Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 02:43:07


Post by: Galas


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

The Federal Communications Commission released a plan on Tuesday to dismantle landmark regulations that ensure equal access to the internet, clearing the way for internet service companies to charge users more to see certain content and to curb access to some websites.

The proposal, made by the F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai, is a sweeping repeal of rules put in place by the Obama administration. The rules prohibit high-speed internet service providers, or I.S.P.s, from stopping or slowing down the delivery of websites. They also prevent the companies from charging customers extra fees for high-quality streaming and other services.

The announcement set off a fight over free speech and the control of the internet, pitting telecom titans like AT&T and Verizon against internet giants like Google and Amazon. The internet companies warned that rolling back the rules could make the telecom companies powerful gatekeepers to information and entertainment. The telecom companies say that the existing rules prevent them from offering customers a wider selection of services at higher and lower price points.

“Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the internet,” Mr. Pai said in a statement. “Instead, the F.C.C. would simply require internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them.”

Mr. Pai, a Republican who has pursued an aggressive deregulation agenda, was widely expected to have his plan approved during a meeting on Dec. 14. The two other Republicans on the commission generally vote with Mr. Pai, giving them a majority over the two Democrats.


This is sad news for americans dakkanauts. Is sad to see this obvious lobby-monkeys taking over the goverment and ruling to their own interests in detriment of the citizens. And if USA falls with this, I'm sure Europe will follow at some point.

I suppose that for some people Telecoms have their right to be free to offer whatever service they want... but being monopolys as they are, and with something as vital as Internet, I believe this kind of regulations are very neccesary. Is sad to see that even giants like Google and Amazon are powerless agaisn't the true titans that are the Telecom business like Verizon.



Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 02:58:42


Post by: MrMoustaffa


"Just need to be upfront about it"

Which will be great when they all hold hands and enact horrible restrictions in unison so you don't have an alternative. I live out in the sticks and there's not a lot of choices, this means I'm at the whim of whatever company wants to push me around. If this is allowed to happen it will be bad for everyone save a few POS executives who already milk us for every penny as is.

Absolutely ridiculous, does anyone know a way to protest this or call in? From the sound of it this isn't a traditional situation where you can call your senator and complain. I mean I'm going to do it anyways, if we raise enough of a stink to our representatives we might be able to get congress to step in, but I'm not holding my breath.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 03:38:15


Post by: Galas


https://www.battleforthenet.com/

This is the best I found. It explains it pretty good, the video of John Olliver is spot on.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 03:41:01


Post by: Ustrello


Just wait til the restrict access or slow down porn. They will be burning a effigy of ajit pai every day


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 04:56:38


Post by: sebster


Elections have consequences.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 05:26:26


Post by: Orlanth


 Ustrello wrote:
Just wait til the restrict access or slow down porn. They will be burning a effigy of ajit pai every day


There is a political agenda first and a corporate second with this change. It may be the best way for the poltical establishment to curb the rise of the alt right and of progressives.
However bread and circuses, so most mainstream porn sites will not get pinched, entertainment won't either nor will gaming. If those are hit people will complain, but they will overlook lack of access to poltical content if distracted properly.




Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 05:32:32


Post by: Peregrine


 sebster wrote:
Elections have consequences.


It's just unfortunate that the consequences are also paid by those of us who saw them coming, and voted against them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Orlanth wrote:
There is a political agenda first and a corporate second with this change. It may be the best way for the poltical establishment to curb the rise of the alt right and of progressives.
However bread and circuses, so most mainstream porn sites will not get pinched, entertainment won't either nor will gaming. If those are hit people will complain, but they will overlook lack of access to poltical content if distracted properly.


You've said this before, but it still makes no sense. The political elite don't care about access to political content or any particular movement, they have plenty of experience and skill at hijacking any populist movement that threatens to get them out of power. Even the greatest success of someone outside the political establishment, Trump becoming president, is turning out to be little more than a temporary break in power before the inevitable backlash returns establishment candidates to power. The political establishment doesn't need to resort to endlessly trying to chase censorship-by-inconvenience as the location of political content moves from platform to platform. There just isn't any meaningful benefit to them.

On the other hand the corporate benefit is extremely clear. ISPs get access to a massive revenue stream, and large corporations get the ability to buy priority service over their competition. And their paid-for representatives in the government have a strong incentive to do what their employers want. When you have that obvious a benefit for the people advocating for something there's really no reason to go looking for weird conspiracy theories as an alternative.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 05:45:09


Post by: sebster


 Orlanth wrote:
There is a political agenda first and a corporate second with this change. It may be the best way for the poltical establishment to curb the rise of the alt right and of progressives.
However bread and circuses, so most mainstream porn sites will not get pinched, entertainment won't either nor will gaming. If those are hit people will complain, but they will overlook lack of access to poltical content if distracted properly.


There is plentiful power to shut down any alt-right or... omg progressive group right now, providers can refuse to host them, social media sites can refuse to host them. That happens only rarely, in part because it's a hassle for companies to police so they provide few resources to police this, and also because they are quite rightly concerned about the impact of an excessively zealous policy on stifling debate.

There's nothing in this bill that will suddenly lead to new powers that would ramp up political talk coming from the fringes of society.

But what the bill does have is the power for providers to strike deals with various internet giants to control the speed their sites can be accessed. That's why Amazon and sites like that hate this - because if they want to have the best performing sites they will have to pay the internet providers.

The whole thing is a commercial rent seeking exercise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
It's just unfortunate that the consequences are also paid by those of us who saw them coming, and voted against them.


It sucks, no argument there.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 07:39:56


Post by: Pendix


Am I right in thinking this could be really bad for small businesses operating primarily online?

Asking for a friend.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 07:57:17


Post by: Peregrine


 Pendix wrote:
Am I right in thinking this could be really bad for small businesses operating primarily online?

Asking for a friend.


It probably depends on what sort of business it is. If, for example, you're talking about an online retail store selling physical products for mail delivery, probably not. Outright blocking content from competitors is the kind of thing that gets new regulations put back in place after angry customers demand it, even if it is legal to do it. And bandwidth for an online retail store isn't much of a limiting factor. Taking 0.1s longer to load a primarily-text store page is not something that is going to change a customer's buying decisions. But if you're in a bandwidth-heavy market like streaming video, online software sales, online gaming, etc, then it's potentially catastrophic. As a small business you can't match the priority fees paid by your larger competition, and slow service with that kind of product will quickly eliminate most of your customers.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 07:57:46


Post by: sirlynchmob


 Pendix wrote:
Am I right in thinking this could be really bad for small businesses operating primarily online?

Asking for a friend.


Yep, It would allow timewarner who owns msnbc to block their users from going to fox news or any other site with competing information. The ISP will have the power to decide which start ups succeed or fail by granting higher speed to the sites they approve of, and either slowing down or blocking other sites all together.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 07:59:32


Post by: Peregrine


sirlynchmob wrote:
Yep, It would allow timewarner who owns msnbc to block their users from going to fox news or any other site with competing information. The ISP will have the power to decide which start ups succeed or fail by granting higher speed to the sites they approve of, and either slowing down or blocking other sites all together.


Fox News vs. MSNBC is hardly a case involving small businesses. And blocking access to Fox News entirely means a lot of angry customers, a lot of lost customers, and a lot of people telling their elected officials to deal with the problem or get voted out of office.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 08:07:53


Post by: sirlynchmob


 Peregrine wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Yep, It would allow timewarner who owns msnbc to block their users from going to fox news or any other site with competing information. The ISP will have the power to decide which start ups succeed or fail by granting higher speed to the sites they approve of, and either slowing down or blocking other sites all together.


Fox News vs. MSNBC is hardly a case involving small businesses. And blocking access to Fox News entirely means a lot of angry customers, a lot of lost customers, and a lot of people telling their elected officials to deal with the problem or get voted out of office.


Maybe a decade or two ago that would work, now the rally cry is "deregulate" and the powers that be just saying "oh look at those liberals trying to regulate your internet, vote for me, they must be stopped." and the R's fall in line and vote their party.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 08:18:25


Post by: Peregrine


sirlynchmob wrote:
Maybe a decade or two ago that would work, now the rally cry is "deregulate" and the powers that be just saying "oh look at those liberals trying to regulate your internet, vote for me, they must be stopped." and the R's fall in line and vote their party.


I don't find that very plausible in a situation where conservatives are blocked from getting access to Fox News, "their" network. It's very hard to sell a plan for deregulation when the direct cause is a lack of regulations allowing the problem in question. The actual spin on it would be "oh look at those liberals censoring anything but their liberal SJW police state", and republicans who support the deregulation plan would be labeled traitors and face primary challenges from their own party.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 08:27:17


Post by: Ouze


 sebster wrote:
Elections have consequences.


Impossible, all the candidates are equally bad.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 08:32:26


Post by: sirlynchmob


 Peregrine wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Maybe a decade or two ago that would work, now the rally cry is "deregulate" and the powers that be just saying "oh look at those liberals trying to regulate your internet, vote for me, they must be stopped." and the R's fall in line and vote their party.


I don't find that very plausible in a situation where conservatives are blocked from getting access to Fox News, "their" network. It's very hard to sell a plan for deregulation when the direct cause is a lack of regulations allowing the problem in question. The actual spin on it would be "oh look at those liberals censoring anything but their liberal SJW police state", and republicans who support the deregulation plan would be labeled traitors and face primary challenges from their own party.


no it wasn't a plausible situation, just highlighting the problem, it's hard to make a large organisation disappear, maybe just cut their speed a little bit, or in 1/2, or to the point streaming their site is impossible.

You have it backwards, republicans for net neutrality will be the traitors. As this will be trumps doing, the R's will be in full support of it, even if their providers make some sites they like disappear. They won't blame trump, nor the party that allowed it to happen, it will be the liberals fault.





Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 08:38:21


Post by: Peregrine


sirlynchmob wrote:
maybe just cut their speed a little bit, or in 1/2, or to the point streaming their site is impossible


Which is exactly what I said in my first response to the original question on how much the change will hurt small businesses: you can't block content entirely, so the effect will be directly proportional to how much you depend on high bandwidth for your online presence.

Also, the success of the rule change depends on most customers not seeing meaningful changes in service. You can play favorites and charge Netflix extra money for priority service over Amazon, a cost that is passed on to the customer. You can do it to the point that streaming live is impossible, and you have to buffer your show before you start. But if the customer finds that their Amazon-exclusive TV shows aren't watchable at all then you have masses of unhappy customers to deal with and you lose your nice cash cow to milk. So you can't milk it too aggressively, especially with large businesses like Netflix/Fox News/etc that have large numbers of customers.

As this will be trumps doing, the R's will be in full support of it


This theory would seem to contradict the current political situation, where even members of Trump's own party are starting to express disapproval and distance themselves from him. His approval numbers are horrifyingly high for someone who has placed himself as the polar opposite of the left while simultaneously breaking every campaign promise he made to the right, but there are still large numbers of republicans/conservatives feeling buyer's remorse about Trump and those people are not going to mindlessly support his removal of net neutrality if it damages their enjoyment of the internet.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 10:30:07


Post by: Pendix


 Peregrine wrote:

It probably depends on what sort of business it is. If, for example, you're talking about an online retail store selling physical products for mail delivery, probably not. Outright blocking content from competitors is the kind of thing that gets new regulations put back in place after angry customers demand it, even if it is legal to do it. And bandwidth for an online retail store isn't much of a limiting factor. Taking 0.1s longer to load a primarily-text store page is not something that is going to change a customer's buying decisions. But if you're in a bandwidth-heavy market like streaming video, online software sales, online gaming, etc, then it's potentially catastrophic. As a small business you can't match the priority fees paid by your larger competition, and slow service with that kind of product will quickly eliminate most of your customers.

Thanks for the explanation!

So the expectation would be throttling bandwidth, rather than gating access? No scenario where your ISP would be saying; "So you didn't get the 'Wargmaing Add-on'; no Dakka Dakka for you." or "Nobody will be able to access your site through our ISP unless you, website owner, pay a nominal fee."


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 10:42:32


Post by: Peregrine


 Pendix wrote:
So the expectation would be throttling bandwidth, rather than gating access? No scenario where your ISP would be saying; "So you didn't get the 'Wargmaing Add-on'; no Dakka Dakka for you." or "Nobody will be able to access your site through our ISP unless you, website owner, pay a nominal fee."


Legally they could gate access like that, but the resulting backlash would be immense and probably kill off their cash cow before they have much time to milk it.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 11:01:53


Post by: Mozzyfuzzy


 Peregrine wrote:
 Pendix wrote:
So the expectation would be throttling bandwidth, rather than gating access? No scenario where your ISP would be saying; "So you didn't get the 'Wargmaing Add-on'; no Dakka Dakka for you." or "Nobody will be able to access your site through our ISP unless you, website owner, pay a nominal fee."


Legally they could gate access like that, but the resulting backlash would be immense and probably kill off their cash cow before they have much time to milk it.


I imagine that gating access would come later when they feel they can get away with it.



Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 11:28:28


Post by: cuda1179


This seems incredibly political. US Political. I thought there was a ban on this subject?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 11:58:10


Post by: Pacific


Yes but the effects will be global

(although I guess you could make the same argument about the US elections)


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 11:59:51


Post by: Peregrine


 cuda1179 wrote:
This seems incredibly political. US Political. I thought there was a ban on this subject?


Perhaps, rather than trying to get this thread locked, you could discuss the topic and demonstrate why the ban is pointless and needs to disappear.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 14:29:08


Post by: Galas


 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Pendix wrote:
So the expectation would be throttling bandwidth, rather than gating access? No scenario where your ISP would be saying; "So you didn't get the 'Wargmaing Add-on'; no Dakka Dakka for you." or "Nobody will be able to access your site through our ISP unless you, website owner, pay a nominal fee."


Legally they could gate access like that, but the resulting backlash would be immense and probably kill off their cash cow before they have much time to milk it.


I imagine that gating access would come later when they feel they can get away with it.



Of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Here you have an example of a Portuguese internet company offering "add-ons" to have access to specific apps on the internet.



If they destroy Net Neutrality in USA, this is your future guys. This is not a political thing. This will screw over everybody that isn't part of the Telecom lobbys. If you are part of those I suppose you should support this, but personally, you.


John Thorne, senior vice president and deputy general counsel of Verizon, a broadband and telecommunications company, has argued that they will have no incentive to make large investments to develop advanced fibre-optic networks if they are prohibited from charging higher preferred access fees to companies that wish to take advantage of the expanded capabilities of such networks. Thorne and other ISPs have accused Google and Skype of freeloading or free riding for using a network of lines and cables the phone company spent billions of dollars to build


This, coming from companies that fuction as a monopoly and more like mafias than as a business, is total BS.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 14:46:49


Post by: daedalus


 cuda1179 wrote:
This seems incredibly political. US Political. I thought there was a ban on this subject?


If you think this doesn't affect anyone in the developed world, you're in for a surprise.

I'm sincerely unsure of what the recourse is. I suppose we need to gear up for another anti-SOPA style gak show. It'd be nice if google and wikipedia felt like helping out again.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 14:49:40


Post by: Easy E


Welcome to the "Cable"-ization of the internet. It was fun while it lasted!


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 14:58:00


Post by: daedalus


 Galas wrote:

Here you have an example of a Portuguese internet company offering "add-ons" to have access to specific apps on the internet.


Galas, do you know, from a technological standpoint, how they manage that? Do they block those things unless you 'pay' for them? What about services that aren't listed on the options? I'm thinking basic stuff like ssh or ftp or even just http? The weird thing is that some of those appear to be websites, i.e. a subset of traffic over http/https, and some appear to be services, like email, would I would think would filter entire ports. But yet I don't see anything indicating vpn, which would obviously be a gaping hole in their racket.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 15:03:24


Post by: Galas


To be honest I'm pretty ignorant in the technological part of this, so no, I don't know how they do it. They can directly block specific ports, yeah, that I know. But I'm sure they'll find the way to do whatever they want at a technical level.

Blocking websites unless you pay for them is the most radical extreme of this. But theres many points before reaching that. From paying for "faster" access to certain websites, services or apps, from those websites having to pay a extra (Like Netflix needs to do) to have their streaming content delivered at a reasonable speed.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 15:38:28


Post by: KingCracker


 MrMoustaffa wrote:
"Just need to be upfront about it"

Which will be great when they all hold hands and enact horrible restrictions in unison so you don't have an alternative. I live out in the sticks and there's not a lot of choices, this means I'm at the whim of whatever company wants to push me around. If this is allowed to happen it will be bad for everyone save a few POS executives who already milk us for every penny as is.

Absolutely ridiculous, does anyone know a way to protest this or call in? From the sound of it this isn't a traditional situation where you can call your senator and complain. I mean I'm going to do it anyways, if we raise enough of a stink to our representatives we might be able to get congress to step in, but I'm not holding my breath.



Shoot I live near the city in a populated area and we really only have 2 options for cable. This sucks BAD


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 16:09:05


Post by: WrentheFaceless


This is a terrible non-political thing that will affect everyone that's not a giant telecom company negatively.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 16:23:57


Post by: kronk


 Galas wrote:

Here you have an example of a Portuguese internet company offering "add-ons" to have access to specific apps on the internet.




This is alarming and this picture should be spread to soccer moms and the elderly as much as possible. They're the only ones that vote in the US, anyway.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 16:28:14


Post by: daedalus


 kronk wrote:

This is alarming and this picture should be spread to soccer moms and the elderly as much as possible. They're the only ones that vote in the US, anyway.


