Net neutrality gone

[Tabrotar]

Once again, that's not something that should be the responsibility of the employer. Putting that burden on them is exactly what I'm talking about. You may as well demand that they also build them homes, and buy them cars.

Nope that´s exactly what a employer is for paying their employees so much money that they can afford a home, food and then all the nice little things that make life bearable aka giving them the money so that they can buy things so that the industry will grow.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

That's the thing - there are no regulations. There never was. What's been in place were FCC rules for net neutrality which they enforced in litigation and through fines. This is what Pai voted to remove, in addition to the FCC ruling that the internet should be considered a common carrier under Title 2.

Some of the key moments in the history of the rules:

In 2004 the FCC established a set of principles for network freedom, which was enforced via legal actions against telecoms that attempted to limit or restrict access, notably in 2005 against an ISP that attempted to block VoIP traffic.

In 2005 the FCC lost a court case that led to re-classification of DSL to an un-regulated information carrier from a telecom, resulting in the collapse of the local DSL competitive carrier market.

2007 the FCC ordered Comcast to stop blocking traffic to torrenting services, after it was found that Comcast was throttling or outright blocking access to BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer networks, citing that they were "preserving the open character of the internet" and that "network operators can't block people from getting access to any content and applications." This led to increased calls for legislation to protect net neutrality.

2008 the FCC chairman, Kevin Martin, stated that he will fight to prevent ISPs from interfering with subscribers internet access.

In 2009 the FCC proposed additional rules to their 2005 policy, requiring ISPs to disclose policies to consumers, and that wireless networks (cell phones) should be similarly subject to net neutrality rules.

In 2010 the FCC was ruled against by the D.C. court of appeals for their cease-and-desist order to Comcast, preventing them from slowing and stopping peer-to-peer traffic, citing that the FCC lacked the authority under Title One.

2010 the FCC approved the "FCC Open Internet Order", banning cable television and telephone service providers from preventing access to competitors or certain web sites such as Netflix. On December 21, 2010, the FCC voted on and passed a set of 6 net "neutrality principles", seeking to prevent ISPs from blocking or banning competitors, preventing them from creating tiered networks, and requiring ISPs to be transparent, among other things.

2014 the DC Circuit Court once again ruled against the FCC, saying they have no authority to enforce net neutrality rules as long as providers were not classified as common carriers under Title 2.

In Feb 2015, the FCC voted to apply Title 2 common carrier rules to the internet, with then chairman Tom Wheeler stating, "This is no more a plan to regulate the internet than the first amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept."

In March 2015 the details of the FCC's new net neutrality rules were released, and in April they were published. This is what the FCC has just voted to repeal, indicating that the FCC is no longer interested in holding ISPs accountable to net neutrality rules, and to reverse the decision to classify the internet as a common carrier under Title 2.

So the tl;dr is that there were never regulations. Ever. The government had no hand in the workings of the internet, aside from the FCC attempting to enforce rules that would prevent ISPs from taking advantage of their consumers. Which Pai's FCC has just voted to repeal. Which still make's Vyuvarax's point: this is the first time the FCC has chosen to abandon net neutrality, and abandon consumers.

I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination, so I don't have a functional understanding of the difference between regulations and rules. I'm interested to see what the results of this change will be. I'm inclined to think this is much to do about nothing, but if I'm wrong, the situation will be righted, and quickly. People don't like to go backward, and there will be significant consumer demand for alternative providers if speeds slow down for a large portion of the consumer base. Furthermore, it could mobilize a political demand for legislation that sets the situation right permenantly. In the end, that would be the ideal situation, as laws are much more enforcable than regulations or rules, as legislators have spent their political capital getting them passed, and the public is much more aware of them.

[Torrasque]

The sky is falling now we are going back to the dark days of the internet, remember back in 2015 before net neutrality and everything costs money and ISP’s charged you for every email you sent?

Me either, I doubt this will do much.

Actually it's back to the 1980s ways of doing internet.

In 2014, ISPs found a way around Title 1, which was the official legislature from the mid 80s, back when ISPs were charging people per hour of usage.

[melodramocracy]

If there was a way to regulate the insurance providers we'd be better off. They are still making a very good profit, you can be sure.

Doing away with them entirely would be the best solution. Profits that are made in the healthcare field that aren't put directly back into medicine are squandered profits.

[Nyoken]

Lets go backwards!! Cause thats better?! What the actual fuck. Fucking greedy disgusting assholes

[Cyi]

Just because US is going full retard on something it really doesn't mean it will have to spread to the rest of the world. Those days are long over.
You should take a look at EU's general consumer policy direction compared to US. Common sense seems to prevail in other parts of the world as hard as it may be to believe.
And as a small note. Americans lack a bit of perspective in just how fucked up their system is concerning the internet. You have 3 big corps that already charge you absurd fees for a really shitty internet bandwidth and service quality with some throttling on top. Meanwhile in some european countries you get 1Gb band for 10 $ a month.

I keep hearing about this “crappy” service we Americans have. I live in Arizona and Cox has been great and offers a service for a reasonable price in my opinion. I have gig service for under $75 and I can’t remeber the last time in 10 years that I have had bad service or an interruption.

[RobertoCarlos]

Lets go backwards!! Cause thats better?! What the actual fuck. Fucking greedy disgusting assholes

Just a friendly reminder it was only 3 people at the FCC. that made this change.

3 people.


