FCC to vote on scrapping Net Neutrality

[Wyrt]

There has to be something that can be done. What does the SCOTUS say about all of this? Have they piped up at all in any direction? Even just a hint maybe?

lol

The conservative members of SCOTUS thought it was just swell to have corruption and bribes in US politics. So, yes, we're pretty fucked in that regard.

[Slant]

SCOTUS said money equal speech bribe away.

Gnargh. And that is your last line of defense? How big are the chances that they will actually overturn a previous judgement, ie. change their mind if they see it isn't good for the constitution/nation?

[Draco-Onis]

Gnargh. And that is your last line of defense? How big are the chances that they will actually overturn a previous judgement, ie. change their mind if they see it isn't good for the constitution/nation?

The only chance is for congress to enact campaign finance laws since they are too busy stuffing their own pockets, the odds are slim to none.

[Vankrys]

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

seems like a recurrent thing in the Trump administration. Checks and balances holding strong so far.

[Slant]

lol

The conservative members of SCOTUS thought it was just swell to have corruption and bribes in US politics. So, yes, we're pretty fucked in that regard.

In Germany, I think a good case could be made that net neutrality is vital for the democratic base structure in that it protects our basic human right to inform ourselves via any means we choose. Little known fact, access to TV is considered a human right here. And as a verdict recently clarified, internet is heading into that direction, too. That means even welfare people have the right to highspeed internet. I'm not sure if that decision is final yet, but I'm under the impression that it's going to be at the very least.

[Frolk]

If FCC fucks us up, would the courts be able to stop it like they did with Trumps ban?

[Wyrt]

If FCC fucks us up, would the courts be able to stop it like they did with Trumps ban?

I think the only part the courts could stop is the part that wants to prevent individual states from enacting Net Neutrality. So, we'll likely see another round west coast vs. the Trump admin. Then if the courts blocked the state level ban it would be up to individual states to enact it. So you'd see the big liberal states with net neutrality while the conservative states get fucked in the ass, again.

[Tackhisis]

What is it that killed the free market there from doing its job?

Low urbanization and low population density.

- - - Updated - - -

Things that are not okay under Net Neutrality:

Interesting.
Are any of those prohibited by your "net neutrality"?
- Different quotas or pricing for different traffic types or sources.
- Bandwidth limitation for different traffic types or sources?

[Lynarii]

There has to be something that can be done. What does the SCOTUS say about all of this? Have they piped up at all in any direction? Even just a hint maybe?

The SCOTUS generally will not comment on a case until it is before them, it looks really bad and opens them up to accusations of bias. That being said, SCOTUS generally only hears cases that involve the constitution in some form or another, and it may be difficult to try and tie net neutrality into a constitutional right or responsibility. Not impossible for them to hear it, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that being one that they do.

As far as reversing a ruling, SCOTUS has done so I think 5 times in history? Been a while since I looked up the details. In short, it's possible, but they're very hesitant to do it. Having the SCOTUS change rulings any time it's justice makeup changes would be a disaster for everyone.

[GennGreymane]

[Muzjhath]

Interesting.
Are any of those prohibited by your "net neutrality"?
- Different quotas or pricing for different traffic types or sources.
- Bandwidth limitation for different traffic types or sources?

Yes, they are discriminations based on content. Thus they are a non-neutral view of the internet.
The internet is the internet and do not look at imgur different than reddit different than porntube different than mmo-champ different from running a legal torrent download.

The basis of Net Neutrality, that was the default running of the internet until some ISPs started to get greedy and want more, is that what the ISP provides isn't the content, it's access. What you do with the access isn't their thing. (There are, ofc, clauses if you are looking up kiddie porn and the legal authorities want to track your IP adress, however, that is an entirely different issue).

The reason there wasn't any regulation (in the US) prior to 2015 was that there hadn't really been a need.

[Grapemask]

Although in my case it's a soft cap of 1TB. They don't enforce it... YET. But they will sometime next year. Other than that, there is zero chance of an ISP having packages similar to cable. It just won't fly. They can entertain the idea all they want.