"What do your little squiggles mean? That's, like, Mexican, right? I'm too busy (needing to work a job to support my kids / buying cat food to eat because I can't afford groceries) to figure out why you're angry about a picture I won't see because I (only use the internet for a means to shut my 2.4 little monsters up for 5 minutes / have aol, but no computer)." Pick whichever phrase in parenthesis feels appropriate to either category of person.

:(


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 16:34:01


Post by: kronk


Explain to the old people that it will make watching Matlock on Netflix more expensive.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 16:39:30


Post by: Galas


A Verizon ,telecom ex-lawyer being the cheif of the office that needs to regulate Telecoms... it is wonderfull how the world works.

Spoiler:



The problem with this is... if they won, we are screwed. But if they lost, they'll try again, and again, and again, until they achieve what they want.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 16:44:13


Post by: Desubot


 Galas wrote:
A Verizon ,telecom ex-lawyer being the cheif of the office that needs to regulate Telecoms... it is wonderfull how the world works.

Spoiler:



The problem with this is... if they won, we are screwed. But if they lost, they'll try again, and again, and again, until they achieve what they want.


They tried it last time with what was his name... wheeler?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 17:22:09


Post by: Ustrello


 Desubot wrote:
 Galas wrote:
A Verizon ,telecom ex-lawyer being the cheif of the office that needs to regulate Telecoms... it is wonderfull how the world works.

Spoiler:



The problem with this is... if they won, we are screwed. But if they lost, they'll try again, and again, and again, until they achieve what they want.


They tried it last time with what was his name... wheeler?


Wheeler walker jr. country mega star and all around good guy

In all seriousness I think you are right


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 18:06:56


Post by: Vaktathi


Here'a hoping the NYAG's investigation turns up something. Killing net neutrality is going to be one of the worst things to happen to the US in economic, cultural, and social terms.

Pai is also among the most transparently bought-and-paid-for sock puppets I've ever seen in my life.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 18:08:47


Post by: feeder


I'd be interested in reading a defense of the FCC's attempt here. There's gotta be someone who thinks this is a good idea.

Any free market, de-regulator champions?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 19:21:39


Post by: LordofHats


 feeder wrote:
I'd be interested in reading a defense of the FCC's attempt here. There's gotta be someone who thinks this is a good idea.

Any free market, de-regulator champions?


I think one of the great ironies of the anti-NN camp is the argument that NN is anti-free speech. Its really quite hilarious how the narrative has formed and spread. A picture perfect example of the base rallying behind the flag for no reason other than being told to, drinking monumental amounts of kool-aid along the way.

And FYI, DakkaDakka should care because these changes to internet regulation could make it much harder for independent website to operate at all. At first this probably won't bite consumers at the end of the data line that much. The first victims are going to be service providers who will be price gouged (because it'll be legal as feth for some reason) just to get hooked up. High traffic lanes will likely be accompanied by data caps on low traffic lanes, and by high I mean fast and by low I mean slow. Independent websites could vanish completely worse case scenario as their hosts will be unable to pay fees without the support of a major webhost.

EDIT: Not to mention this will be a huge blow to the US tech industry, one of the fastest growing and most expansive economic sectors in the country.

The free and open internet dies with net neutrality.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 20:05:22


Post by: Tannhauser42


In a way, the worst case scenario almost looks like a return of the early online days of AOL, Prodigy, etc. The service provider you choose also determines the content you get.

Best case is probably something like AT&T making Google take a few extra seconds to load while Yahoo loads instantly, because AT&T is partnered with Yahoo.



Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 20:10:37


Post by: Formosa


Europe falling for it... not a hope in hell, could you imagine France putting up with this crap, a lot of eastern Euro countries would not tolerate it and the UK would rage at this, so no, this seems like a standard US problem.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 20:11:37


Post by: LordofHats


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
In a way, the worst case scenario almost looks like a return of the early online days of AOL, Prodigy, etc. The service provider you choose also determines the content you get.


For consumers, it's a lot like your phone bill because boy would ISP's love to charge you for internet like they charge you for phone service that still sucks. $50 for every computer in your house, plus $100 for unlimited streaming and another $50 for no data caps on your downloads. Bills could easily triple for the same or worse service and people will still pay them because they won't have any choice.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 20:27:16


Post by: Formosa


in fact.... they tried and failed

https://savetheinternet.eu/?sample_rate=0.1&snippet_name=5632#send-a-message


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 20:30:09


Post by: skyth


Net Neutrality allows the Free Market. Without it, the market has no chance of being free.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 20:30:25


Post by: NinthMusketeer


This isn't as bad as it seems because it will be reversed as soon as a democrat administration hits. Just put up without net neutrality for a few years and it will come back, probably stronger for the absence.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 20:32:45


Post by: LordofHats


I wouldn't be so sure. The Democrats seem kind of ambivalent on the issue to me.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 20:34:56


Post by: Easy E


Well, I guess now we have to go through Congress to get the Title II to apply to ISPs now?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 20:41:32


Post by: ProtoClone


It's really hard for me to talk about this because it makes me so mad, so scared.

My wife and I have our own business that has a big reliance on the freedom the internet has right at this moment.

Our business is a dance studio, small, but doing well. Without Net Neutrality we would lose the ability to advertise our events to a broader audience. We would lose the ability to scout out potential dancers to come be special instructors, and have gala shows were participants can showcase their own abilities.

The strength of our signal would be reduced and so would the abilities of our community members.

This will take out the legs of small businesses. You will either have the money to survive this or you won't.



Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 20:45:23


Post by: daedalus


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
In a way, the worst case scenario almost looks like a return of the early online days of AOL, Prodigy, etc. The service provider you choose also determines the content you get.

Ugh. Imagine getting billed for usage minutes again. That's a hell I don't miss, and I didn't pay the bills back then.


Best case is probably something like AT&T making Google take a few extra seconds to load while Yahoo loads instantly, because AT&T is partnered with Yahoo.

Frankly, at this point, I'm considering just setting up my router to default to VPN everything through Canada or something. I know DD-WRT supports it. And I'm sure it's only going to become more commonplace.

...At least, until that becomes illegal.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 20:52:03


Post by: Grey Templar


 ProtoClone wrote:
It's really hard for me to talk about this because it makes me so mad, so scared.

My wife and I have our own business that has a big reliance on the freedom the internet has right at this moment.

Our business is a dance studio, small, but doing well. Without Net Neutrality we would lose the ability to advertise our events to a broader audience. We would lose the ability to scout out potential dancers to come be special instructors, and have gala shows were participants can showcase their own abilities.

The strength of our signal would be reduced and so would the abilities of our community members.

This will take out the legs of small businesses. You will either have the money to survive this or you won't.


Maybe, but I wouldn't be so sure.

Net Neutrality being gone doesn't necessarily give big businesses the incentive to squeeze small business websites. It gives them incentive to squeeze their real competitors. Google would have no benefit to forcing your dance studio to pay extra to load your website a few milliseconds faster, since what you are talking about doesn't really rely on instant fast internet. A little lag in streaming a video isn't going to sink your business. And if its not a live video you wouldn't even really notice the difference.

Only a larger business which relies on fast live streaming of data would be affected in an appreciable way, because as mentioned earlier if the providers really clamp down they'll alienate their customers and be forced to ease off(either by legislated regulation OR simple market pressure). And a business which really relies on having truly fast data will simply pony up the money.

From what it sounds like, your business relies on free-ish advertising. The truth is any growing business will eventually have to start paying for adds, or allowing other ads to be placed on your website. Irregardless of Net Neutrality.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 21:08:11


Post by: skyth


Utility Monopolies aren't affected that much by market pressure. And net neutrality being gone makes it harder to challenge that monopoly.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 21:10:43


Post by: Easy E


 ProtoClone wrote:
It's really hard for me to talk about this because it makes me so mad, so scared.

My wife and I have our own business that has a big reliance on the freedom the internet has right at this moment.

Our business is a dance studio, small, but doing well. Without Net Neutrality we would lose the ability to advertise our events to a broader audience. We would lose the ability to scout out potential dancers to come be special instructors, and have gala shows were participants can showcase their own abilities.

The strength of our signal would be reduced and so would the abilities of our community members.

This will take out the legs of small businesses. You will either have the money to survive this or you won't.



I am there with you with my two businesses as well.

Facebook all ready plays this game to some extent now.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 21:23:59


Post by: daedalus


Meanwhile those fethers at Charter are, even now, sending me emails offering me "WiFi" for a mere introductory additional $9.95/month.

I'm picturing our grimdark future to come. Part of me suspects that Shadowrun is optimistic.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 21:24:00


Post by: Voss


 KingCracker wrote:
 MrMoustaffa wrote:
"Just need to be upfront about it"

Which will be great when they all hold hands and enact horrible restrictions in unison so you don't have an alternative. I live out in the sticks and there's not a lot of choices, this means I'm at the whim of whatever company wants to push me around. If this is allowed to happen it will be bad for everyone save a few POS executives who already milk us for every penny as is.

Absolutely ridiculous, does anyone know a way to protest this or call in? From the sound of it this isn't a traditional situation where you can call your senator and complain. I mean I'm going to do it anyways, if we raise enough of a stink to our representatives we might be able to get congress to step in, but I'm not holding my breath.



Shoot I live near the city in a populated area and we really only have 2 options for cable. This sucks BAD


The sad thing is, you're lucky. There are huge areas of the country that have zero options. If you want cable/internet, you pay for the one service in the area.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 21:27:16


Post by: daedalus


Yeah, I live in the biggest city around me for roughly 5 hours in any direction, minimum, and here it's Charter if you want fast, AT&T or DirectTV if you want slow, and of course if you don't want the option that uses your money to lobby against your best interests, you can always choose nothing and live like a second class citizen.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 22:04:40


Post by: John Prins


Well, the first thing people should do is agitate for Municipal Broadband. Talk to your local politician and try to cut the Cable Provider out!

If you're able to find one, buy from a provider that still supports net neutrality. Even if it costs more, vote with your $$$.

The most likely thing that will happen is throttling bandwidth unless you buy the 'premium access' channels. You'll probably need this is you Netflix. The average web surfer probably won't be affected too much.

Finally, consider using a VPN, possibly one situated outside of the USA, and get your bandwidth boosted only to that VPN, which browses from a place that supports net neutrality. You probably want to encrypt traffic while you're at it so the local provider can't sniff out what you're doing.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 22:17:56


Post by: LordofHats


Honestly I don't expect Netflix's streaming service to survive. Why would the cable companies, who have financial stakes in the television broadcasters, want to compete with an upstart putting out universally acclaimed shows? And why would the television boradcasters want the competition? They're already pulling their shows from Netflix to start their own streaming services. Netflix is going to be hammered with fees, because its now legal for the cable companies to show favoritism, to force them off the streaming market and what'll happen? Lots of complaints but the cable companies are a monopoly so what do they care?

Welcome to the future. It's worse than the present but hey millionaires got another couple million in their pockets. The American Dream is real!


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 22:21:49


Post by: oldravenman3025





Removing Net Neutrality=BAD.


They've been trying for years, and now the corporate fat cats and politicos are going to get their way. Let's see how long that lasts when the word gets around, and voters start putting the pressure on.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 22:23:53


Post by: LordofHats


Honestly part of me kind of wants it to go, simply because certain parties will have no choice but to eat it. It's easy to shrug off responsibility for disastrous drug policies and crank economics. It's a lot harder to explain to voters why something they love is worse than ever and more expensive than they ever dreamed.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 22:30:29


Post by: Galas


I think this is one of those issues where people should forgot who is from team red and who from team blue and try to cooperate to avoid this kind of dick move from the Telecom monopolys to the customers.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 22:38:46


Post by: LordofHats


 Galas wrote:
I think this is one of those issues where people should forgot who is from team red and who from team blue and try to cooperate to avoid this kind of dick move from the Telecom monopolys to the customers.


That doesn't really work here. One of those teams has completely sold out on the issue and is actively at the heart of a misinformation campaign that claims Net Neutrality is anti-Free Speech (somehow), ant-Free Market (somehow), and anti Innovation (somehow). All nice phrases that millions of people have been conditioned to accept as absolutely must haves with no critical thought process whatsoever applied to what they actually mean. Outside of establishment politics, take a look at some of the responses to the FCC's public requests for comment sometime. It's littered with copy pasted "thanks Obama" comments, preaching the evils of "tha gov'ment" and the importance of "freedom" and it's sad. Really really sad.

it is a dick move from Telecom monopolies, but their business. Dick moves is what they do. It's a certain team that's supposed to be on the side of the people that's sold out but what else is new? They've been corporate shills for decades.

EDIT: To be fair, I've seen lots of crossing the line on this issue. How much time you actually spend on the internet seems a much strong signal as to how you feel about Net Neutrality than typical party affiliation. But there's still a stark contrast here when you consider that when Congress took up a bill to end Net Neutality it was slammed into the ground so hard it was painful to watch. Five years later, the legislature has been completely bypassed, with blatantly in the pocket appointees throwing the policy out the window while the chorus of "Freedom" cheers the flag in jaw dropping obliviousness.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 22:39:32


Post by: Kanluwen


 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Removing Net Neutrality=BAD.


They've been trying for years, and now the corporate fat cats and politicos are going to get their way. Let's see how long that lasts when the word gets around, and voters start putting the pressure on.

This becomes problematic when the "voters putting the pressure on" are the ones who have put the corporate fatcats and politicos into a place where they feel they can get away with this trash.

There are people legitimately defending the removal of Net Neutrality as a "good thing".


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 22:59:00


Post by: oldravenman3025


LordofHats wrote:
 Galas wrote:
I think this is one of those issues where people should forgot who is from team red and who from team blue and try to cooperate to avoid this kind of dick move from the Telecom monopolys to the customers.


That doesn't really work here. One of those teams has completely sold out on the issue and is actively at the heart of a misinformation campaign that claims Net Neutrality is anti-Free Speech (somehow), ant-Free Market (somehow), and anti Innovation (somehow). All nice phrases that millions of people have been conditioned to accept as absolutely must haves with no critical thought process whatsoever applied to what they actually mean. Outside of establishment politics, take a look at some of the responses to the FCC's public requests for comment sometime. It's littered with copy pasted "thanks Obama" comments, preaching the evils of "tha gov'ment" and the importance of "freedom" and it's sad. Really really sad.

it is a dick move from Telecom monopolies, but their business. Dick moves is what they do. It's a certain team that's supposed to be on the side of the people that's sold out but what else is new? They've been corporate shills for decades.


Kanluwen wrote:
 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Removing Net Neutrality=BAD.


They've been trying for years, and now the corporate fat cats and politicos are going to get their way. Let's see how long that lasts when the word gets around, and voters start putting the pressure on.

This becomes problematic when the "voters putting the pressure on" are the ones who have put the corporate fatcats and politicos into a place where they feel they can get away with this trash.

There are people legitimately defending the removal of Net Neutrality as a "good thing".






The very fact that we're discussing this here, and people from across the political divide are in agreement here that getting rid of Net Neutrality is a bad move, is proof that people don't knee-jerk buy into BS narratives anymore.


I've already been in touch with the offices of my Senators and Representatives. We need to act and get the word out to people who are not in the loop.

There are already lawsuits in the works against this. It will be interesting to see where they go.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 23:20:25


Post by: LordofHats


It's a matter of ignorance. I've seen people comment that they don't know what Net Neutrality is, but if George Soros supports it then it's clearly a liberal conspiracy to bring about a one world government.

Most people I imagine have no idea how the internet works, they only know that it does and they like that. It's not that people falling in line with the BS narrative are stupid, they just lack the requisite knowledge to know its BS. There's an important difference there, but that's still buying into bs. Most people I imagine have plenty of mess in their lives, but political culture in the US is such that we are compelled to have an opinion even if its so shallow and poorly thought out as to constitute non sequitur.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/22 23:46:32


Post by: Vaktathi


Call/email your reps people, be they D's or R's or literal fascists or actual communists.

There's broad bipartisan support for net neutrality, and that needs to be rammed home.

Because feth paying $4.99 for Email, $22.99 for Streaming, $12.99 for Gaming, $7.99 for Browsing, $299.99 for file sharing, all on monthly minutes plan to boot.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 02:07:07


Post by: Mario


From what I have read municipal broadband won't be an option as there would also be some laws that make this harder (to protect the "ISP's investment" or something like that), and Netflix already once paid a fee for access a few years ago.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 02:17:15


Post by: sebster


 Ouze wrote:
Impossible, all the candidates are equally bad.


Yep, best to take a position of absolute cynicism. What could go wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
I think this is one of those issues where people should forgot who is from team red and who from team blue and try to cooperate to avoid this kind of dick move from the Telecom monopolys to the customers.


I think the opposite. Things like this happen when there is a disconnect between politicians as personalities, and the actual policies they support.

One of the best approaches to defeating net neutrality is if Republicans can be legitimately threatened that they will be branded forever going forward as the party that killed the internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 LordofHats wrote:
That doesn't really work here. One of those teams has completely sold out on the issue and is actively at the heart of a misinformation campaign that claims Net Neutrality is anti-Free Speech (somehow), ant-Free Market (somehow), and anti Innovation (somehow). All nice phrases that millions of people have been conditioned to accept as absolutely must haves with no critical thought process whatsoever applied to what they actually mean. Outside of establishment politics, take a look at some of the responses to the FCC's public requests for comment sometime. It's littered with copy pasted "thanks Obama" comments, preaching the evils of "tha gov'ment" and the importance of "freedom" and it's sad. Really really sad.


