absolute worst of the worst will happen right away. No, the US won't immediately shift to packaged internet; the most immediate changes will likely be at the back end to the likes of Netflix and Amazon and other streaming providers. At the front end, users may immediately see a charge from ISPs for streaming content providers.

The rest will be more gradual, but it probably won't get as far as that Portugal ISP's model in its entirety. It'll begin with a "simplified internet" package, which can only access social media and email, targeted towards the elderly and other "light" internet users. Over time, more packages will be offered, and the price for unlimited will go up in order to shunt you towards these packages, because they lower the ISP's bottom line while increasing their profit. It'll turn the internet model into a mix between the US cell phone and the US cable television and satellite models, but it won't fully turn it into the "EA nightmare scenario."

But the largest issue will be on the back end, in the deals between ISPs and corporate entities, and the ensuing warfare between big corporation and small businesses, and the pure cannon-fodder that will be individual web creators. That kind of capitalism will dwarf anything the end consumer will be dealing with, and unless Pai's net neutrality repeal includes a phonebook-length list of regulations to curtail that behavior - which in his WSJ op-ed, he has indicated he has no interest in doing; he thinks another agency such as the FTC should worry about that - it will not be pretty.

But yeah, it is both infinitely enraging and infinitely depressing to know that it's like yelling into a void. Pai will not change his mind, and the representatives in Congress do not care, either. And infuriatingly, Pai has made clearly he has no idea what his office is for. In the WSJ op-ed, he clearly indicates that he believes his role is to embolden and enable the free market, yet the FCC's legislatively-empowered mission statement is nearly the polar opposite. In his response to the accusations that he has been having improper private contact with corporate entities since becoming chair, he draws party lines and rails against Democrats, yet his position is not supposed to be politically affiliated. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS MAN?

Most ISPs already offer a "light" package. It's speeds of 1-5Mbit/s. They will never try to do what TV operators do with the Internet. It just won't ever work. So yes, they are lying and fearmongering.

[Wyrt]

FCC will also order states to scrap plans for their own net neutrality laws

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...utrality-laws/

Come on California. You can do it. Enforce net neutrality. Tell the feds to go shove a pinecone up their ass.

[Grapemask]

Most ISPs already offer a "light" package. It's speeds of 1-5Mbit/s. They will never try to do what TV operators do with the Internet. It just won't ever work. So yes, they are lying and fearmongering.

Packages with speed limits are a far cry from packages with specific content limits, and that's precisely what ISPs have already stated they intend to limit (they specifically have outlined plans for streaming content and gaming content, two of the largest draws from their network). To say it won't work would ignore that it's being done extensively in countries without net neutrality - which is what makes these changes more perplexing, because those countries are all working hard to create net neutrality legislation to fix these problems. As usual, the US is going backwards.

[Blur4stuff]

The insanity of people wanting to trust Comcast instead of having NN is giving my brain an error.

There's no fucking way we ditch NN and avoid paying more for what we already have. And you can forget having improved service because of it.

[Blamblam41]

Packages with speed limits are a far cry from packages with specific content limits, and that's precisely what ISPs have already stated they intend to limit (they specifically have outlined plans for streaming content and gaming content, two of the largest draws from their network). To say it won't work would ignore that it's being done extensively in countries without net neutrality - which is what makes these changes more perplexing, because those countries are all working hard to create net neutrality legislation to fix these problems. As usual, the US is going backwards.

The people need to be taught the hard way what putting Republican domestic terrorists into senate, governor and executive positions actually does to the governing power.

The literal modern Republican mantra is that if regulations don't work then no regulation must work. Which in both cases are just disinformation campaigns based on the psudeo-anarchistic ideal of 'if government doesn't work, no government must work'.

Except, obviously, for when they need government to increase the bottom line for the corporations they represent, rather than the people that elected them.

[Belize]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/2...ww.google.com/

Lucky for us the fcc case is weak as fuck. They'll lose in court for sure.

Thank god for the judicial system. We'd be bigly butt fucked without them.

[Draco-Onis]

Thank god for the judicial system. We'd be bigly butt fucked without them.

The entire Trump administration is a giant test to the judicial system, these fucking idiots are like bulls in a china shop.

[breadisfunny]

LONG LIVE COMCAST! *beams proudly as a north korea style montage of comcast taking over the internet plays*
all hail our glorious dear leader comcast!

