FCC loses ruling :(

[travisn]

@bing

i need to be told how to feel about it and how to sound smart in front of people when it comes up in conversation.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]37322[/ATTACH]

[bing]

@Joe

If you like the big telcos controlling what you can access and how fast, oppose net neutrality.
If you believe that all data should be treated equally, regardless of where your content is coming from, favor it.
If you think your ISP should be able to censor sites or make their content load like shit, or throttle their competitors, or let big business pay to throttle their competitors, favor.
Since you like all the rest of the Republican view points that screw the little guy and help big business, I imagine you’re against net neutrality. It’s basically creating a pay to play system.

Example, say AT&T goes through with buying Time Warner/HBO. Currently they can’t make HBO GO run perfectly on my AT&T home or mobile internet and Showtime Anytime run like shit. If Trump’s cronies at the FCC now have their way, they could basically hold all video services they don’t own hostage unless either the consumer or provider pays them more. Also makes it really easy to push an agenda by basically limiting people’s access to opposing viewpoints.

yes i am aware of all of what you described but on the surface it sounds so ridiculous to oppose. I would actually like to hear a logical argument for why net neutrality ‘shouldnt’ be a thing.

basically, i dont trust the news so i cannot tell if the general sentiment is genuine or not.

[vq30de]

Why do you need a sentiment? Read the facts and make a decision

[bing]

@vq30de

Why do you need a sentiment? Read the facts and make a decision

i have read a fair bit about it. again, on the surface i totally understand the uproar. i just feel like i must be missing something and i like to try and find the best counter-argument possible and weigh the stronger arguments for and against before chosing a position.

in this case, there doesnt seem to really be a strong case against net neutrality which is all the more reason why i am trying to seek it out.

same with the paris accord, for example, where on the surface it seemed silly to back out of it… then after reading it it made much more sense and backing out of it, in my opinion, was the better case.

but again, there is no cohesive argument to oppose net neutrality being discussed anywhere, but there must be one for it to have got to this point.

Is the end game here really just so that the telecoms can package the internet as they do cable TV by bundling web-sites into groups they can charge more for, or change the speeds etc. etc.?

[travisn]

I’ve been thinking about this and if I care enough to write in to a senator or someone, I don’t think I do.

Isn’t getting rid of net neutrality the basis of free/open commerce? Just because the internet has been freely accessible forever doesn’t mean that it’s supposed to be that way nor does it mean that’s best in the long run. People will vote with their feet if they don’t like the price/value.

An argument to that would be most people don’t have a choice of isp, I think we should fix that problem and let the market decide what’s things cost.

Or maybe I’ve misunderstood the few discussions and comments I’ve skimmed on nyspeed and reddit. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[Joe]

Here’s an example of a mobile plan in Portugal where they don’t have to follow net neutrality. Pretty fucking awful. These are all add-ons in addition to the monthly service fee.

[bing]

that’s fucked up.

i guess i’m just concerned that there appears to be only one side of the argument on this. the telecoms are not funding a counter-narrative or explaining themselves and their motivations.

a post-net-neutrality world would be veeery different and more expensive for all of us.

i dont think this applies to me but i am sure that if the US dismantled it and the telecomes made a lot more money that Canada would follow suit.

No wonder the FAANG boys are opposed to this.

This seemed to have been coming well before Trump though. I expect him to cave to the public-sentiment and swoop in to save the us all

[boardjnky4]

Oh really, @Joe ? They don’t have to follow net neutrality? https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/policies/open-internet-net-neutrality Come on, you’re smarter than buying hivemind bullshit.

All of the Euro follows net neutrality laws. This is a net neutrality compliant plan. It zero-rates certain services so that it doesn’t go toward your bandwidth limits. All of those sites are accessible to you at all times, they just count toward your mobile data plan data usage.

That Portugal thing is annoying, sorry.

The only way to solve this problem is through legislation. Otherwise you’re going to see the FCC rules change every time we have a presidential party change. FCC rules are not the right place to implement regulations. I also STILL think that title 2 reclassification is a a bandaid way to fix a problem that’s caused by lack of competition.

[JayS]

@boardjnky4

The only way to solve this problem is through legislation. Otherwise you’re going to see the FCC rules change every time we have a presidential party change. FCC rules are not the right place to implement regulations. I also STILL think that title 2 reclassification is a a bandaid way to fix a problem that’s caused by lack of competition.

You mean having the duly elected representatives craft a law that is then signed by the executive and reviewed by the judicial? Preposterous. It’s far better to have a political patronage dumping ground like the FCC handled it.