I mean it doesnt even make sense on a satire show.

[Lochton]

Anyone got the status on the current vote?

[Serpha]

This is just wrong. Sure we probably won't lose net neutrality in the EU because of this, but most websites used (youtube, facebook etc.) are still hosted in the US, and it will effect EU consumers.

So Youubers will be begging for even more money now...lol

[Trassk]

So ~83% of Americans didn't want the FCC to repeal net neutrality, yet they go ahead and to it anywas?

If words don't work, what options are you left with?

Well, it is a country where you can buy guns and a carton of milk from the same place, so people might get imaginative.

Seriously, there is not a single person who would agree to this, who isn't part of the money bleeding scheme it's become. There are no benefits to it for the everyday person, it's the equivalent of going to a public park for years, then suddenly they force you to pay $5 every time you enter the park, and the money isn't for upkeep of the park, it's simply to go to pocket the greedy bastard who did so.

They aren't even pretending to give you something for it, they are flat out telling you with shit eating grins your fav sites will be slow or off access unless you pay them for it to work like it does now.

This is like badly written highschool bully levels of insufferable

[ls-]

IIRC, Riot Games had to deal w/ some ISP that was throttling traffic LoL. Guess it'll start happening again quite soon

And I bet this time way more companies, incl. Blizz, will suffer.

-- edit #1

Ah yeah, this: Time Warner Cable sued by New York on behalf of League of Legends, Netflix customers

[Krigaren]

I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination, so I don't have a functional understanding of the difference between regulations and rules. I'm interested to see what the results of this change will be. I'm inclined to think this is much to do about nothing, but if I'm wrong, the situation will be righted, and quickly. People don't like to go backward, and there will be significant consumer demand for alternative providers if speeds slow down for a large portion of the consumer base. Furthermore, it could mobilize a political demand for legislation that sets the situation right permenantly. In the end, that would be the ideal situation, as laws are much more enforcable than regulations or rules, as legislators have spent their political capital getting them passed, and the public is much more aware of them.

Well, the legality has been one of the points of contention, and so far the courts have determined that the FCC hasn't ever really had the authority to stop ISPs from doing things, but that they do have the authority to fine them.

So the basic gist is that the FCC was serving as an oversight agency, threatening actions against the ISPs, but repeatedly being told that they can't legally stop them. With today's ruling, the FCC is saying that they're opening the gates to let the ISPs run free with no oversight at all.

The best thing that can come of this is what you've mentioned. It could cause enough of a public outcry to spur new competitors to enter the market, or spur for actual laws and regulations to protect the free and fair access to the internet, but history so far has shown that the telecoms have been really effective at lobbying legislators to prevent that from happening.

Either one of those things will require people to elect legislators that will be open to those changes.

[Vorkreist]

Well I can only speak for my country which falls under the amercia-canada-britian-australia-new zealand umbrella. And slowly but surely they all follow suit and for the most part have near identical laws but the countries on the right do have an advantage where they have minority ethic races like aboriginal or maori who have rights to the land where corporations cant completely stream roll their way in that easily as in america or canada so change is slower

My belief is the law will be overturned eventually. Its just too absurd in this day and age. The general public uproar is already at high levels. This is a turning point for showing the greedy lards that try to pull these kind of laws in the open that it just doesn't work anymore.

[RobertoCarlos]

IIRC, Riot Games had to deal w/ some ISP that was throttling traffic LoL. Guess it'll start happening again quite soon

And I bet this time way more companies, incl. Blizz, will suffer.

-- edit #1

Ah yeah, this: Time Warner Cable sued by New York on behalf of League of Legends, Netflix customers

Will activision and EA finally be the saviours the internet community needs?

Their ability to get money themselves is pretty impressive we could have a corporation vs corporation celebrity boxing match with the winner getting more traffic

- - - Updated - - -

My belief is the law will be overturned eventually. Its just too absurd in this day and age. The general public uproar is already at high levels. This is a turning point for showing the greedy lards that try to pull these kind of laws in the open that it just doesn't work anymore.

I hope you are right

[melodramocracy]

I will ask again, and don't worry I am not expecting an answer but please tell my why Hilary was worse then Trump. Use facts please if you decided to answer.

If there's one at all, I'm going to wager that the answer will have some combination of the words Soros, uranium, and email in it.

[Alopex]

Opening my new ISP lootbox to see what exciting services I can unlock:



Really, Bing and Myspace again!?

[Tenjen]

The sky is falling now we are going back to the dark days of the internet, remember back in 2015 before net neutrality and everything costs money and ISP’s charged you for every email you sent?

Me either, I doubt this will do much.

If you actually bothered to read up you'd have found out the isps were carrying out some seriously shady bull and were just beginning to escaltr before they were cut off early on.

[ls-]

Will activision and EA finally be the saviours the internet community needs?

Eh? Why? They'll be paying ISPs not to throttle their services. And, I guess, they'll also gladly pay ISPs to limit competitors' bandwidth

[RobertoCarlos]

Eh? Why? They'll be paying ISPs not to throttle their services. And, I guess, they'll also gladly pay ISPs to limit competitors' bandwidth

Look you'll never see me cheering for the success of activision or EA. I just like the idea of a different greedy corporation blocking this because it impedes their business practices. If the general public can just be ignored then it would be a nice twist of fate all the other sharks gang up on the biggest shark.

[Ausr]

"We the People..."

My fucking ass.