- - - Updated - - -

FCC will also order states to scrap plans for their own net neutrality laws

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...utrality-laws/

our glorious leader at work!

- - - Updated - - -

If this passes and the next sane Democratic controlled FCC does not change it back, get ready for this:





- - - Updated - - -

FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b6c9bfcbd012

i can see the savings now! porn? who needs that shit when i have doodles?

[Sinyc]

Packages with speed limits are a far cry from packages with specific content limits, and that's precisely what ISPs have already stated they intend to limit (they specifically have outlined plans for streaming content and gaming content, two of the largest draws from their network). To say it won't work would ignore that it's being done extensively in countries without net neutrality - which is what makes these changes more perplexing, because those countries are all working hard to create net neutrality legislation to fix these problems. As usual, the US is going backwards.

Where have they stated they intend to roll out such a system? If so, fuck them into the ground. I had not heard such a thing.. if it's indeed true.

[Draco-Onis]

Where have they stated they intend to roll out such a system? If so, fuck them into the ground. I had not heard such a thing.. if it's indeed true.

It was their defense when they started blackmailing Netflix and youtube, Verizon and Comcast being the biggest proponent of this. The ISPs are salivating at the mouth at the thought of screwing us, TV is dead they need this to make up for cord cutters.

They also intend to push their own streaming services to double dip.

[Sinyc]

It was their defense when they started blackmailing Netflix and youtube, Verizon and Comcast being the biggest proponent of this. The ISPs are salivating at the mouth at the thought of screwing us, TV is dead they need this to make up for cord cutters.

They also intend to push their own streaming services to double dip.

Again, where did they state they were going to do anything remotely close to what you said or that fearmongering image of TV style Internet packages?

[Draco-Onis]

Again, where did they state they were going to do anything remotely close to what you said or that fearmongering image of TV style Internet packages?

Did you miss the entire debacle in 2014 with Comcast? they already did this. As for the TV image it is a reference to them saying they wanted internet packages to be more similar to what they did with cell phone service at the time.

[infinitemeridian]

I'm not going to jump on the hype train, because I can see the arguments from both side - since this thread seems to be overwhelmingly for NN, I'm going to post my thoughts on why NN doesn't make sense from an economic perspective.

Regardless, I think for either side, this is not a problem of social justice and that while there may be a difference of opinion, this will not be the end of the internet such as We know.

Firstoff, the neutrality of the network reduces the capacity of infrastructure providers to efficiently manage traffic on their networks.

If all content providers are paying the same, there is no reflection of their perceived value for consumers in their choice of "data intensity" and the result will probably be congestion, at least at some point. Charging providers requiring more resources will help improve the performance of the network. (note here that the other alternative would be to discriminate more strictly the price on the end-user side, in other words, to make players and heavy video users pay more).


Secondly, defenders of net neutrality are amateurs to lift the flag of "Justice" for small content providers. I am quite convinced that this is a non-livelihood threat, since small content providers do not require large amounts of bandwidth in general, and therefore will not pay more if infrastructure providers can load content providers.

Thirdly, proponents of net neutrality argue that not to impose it will lead to higher prices for the end-user. This doesn't make sense; as far as I can tell, the neutrality of the network only results in a transfer of infrastructure income to content providers, which will use more bandwidth than is socially optimal and thus impose that cost to The people of the infrastructure.

[Sinyc]

Did you miss the entire debacle in 2014 with Comcast? they already did this. As for the TV image it is a reference to them saying they wanted internet packages to be more similar to what they did with cell phone service at the time.

The Netflix vs Comcast WAS NOT a NN issue. It was peering. It started the whole NN movement, which I am happy about. But that issue was NOT NN related. Considering with the, limited, rules of NN in effect today it hasn't benefited Netflix...

[Draco-Onis]

I'm not going to jump on the hype train, because I can see the arguments from both side - since this thread seems to be overwhelmingly for NN, I'm going to post my thoughts on why NN doesn't make sense from an economic perspective.

Regardless, I think for either side, this is not a problem of social justice and that while there may be a difference of opinion, this will not be the end of the internet such as We know.

Firstoff, the neutrality of the network reduces the capacity of infrastructure providers to efficiently manage traffic on their networks.

If all content providers are paying the same, there is no reflection of their perceived value for consumers in their choice of "data intensity" and the result will probably be congestion, at least at some point. Charging providers requiring more resources will help improve the performance of the network. (note here that the other alternative would be to discriminate more strictly the price on the end-user side, in other words, to make players and heavy video users pay more).