Most of the comments to the FCC wanting an end to net neutrality are bots. There's been 100,000 comments from a single bot account.

https://www.cnet.com/news/fccs-net-neutrality-feedback-pages-are-being-flooded-by-bots/

Thing is, the bots are pretty transparent, many of the claims are identical. There's no effort here to convince anyone this is a real campaign. The campaign is just there to drown out genuine statements by real people.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 02:57:16


Post by: daedalus


 sebster wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
Impossible, all the candidates are equally bad.


Yep, best to take a position of absolute cynicism. What could go wrong?


I'm certain he was being facetious. Although you might have been doing the same. It's... I mean, it's genuinely hard to tell anymore.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 03:05:31


Post by: sebster


 daedalus wrote:
I'm certain he was being facetious. Although you might have been doing the same. It's... I mean, it's genuinely hard to tell anymore.


We both were.

Ouze and myself have made a few comments on dakka about how absurd the 'both sides' argument is.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 03:28:03


Post by: daedalus


Fair enough. It's been some time since the last time I spent much time in OT. You both seemed fairly level headed in most cases years ago, hence the surprise motivating my comment.

Carry on then, gentlemen.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 03:33:18


Post by: oldravenman3025


 sebster wrote:
 daedalus wrote:
I'm certain he was being facetious. Although you might have been doing the same. It's... I mean, it's genuinely hard to tell anymore.


We both were.

Ouze and myself have made a few comments on dakka about how absurd the 'both sides' argument is.





I would agree that the 'both sides' argument is absurd, but probably not for the same reasons you do.

My rationale is that there are no "sides" in U.S. politics, when both parties and their politicians are bought and paid for by many of the same people and groups. Anybody that still buys into the false duality of U.S. politics is naive in my opinion.

And it isn't cynicism when it's the truth.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 03:52:39


Post by: ProtoClone


 Grey Templar wrote:
 ProtoClone wrote:
It's really hard for me to talk about this because it makes me so mad, so scared.

My wife and I have our own business that has a big reliance on the freedom the internet has right at this moment.

Our business is a dance studio, small, but doing well. Without Net Neutrality we would lose the ability to advertise our events to a broader audience. We would lose the ability to scout out potential dancers to come be special instructors, and have gala shows were participants can showcase their own abilities.

The strength of our signal would be reduced and so would the abilities of our community members.

This will take out the legs of small businesses. You will either have the money to survive this or you won't.


Maybe, but I wouldn't be so sure.

Net Neutrality being gone doesn't necessarily give big businesses the incentive to squeeze small business websites. It gives them incentive to squeeze their real competitors. Google would have no benefit to forcing your dance studio to pay extra to load your website a few milliseconds faster, since what you are talking about doesn't really rely on instant fast internet. A little lag in streaming a video isn't going to sink your business. And if its not a live video you wouldn't even really notice the difference.

Only a larger business which relies on fast live streaming of data would be affected in an appreciable way, because as mentioned earlier if the providers really clamp down they'll alienate their customers and be forced to ease off(either by legislated regulation OR simple market pressure). And a business which really relies on having truly fast data will simply pony up the money.

From what it sounds like, your business relies on free-ish advertising. The truth is any growing business will eventually have to start paying for adds, or allowing other ads to be placed on your website. Irregardless of Net Neutrality.


Our business does rely on a more DIY form of advertising but we still rely on being accessible.

We rely on our videos of performances to sell our product, the studio. If people are unable to access our content because someone can't afford the paywall, we lose out.

We hold two major events a year that relies on being able to snag a big name instructor to teach and perform. We put a lot of money into paid advertisements for these. Once again, if someone can't afford the potential paywall, we lose out.


NN being gone does give them this incentive and is the incentive to allow it to pass.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 04:06:24


Post by: sebster


 oldravenman3025 wrote:
I would agree that the 'both sides' argument is absurd, but probably not for the same reasons you do.

My rationale is that there are no "sides" in U.S. politics, when both parties and their politicians are bought and paid for by many of the same people and groups. Anybody that still buys into the false duality of U.S. politics is naive in my opinion.

And it isn't cynicism when it's the truth.


Here, in a thread about the end of net neutrality being driven by Republicans, you are attempting to claim both sides are the same. It is amazing. This is a policy difference.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 04:21:21


Post by: oldravenman3025


 sebster wrote:
 oldravenman3025 wrote:
I would agree that the 'both sides' argument is absurd, but probably not for the same reasons you do.

My rationale is that there are no "sides" in U.S. politics, when both parties and their politicians are bought and paid for by many of the same people and groups. Anybody that still buys into the false duality of U.S. politics is naive in my opinion.

And it isn't cynicism when it's the truth.


Here, in a thread about the end of net neutrality being driven by Republicans, you are attempting to claim both sides are the same. It is amazing. This is a policy difference.




Policy differences don't mean crap in U.S. politics. It's all a sideshow when the money wants something to go a certain way. It doesn't matter which party brings it up or backs it.


And for the record, there are Democrats on board with getting rid of Net Neutrality, and Republicans who are pro-Net Neutrality. So, stop painting this as the tired old "Democrats versus Republicans" false duality.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 04:26:53


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Hyper normalization is the new norm. It doesn't matter if your party killed the Internet because the other party would have as well but just wanted to hide their agenda behind nice guy flappityfroo. Anyway, the Internet was just another tool the moneyed cabal used to influence our thinking, so it's just as well.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 04:28:32


Post by: Galas


In a survey by Mozilla firefox, they encountered that 87% of the democrats and 78% of the republicans they surveyed were in favour of net-neutrality. The survey was only to 1.000 people, so it isn't a really big example, but... I think in general this is a typical case of the politicians going agaisn't even what their voters want.
And thats the only hope to stop this from reaching a point of no return.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 04:54:28


Post by: motyak


This is pushing way too hard into a US Politics territory. Reef it back to talking about the +ves and -ves of net neutrality, not which party is doing what, or how entrenched the sides are, etc. That kind of chat will see this locked up right away and warnings issued.

What I want to see: Posts like the one Galas has right above mine

What I don't want to see: Most of the rest of the page above that.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 05:10:02


Post by: sirlynchmob


Let's review shall we,

2005 Madison river communications was blocking VOIP
and Comcast was denying access to p2p services

2008 At&t had skype and other voips blocked

2011 metropcs blocked all streaming except youtube

2012 at&t tried to block access to facetime unless you paid more money

2013 vorizon stated they want to favor some content over others and that pesky net neutrality is in the way

The number of people who want something is the least of concerns for those trying to pass this stuff. It's about who pays them more. 82% of americans want bump stocks banned, the nra doesn't, which way does congress vote? Without the help of the tech companies that rallied the last time this was tried, and net neutrality will be over. the only numbers that matter in politics are the number of dollars they receive in bribes, errrr I mean campaign donations.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 05:22:50


Post by: motyak


Off topic posts after my warning post will be removed, as they don't add anything to the topic. If you have an issue with how the US Politics topic is covered here, either discuss US Politics somewhere else or bring it up in PMs, don't whinge about it in response to a warning post to drop that topic


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 05:23:35


Post by: Galas


I'm sorry for bringing a political topic I just wanted to give my little bit of help and spread this a little more, for more people to notice. Even if this goes for the thread locked route, if somebody has taken some kind of action because of this I'm already satisfied..


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 05:30:27


Post by: daedalus


 motyak wrote:
This is pushing way too hard into a US Politics territory. Reef it back to talking about the +ves and -ves of net neutrality, not which party is doing what, or how entrenched the sides are, etc. That kind of chat will see this locked up right away and warnings issued.

What I want to see: Posts like the one Galas has right above mine

What I don't want to see: Most of the rest of the page above that.


I'm not going to attempt any more conversation here, intelligent or otherwise. Having that been said, I'm going to deeply implore that, well, do whatever you want to this thread. Ban people. Delete posts. Do whatever feels good. Don't remove this though. This isn't about the US. Yeah, it's coming from the US. It's hurting literally everyone else that lives in the modern world. This needs to repeat everywhere it possibly can. It MUST be omnipresent otherwise it's going to lose effectiveness. I beg you to not let that happen. I peg those to post after me to not incite a lock. This isn't a fraction of a percent of the audience needed to make a change, but every fraction matters.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 06:11:28


Post by: sebster


 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Policy differences don't mean crap in U.S. politics. It's all a sideshow when the money wants something to go a certain way. It doesn't matter which party brings it up or backs it.


I'll try to avoid the specifics of US politics in my response to this, and just talk generally about how political parties and policy work. I hope that is okay, if it isn't then I guess the mods will remove it.

Anyhow, when one party has the majority on the FCC and puts in place net neutrality rules, then the other party wins power and people it directly appointments champion an end to net neutrality and use the power of their positions to end net neutrality, then it is pretty clear the change in policy is due directly to one party losing power and the other party winning it.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 07:11:28


Post by: motyak


 daedalus wrote:

I'm not going to attempt any more conversation here, intelligent or otherwise. Having that been said, I'm going to deeply implore that, well, do whatever you want to this thread. Ban people. Delete posts. Do whatever feels good. Don't remove this though. This isn't about the US. Yeah, it's coming from the US. It's hurting literally everyone else that lives in the modern world. This needs to repeat everywhere it possibly can. It MUST be omnipresent otherwise it's going to lose effectiveness. I beg you to not let that happen. I peg those to post after me to not incite a lock. This isn't a fraction of a percent of the audience needed to make a change, but every fraction matters.


I couldn't agree more that this is an important topic and relevant to the modern day, our site, and all of our users. I just wanted to be very clear that we won't tolerate US Politics like what had taken up almost all of the page above my post. It had started better earlier on and the thread can return to that I'm sure Or at least I hope

Having said that I'd had to remove an additional post. Stop it people, or else I will just close the thread


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 09:18:04


Post by: Peregrine


I'm going to ignore the political aspect, as much as I'd like to discuss it, and address only the technical side of political suppression via removing net neutrality. In short, it can't be done.

In longer form, consider the ineffectiveness of porn filters. They come in two basic types:

1) Ineffective and easily bypassed, because they depend on blacklisting specific sites/search terms/etc and there is way too much porn out there to get it all. Block www.porn.com and the site sets up a mirror at www.p0rn.com, or www.sports.com, etc. And that's on top of the ease of bypassing the filter entirely if you have a bit of technical skill.

2) Overly broad and restrictive of non-porn content, because they depend on whitelisting approved content and restrict everything else by default. You catch most of the porn unless someone is deliberately attempting to bypass it, but you also have a lot of people getting frustrated about not being able to search for their favorite sports team because that one time there was an article with the word in it and that makes the team a porn site.

So how do you stop political content, especially populist political content?

Option 1 doesn't work at all. You'll never block every source of political content, no matter how hard you try people will find ways around it. And by definition a populist movement is going to have a vast number of people actively working to spread the message. And, unlike porn, a populist movement is going to have significant offline distribution of information. ISP A might block something, but ISP B won't and the people using ISP B will spread the message by talking to all their ISP A friends offline.

Option 2 works from a technical point of view, but the backlash is going to be massive. If an ISP decides that facebook and twitter are spreading too much political content they don't like and blocks access to those sites their customers are going to riot. Even people who don't agree with the other goals of the populist movement are going to unite against the ISPs if they keep getting a 404 message every time they try to log onto facebook to see their family's vacation photos. In fact, such broad suppression almost guarantees that the ISP in question will be destroyed as a company when all of their customers jump to competition that is not dumb enough to block popular content.

The only explanation for removing net neutrality that has a plausible motive from all parties, a possibility of success from an engineering point of view, and a possibility of avoiding an immediate and massive backlash is the cash cow milking one: the ISPs demand payment from major content providers, the major content providers pass the extra costs on to the customer, and everyone grudgingly accepts that netflix now costs an extra $5/month without getting outraged enough to push through legislative changes.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 15:34:10


Post by: Tannhauser42


 Galas wrote:
In a survey by Mozilla firefox, they encountered that 87% of the democrats and 78% of the republicans they surveyed were in favour of net-neutrality. The survey was only to 1.000 people, so it isn't a really big example, but... I think in general this is a typical case of the politicians going agaisn't even what their voters want.


I'd be kind of curious to see this same survey done by the users of other major web browsers. People who use Firefox are already at least somewhat internet-savvy, as they had to actually go and get it. Would we get similar survey results from IE users? Chrome?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 16:23:05


Post by: Ouze


 Peregrine wrote:
The only explanation for removing net neutrality that has a plausible motive from all parties, a possibility of success from an engineering point of view, and a possibility of avoiding an immediate and massive backlash is the cash cow milking one: the ISPs demand payment from major content providers, the major content providers pass the extra costs on to the customer, and everyone grudgingly accepts that netflix now costs an extra $5/month without getting outraged enough to push through legislative changes.


Yes, the kind of censorship people are worried about doesn't seem likely - ultimately the big telcos don't really care about political stuff other than pushing for the party more likely to ease regulation in their favor. They're not going to block anything they don't already.

The real interest the telcos has is being able to feth over content providers via awful peering and interconnection agreements. Everyone gets to pay the backbone tax, regardless of who their ISP is, since Hulu and Netflix and so on now have to pay a little extra to not get throttled on their way to the end user. Sure, it's going to screw over end users, and of course, it's going to cut down on innovation since the big players now will be able to erect big barriers to entry, and sure, the public already paid for helping to build that infrastructure via low tax breaks, offsets and so on, but the important thing is AT&T getting paid.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 20:54:38


Post by: whembly


I think the concerns are a wee bit overwrought here...

While I have no problem with net neutrality as a principle or concept... I just have serious concerns about Net Neutrality being justified to reclassifying ISPs as common carriers under the previous FCC ruling. Keep in mind, this doesn't mean it's the wild, wild west... this new ruling would effectively revert much of the oversight back to the FTC.

The biggest concerns to me ought to be focused on two things...

A) The vertical integrations in the industry... ie, the Comcast/NBC merger... and the proposed ATT/DirectTV/TimeWarner merger. When you have content providers who are ALSO ISPs... the incestuous nature of these companies should give us pause.

B) How powerful Google / Twitter / Facebook can be. (see this bloomberg piece that we may already be losing neutrality).


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 21:19:08


Post by: Galas


That linked article... Whembly. Is just... bad. Just by is introduction it shows is pretty biased, and it doesn't speak about the context and past of Ajit Pai as a lawyer of Vercom.
Yeah, Google and Facebook are titans. But without net neutrality they'll have even more capabilities to team-up with the Telecom providers to shut down any intent of fair competitiom agaisn't them.

I see that as a big red herring, to be honest. "Yeah, Telecom can screw us over but... see how Facebook and Google already do it!"


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/23 21:20:40


Post by: LordofHats


Good old what aboutism.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/24 04:05:15


Post by: whembly


 LordofHats wrote:
Good old what aboutism.

Man... I feel like Net Neutrality is the Rick and Morty Szechuan sauce of political issues....


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/24 07:07:40


Post by: doktor_g


I wrote my US Representative. Rarely have I done this. Here's my letter:

Representative La Malfa,

Firstly, I would like to thank you for your service to the First District and to Siskiyou Co in particular. Although, I have a great many areas of concern, few are more far reaching and more concerning than the proposed roll-back of the "Net Neutrality" rules. It is my opinion, that this will directly impact the ability of Americans to assemble, express political dissent (or consent), and access to a free press.

Although our founding fathers and perhaps even our parents could not have foreseen the ability to assemble "virtually" in chat forums, comment on News articles and give chorus to public outcry in such an instantaneous fashion it is still enshrined in the Constitution. The ability of an ISP to limit the speed at which a site can be accessed or news obtained limits speech and participation of all Americans.

As the old adage goes "a Lie would travel from Maine to Georgia while Truth was getting on his boots."

Net Neutrality will allow the Truth to catch up.

Representative LaMalfa, I feel certain that I am not the only concerned constituent to have contacted you about this. Please don't let this happen for the sake of all of us.

Thank you for your time and I hope you have a happy and healthy holiday season.

Very truly yours,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Feel free to cut and paste this. I did recognize a grammatical error though in the last sentence of the first paragraph "access to a free press" would likely sound better as "access a free press." And of course substitute the representatives name and district and county/parrish.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/24 15:58:11


Post by: Rosebuddy


 whembly wrote:
I think the concerns are a wee bit overwrought here...

While I have no problem with net neutrality as a principle or concept... I just have serious concerns about Net Neutrality being justified to reclassifying ISPs as common carriers under the previous FCC ruling. Keep in mind, this doesn't mean it's the wild, wild west... this new ruling would effectively revert much of the oversight back to the FTC.

The biggest concerns to me ought to be focused on two things...

A) The vertical integrations in the industry... ie, the Comcast/NBC merger... and the proposed ATT/DirectTV/TimeWarner merger. When you have content providers who are ALSO ISPs... the incestuous nature of these companies should give us pause.

B) How powerful Google / Twitter / Facebook can be. (see this bloomberg piece that we may already be losing neutrality).


Clearly this infrastructure is too important to be allowed in the hands of private entities and should instead be nationalised for the common good.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/24 16:52:48


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Peregrine wrote:
[And blocking access to Fox News entirely means a lot of angry customers, a lot of lost customers,


Not this, unfortunately, due to many ISPs being tied to cable franchises. By law you have once choice in many locations.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/24 21:01:20


Post by: LordofHats


I liked this article from NYTimes. Interesting.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/24 21:08:56


Post by: Compel


So, what happened with this? I hear that there were rumours of them attempting to force a sneaky vote in over Thanksgiving. Did that happen? Is it still to?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/24 21:12:11


Post by: whembly



Person considered as the "father" of net neutrality wrote an op-ed in opposition to latest change.