[Onyx_Z32]

@bing

… there appears to be only one side of the argument on this.

Because the argument isn’t for or against net neutrality; it’s over how net neutrality is achieved & maintained.

Clearly the idea net neutrality is a good thing. But it has been presented by most people as a black & white issue; do it this way and ONLY this way or it’s the end of the internet.

Keep in mind that those on the political left see the government as their infallible savior and the ultimate arbitrator of good and evil. So if you’re against something the government wants to do, or against a government solution to problem, you are also evil. Those on the political right acknowledge a problem (in this case more of a potential problem) but see solutions that might not involve a specific form of government intervention.

The left also is starting to view the internet as a public utility (like sending a letter though the mail) and those on political right hate that idea for many reasons. Giving the FCC Title II control over the web is seen by some as a step in that direction.

… the telecoms are not funding a counter-narrative

Telling isn’t it? Add Google, etc into the mix as well. The simple answer is if the internet becomes a public utility, then public (taxpayer) money will be given to them to build out their infrastructure, etc.

They’re keeping quite because they want that government cheddah!

---

Here are some other opinions below:

Ajit Pai is actually his best defender. I’ll post Pai’s whole response here because it’s behind a pay wall:

@Ajit Pai

How the FCC Can Save the Open Internet

We should undo the Obama administration’s rules that regulate the web like a 1930s utility.

As millions flocked to the web for the first time in the 1990s, President Clinton and a Republican Congress decided “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet.” In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the government called for an internet “unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” The result of that fateful decision was the greatest free-market success story in history.

Encouraged by light-touch regulation, private companies invested over $1.5 trillion in nearly two decades to build out American communications networks. Without having to ask anyone’s permission, innovators everywhere used the internet’s open platform to start companies that have transformed how billions of people live and work.

But that changed in 2014. Just days after a poor midterm election result, President Obama publicly pressured the Federal Communications Commission to reject the longstanding consensus on a market-based approach to the internet. He instead urged the agency to impose upon internet service providers a creaky regulatory framework called “Title II,” which was designed in the 1930s to tame the Ma Bell telephone monopoly. A few months later, the FCC followed President Obama’s instructions on a party-line vote. I voted “no,” but the agency’s majority chose micromanagement over markets.

This burdensome regulation has failed consumers and businesses alike. In the two years after the FCC’s decision, broadband network investment dropped more than 5.6%—the first time a decline has happened outside of a recession. If the current rules are left in place, millions of Americans who are on the wrong side of the digital divide would have to wait years to get more broadband.

The effect has been particularly serious for smaller internet service providers. They don’t have the time, money or lawyers to cut through a thicket of complex rules. The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that generally operate in rural America, found that more than 80% of its members “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.” They aren’t alone. Other small companies have told the FCC that these regulations have forced them to cancel, delay or curtail upgrades to their fiber networks.

The uncertainty surrounding the FCC’s onerous rules has also slowed the introduction of new services. One major company reported that it put on hold a project to build out its out-of-home Wi-Fi network partly because it wasn’t sure if the FCC would approve of its business model. Nineteen municipal internet service providers—that is, city-owned nonprofits—told the this past May that they “often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service because we cannot afford to deal with a potential complaint and enforcement action.”

This is why I’m proposing today that my colleagues at the Federal Communications Commission repeal President Obama’s heavy-handed internet regulations. Instead the FCC simply would require internet service providers to be transparent so that consumers can buy the plan that’s best for them. And entrepreneurs and other small businesses would have the technical information they need to innovate. The Federal Trade Commission would police ISPs, protect consumers and promote competition, just as it did before 2015. Instead of being flyspecked by lawyers and bureaucrats, the internet would once again thrive under engineers and entrepreneurs.

The FCC will vote on this proposal on Dec. 14. If it passes, Washington will return to the bipartisan approach that made the internet what it is today. Consumers will benefit from greater investment in digital infrastructure, which will create jobs, increase competition, and lead to better, faster, and cheaper internet access—especially in rural America.

In the next few weeks, anti-market ideologues are going to try to scare the American people. They’ll argue that government control is the only way to assure a free and open internet. They’ll assert that repealing utility-style regulation will destroy the internet as we know it and harm innovation. They’ll allege that free speech online is at risk. Don’t fall for the fearmongering.

We have proof that markets work: For almost two decades, the U.S. had a free and open internet without these heavy-handed rules. There was no market failure before 2015. Americans weren’t living in a digital dystopia before the FCC seized power. To the contrary, millions enjoyed an online economy that was the envy of the world. They experienced the most powerful platform ever seen for permission-less innovation and expression. Next month, I hope the FCC will choose to return to the common-sense policies that helped the online world transform the physical one.