It won't be overnight, just like it wasn't with any other service that you already accept buying in packages. 15 years ago, ISPs didn't have bandwidth caps and we said it would never fly if they applied them, and we protested the first ISPs to do so - today, nearly everyone has caps, and those caps get smaller every year.

To say it would never happen is to ignore that it's happened with literally every business model in the history of the United States. The internet is the only thing it hasn't happened with.

[Lahis]

So how many of you will buy the $15/month premium gaming package next year?

[Kiri]

I think the only part the courts could stop is the part that wants to prevent individual states from enacting Net Neutrality. So, we'll likely see another round west coast vs. the Trump admin. Then if the courts blocked the state level ban it would be up to individual states to enact it. So you'd see the big liberal states with net neutrality while the conservative states get fucked in the ass, again.

Especially since a lot of red states are thinly populated, so they will have no choice in ISPs. A cynical mind might see a venue for ISPs to make even more money, just by making websites/news leaning towards a certain side of the political spectrum more accessible than those of the other. But it would be very cynical indeed to even indulge in that thought. It's not like ISPs are strongly favored by one of the parties already or anything.

[Collegeguy]

I'll laugh if it backfires in their face.

I'm sure when it rolls out someone is going to try to hit the ISP's with something.

Would be funny if Comcast and others had to breakup into multiple companies because ISP's have no competition in many places.

[Lahis]

Would be funny if Comcast and others had to breakup into multiple companies because ISP's have no competition in many places.

Why would they do that? Being a monopoly gives them better opportunity to fuck people over for massive profits.

[Draco-Onis]

I'll laugh if it backfires in their face.

I'm sure when it rolls out someone is going to try to hit the ISP's with something.

Would be funny if Comcast and others had to breakup into multiple companies because ISP's have no competition in many places.

As long as they keep lining the pockets of greedy politicians to protect them from competition it's not going to happen.

[infinitemeridian]

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.

So what if they didn't develop it? Someone has to maintain that infrastructure.They charge for the use of their facility, and any use gets them more satisfied customers. The additional charges for high-value content are in addition, not instead of, regular use. This enables the operators to earn more from those willing to pay more, but I don't see how it hurts anyone else.

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?

Ok so now we're dealing in hypotheticals that will probably never happen - there's no indication that
1) They would form their own streaming services and if they did
2) It would be bad for consumers

The FCC order on net neutrality finally hit in 2015. Did you notice problems with small content providers before that date? I didn't.

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.

I'd like to see a source for this.

Look at it this way. Infrastructure operators have invested billions in infrastructure that is used by content providers and consumers for their benefit. If the value of that benefit rises, should they not receive some of the extra benefit? They are the ones that have the most investment capital at risk, and should thus receive part of the reward for taking that risk.

[Grapemask]

The FCC order on net neutrality finally hit in 2015. Did you notice problems with small content providers before that date? I didn't.

This is a terrible argument for about a thousand reasons, yet it's used a lot. You didn't notice a problem because the market was still heavily in flux, and ISPs were not yet committed to engaging in this behavior. The FCC actually began enacting a lot of these rules around 2005 when they foresaw this would be a problem, but they didn't have the legal grounds to enforce them. But this wasn't yet an issue, because ISPs were still focusing on building their model, expanding into new markets, and dumping the old dialup networks - it wouldn't be until around 2010 and the rise of cloud computing and streaming that they would turn toward fine-tuning the profit margins. By 2012, 2013, and then into 2014, they were in the courts arguing that the rules were actually a farce that couldn't be applied, which resulted in Title II and rules that could be applied.

As for the source for what he's talking about, just go into the court transcripts of those legal battles. They very clearly laid out all of those plans in the legal proceedings.

Again, "what will happen without net neutrality?" isn't some fantasy we have to hypothesize. Other countries that don't have it are in an internet hellscape and actively legislating to fix the lack, because it has not ended well.

[JohnBrown1917]

Ok so now we're dealing in hypotheticals that will probably never happen - there's no indication that
1) They would form their own streaming services and if they did
2) It would be bad for consumers

The FCC order on net neutrality finally hit in 2015. Did you notice problems with small content providers before that date? I didn't.

Look at what happenend to countries that got rid of it.