Using the FCC telcom's provision to reclassify ISPs as "common carriers" is asinine as ISPs are nothing like the telcomms that necessitated the FCC oversight.

Instead, Mr. Wu need to engage congress to pass something more permanent, that can withstand when the US Presidency changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Compel wrote:
So, what happened with this? I hear that there were rumours of them attempting to force a sneaky vote in over Thanksgiving. Did that happen? Is it still to?

...just checked... still scheduled for December 14.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/24 23:04:25


Post by: LordofHats


Though he's played a big role in popularizing the conception, Tim Wu just coined the term net neutrality. He didn't invent the concept of a common carrier, nor is he the "father" of anything. And arguing that ISPs are nothing like the telecoms is asinine. They are telecoms, and most of the internet runs on the same lines or lines built alongside the phone system. Years of throttling, blocking, and anti-competitive (i.e. anti-free market) behaviors by ISPs makes the idea that the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, shouldn't regulate the most used communication network in the country is asinine. Your use of the term asinine is itself asinine.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/25 05:46:28


Post by: whembly


 LordofHats wrote:
Though he's played a big role in popularizing the conception, Tim Wu just coined the term net neutrality. He didn't invent the concept of a common carrier, nor is he the "father" of anything.

Never said he invented the concept of common carrier... where did you get that?
And arguing that ISPs are nothing like the telecoms is asinine.

Not really. Waaay different technologies (sat, wireless, cable, fiber, etc...).
They are telecoms, and most of the internet runs on the same lines or lines built alongside the phone system.

Running lines parallel to Ma Bell's lines doesn't make them *like* Ma Bell.
Years of throttling, blocking, and anti-competitive (i.e. anti-free market) behaviors by ISPs makes the idea that the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, shouldn't regulate the most used communication network in the country is asinine. Your use of the term asinine is itself asinine.

FTC... as in the "Federal Trade Commission" can regulate the ISPs... especially under Section 5 (which they have done so in the past):
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act prohibits 'unfair methods of competition' (UMC), including conduct that violates either the antitrust laws or Section 5 standing alone.

Your objection to my use of 'asinine' is itself... asinine.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/25 14:35:14


Post by: Maniac_nmt


 MrMoustaffa wrote:
"Just need to be upfront about it"

Which will be great when they all hold hands and enact horrible restrictions in unison so you don't have an alternative. I live out in the sticks and there's not a lot of choices, this means I'm at the whim of whatever company wants to push me around. If this is allowed to happen it will be bad for everyone save a few POS executives who already milk us for every penny as is.

Absolutely ridiculous, does anyone know a way to protest this or call in? From the sound of it this isn't a traditional situation where you can call your senator and complain. I mean I'm going to do it anyways, if we raise enough of a stink to our representatives we might be able to get congress to step in, but I'm not holding my breath.


If the service providers did collude on what/how to offer things, they could be sued over it. Price/service collusion is illegal in the US. The fact that many areas have only 1 or 2 providers does make this semi irrelevant though. It's why power/water/natural gas companies are regulated as there is usually only 1 supplier in an area.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/25 14:39:14


Post by: Compel


Then it becomes a question of, "who can afford to sue them?" doesn't it?



Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/27 18:34:45


Post by: Easy E


We could solve a lot of these issues if we took anit-trust laws seriously in the US.



I mean, it's not like we have never faced these type of issues in the past and don't have solutions for them.





Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/27 19:53:11


Post by: sirlynchmob


ya that should have been the solution to the banking problem in 08. A monopoly by anyother name: To big to fail? to big to exist.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/28 15:35:28


Post by: sebster


 doktor_g wrote:
I wrote my US Representative. Rarely have I done this. Here's my letter:


Great letter, and much respect for contacting your representative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Not really. Waaay different technologies (sat, wireless, cable, fiber, etc...).


Uh... telecoms. Telecommunications companies. Telecommunications - the use of technology to facilitate communications of any kind.

You're trying to argue that the internet does't fit tht definition because it uses some new technologies in addition to the old technologies. It's a fairly ridiculous argument, really.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/28 16:22:57


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 whembly wrote:
Not really. Waaay different technologies (sat, wireless, cable, fiber, etc...).


Transfer of any information over distance via the use of electric signals is telecommunications. Sending out course corrections to a probe heading to Jupiter via a parabolic antenna? Telecommunications. Phoning someone from a landline? Telecommunications. Transmitting morse code via a telegraph machine? Telecommunications. Converting electric signals into flashing light down a fibre optic cable to send an email to your buddy in Canada? Telecommunications.

Even a quantum entanglement communication device would fall under telecommunications.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/28 16:56:04


Post by: whembly


 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Not really. Waaay different technologies (sat, wireless, cable, fiber, etc...).


Uh... telecoms. Telecommunications companies. Telecommunications - the use of technology to facilitate communications of any kind.

You're trying to argue that the internet does't fit tht definition because it uses some new technologies in addition to the old technologies. It's a fairly ridiculous argument, really.

You're parsing out a statement to give that line a different context. I'm arguing that Ma Bell ≠ NameYourISP.

The common carrier designation from the FCC title II section was derived from the technologies and business practice of those Big Bell days.

It's a bit silly to apply those same standards to today's internet ecosystem because the technologies AND business practices are vastly different than the business/technologies that gave rise to that FCC reguation. You have WAY more discrete companies who are part of the fabric that makes up the internet.

The only similarity between Ma Bell and NameYourISP would literally be the local regulations that mandates one ISP provider simply because of limited pole space.

Now, if you believe ISPs ought to be regulated as no different than the local power/water/gas utilities... I can certainly see the angst over the FCC rescinding the common carrier designation.

Here's the kicker: That common carrier designation isn't REQUIRED to mandate Net Neutrality policies. In fact, I'd argue that it ought to be passed by Congress so that we avoid seeing these sorts see-saw that we're seeing now simply because whomever's in the Whitehouse every 4/8 years.

What I find funny over this whole ordeal is that the oversight shifts back to the FTC... who has enormous power to review and sanction the ISPs (which they have done prior to the 2015 change).




Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/29 03:33:06


Post by: sebster


 whembly wrote:
You're parsing out a statement to give that line a different context. I'm arguing that Ma Bell ≠ NameYourISP.


But both companies use technology to facilitate communications. They're both telecommunications companies. One basic aim of good regulation is to make legal treatment consistent across all similar services. In fact this was the original aim of the 1934 act, and the aim of the 1996 amendment, among other things, was to make treatment of the emerging internet telecoms regulated consistently with other telecoms.

Here's the kicker: That common carrier designation isn't REQUIRED to mandate Net Neutrality policies. In fact, I'd argue that it ought to be passed by Congress so that we avoid seeing these sorts see-saw that we're seeing now simply because whomever's in the Whitehouse every 4/8 years.


Running it through the common carrier designation was the Dem workaround, because they didn't have the numbers in congress. The only issue with the workaround is, as you say, that when Reps get in power they undo it because that's what their lobbyist dollars want from them. Resulting in the seesaw.

But you know, most people when they see an issue seesawing between something they want, net neutrality, and something they don't want, providers rent seeking from content providers, they usually credit the group trying to do the right thing, and criticise the company trying to do the wrong thing.

But this is US politics, so it becomes 'both sides' somehow.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/30 12:08:15


Post by: Kanluwen


Just a heads up, the New York Attorney General is asking for help with regards to Net Neutrality and the flood of fake comments on the FCC's website in support of removing it. To that end, they opened a website where you can check to see if there are fake comments under your name and file a complaint with the NYAG's office.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/30 16:31:01


Post by: Ouze


Hilarious - I checked my last name and came up empty, but I found one from my dad's ex-wife, who does not own a computer and can barely read. I would literally bet everything I owned she didn't write that and likely doesn't know what the FCC is.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/30 16:39:03


Post by: kronk


My first/last name was on there 3 times, but the locations aren't mine and my name is not rare. Same thing with my wife.

This quote attributed to my name gave me a chuckle:


Spoiler:
Dear Commissioners: I am concerned about the Obama takeover of the Internet. I'd like to suggest Ajit Pai to undo Obama's order to take over the web. Individual citizens, as opposed to so-called experts, ought to select whichever applications we want. Obama's order to take over the web is a exploitation of the open Internet. It stopped a hands-off system that performed remarkably successfully for two decades with Republican and Democrat backing.


My sister's name, a bit more rare, had 9 full pages from the same address:

I am in favor of strong net neutrality under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.
Sincerely, Kronk's Sister


9 pages with 25 posts per page, all exactly the same.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/30 16:43:10


Post by: Ouze


Classic Obungle.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/30 17:12:37


Post by: whembly


My last name came up 18 times and half of them are obvious bots since their comments damn near matches.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/30 17:15:58


Post by: djones520


6+ pages that my name popped up. I went through a handful of them, and they were all against the repeal.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/30 17:41:02


Post by: WrentheFaceless


So found the 2 comments I sent as the only ones for my name. Good thing cause I'm strongly against this change to net neutrality


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/30 17:42:19


Post by: hotsauceman1


Same, and I live on the opposite side of the US.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/30 17:43:23


Post by: Ahtman


I got about 10 results for my name and about seven of them were copy/paste of the exact same bit:

"Before leaving office, the Obama Administration rammed through a massive scheme that gave the federal government broad regulatory control over the internet. That misguided policy decision is threatening innovation and hurting broadband investment in one of the largest and most important sectors of the U.S. economy. I support the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to roll back Title II and allow for free market principles to guide our digital economy."

Two of the others were worded differently but had the same concept and started with blaming Obama as well.

Edit: Only found one for my wife but it was exactly the same as one of the latter two that I mentioned.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/30 21:24:11


Post by: LordofHats


So there were bots for both?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/30 21:28:21


Post by: whembly


 LordofHats wrote:
So there were bots for both?

Seems like it.

Facebooks/Twitter/Big Forums sites deals with bots all the times. Heck, dakka isn't immune of getting weird bots when we write certain key words.

Curious what, if any, bot mitigation strategy is deployed on site like the FCC?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/30 22:13:45


Post by: TheAuldGrump


Huh, one of the fake posts they have listed.... really was me.

Sent them a note about that....

The Auld Grump


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/11/30 23:14:07


Post by: Ahtman


That search isn't to a list of fake posts but to posts in general and you can search it to see if someone (or something) posted to it using your identity.


Search. I just wanted to say it again.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/01 02:44:10


Post by: BaronIveagh


Read through it, and found a post in my name, and I'm betting it came from a online petition I signed a while back.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/01 03:09:41


Post by: sebster


 kronk wrote:
My sister's name, a bit more rare, had 9 full pages from the same address:

I am in favor of strong net neutrality under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.
Sincerely, Kronk's Sister


Kronk's Sister isn't a rare name at all. I know four people with that name. Five if we include the one with the spelling variation Kronk's Syster.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/01 15:12:12


Post by: Easy E


Our village bicycle is called Kronk's Sister!






Sounds like the Bots were programmed for Whataboutism! Both Sides!


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/01 16:35:56


Post by: feeder


 Easy E wrote:
Our village bicycle is called Kronk's Sister!


"Those blast marks a re far too accurate for Tusken Raiders... they must be Storm Troopers."



Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/06 16:07:54


Post by: Easy E


This is all going to be so, so, so stupid.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/06 18:42:42


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Easy E wrote:
This is all going to be so, so, so stupid.
About a year too late with that comment


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 18:49:47


Post by: ProtoClone


And it's repealed...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/14/570526390/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rules-for-internet-providers
Spoiler:
After a brief security evacuation, U.S. telecom regulators have voted to repeal so-called net neutrality rules, which restrict the power of Internet service providers to influence loading speeds for specific websites or apps.

Following weeks of heated controversy and protests, the Republican majority of the Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines on Thursday to loosen Obama-era regulations for Internet providers.

The rules, put in place in 2015, banned cable and telecom companies from blocking or slowing down any websites or apps. They also prohibited broadband providers from striking special deals that would give some websites or apps "priority" over others.

The FCC's dramatic course reversal in favor of Internet service providers has propelled the once-wonky issue of net neutrality into the mainstream, turning it into an increasingly political matter. Advocacy groups are now expected to press Congress to stop the FCC's vote from taking effect under the Congressional Review Act.

Before the FCC took a vote, the meeting room was briefly evacuated over a security threat, which has not been officially explained. Live-streams from inside the empty rooms showed security guards with what appeared to be bomb-sniffing dogs.

In undoing the regulations, the FCC has reasserted one of the net neutrality requirements: that Internet providers — such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T — have to disclose to their users what exactly they do to web traffic. This will essentially shift all enforcement to the Federal Trade Commission, which polices violations rather than pre-empts them through regulations.

Broadband companies have been saying that they do not intend to block, slow down or prioritize any web traffic as a result of this repeal, arguing that it's not in their interest to aggravate their users by messing with their Internet traffic.

Net neutrality activists, however, have been rallying widespread protests against the vote, saying the repeal will empower broadband companies to act as gatekeepers of the Internet, for example allowing them to prioritize their own video streaming services.

Consumer interest groups have told NPR that are also planning to pursue a lawsuit challenging Thursday's FCC decision, which would be the fourth related court case in a decade. (An appeal of the 2015 rules by AT&T, CenturyLink and a telecom trade group is pending at the Supreme Court.)

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who voted against the rules in 2015, has portrayed the Obama-era regulations — which put broadband providers under the strictest-ever FCC oversight — as government "micromanaging the Internet." He and broadband companies have argued that the regulations have stifled innovation and investment in broadband networks.

"What is responsible for the phenomenal development of the Internet? Certainly wasn't heavy-handed government regulation," Pai said on Thursday, adding his oft-repeated line that "there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015, we were not living in some digital dystopia. ... It is time for us to bring faster, better and cheaper Internet access to all Americans."

Large tech companies — such as Netflix, Google and Facebook — have long spoken in support of strict net neutrality rules. However, as they've grown in size, their advocacy has been more muted, putting on the forefront smaller competitors like Etsy and Vimeo, which argue that startups stand to lose the most on an Internet that allows for special "priority" traffic deals.

"I have heard from innovators, worried that we are standing up a 'mother-may-I' regime, where the broadband provider becomes arbiter of acceptable online business models," Democratic FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said in a blistering dissent on Thursday. She added: "When the current 2015 net neutrality rules are laid to waste, we may be left with no single authority with the power to protect consumers."

The Internet Association, which represents dozens of tech companies, in a statement called Pai's repeal "a departure from more than a decade of broad, bipartisan consensus on the rules governing the internet" and amounted to "relying" on Internet providers "to live to their own 'promises.' "

Republican FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly called the concerns of potential net neutrality violations "guilt by imagination" and "baseless fear-mongering." He said: "I'm simply not persuaded that heavy-handed rules are needed to protect from hypothetical harm."


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 18:54:39


Post by: Ustrello


There was a bomb threat called in during the middle of the meeting today. Honest to god I believe ajit will get attacked at some point and possibly killed, especially after the bomb threat


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 19:05:50


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


I just have to wonder in what world it's a good idea to give a semi-Monopoly so much power. I mean, even if you believe in a neo-liberal approach this is the type example of when regulation is required to avoid all the drawbacks of a monopoly.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 19:10:52


Post by: Kroem


It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out over there, certainly people are pretty passionate about it.

For someone like me who isn't overly bothered about high traffic websites like TwitchTV or Imgur, I can see some merit in the idea that I could reduce my internet bill in exchange for limited access to certain websites that I hardly use.

However, I can certainly see the potential for abuse in examples brought up by others such as restricting access to particular news sites or online shops to try to control people's political views or spending habits.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 19:13:10


Post by: skyth


 Kroem wrote:

For someone like me who isn't overly bothered about high traffic websites like TwitchTV or Imgur, I can see some merit in the idea that I could reduce my internet bill in exchange for limited access to certain websites that I hardly use.
.


Correction. Your bill goes up a little bit. Other people have to pay extra to access those websites.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 19:13:23


Post by: Marmatag


In China and North Korea, the government will control what you are allowed to see.

Now, in the USA, the same power has been given to ISPs.

It's oppression via capitalism, and therefore, is something to make America great, apparently.

Ready for a Netflix stock nose dive?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 19:26:06


Post by: ProtoClone


D.C., and other states, have started to stand up and say "not in our state" in regards to the appeal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Different groups, and companies, are going to take this to the supreme court to get the repeal overturned.

So, in other words, the repealed passed but the fights not over.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 19:26:56


Post by: Vaktathi


 Kroem wrote:
It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out over there, certainly people are pretty passionate about it.

For someone like me who isn't overly bothered about high traffic websites like TwitchTV or Imgur, I can see some merit in the idea that I could reduce my internet bill in exchange for limited access to certain websites that I hardly use.
Your bill almost certainly would not go down, and stuff like imgur or twitch would likely be bundled onto other stuff you do visit, like YouTube or Netlfix for instance.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 19:28:18


Post by: ProtoClone


Your bill might go down but your access to things would also become limited.

Want to know why? Pay for the $39.99 bundle to include Dakkadakka.com into your access list and you'll know why.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 19:37:13


Post by: Rosebuddy


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I just have to wonder in what world it's a good idea to give a semi-Monopoly so much power. I mean, even if you believe in a neo-liberal approach this is the type example of when regulation is required to avoid all the drawbacks of a monopoly.


The entire point is to give large companies more power.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 19:49:00


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


This is how Empires die.

USA - you had a good run, and you helped Britain out in a tight spot in the 1940s, so I'll forever be grateful, but I'll see you in the history books...

Feth me with a fishfork. I mean, did I dream Trump or Brexit? You have an entire class of people who are angry, feel disenfranchised, are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, and feel globalization has cheated them, and the solution is to cut their internet access unless they pay more, and allow big companies to gatekeep what is deemed acceptable to read or watch?