Mr. Pai is the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-fcc-can-save-the-open-internet-1511281099?shareToken=stfce76b60cd1b419a95b8598eff 24dd79&reflink=article_email_share

Now if you want to hear the far-right view of the FCC’s version of net neutrality, this is a quick video. Keep in mind it’s from 2015:

The Truth About 'Net Neutrality'

Note the internet didn’t end after 2015 either, lol.

[boardjnky4]

If anyone wants to read some backstory on the entire Netflix/Comcast situation, you can read that here: https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/

Spoiler Alert: Netflix did everything in their power to pay LESS for interconnection to ISPs, even though their traffic accounts for 30% of the entirety of Internet traffic. And remember, the onslaught of streaming services account for 70+% of all Internet traffic.

[theblue]

It’s trickle-down internet. give the ISPs control to charge whoever whatever they want, and I’m sure they’ll do the right thing by the consumer. if not, the consumer can pick a different ISP on the free market, right?

My sympathy for ISPs would be higher if they stopped trying to use regulation to block competition such as municipal ISPs etc.

they want it both ways, and the consumer loses each time

[Onyx_Z32]

@boardjnky4

The only way to solve this problem is through legislation. Otherwise you’re going to see the FCC rules change every time we have a presidential party change.

I think we can all agree that changing the FCC rules back & forth based on party in power is shitty.

But if we go through the legislature, consider the process. The ISP’s, Google’s, etc’s lobbyists are going to effectively write the legislation. Politicians themselves don’t know enough of the details and they’ll vote for whoever pressures or “pays” them the most.

So would that be better or worse for consumers?

… I also STILL think that title 2 reclassification is a a bandaid way to fix a problem that’s caused by lack of competition.

It could be argued that the current lack of competition exists because of government intervention and regulation to begin with… but I need to go to lunch, lol.

[Wahoo]

I’ll say if they start charging me for stupid shit I’ll just dump the service. For example if I ever have to pay for facebook… it’s gone.

[theblue]

oh don’t worry. your ISP will offer you a free alternative which they own. nothing anti-competitive there.

The other big problem is that ISP have been avoiding upgrading to make profits and build an anti-neutrality argument. Stuff like this also: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/you-have-been-charged-tho_b_6306360.html
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?askthisid=186&fuseaction=ask_this.view

[boardjnky4]

@Onyx Z32

It could be argued that the current lack of competition exists because of government intervention and regulation to begin with… but I need to go to lunch, lol.

I think we can all agree that there are many factors.

IMO, it’s more than likely that it just doesn’t pay well enough to put wires in the ground anymore. And by the time you finish rolling out the next big thing, the next bigger thing is right around the corner.

• • • Updated - - -

@Wahoo

I’ll say if they start charging me for stupid shit I’ll just dump the service. For example if I ever have to pay for facebook… it’s gone.

Exactly what people don’t get.

Do you guys remember the outrage over whether or not Facebook would charge for access? Facebook will become a virtual ghost-town if ISPs charge extra for access. Same goes for any of the commodity web services out there.

And don’t forget, obfuscation techniques will also come into play. Can’t throttle or block a website that you can’t identify.

[LZ1]

This is a really complex issue that most people crying about it have 0 understanding of

[boardjnky4]

@LZ

This is a really complex issue that most people crying about it have 0 understanding of

Exactly. And I really am not very knowledgable on these things myself, but I’m seeing GOBS of mis-information being spread around reddit and facebook.

[LZ1]

The primary reason this is even an issue is because most ISPs are cable companies…People cancel cable subscriptions buy NetFlix/Hulu/etc who then consume all kinds of bandwidth because its not multicast like cable networks are.

Now ISPs are forced to cover all the infrastructure costs associated with that.

People keep talking about ISPs inserting ads and spying on customer data…Good luck with that every site that already isn’t over SSL will be in the next few years. Beyond that sites can be hosted in all kinds of places Amazon/Google/Cloudflare or various CDNs like Akamai which makes the proposition of ISPs blocking random sites nearly impossible.

It’s amazing the internet survived prior to 2015 when this suddenly became a political issue :lol: :lol:

[Onyx_Z32]

@LZ

… People cancel cable subscriptions [then] buy NetFlix/Hulu/etc who then consume all kinds of bandwidth because its not multicast like cable networks are.

Now ISPs are forced to cover all the infrastructure costs associated with that.

… suddenly became a political issue :lol: :lol:

Internet becomes a public utility -> ISPs get taxpayer money to grow infrastructure -> taxpayer money is a political issue.