Secondly, defenders of net neutrality are amateurs to lift the flag of "Justice" for small content providers. I am quite convinced that this is a non-livelihood threat, since small content providers do not require large amounts of bandwidth in general, and therefore will not pay more if infrastructure providers can load content providers.

Thirdly, proponents of net neutrality argue that not to impose it will lead to higher prices for the end-user. This doesn't make sense; as far as I can tell, the neutrality of the network only results in a transfer of infrastructure income to content providers, which will use more bandwidth than is socially optimal and thus impose that cost to The people of the infrastructure.

1) That would only be true if the internet was provided for free to consumers it is not, these companies profit margins are also protected by the taxpayer using technology that they did not develop.

2) If ISPs are heavily favoring their own services what chance would innovators have? for example if someone came up with a new streaming service what chance would they have to compete when the ISPS are pushing www.ispstreaming.com?

3) Because they have stated that is what they wanted to do by creating a business model closer to cell phone service which cost more and provides significantly less.

- - - Updated - - -

The Netflix vs Comcast WAS NOT a NN issue. It was peering. It started the whole NN movement, which I am happy about. But that issue was NOT NN related. Considering with the, limited, rules of NN in effect today it hasn't benefited Netflix...

You misunderstand it was around that time other problem started cropping up including ISPS throttling youtube and pushing Hulu. After that time during their previous attempts to get rid of net neutrality several plans were put by the ISPs to "enhance" customer experience in several court cases.

This plan has existed since 2010, it was proposed during an AT&T merger and has remained a goal of the industry.

Edit: looks like I am wrong this actually started further than that with a Comcast court case against the FCC in 2007.

[Sinyc]

1) That would only be true if the internet was provided for free to consumers it is not, these companies profit margins are also protected by the taxpayer using technology that they did not develop.

2) If ISPs are heavily favoring their own services what chance would innovators have? for example if someone came up with a new streaming service what chance would they have to compete when the ISPS are pushing www.ispstreaming.com?

3) Because they have stated that is what they wanted to do by creating a business model closer to cell phone service which cost more and provides significantly less.

- - - Updated - - -



You misunderstand it was around that time other problem started cropping up including ISPS throttling youtube and pushing Hulu. After that time during their previous attempts to get rid of net neutrality several plans were put by the ISPs to "enhance" customer experience in several court cases.

No I know of those and the various shenanigans of ISPs. But I quoted someone trying to tell me Comcast vs Netflix was NN related. It wasn't.

[Draco-Onis]

No I know of those and the various shenanigans of ISPs. But I quoted someone trying to tell me Comcast vs Netflix was NN related. It wasn't.

Look up the court case in 2007 with Comcast, apparently this is older than I expected. They included plans to have data caps on internet usage with plans to overcharge people when they go over the caps and tiered internet. The next mention of such a plan was the AT&T merger in 2010 and it appeared again in 2014. There is no indication that they have changed their minds, Comcast will probably be at the forefront of this but it will be slow at first.

[Sinyc]

Look up the court case in 2007 with Comcast, apparently this is older than I expected. They included plans to have data caps on internet usage with plans to overcharge people when they go over the caps and tiered internet. The next mention of such a plan was the AT&T merger in 2010 and it appeared again in 2014. There is no indication that they have changed their minds, Comcast will probably be at the forefront of this but it will be slow at first.

There ARE data caps and OVERAGES for using more data than your CAP allows. What is your point?

[Grapemask]

Where have they stated they intend to roll out such a system? If so, fuck them into the ground. I had not heard such a thing.. if it's indeed true.

Among other places, they pretty much stated exactly that during testimony several years ago while in court with the FCC, when the whole net neutrality thing was first coming to a head and Verizon sued the FCC:
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2013/...verizon-vs-fcc (This is probably a crappy source, but the first I could find without working too hard)
(The oral arguments themselves)

Verizon's lawyer, Helgi Walker, stated Verizon's position was that they would like to prioritize websites that pay fees, block websites that do not, and editorialize the internet in such a way that they could selectively choose the content that is provided (ie, 'channel subscriptions'). If I recall, that lawsuit was about Verizon claiming that the FCC actually had no legal grounds to enforce any of their rules via common carrier, which is some of what ultimately led to classification as common carrier (but my memory's hazy on this bit).