For God's sake...

I can only laugh at the absurdity of this...


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 19:53:46


Post by: Necros


Just get someone to block trump's twitter access and see how fast the repeal gets repealed.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 20:00:41


Post by: ProtoClone


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This is how Empires die.

USA - you had a good run, and you helped Britain out in a tight spot in the 1940s, so I'll forever be grateful, but I'll see you in the history books...

Feth me with a fishfork. I mean, did I dream Trump or Brexit? You have an entire class of people who are angry, feel disenfranchised, are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, and feel globalization has cheated them, and the solution is to cut their internet access unless they pay more, and allow big companies to gatekeep what is deemed acceptable to read or watch?

For God's sake...

I can only laugh at the absurdity of this...


Not only this, but it limits information.
It limits the ability to form groups that might be opposed/in favor of certain actions being taken by individuals/companies/governments. People will organize, they always have, it's just the strength of the message will take longer to spread.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 20:04:24


Post by: Easy E


How long until other large corporations go to court to fight ISPs over this?

If Net Nuetrality is restored, it probably will be due to big companies fighting about it, not what us pleebs on the intertubez think.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 20:06:09


Post by: lonestarr777


[MOD EDIT - Please do not post sentiments like that - find a different way to express your frustrations - Alpharius]I won't shed a single tear and you can finger wag at me all you want over how awful that is but feth it. These people take and take and take.

It would be a nice change of pace tuning into the news and learning there was one less Ajit or Skrelley in the world instead of a bus of school kids.

feth this country.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 20:07:26


Post by: Alpharius


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This is how Empires die.

USA - you had a good run, and you helped Britain out in a tight spot in the 1940s, so I'll forever be grateful, but I'll see you in the history books...

Feth me with a fishfork. I mean, did I dream Trump or Brexit? You have an entire class of people who are angry, feel disenfranchised, are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, and feel globalization has cheated them, and the solution is to cut their internet access unless they pay more, and allow big companies to gatekeep what is deemed acceptable to read or watch?

For God's sake...

I can only laugh at the absurdity of this...


This whole post deserves a LOLWUT?!?

I mean, I suppose you were joking, but...?

Anyway, here's to hoping that the fight continues and Net Neutrality is restored - soon.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 20:24:24


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Not sure it's been brought up here, but other people have said "The Internet was fine before the 2015 Net Neutrality ruling, so it should be fine now that that's dead!" Just in case you run into someone who argues that, here's a list of things before the 2015 ruling that WERE NOT fine:

2005 – North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked VoIP service Vonage.
2005 – Comcast blocked or severely delayed traffic using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. (The company even had the guts to deny this for months until evidence was presented by the Associated Press.)
2007 – AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.
2007 to 2009 – AT&T forced Apple to block Skype because it didn’t like the competition. At the time, the carrier had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and even then the net neutrality advocates were pushing the government to protect online consumers, over 5 years before these rules were actually passed.
2009 – Google Voice app faced similar issues from ISPs, including AT&T on iPhone.
2010 – Windstream Communications, a DSL provider, started hijacking search results made using Google toolbar. It consistently redirected users to Windstream’s own search engine and results.
2011 – MetroPCS, one of the top-five wireless carriers at the time, announced plans to block streaming services over its 4G network from everyone except YouTube.
2011 to 2013 – AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon blocked Google Wallet in favor of Isis, a mobile payment system in which all three had shares. Verizon even asked Google to not include its payment app in its Nexus devices.2012 – AT&T blocked FaceTime; again because the company didn’t like the competition.
2012 – Verizon started blocking people from using tethering apps on their phones that enabled consumers to avoid the company’s $20 tethering fee.
2014 – AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” scheme, offering content creators a way to buy their way around the data caps that AT&T imposes on its subscribers.
2014 – Netflix started paying Verizon and Comcast to “improve streaming service for consumers.”
2014 – T-Mobile was accused of using data caps to manipulate online competition.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 20:37:05


Post by: Kroem


 Vaktathi wrote:
 Kroem wrote:
It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out over there, certainly people are pretty passionate about it.

For someone like me who isn't overly bothered about high traffic websites like TwitchTV or Imgur, I can see some merit in the idea that I could reduce my internet bill in exchange for limited access to certain websites that I hardly use.
Your bill almost certainly would not go down, and stuff like imgur or twitch would likely be bundled onto other stuff you do visit, like YouTube or Netlfix for instance.

Is that confirmed? Why would anyone agree to pay more for less of a service?
I struggle to believe that demand for internet is so inelastic with respect to price that this wouldn't loose them custom, especially with competition from the high speed internet you can get on mobile phones now.

Yea you are right, they would have to be flexible as everyone has different 'top sites'. If an ISP hit the market with a package say half the price of my current internet, but I could only choose 2 of the top 10 sites to have unlimited access to; I think that could be a successful product in the budget end of the market.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 20:58:24


Post by: PourSpelur


Mega corporation lowering a price?
I'd like a pony if we're just wishing for stuff. They spent hundreds of millions buying politicians, there's gotta be a return on that investment. You'll pay the same price and receive less and less for it each year now. Up until today, you paid about the same price and received more each year.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 21:01:19


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Alpharius wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This is how Empires die.

USA - you had a good run, and you helped Britain out in a tight spot in the 1940s, so I'll forever be grateful, but I'll see you in the history books...

Feth me with a fishfork. I mean, did I dream Trump or Brexit? You have an entire class of people who are angry, feel disenfranchised, are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, and feel globalization has cheated them, and the solution is to cut their internet access unless they pay more, and allow big companies to gatekeep what is deemed acceptable to read or watch?

For God's sake...

I can only laugh at the absurdity of this...


This whole post deserves a LOLWUT?!?

I mean, I suppose you were joking, but...?

Anyway, here's to hoping that the fight continues and Net Neutrality is restored - soon.


You may not believe this, but I respect the Mods, appreciate the hard work and time they give dakka, thus making it as a beacon of polite debate on the net, and I'm fully aware that the US politics thread was a major headache for you guys.

I'll try very hard not to stray into that.

None the less, we all know that there are millions of people in the USA who support and voted for you know who. A lot of these people are convinced that there is a Silicon vallley/Liberal elite conspiracy against them.

Many of these people have strong views on things like same sex marriage, gun control etc etc

And now we have this potential situation of big companies being gatekeepers on what can and can't be said or watched.

Do you really think these supporters of you know who are going to say: they won, that's a wrap lads, let's go home?

Or is it more likely more tension and divisions will spring up? And the conditions that got you know who elected, are likely to get worse, and not go away?

This net neutrtality repeal is kamikaze thinking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ProtoClone wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This is how Empires die.

USA - you had a good run, and you helped Britain out in a tight spot in the 1940s, so I'll forever be grateful, but I'll see you in the history books...

Feth me with a fishfork. I mean, did I dream Trump or Brexit? You have an entire class of people who are angry, feel disenfranchised, are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, and feel globalization has cheated them, and the solution is to cut their internet access unless they pay more, and allow big companies to gatekeep what is deemed acceptable to read or watch?

For God's sake...

I can only laugh at the absurdity of this...


Not only this, but it limits information.
It limits the ability to form groups that might be opposed/in favor of certain actions being taken by individuals/companies/governments. People will organize, they always have, it's just the strength of the message will take longer to spread.


From an economic viewpoin, it's madness. From a moral viewpoint. Madness. From a political viewpoint, it's the kind of thing that leads to another American Revolution.

After everything that America went through in the past with regard to monopolies, and the ecomomic damage it caused, is the USA to learn that hard lesson again that monopolies are bad?

What did Marx say about history repeating itself?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 21:07:28


Post by: LordofHats


 Kroem wrote:
Why would anyone agree to pay more for less of a service?


Because "freedom."

I struggle to believe that demand for internet is so inelastic with respect to price that this wouldn't loose them custom, especially with competition from the high speed internet you can get on mobile phones now.


What do they care if they lose customers to mobile networks when they also own the mobile networks?

I think that could be a successful product in the budget end of the market.


I think it's ultimately naive. ISP companies have seen how much they rake in from the way mobile data is structured, and it's only a matter of time till internet services are restructured to reflect that. I don't think anyone's bills go down in this long term. Everyone will pay more, and everyone will get less. And that's just the consumer side. Market side Comcast can now throttle Netflix because it they own significant stock in Hulu, and why wouldn't they want to make a deal with Hulu's new majority owner (Disney) for preferred service that cuts Netflix out of the network?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 21:08:01


Post by: Vaktathi


 Kroem wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
 Kroem wrote:
It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out over there, certainly people are pretty passionate about it.

For someone like me who isn't overly bothered about high traffic websites like TwitchTV or Imgur, I can see some merit in the idea that I could reduce my internet bill in exchange for limited access to certain websites that I hardly use.
Your bill almost certainly would not go down, and stuff like imgur or twitch would likely be bundled onto other stuff you do visit, like YouTube or Netlfix for instance.

Is that confirmed? Why would anyone agree to pay more for less of a service?
I struggle to believe that demand for internet is so inelastic with respect to price that this wouldn't loose them custom, especially with competition from the high speed internet you can get on mobile phones now.

Yea you are right, they would have to be flexible as everyone has different 'top sites'. If an ISP hit the market with a package say half the price of my current internet, but I could only choose 2 of the top 10 sites to have unlimited access to; I think that could be a successful product in the budget end of the market.
nothing is confirmed or anything, nothing is likely to change for months or years as this is dragged through the courts. That said, looking at models in other places, like Portugal, they tend to lump like services with like, as opposed to discriminating site by site, and after you buy all the services you regularly use youre not actually cutting anything you dont.

In the US, the whole issue is that there just isnt anyone else to go to in most places. Cell providers will murder you on bandwidth charges, while cable providers typically have a monopoly or only one, typically dramatically inferior, competitor. Given the increasingly interconnected natue of life and doing everything online, demand is pretty inelastic, much like gasoline and driving, there often just isnt a better choice.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 21:14:22


Post by: Ahtman


[Comment Only Viewable By Premium Internet Members. Upgrade Today!]


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 21:19:02


Post by: Necros


Yeah I don't think you're gonna suddenly have Dakka stop working. It will probably be more service or network based, like add the netflix elite package for $5 on top of your netflix fee, bundle in Hulu on top of their fee for just $4 more. Stupid stuff like that.

But I think think the biggest reason is that cable TV is slowly dying and they know it. With smart TVs becoming the norm, and consoles having streaming apps, and roku and all that stuff, Comcast and other providers know they can only sell you TV for so many more years.. Since they know they will make less money off of TV and the internet is here to stay, they wanna make more money off that. Not defending them, but I think that's the root of the issue. The more money they can get out of us the better for them. And we can't vote with our wallets, cuz in most cases you only have 1 cable company to deal with or your SOL.




Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 21:48:25


Post by: Prestor Jon


 Necros wrote:
Yeah I don't think you're gonna suddenly have Dakka stop working. It will probably be more service or network based, like add the netflix elite package for $5 on top of your netflix fee, bundle in Hulu on top of their fee for just $4 more. Stupid stuff like that.

But I think think the biggest reason is that cable TV is slowly dying and they know it. With smart TVs becoming the norm, and consoles having streaming apps, and roku and all that stuff, Comcast and other providers know they can only sell you TV for so many more years.. Since they know they will make less money off of TV and the internet is here to stay, they wanna make more money off that. Not defending them, but I think that's the root of the issue. The more money they can get out of us the better for them. And we can't vote with our wallets, cuz in most cases you only have 1 cable company to deal with or your SOL.




Agree. The service monopolies are the bigger problem. If there was more competition in the market then having less Net Neutrality regulation wouldn't be a big problem because there'd be options for people. Giving ISPs more gate keeping powers while letting them maintain their monopolies just makes the imperfect screwed up telcom situation in the US even worse. With cable tv dying there will be a massive increase in content for the internet and funneling that into ISP monopolies is going to really punish consumers.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 21:49:36


Post by: avantgarde


 Easy E wrote:
How long until other large corporations go to court to fight ISPs over this?

If Net Nuetrality is retored, it probably will be due to big companies fighting about it, not what us pleebs on the intertubez think.
Why would Google or Amazon go to bat for consumers besides PR fluff? They've already built massive private backbones for themselves, they don't care about neutrality they get their preferential speeds either way.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 21:51:45


Post by: LordofHats


They care insofar that they'll now likely have to pay more to make their services available (because that free wifi everywhere thing Google is always on about is a pipe dream). Of course they can afford it being multi billion dollar companies.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 21:53:54


Post by: avantgarde


Then why was Google quiet today?

There's not even a google logo art supporting neutrality.

The larger your customer base the more likely you can negotiate preferential pricing from ISPs, the companies with the most resources to oppose NN are the ones who will be impacted by it the least or may even benefit. Say Netflix negotiates a choice contract from Time Warner, it's to their benefit that a smaller competitor has more trouble negotiating "fast lane" access at an equally competitive rate.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 21:57:21


Post by: bananathug


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Not sure it's been brought up here, but other people have said "The Internet was fine before the 2015 Net Neutrality ruling, so it should be fine now that that's dead!" Just in case you run into someone who argues that, here's a list of things before the 2015 ruling that WERE NOT fine:

2005 – North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked VoIP service Vonage.
2005 – Comcast blocked or severely delayed traffic using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. (The company even had the guts to deny this for months until evidence was presented by the Associated Press.)
2007 – AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.
2007 to 2009 – AT&T forced Apple to block Skype because it didn’t like the competition. At the time, the carrier had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and even then the net neutrality advocates were pushing the government to protect online consumers, over 5 years before these rules were actually passed.
2009 – Google Voice app faced similar issues from ISPs, including AT&T on iPhone.
2010 – Windstream Communications, a DSL provider, started hijacking search results made using Google toolbar. It consistently redirected users to Windstream’s own search engine and results.
2011 – MetroPCS, one of the top-five wireless carriers at the time, announced plans to block streaming services over its 4G network from everyone except YouTube.
2011 to 2013 – AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon blocked Google Wallet in favor of Isis, a mobile payment system in which all three had shares. Verizon even asked Google to not include its payment app in its Nexus devices.2012 – AT&T blocked FaceTime; again because the company didn’t like the competition.
2012 – Verizon started blocking people from using tethering apps on their phones that enabled consumers to avoid the company’s $20 tethering fee.
2014 – AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” scheme, offering content creators a way to buy their way around the data caps that AT&T imposes on its subscribers.
2014 – Netflix started paying Verizon and Comcast to “improve streaming service for consumers.”
2014 – T-Mobile was accused of using data caps to manipulate online competition.


Thank you for this post! I knew they were shady but didn't have any specific examples.

As a telecomuter I really hope my company ponies up and pays the "toll lane" fee so that I can continue to work remotely.

It would suck if they went after those of us that use VPNs because they can't regulate our traffic flow. I'm not happy about this at all, almost as sad as I am about the terrible SM codex


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 21:59:29


Post by: Easy E


 Ahtman wrote:
[Comment Only Viewable By Premium Internet Members. Upgrade Today!]


/thread! You win the internetz..... are you an ISP?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 avantgarde wrote:
 Easy E wrote:
How long until other large corporations go to court to fight ISPs over this?

If Net Nuetrality is retored, it probably will be due to big companies fighting about it, not what us pleebs on the intertubez think.
Why would Google or Amazon go to bat for consumers besides PR fluff? They've already built massive private backbones for themselves, they don't care about neutrality they get their preferential speeds either way.


I honestly don't know, but hte only way to stop a Bad Business with a Monopoly is if it is fought by a Good Business with a Monopoly!


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 22:58:27


Post by: Mario


 Easy E wrote:
I honestly don't know, but hte only way to stop a Bad Business with a Monopoly is if it is fought by a Good Business with a Monopoly!
I think Google might rather like that more than their competition. Years ago they already bought a lot of dark fibre that the ISPs were not using. Now ISP can start demanding ransom fees from startups that compete with Google while Google itself has about infinitely more negotiations power (and money to pay them off). And if a startup actually manages to survive in this environment until there's interest from the exiting big tech companies then the small companies are probably already hurting (high demand for their product -> high payoffs to ISP) so if one of the big ones comes along with a acquisition offer they again have a better position to negotiate the smaller company's "value".

Google (and the rest of them) will probably find a way to declare ISP bribes as deductibles while smaller companies probably just won't have a lot of money to spend on that type of "expenses".


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/14 23:43:00


Post by: Luciferian


The end of net neutrality is kind of a foregone conclusion when a vast majority of the marketplace is already dominated by a handful of ISPs, and frankly that's the bigger problem. If there were room for competition the market in the US wouldn't be quite so pathetic with ancient infrastructure, slow speeds and dearth of options. Municipalities are what actually control the internet AND ISPs in the states, and they make it prohibitively costly to access public rights of way and utilities, which is why only the biggest players can afford to stay in the game. In other developed nations it isn't nearly as costly to build infrastructure so they have better speeds and more competition. Here, there are basically 4 or so ISPs serving the entire nation through cable lines that are as old as 70 years, and telephone lines that may or may not have been installed just after the invention of the telephone itself.

If we had competition this wouldn't even be an issue, but since we're stuck with the few monolithic corporations that we have, they have the power to pull off these types of shenanigans.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 00:09:53


Post by: BlaxicanX


Don't worry lads, corporations are benevolent entities. We're one step closer to a Libertarian Utopia!


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 00:12:18


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Luciferian wrote:
The end of net neutrality is kind of a foregone conclusion when a vast majority of the marketplace is already dominated by a handful of ISPs, and frankly that's the bigger problem. If there were room for competition the market in the US wouldn't be quite so pathetic with ancient infrastructure, slow speeds and dearth of options. Municipalities are what actually control the internet AND ISPs in the states, and they make it prohibitively costly to access public rights of way and utilities, which is why only the biggest players can afford to stay in the game. In other developed nations it isn't nearly as costly to build infrastructure so they have better speeds and more competition. Here, there are basically 4 or so ISPs serving the entire nation through cable lines that are as old as 70 years, and telephone lines that may or may not have been installed just after the invention of the telephone itself.

If we had competition this wouldn't even be an issue, but since we're stuck with the few monolithic corporations that we have, they have the power to pull off these types of shenanigans.


How is repealing Net Neutrality a solution to the lack of competition?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 00:15:54


Post by: Luciferian


How did you get from my comment that I provided it as a solution?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 00:24:15


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Luciferian wrote:
How did you get from my comment that I provided it as a solution?


Ah, apologies. Interpreted your comment as defending repealing Net Neutrality as a necessary evil.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 00:28:01


Post by: Tannhauser42


 ProtoClone wrote:

Different groups, and companies, are going to take this to the supreme court to get the repeal overturned.

So, in other words, the repealed passed but the fights not over.


The thing is, while the fight's not over, many companies will do everything they can to make as much money as they can before it all gets decided. I guarantee every major company already has a three step plan in place for this situation. It's kind of like the loot box craze in video games this year: the major companies all know it's going to get reined in by the government and/or public outcry eventually, but that won't stop them from milking it as much as they can, while they can. So, we'll still suffer for it in the meantime.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 00:47:46


Post by: Luciferian


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 Luciferian wrote:
How did you get from my comment that I provided it as a solution?


Ah, apologies. Interpreted your comment as defending repealing Net Neutrality as a necessary evil.


Nah, just that it or something like it was more or less inevitable when the regulatory climate always favors the incumbent players over newer and smaller ones. Whether that's through Republican-style gladhanding or heavy "regulations" that are a slap on the wrist to large entities and a catastrophic event to small ones. Whatever corporations can afford to pay in order to get away with things they will, and what they can't afford to pay they'll externalize onto the rest of us and do it anyway. The final death knell for market capitalism and perhaps even democracy in the US came when we decided that our corporate institutions were too big to fail, and that we weren't going to do anything about it. Now we're all just being held for ransom.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 01:50:49


Post by: sebster


 Kroem wrote:
For someone like me who isn't overly bothered about high traffic websites like TwitchTV or Imgur, I can see some merit in the idea that I could reduce my internet bill in exchange for limited access to certain websites that I hardly use.


The problem is two fold;

1) The internet is dynamic. When you sign up you might get the sites you want at high speed, but then in the next 12 or 24 months new sites will emerge that you want to access at full speed.

2) It won't be as simple as picking and choosing specific sites you want access to. Everything will come in bundles, pay for this package and get these 10 sites at high speed, or pay for that package which has 15 sites, with some cross over between the old package and the new. If you want one site in the first package, and one site in the second package, but none of the other junk, then you have to go to a premium package with 35 high speed sites and a stupid price tag. There's a great term called 'confusopolies', its when companies build bizarre sets of packages with various features arbitrarily added and taken out, entirely for the purpose of making the whole thing so confusing that customers can't actually price compare between what should be identical products. Cable does this already, so do phone companies, banks and pretty much every organisation that people generally hate.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Easy E wrote:
How long until other large corporations go to court to fight ISPs over this?

If Net Nuetrality is restored, it probably will be due to big companies fighting about it, not what us pleebs on the intertubez think.


This repeal passed on party lines. If Net Neutrality is restored, it will be because people voted Democrats back in to office, returning to them a majority on the FCC. But even then there's no promises, once the horse has bolted then money will flood in to both parties from the ISPs to help them keep their new monopolies. So people will have to vote Democrats in, and then make sure those newly elected Democrats know that they're there on condition they reverse this repeal, among other things, and they have to deliver.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 avantgarde wrote:
Why would Google or Amazon go to bat for consumers besides PR fluff? They've already built massive private backbones for themselves, they don't care about neutrality they get their preferential speeds either way.


Amazon, Hulu, Apple, Youtube, Netflix and all the rest are in a really competitive market. Someone might want Amazon, but if they can only get it at low speeds so that it buffers even at low resolution, then consumers will just go to Youtube Red or something else. Theoretically you could move to a different ISP that had Amazon at high speed, but lots of people have little or no ISP choice.

Amazon knows this, and the ISPs know this. And so the ISPs will charge Amazon a fee, called something obnoxious like 'premium alliance partner', which will mean that service will be accessible to customers at top speed. And of course the customer will be paying extra to access Amazon at that high speed.

The ISP makes money both ways, and everyone else pays more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Luciferian wrote:
If we had competition this wouldn't even be an issue, but since we're stuck with the few monolithic corporations that we have, they have the power to pull off these types of shenanigans.


If there was strong competition between ISPs this would be less of a problem but it would still be a big problem. Right now there's competition between banks, but walk in to five banks and get five loan offers, and see if you can figure out which is actually the best for you. The loans are constructed in such a way as to give and take various features seemingly at random,so it become mindbendingly hard to keep track of which is actually a good deal. ISPs are chasing the removal of regulation to let them do the same with internet packages. This one is cheaper but the average speed is bleh although I get Netflix at this speed, and with a special option to increase one other non-premium site from this bundle if I want at a later date (sites in that bundle able to be changed without warning, price to add a site from that bundle subject to change without warning).


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 02:54:36


Post by: Luciferian


Well, it's done. We'll see if anything changes drastically.

On an optimistic note, it should be noted that over half of all web traffic in the country goes through about 30 content providers (Google, Facebook etc.) and those providers have such a need for bandwidth that they have basically already been paying for "fast lanes" by routing their traffic directly through ISPs. So it's possible that not much will really change.

Then again, we are talking about Comcast, so I wouldn't put it past them to turn internet service into a piecemeal Cable package deal where you get access to Facebook with one package and Amazon with another, like sebster said above.

In any case, the main problem is still exactly the same as it was yesterday: there is no competition in the ISP market.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 04:46:42


Post by: Wolfblade


There's still 60 days before the new rules (or lack thereof) go into effect. During which I suspect just about everybody and their mother (or atleast the groups like the ACLU) will be filing a lawsuit, which will probably either rest on "ignoring the will of the america people" or "blatant sellout to the telecoms." Perhaps both. Congress could also do something, as iirc there was a lot of support there for net neutrality regardless of party.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 04:54:33


Post by: whembly


Ya'll know that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would still be the oversight entity... right?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 05:06:13


Post by: Wolfblade


 whembly wrote:
Ya'll know that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would still be the oversight entity... right?


Only if the company promises something then fails to uphold it.

So, as long as none of the companies promise to uphold net neutrality, they're in the clear to be scumbags (example, look at comcast's changing stance on net neutrality)

Personally, I prefer preventative measures to a slap on the wrist afterwards, which would never come anyways.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 05:17:22


Post by: LordofHats


The FTC has almost no enforcement authority and that’s beside the point anyway. The FCC is supposed to regulate telecommunications and they just voted to abdicate their own responsibility for... a bunch of reasons that make no sense whatsoever. If the FCC isn’t going to do it’s job under its current leadership then the leadership should be replaced but that isn’t going to happen. The repeal of the NN rules isn’t just a failure of basic reason it’s ancomplete failure of governance.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 05:44:10


Post by: Galas


Congrats USA! You are now at the same level as Portugal!

Enjoy your future! Or enjoy it NOW for only 9,99$ a month more!


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 05:56:53


Post by: Ouze


Well, elections have consequences.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 06:15:26


Post by: Wolfblade


They might come a little too late however


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 06:26:02


Post by: Luciferian


 Galas wrote:
Congrats USA! You are now at the same level as Portugal!

Enjoy your future! Or enjoy it NOW for only 9,99$ a month more!


The Portuguese promotions this is based off of are just packages for additional, unmetered mobile data. Cell providers were doing that kind of stuff before 2015 anyway. It's definitely lame, but it's not what "the internet" looks like in Portugal.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 06:42:28


Post by: tneva82


 Kroem wrote:
Is that confirmed? Why would anyone agree to pay more for less of a service?
I struggle to believe that demand for internet is so inelastic with respect to price that this wouldn't loose them custom, especially with competition from the high speed internet you can get on mobile phones now.

Yea you are right, they would have to be flexible as everyone has different 'top sites'. If an ISP hit the market with a package say half the price of my current internet, but I could only choose 2 of the top 10 sites to have unlimited access to; I think that could be a successful product in the budget end of the market.


Problem being internet is so hardwired into people's daily life it's pretty hard to NOT have one these days. Dunno how it's in your side of the world but for example I do my banking things via net and _not all have bank office in their town anymore here_. Not sure do I still have. Town I moved out doesn't have(people use net so much it wasn't worth it for bank to keep it) but not sure if this town has. Imagine how easy it would be to do bank things like paying bills(need to do multiple times a month) without access to net bank and nearest office 50km away...

So if provider ups the bill by say 20% I have actually very little room if all the providers do the same.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 13:11:57


Post by: Kilkrazy


First thing about this is that there are a load of legal challenges lined up, so it may not end up happening.

Second thing is that it can be reversed if you vote a Democratic government into power. The Republicans did this because their priorities in power are (A) reverse everything Obama did, and (B) Big Business Profits. Vote them out.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 14:14:27


Post by: sfshilo


 avantgarde wrote:
Then why was Google quiet today?

There's not even a google logo art supporting neutrality.

The larger your customer base the more likely you can negotiate preferential pricing from ISPs, the companies with the most resources to oppose NN are the ones who will be impacted by it the least or may even benefit. Say Netflix negotiates a choice contract from Time Warner, it's to their benefit that a smaller competitor has more trouble negotiating "fast lane" access at an equally competitive rate.


From:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/060215/googles-stance-net-neutrality.asp

Google's Net Neutrality Statements
Google definitely has a vested interest in the issue with the formation of Google Fiber, a broadband Internet and TV service company, boosting it further into the ranks of the major ISPs. Google's initial public statements regarding net neutrality, around 2006, were clearly in favor of the policy. It shifted its official position, at least in part, in 2010 when it partnered with Verizon in strongly arguing that net neutrality regulations should not be applied to wireless carriers. At the time, Verizon and Google won their case, with the FCC allowing wireless carriers to discriminate against third-party applications.

Since 2010, Google has largely been silent in the ongoing net neutrality debate. However, in 2014, it did sent out a message to all of its "Take Action" subscribers strongly supporting net neutrality and advocating that the FCC enforce net neutrality rules. The company's statement went so far as to contradict, or reverse, its 2010 position, saying that net neutrality should extend to wireless carriers.

In November 2017, Google did make a statement as FCC's push for a policy reversal gathered steam. "The FCC’s net neutrality rules are working well for consumers, and we’re disappointed in the proposal released today," the statement said. However, it was absent from an open letter many Internet pioneers, including Steve Wozniak, sent to the FCC and Senate and House Committees on Communications and Technology.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 14:30:44


Post by: Easy E


 Ouze wrote:
Well, elections have consequences.


Yup, this is what people voted for when they didn't bother to vote or voted R.

Enjoy everyone!


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 14:34:57


Post by: Galas


 Kilkrazy wrote:
First thing about this is that there are a load of legal challenges lined up, so it may not end up happening.

Second thing is that it can be reversed if you vote a Democratic government into power. The Republicans did this because their priorities in power are (A) reverse everything Obama did, and (B) Big Business Profits. Vote them out.


Actually, the Obama administration was agaisn't Net-Neutrality too in the first place, but after the public out-rage they changed their policy about that. Not saying this to do the typical what-aboutism, more to show that the green looks equally beautifull no matter you are team blue or team red, what changes is how obviously you are willing to be agaisn't the desire of the population for it. So you can't trust one party to support net-neutrality without the society watching what they are gonna do about it.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 15:09:01


Post by: whembly


 Kilkrazy wrote:
First thing about this is that there are a load of legal challenges lined up, so it may not end up happening.

The Chevron Deference says hi.

Second thing is that it can be reversed if you vote a Democratic government into power. The Republicans did this because their priorities in power are (A) reverse everything Obama did, and (B) Big Business Profits. Vote them out.

Yup.

Hence why I'd advocate for Congress to pass a law to enshrine this.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 15:13:46


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Where is the modern day Teddy Roosevelt to take on these new robber barons and put the fear of God into them?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 15:17:00


Post by: whembly


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Where is the modern day Teddy Roosevelt to take on these new robber barons and put the fear of God into them?

Break up the companies with vertical integration (ie Comcast, Verizon) who are not only ISPs, but content providers as well.

You just know Amazon is going to get broken up sometime soon...


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 15:28:24


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 whembly wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Where is the modern day Teddy Roosevelt to take on these new robber barons and put the fear of God into them?

Break up the companies with vertical integration (ie Comcast, Verizon) who are not only ISPs, but content providers as well.

You just know Amazon is going to get broken up sometime soon...


Is there anybody in the Congress or the Senate with the guts to take on Amazon or these big telecoms companies?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 15:31:50


Post by: Easy E


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Where is the modern day Teddy Roosevelt to take on these new robber barons and put the fear of God into them?

Break up the companies with vertical integration (ie Comcast, Verizon) who are not only ISPs, but content providers as well.

You just know Amazon is going to get broken up sometime soon...


Is there anybody in the Congress or the Senate with the guts to take on Amazon or these big telecoms companies?


Not enough of them to pass anything!


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 15:49:28


Post by: Galas


This is going to be the same thing that happened with DLC horsegak in video games: The process is so gradual that most people just accept it as the way things are...and when it gets to a point when it becomes completely unacceptable, there won't be the will to do anything about it. Because most people will just shrug and continue to pay the extra fees that have been slowly accumulating on services/features that were once included in the base price.

A good comparison is YouTube red. 5 years ago Android and apple apps that cached YouTube videos to be played later were becoming very popular. YouTube noticed. And so they slowly started pushing those apps to interfere with the service. Some videos couldn't be loaded. Getting an update cleared the cache. Shutting down the really consumer friendly ones and leaving the sketchy apps up. Basically cornering the market to nothing over the course of about a year. Then they were all gone. And after a time of this consumer want stewing, YouTube red is put out that offers this rather valuable service.. for a fee.

This is what will happen. 1-2 years of slow degeneration of services and quality, and then a new service that graciously and kindly offers everything they had rolled back.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 18:02:07


Post by: Easy E


 Galas wrote:
This is going to be the same thing that happened with DLC horsegak in video games: The process is so gradual that most people just accept it as the way things are...and when it gets to a point when it becomes completely unacceptable, there won't be the will to do anything about it. Because most people will just shrug and continue to pay the extra fees that have been slowly accumulating on services/features that were once included in the base price.

A good comparison is YouTube red. 5 years ago Android and apple apps that cached YouTube videos to be played later were becoming very popular. YouTube noticed. And so they slowly started pushing those apps to interfere with the service. Some videos couldn't be loaded. Getting an update cleared the cache. Shutting down the really consumer friendly ones and leaving the sketchy apps up. Basically cornering the market to nothing over the course of about a year. Then they were all gone. And after a time of this consumer want stewing, YouTube red is put out that offers this rather valuable service.. for a fee.

This is what will happen. 1-2 years of slow degeneration of services and quality, and then a new service that graciously and kindly offers everything they had rolled back.


Spot on post!


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 18:03:07


Post by: NinthMusketeer


The difference with gaming DLC is that is a requirement for game development to actually function. The price of a AAA game has gone down significantly since the 90s because $60 is worth less due to inflation, yet the development costs are tens times more. That money has to come from somewhere. Cable companies don't have anything analogous to that. So instead of an inevitable but unavoidable creep that undeniably has benefits, we will see a creep into charging more and more just for customers to get back to what they originally had.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 18:04:49


Post by: whembly


Here's a rational pro-Neutrality and anti-Title II article:

Spoiler'ed for being wall-o-text! Sauce.
Spoiler:
Weirdly, this article about the American broadband market must start in Portugal.

Web has been disappointing lately, I'll admit, but look what it looks like without Net Neutrality (in Portugal) https://t.co/0QYiMDcPnP

— Tim Wu (@superwuster) October 31, 2017

Last week Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai circulated a]draft order that would undo the 2015 reclassification of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from what are known as “Title I information services” to “Title II telecommunication providers”; Title II of the Telecommunications Act, originally developed to regulate the AT&T monopoly, gives the FCC broad ability to regulate “common carriers” as utilities. Title I, on the other hand, hands off regulatory oversight to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

The net effect of this reclassification would be the elimination of FCC rules restricting the ability of ISPs to block or throttle sites or apps or offer paid prioritization of any Internet content. That is certainly a worthy goal! Who could possibly be in favor of ISPs picking-and-choosing what sites you can visit based on what you are willing to pay? Do we really want to be like Portugal?

There’s just one problem with the tweet I embedded above: Portugal uses Euros, and the language is Portuguese; the tweet above has dollars and English. The image is completely made-up.

Congressman Ro Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley, at least went to the trouble of getting an actual page from a Portuguese carrier:

In Portugal, with no net neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages. pic.twitter.com/TlLYGezmv6

— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) October 27, 2017


There are the Euros and Portuguese you would expect, but in this case perhaps it was the language difference that introduced its own issues: Congressman Khanna seems to have missed the text at the top (under ‘+ Smart Net’) that clearly stated that the packages were for an additional 10GB/month of data; in addition to what, you may ask? Simply scroll down the page:


So to recount: one Portugal story is made up, and the other declared that a 10GB family plan with an extra 10GB for a collection of apps of your choosing for €25/month ($30/month) is a future to be feared; given that AT&T charges $65 for a single “Unlimited” plan that downscales video, bans tethering, and slows speeds after 22GB, one wonders if most Americans share that fear.

That, though, is the magic of the term “net neutrality”, the name — coined by the same Tim Wu whose tweet I embedded above — for those FCC rules that justified the original 2015 reclassification of ISPs to utility-like common carriers. Of course ISPs should be neutral — again, who could be against such a thing? What is missing in the ongoing debate, though, is the recognition that, ever since the demise of AOL, they have been. The FCC’s 2015 approach to net neutrality is solving problems as fake as the image in Wu’s tweet; unfortunately the costs are just as real as those in Congressman Khanna’s tweet, but massively more expensive.

THE COST OF REGULATION
Allow me to state this point plainly: I am absolutely in favor of net neutrality. Indeed, as I explained in 2014’s Netflix and Net Neutrality, I am willing to make trade-offs (specifically data caps) to achieve it. The question at hand, though, is what is the best way to achieve net neutrality? To believe that Chairman Pai is right is not to be against net neutrality; rather, it is to believe that the FCC’s 2015 approach was mistaken.

Any regulatory decision — indeed, any decision period — is about tradeoffs. To choose one course of action is to gain certain benefits and incur certain costs, and it is to forgo the benefits (and costs!) of alternative courses of action. What makes evaluating regulations so difficult is that the benefits are usually readily apparent — the bad behavior or outcome is, hopefully, eliminated — but the costs are much more difficult to quantify. Short-term implementation costs may be relatively straightforward, but future innovations and market entries that don’t happen by virtue of the regulation being in place are far more difficult to calculate. Equally difficult to measure is the inevitable rent-seeking that accompanies regulation, as incumbents find it easier to lobby regulators to foreclose competition instead of winning customers in an open market.

A classic example of this phenomenon is restaurants: who could possibly be against food safety? Then you read about how San Francisco requires 14 permits that take 9 months to issue (plus a separate alcohol permit) and you wonder why anyone opens a restaurant at all (compounded by the fact that already-permitted restaurants have a vested interest in making the process more onerous over time). Multiply that burden by all of the restaurants that never get created and the cost is very large indeed.

This argument certainly applies to net neutrality in a far more profound way: the Internet has been the single most important driver of not just economic growth but overall consumer welfare for the last two decades. Given that all of that dynamism has been achieved with minimal regulatory oversight, the default position of anyone concerned about future growth should be maintaining a light touch. After all, regulation always has a cost far greater than what we can see at the moment it is enacted, and given the importance of the Internet, those costs are massively more consequential than restaurants or just about anything else.

To put it another way, given the stakes, the benefit from regulation must be massive, which is why the “net neutrality” framing is so powerful: I’ll say it again — who can be against net neutrality? Telling stories about speech being restricted or new companies being unable to pay to access customers tap into both the Internet’s clear impact and the foregone opportunity cost I just described — businesses that are never built.

That, though, is exactly the problem: opportunity costs are a reason to not regulate; clear evidence of harm are the reasons to do so despite the costs. What is so backwards about this entire debate is that those in favor of regulation are adopting the arguments of anti-regulators — postulating about future harms and foregone opportunities — while pursuing a regulatory approach that is only justified in the face of actual harm.

The fact of the matter is there is no evidence that harm exists in the sort of systematic way that justifies heavily regulating ISPs; the evidence that does exist suggests that current regulatory structures handle bad actors perfectly well. The only future to fear is the one we never discover because we gave up on the approach that has already brought us so far.

ISPS ACTING BADLY
The most famous example of an ISP acting badly was a company called Madison River Communication which, in 2005, blocked ports used for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, presumably to prop up their own alternative; it remains the canonical violation of net neutrality. It was also a short-lived one: Vonage quickly complained to the FCC, which quickly obtained a consent decree that included a nominal fine and guarantee from Madison River Communications that they would not block such services again. They did not, and no other ISP has tried to do the same;the reasoning is straightforward: foreclosing a service that competes with an ISP’s own service is a clear antitrust violation. In other words, there are already regulations in place to deal with this behavior, and the limited evidence we have suggests it works.

Another popularly cited case is Comcast’s attempted throttling of BitTorrent in 2007. While the protocol has legitimate uses, by far the most popular application was piracy; notably, pirate networks typically required users to upload as much content as they downloaded, imposing significant burdens on Comcast’s network. The FCC ordered Comcast to stop in 2008, but a federal court ruled that the FCC lacked the statutory authority given that ISPs were Title I providers (not Title II).

What is important to note, though, is that even before the Court ruled, Comcast had already removed its restrictions, not for fear of regulatory oversight, but by making technical changes to its network to better handle BitTorrent traffic, lending credence to Comcast’s arguments that the initial restrictions were about network management, not content discrimination (and, to be clear, Comcast erred in not being transparent). It is worth noting, by the way, that BitTorrent users were a sort of free-loaders, using massively more bandwidth than the vast majority of Comcast’s customers; this is a case where what is best for end users is much murkier than net neutrality advocates would have you think. What is pertinent, though, is that it happened only once.

Perhaps the most misrepresented episode, though, is MetroPCS. Net neutrality advocates claim that the discount carrier (since bought by T-Mobile) “blocked all video sites except for YouTube”; the reality is that in 2011 MetroPCS unveiled a new pricing plan: $40 for unlimited webpages plus YouTube, $50 for several other additional services, and $60 for unrestricted data. In other words, it wasn’t a net neutrality issue at all: it was an early prototype of what is known as “zero-rating.”

T-MOBILE, ZERO-RATING, AND COMPETITION
Zero-rating means that a particular service does not count against a data cap; widely used all over the world, the practice was popularized in the United States by T-Mobile.

Back in 2011 T-Mobile was a distant fourth-place in the U.S. carrier market, with limited spectrum and a shrinking customer base. That year the company tried to sell itself to AT&T, the second-largest carrier, but that deal was (rightly) blocked by the U.S. Department of Justice for competition reasons. That’s when something amazing happened: T-Mobile decided to actually compete.

The company launched its “Un-carrier” campaign, featuring contract-fee pricing with phone financing, data carryover, and, pertinent to this article, zero-rating on a host of music and video services (the video was downsampled). Customers loved it, leading T-Mobile to grow rapidly, soon overtaking Sprint to become the third-largest carrier in the United States. More importantly, T-Mobile forced the other national carriers to respond: now everyone has phone financing instead of lock-in subsidies, monthly plan prices are significantly lower for everyone, and even AT&T and Verizon, the two largest carriers by far, have returned to unlimited data plans.
Again, zero-rating is not explicitly a net-neutrality issue: T-Mobile treats all data the same, some data just doesn’t cost money. Net neutrality advocates, though, have railed against zero-rating as violating the “spirit” of net neutrality, and shortly after that 2015 reclassification, the FCC launched an investigation into the practice. I’m sympathetic to the argument; I wrote in 2015:

The problem, though, is that regulations, by virtue of being words on a page, always contains loopholes that violate the “spirit” of the rules and more often than not end up favoring the incumbents, and that is precisely what is happening in the broadband war. Fast lanes would likely have only had an effect on the margins, and consumers would have been only affected indirectly; zero-rate data, though, appeals to consumer pocket books directly in a way that massively benefits whatever Internet companies are signed up to play ball with the ISP…

The FCC has signaled a hesitation to do anything about zero rate plans given the fact they benefit the consumer, at least in the short term. After all, who doesn’t like free? The problem, though, is the effect on competition — particularly the Netflix and Spotify competitors who haven’t yet been borne.
What has happened to the U.S. mobile industry has certainly made me reconsider: if competition and the positive outcomes it has for customers is the goal, then it is difficult to view T-Mobile’s approach as anything but a positive.


THE STARTUPS OF THE FUTURE
Still, what of those companies that can’t afford to pay for zero rating — the future startups for which net neutrality advocates are willing to risk the costs of heavy-handed regulations? In fact, as I noted in that excerpt, zero rating is arguably a bigger threat to would-be startups than fast lanes, yet T-Mobile-style zero rating isn’t even covered by those regulations! This is part of the problem of regulating future harm: sometimes that harm isn’t what you expect, and you have regulated and borne the associated costs in vain.

That aside, the idea that ISPs would be able to successfully block sites and apps that don’t pay for delivery is flawed:

First, as noted above, there is no evidence of this happening on a wide-scale.
Second, should an ISP try, an increasing number of customers do have alternatives (not enough — more on this in a moment).
Third, if the furor over net neutrality has demonstrated anything, it is that the media is ready-and-willing to raise a ruckus if ISPs even attempt to do something untoward; relatedly, a common response to the observation that ISPs have not acted badly to-date because they are fearful of regulation is not an argument for regulation — it is an acknowledgment that ISPs can and will self-regulate.
Most importantly, the idea makes zero economic sense. Remember that ISPs bear massive fixed costs, which means they are motivated to maximize the number of end users. That means not cutting off sites and apps those customers want. Moreover, even in the worst case scenario where ISPs did decide to charge Google and Netflix and whatnot, they could price discriminate and charge the Netflix competitor nothing at all! That would be a far superior financial outcome to a “take-it-or-leave-it” price that would foreclose all future startups (and again, there is zero evidence that this scenario has happened or will happen at all).

What is worth noting, though, is that the current regulations do foreclose startups that rely on low latency levels that might be offered by ISPs at a premium. The most commonly cited example is remote medical care, but the nature of future innovation is that we don’t know what sort of services might be created with something like paid prioritization.

I’d also note that companies like Google and Netflix already have massive advantages along these lines: Netflix places its content on servers within ISPs, and Google has an entire worldwide private network to ensure its results are milliseconds faster than they might be otherwise. The startups that challenge them will do so by being different, which means keeping open the number of possible ways to differentiate is a good thing.

COMPETITION AND NEUTRALITY
To recap, given that:

Regulation incurs significants costs, both in terms of foregone opportunities and regulatory capture
There is no evidence of systemic abuse by ISPs governed under Title I, which means there are no immediate benefits to regulation, only theoretical ones
There is evidence that pre-existing regulation and antitrust law, along with media pressure, are effective at policing bad behavior
I believe that Ajit Pai is right to return regulation to the same light touch under which the Internet developed and broadband grew for two decades. I am amenable to Congress passing a law specifically banning ISPs from blocking content, but believe that for everything else, including paid prioritization, we are better off taking a “wait-and-see” approach; after all, we are just as likely to “see” new products and services as we are to see startup foreclosure. And, to be sure, this is an issue than can — and should, if the evidence changes — be visited again.

What is worth far more attention is the state of competition in broadband generally: ISPs have lobbied for limits on public broadband in 25 states, and many local governments make it prohibitively expensive for new ISPs to challenge incumbents (and Title II requirements don’t help either). Increasing competition would not only have the same positive outcomes for customers that T-Mobile demonstrated, but would solve the (mostly theoretical) net neutrality issue at the same time: the greatest check on an ISP is the likelihood of an unsatisfied customer leaving.

And, I’d add, if neutrality and foreclosed competition are the issue net neutrality proponents say they are, then Google and Facebook are even bigger concerns than ISPs: both are super-aggregators with unprecedented power and the deepest moats ever seen in technology, and an increasing willingness to not be neutral.

It’s worth stating one last time: I believe deeply in neutrality and in fostering innovation. I think neutrality is the only way the Internet can function at scale, and innovation is how we will survive the Internet-driven transformation that is only just beginning. It is that belief, though, that compels me to push back against this specific regulation, no matter how much I agree with its associated catchphrase.

NOTE: I have written a follow-up to this piece that explains why I’m not making a “Market Will Fix It” argument, the trade-offs in terms of bandwidth investment, and why antitrust enforcement is so critical. You can read it here.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 18:15:21


Post by: Necros


Next thing ya know we'll have to buy loot boxes to unlock different cable channels and websites. How many loot boxes will it take to finally get Amazon Prime unlocked for a week?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 18:48:47


Post by: Bran Dawri


Oh dear god that was a cringe-worthy article.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 19:32:26


Post by: whembly


Bran Dawri wrote:
Oh dear god that was a cringe-worthy article.

What, specifically, are you cringing over?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 19:53:36


Post by: Prestor Jon


 whembly wrote:
Bran Dawri wrote:
Oh dear god that was a cringe-worthy article.

What, specifically, are you cringing over?


Well, first the whole Portugal comparison is a nonsensical red herring. Portugal isn't a good analog to the US, the situations aren't very similar at all. Secondly, the article take the time to point out that restaurant regulation in San Francisco is arduous and inhibits new restaurants from starting up which limits competition in the market but then completely ignores that fact that that same level of regulation is already in place for ISPs and is a key obstacle to breaking up the monopolistic ISPs in the US. Net Neutrality regulations, whether in place or removed, do nothing to help break up the monopolies. For example, if I want internet service in my home at decent speeds I can get it through Spectrum (who bought out TIme Warner). That is literally my only option. Regardless of whether or not Spectrum is governed by NN regulations I can either pay them for decent internet service or go without there is no competition in my market. As long as Spectrum has a monopoly in the market consumers will suffer and without NN regulations Spectrum becomes more powerful because in addition to their current monopoly on the service they can now dictate the content available to me.

The article argues that ISPs should be lightly regulated while ignoring the fact that there's only like half a dozen ISPs for the entire country. Light regulation is not the answer to monopolies. Monopolies need to be broken up via regulation not allowed to continue. Little competition requires more regulation, more competition allows for less regulation. The argument that NN regulation isn't needed because ISPs haven't abused their current monopoly in the feared nightmare scenario fashion ignore the fact that customers are already suffering at the hands of ISPs due to their current monopoly on service. Again, this just shows how stupid it was for the article to use the restaurant analogy, over regulation of restaurant permitting prevents more restaurants from opening but NN regulations have no bearing on preventing more ISPs from starting up. The regulations on ISPs are a completely different matter than the NN regulations.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 20:54:25


Post by: whembly


Prestor Jon wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Bran Dawri wrote:
Oh dear god that was a cringe-worthy article.

What, specifically, are you cringing over?


Well, first the whole Portugal comparison is a nonsensical red herring. Portugal isn't a good analog to the US, the situations aren't very similar at all.

The Portugal comparison is nonsensical because it's a lie tailored to generate hysteria.

Secondly, the article take the time to point out that restaurant regulation in San Francisco is arduous and inhibits new restaurants from starting up which limits competition in the market but then completely ignores that fact that that same level of regulation is already in place for ISPs and is a key obstacle to breaking up the monopolistic ISPs in the US. Net Neutrality regulations, whether in place or removed, do nothing to help break up the monopolies. For example, if I want internet service in my home at decent speeds I can get it through Spectrum (who bought out TIme Warner). That is literally my only option. Regardless of whether or not Spectrum is governed by NN regulations I can either pay them for decent internet service or go without there is no competition in my market. As long as Spectrum has a monopoly in the market consumers will suffer and without NN regulations Spectrum becomes more powerful because in addition to their current monopoly on the service they can now dictate the content available to me.

The point was, NN as envisioned by previous ruling adds regulatory burdens that the big guys can shoulder, which creates barriers for startups.

The article argues that ISPs should be lightly regulated while ignoring the fact that there's only like half a dozen ISPs for the entire country. Light regulation is not the answer to monopolies. Monopolies need to be broken up via regulation not allowed to continue. Little competition requires more regulation, more competition allows for less regulation. The argument that NN regulation isn't needed because ISPs haven't abused their current monopoly in the feared nightmare scenario fashion ignore the fact that customers are already suffering at the hands of ISPs due to their current monopoly on service. Again, this just shows how stupid it was for the article to use the restaurant analogy, over regulation of restaurant permitting prevents more restaurants from opening but NN regulations have no bearing on preventing more ISPs from starting up. The regulations on ISPs are a completely different matter than the NN regulations.

They're natural monopolies by necessity as there's only so much pole space to laydown cable/fiber. The fact that they ARE natural monopolies, itself, doesn't mean the consumers were harmed. If that's the position you take, then there's a whole bunch of monopoly-busting that needs to happen.

Now, there are arguments for things like forcing ISPs to allow competitors over the "Last Mile" lines to the consumers... but, I'm not sure we're there yet.

Anyhow... "Light touch" regulation got us here *now*. More regulation over a fear of potential harm need to be judiciously applied. Hell, a former Democratic FTC chairman wrote an op-ed on the post to Chillax Ya'll, We Got This.

Now, if you take the stance that these ISPs ought to be regulated like common carriers/utilities ala, water, electricity and gas... then yes this new ruling is a step back. But, if you're worried that you're going to pay more now, or suffer performance issues while streaming Netflix and whatnot... I wouldn't. There are major sensitivities with these ISPs about maintaining their subscribers... right now, the cord-cutting consumers (people dropping cable TV, but keeping cable internet) is shifting the dynamics in ways we're not sure what's going to happen.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 22:21:00


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Here's a tl;dr for people: 'republicans are right because reasons, reality is not worth mentioning'.

Really there's nothing to see beyond more of the same crap we've been seeing this year, move along and don't make the same mistake I did in wasting your time to read it.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 22:31:12


Post by: whembly


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Here's a tl;dr for people: 'republicans are right because reasons, reality is not worth mentioning'.

Really there's nothing to see beyond more of the same crap we've been seeing this year, move along and don't make the same mistake I did in wasting your time to read it.

...and you didn't read it.

"Republican" or "Democrat" isn't found in that article.

EDIT: which link are you talking about?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 22:37:17


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 whembly wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Here's a tl;dr for people: 'republicans are right because reasons, reality is not worth mentioning'.

Really there's nothing to see beyond more of the same crap we've been seeing this year, move along and don't make the same mistake I did in wasting your time to read it.

...and you didn't read it.

"Republican" or "Democrat" isn't found in that article.
The republican administration is behind net neutrality reform, the only reason to suggest anything otherwise is because you've lost the argument. So thanks for the unintentional concession, I guess.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 22:42:07


Post by: whembly


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Here's a tl;dr for people: 'republicans are right because reasons, reality is not worth mentioning'.

Really there's nothing to see beyond more of the same crap we've been seeing this year, move along and don't make the same mistake I did in wasting your time to read it.

...and you didn't read it.

"Republican" or "Democrat" isn't found in that article.
The republican administration is behind net neutrality reform, the only reason to suggest anything otherwise is because you've lost the argument. So thanks for the unintentional concession, I guess.

:sigh:
I thought you were talking about the article I posted before that.

Maybe next time be more clear? And less dismissive would be swell too...








Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 23:05:25


Post by: Luciferian


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Here's a tl;dr for people: 'republicans are right because reasons, reality is not worth mentioning'.

This is a great post to curry favor amongst those who feel the same way you do, but it doesn't really contain any information for anyone else. What reality are you talking about? Which reasons for Republicans being right are you referring to, and who even offered them in the first place?

I'm so tired of binary thinking and hyperbole. Let's be honest; very few people know what they're talking about on any given subject, let alone issues that are as technical as this one. All people do these days is get hyped into a frothing lunacy by their social media hive minds and parrot whatever memes they see in their news feeds or on late night TV. No thought, no introspection, no critical inquiry, just talking points all the way around.

Everyone needs to get a grip. The world isn't ending because politicians from either party passed/repealed some kind of legislation or regulation. The right acted pretty much the same way during Obama that the left is acting now; everything was a conspiracy and a dire threat to democracy and apple pie itself. Don't be a chump, think for yourself.

This regulation was two years old. It's not like the internet came into immaculate existence in 2015 by some kind of miracle wrought by a Democrat's pen, and now is in danger of fading back into the realm of fairies and unicorns, beyond the grasp of mortals. This type of rule doesn't even exist in some countries, including EU members, and in those where it does exist it has only been introduced very recently.

Would it have been preferable to keep a rule in place that specifically forbids ISPs from turning the internet into a cable TV package? Yes, I think so. Does it follow logic that because that rule is now gone, the ISPs are going to twirl their mustaches and tie the internet to a railroad track? No, it doesn't. Most of the scenarios that people are imagining are not only unlikely, they betray an ignorance about how the internet even functions. If you want to be pissed about getting the shaft as a US internet consumer, you kind of missed the boat because it was happening with or without this rule. The "last mile" from the ISPs to your house is rotting, outdated infrastructure that may or may not have been installed when Alexander Graham Bell was still alive. Your local governments have regulations and processes in place that make it infeasible for new ISPs to form, and the incumbent ISPs love them for it. Content providers and ISPs keep merging to the point where a vast majority of what you see on the internet is under the control of a handful of major corporations anyway. The market has zero competition, and consumers have zero power to do anything about it. There are fundamental problems that this rule never addressed, which are frankly much more important and impacting. We as consumers and citizens should have raised our voices long ago, but we didn't. We didn't, because it's more gratifying and less exhausting to simply throw a couple of posts into the void of narcissism and rage that is the internet, than it is to actually do anything that matters. If that's all people are going to use the internet for anyway, then this rule isn't going to affect them one iota.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 23:23:28


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Calling out falsehood as such is overreacting and people who do so need to get a grip. Uh huh.

Projecting outrage onto me isn't accurate or a compelling argument, it's great for people who already agree with your position, but for many of us just reinforces why your position isn't worth engaging with.

The alternative is that the chronic behaviors of wealthy entities have changed from how they've been acting for all of recorded history.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/15 23:32:47


Post by: Luciferian


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Calling out falsehood as such is overreacting and people who do so need to get a grip. Uh huh.

Projecting outrage onto me isn't accurate or a compelling argument, it's great for people who already agree with your position, but for many of us just reinforces why your position isn't worth engaging with.

The alternative is that the chronic behaviors of wealthy entities have changed from how they've been acting for all of recorded history.


Calling out falsehoods implies that you can articulate the truth. Many posts here can barely manage, "party x is bad, disagreeing with me is admitting that you're wrong." If that's the level of engagement you're going to pick up and take home because I don't agree with everything you say, then I guess I'm none the poorer.

What does your last sentence even mean? That you can, with 100% certainty, predict the behaviors of entities that are so large and complex as to be beyond your comprehension, based on their relative level of wealth?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/16 00:12:06


Post by: NinthMusketeer


If someone insists that the can't rain next week because it isn't raining today, one does not engage them in the finer points if meteorology, one simply points out the obvious and moves on.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/16 00:26:37


Post by: Bran Dawri


So because an attempt to at least somewhat curtail the ISP monopoly powers didn't go nearly far enough is a reason to instead stop trying to curtail them at all rather than, y'know, the opposite?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/16 00:34:45


Post by: Luciferian


If I were a meteorologist, I would predict that where ever certain posters go, platitudes and faulty rhetoric will fall from the heavens in sheets.

I'm not insisting that it can't rain next week because it isn't raining today, you're insisting that it must rain next week because it rained on the Spanish plains on the day Al Capone was arraigned.

This kind of attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. It is so opposed to discourse using anything other than empty tribal signaling that I have to assume some kind of traumatic event involving a debate team or logic professor forced you to compartmentalize the part of your mind which responds to reason.

"This guy isn't identifying himself as part of my team so I better not talk to him," is a good rule for the safety of children, soldiers and thieves, but not one you see employed by those with enough confidence in their own principles and intellect to risk being contaminated with outside information.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bran Dawri wrote:
So because an attempt to at least somewhat curtail the ISP monopoly powers didn't go nearly far enough is a reason to instead stop trying to curtail them at all rather than, y'know, the opposite?


No. Where do you guys pull these false equivalencies from? How is it that you can read something and end up finding words that aren't there?

What I said: The sky isn't falling just now, because this doesn't really change much and the major issues are persistent regardless.

What you added: I don't think we should try to curtail the monopolization of ISPs.

Neat trick. Let me try:
So net neutrality made the internet perfect and solved all issues with ISP market consolidation, and without it you're going to be fitted with a collar that explodes if you sign on to the internet without paying for Battlefront II DLC?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/16 01:12:14


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Luciferian wrote:
If I were a meteorologist, I would predict that where ever certain posters go, platitudes and faulty rhetoric will fall from the heavens in sheets.

I'm not insisting that it can't rain next week because it isn't raining today, you're insisting that it must rain next week because it rained on the Spanish plains on the day Al Capone was arraigned.

This kind of attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. It is so opposed to discourse using anything other than empty tribal signaling that I have to assume some kind of traumatic event involving a debate team or logic professor forced you to compartmentalize the part of your mind which responds to reason.

"This guy isn't identifying himself as part of my team so I better not talk to him," is a good rule for the safety of children, soldiers and thieves, but not one you see employed by those with enough confidence in their own principles and intellect to risk being contaminated with outside information.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bran Dawri wrote:
So because an attempt to at least somewhat curtail the ISP monopoly powers didn't go nearly far enough is a reason to instead stop trying to curtail them at all rather than, y'know, the opposite?


No. Where do you guys pull these false equivalencies from? How is it that you can read something and end up finding words that aren't there?

What I said: The sky isn't falling just now, because this doesn't really change much and the major issues are persistent regardless.

What you added: I don't think we should try to curtail the monopolization of ISPs.

Neat trick. Let me try:
So net neutrality made the internet perfect and solved all issues with ISP market consolidation, and without it you're going to be fitted with a collar that explodes if you sign on to the internet without paying for Battlefront II DLC?
You're literally writing the evidence for me. This is riddled with insults, straw men, and false equivalencies, not to mention the hypocrisy. It isn't about talking or not talking with a certain side, its that I don't find it worthwhile to engage individuals like you. When the basis of potential discussion is an irrational viewpoint I don't find it's worth the effort because, in my experience, the supporters of such a position end up acting exactly like this.

Net neutrality is a good thing. The repeal is a bad thing for everyone save the companies that lobbied millions for it. There isn't a debate, just a minority group which denies the broad consensus.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/16 01:50:15


Post by: Luciferian


 NinthMusketeer wrote:

...straw men, and false equivalencies, not to mention the hypocrisy.


If someone insists that the can't rain next week because it isn't raining today, one does not engage them in the finer points if meteorology, one simply points out the obvious and moves on.


 NinthMusketeer wrote:

It isn't about talking or not talking with a certain side...

Here's a tl;dr for people: 'republicans are right because reasons, reality is not worth mentioning'.

Really there's nothing to see beyond more of the same crap we've been seeing this year, move along and don't make the same mistake I did in wasting your time to read it.

The republican administration is behind net neutrality reform, the only reason to suggest anything otherwise is because you've lost the argument. So thanks for the unintentional concession, I guess.


There isn't a debate, just a minority group which denies the broad consensus.

First of all, I never said the repeal wasn't a bad thing. I said that it was, just not to the degree that people are freaking out about it. I also expressed skepticism that anyone who actually cares enough about the issue to be informed about it is reacting just now, when there are much more pervasive issues surrounding the US ISP market that have been going on all around them for literally ten times as long as the net neutrality rule even existed.

Secondly, there's always a debate. Whether or not you want to participate in it is up to you, but "you're wrong I win" isn't really a cogent argument for anything. Literally all I'm doing is trying to introduce some actual nuance and pragmatism beyond "0=bad 1=good". It may surprise you that an issue which affects an entire nation's access to an extremely complex and multifaceted technology and the markets that surround it is somewhat more complicated than that. It may also surprise you that if you actually do care about it and want to seek solutions to its problems, a deeper understanding will be of benefit. Or, you could just signal which tribe you hail from and pat yourself on the back.




Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/16 01:59:43


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I have plenty of nuance to my position. Your whopping side of pretencious above is simply continuing to demonstrate why you aren't worth the effort of explaining it.

Edit: to clarify, none of what you've presented as my opinion actually is.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/16 03:04:37


Post by: Prestor Jon


 whembly wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Bran Dawri wrote:
Oh dear god that was a cringe-worthy article.

What, specifically, are you cringing over?


Well, first the whole Portugal comparison is a nonsensical red herring. Portugal isn't a good analog to the US, the situations aren't very similar at all.

The Portugal comparison is nonsensical because it's a lie tailored to generate hysteria.

Secondly, the article take the time to point out that restaurant regulation in San Francisco is arduous and inhibits new restaurants from starting up which limits competition in the market but then completely ignores that fact that that same level of regulation is already in place for ISPs and is a key obstacle to breaking up the monopolistic ISPs in the US. Net Neutrality regulations, whether in place or removed, do nothing to help break up the monopolies. For example, if I want internet service in my home at decent speeds I can get it through Spectrum (who bought out TIme Warner). That is literally my only option. Regardless of whether or not Spectrum is governed by NN regulations I can either pay them for decent internet service or go without there is no competition in my market. As long as Spectrum has a monopoly in the market consumers will suffer and without NN regulations Spectrum becomes more powerful because in addition to their current monopoly on the service they can now dictate the content available to me.

The point was, NN as envisioned by previous ruling adds regulatory burdens that the big guys can shoulder, which creates barriers for startups.

The article argues that ISPs should be lightly regulated while ignoring the fact that there's only like half a dozen ISPs for the entire country. Light regulation is not the answer to monopolies. Monopolies need to be broken up via regulation not allowed to continue. Little competition requires more regulation, more competition allows for less regulation. The argument that NN regulation isn't needed because ISPs haven't abused their current monopoly in the feared nightmare scenario fashion ignore the fact that customers are already suffering at the hands of ISPs due to their current monopoly on service. Again, this just shows how stupid it was for the article to use the restaurant analogy, over regulation of restaurant permitting prevents more restaurants from opening but NN regulations have no bearing on preventing more ISPs from starting up. The regulations on ISPs are a completely different matter than the NN regulations.

They're natural monopolies by necessity as there's only so much pole space to laydown cable/fiber. The fact that they ARE natural monopolies, itself, doesn't mean the consumers were harmed. If that's the position you take, then there's a whole bunch of monopoly-busting that needs to happen.

Now, there are arguments for things like forcing ISPs to allow competitors over the "Last Mile" lines to the consumers... but, I'm not sure we're there yet.

Anyhow... "Light touch" regulation got us here *now*. More regulation over a fear of potential harm need to be judiciously applied. Hell, a former Democratic FTC chairman wrote an op-ed on the post to Chillax Ya'll, We Got This.

Now, if you take the stance that these ISPs ought to be regulated like common carriers/utilities ala, water, electricity and gas... then yes this new ruling is a step back. But, if you're worried that you're going to pay more now, or suffer performance issues while streaming Netflix and whatnot... I wouldn't. There are major sensitivities with these ISPs about maintaining their subscribers... right now, the cord-cutting consumers (people dropping cable TV, but keeping cable internet) is shifting the dynamics in ways we're not sure what's going to happen.


No. All you did whembly was repeat the same illogical arguments put forth in that article. The Net Neutrality regulations had zero impact on preventing ISP start ups from being created. While excessive regulation can stifle free markets that wasn’t happening to ISPs because there is no competitive free market with ISPs in the US. You said it yourself in contradictory fashion within the same post, ISPs are already a monopoly due to the local telecom regulations and the difficulty in actually creating new infrastructure and laying new cable through which new ISPs could provide service. There’s a reason google fiber only exists in a handful of cities, laying new cable is insanely difficult due to regulatory obstacles that do far more harm than good.

ISPs are demonstrably bad actors and have monopolies on service. NN did nothing to break up those monopolies but it had limited success in ensuring that the ISPs didn’t treat their internet service as poorly as their cable tv service. The same corporations that have driven tens of millions of cable tv subscribers away with terrible customer service, constant price hikes, deceptive marketing and bundling popular content with undesired content to squeeze more money out of subscribers are now free to bring that same business model to their internet service.

Why do you think corporations like Comcast aren’t going to subject their internet subscribers who want Netflix to the same treatment they subjected their cable subscribers who wanted ESPN or the NFL Network? It’s the same company working to monetize the same kind of service monopoly by abusing the same subscriber base. Why would this time be different? Because reasons?

Monopolies harm consumers, always. Free markets have competition and competition benefits consumers. You don’t really believe that allowing a handful of corporations to monopolize an incredibly popular and increasingly necessary service doesn’t hurt the consumer do you?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/16 04:34:32


Post by: LordofHats


In a lot of ways having a horde of ISP providers isn’t beneficial. It’s not really a market where fierce competition will happen in a place as big as the US and with a lot of distance to cover. If the cable/ISP providers want a non competitive market they can have it on the CONDITION that they have to live with heavy regulation to prevent them from abusing that market advantage (almost like a common carrier or something...). NN was a great benefit in that regard because it disallowed a lot of exploitative pricing models. For whatever baffling reason we’ve opted to let them have that market advantage and free reign to abuse it. Good job America.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/16 07:14:56


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Even just two options would really help the situation.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/16 07:45:32


Post by: LordofHats


The issue is that functionally there's little meaningful difference technologically between internet and cable services. Everyone basically offers the same thing. The only thing to do is either steer clear of each other or get into a price war with limited means of offsetting costs. Two is probably fine. Three even. What I mean is that this isn't a market where we're going to have a bunch of options, and we don't necessarily want it that way cause who really needs a half dozen different brands running around that all really just do the same thing? The closest similarities really are with utility companies who are under stricter regulations than most for the very reason that they exist in a market sector with limited room for competition and far too much potential for abuse.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/16 07:46:39


Post by: NenkotaMoon


You know I want to keep NN repealed just to piss people off now


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/16 11:19:42


Post by: Spinner


Sounds like a healthy way to make policy choices.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/16 11:57:35


Post by: LordofHats


 Spinner wrote:
Sounds like a healthy way to make policy choices.


I’ve been calling it the made problem of American policy for about a year. Spite is a horrible policy position.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/16 12:11:49


Post by: Ouze


stigginit is the only right way to vote, no matter how much it hurts your own interests.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/16 16:00:09


Post by: Kanluwen


 Ouze wrote:
stigginit is the only right way to vote, no matter how much it hurts your own interests.

I don't know if it was intentional or not, but man did I get a good chuckle out of the wording here.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/16 17:43:55


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 LordofHats wrote:
The issue is that functionally there's little meaningful difference technologically between internet and cable services. Everyone basically offers the same thing. The only thing to do is either steer clear of each other or get into a price war with limited means of offsetting costs. Two is probably fine. Three even. What I mean is that this isn't a market where we're going to have a bunch of options, and we don't necessarily want it that way cause who really needs a half dozen different brands running around that all really just do the same thing? The closest similarities really are with utility companies who are under stricter regulations than most for the very reason that they exist in a market sector with limited room for competition and far too much potential for abuse.
I agree. I think the utility analogy is a good one here, especially because at this point internet is a utility. Sure we don't -need- internet, but we don't -need- electricity either. But it's a basic standard that people are expected to have.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/17 04:38:58


Post by: NenkotaMoon


Personally Im happy they killed it. My area is gonna get better internet, talked to a friend in the biz here. Finally I can get rid of my crappy stuff and play video games and watch Netflix far better than before, and guess what, piss you off at the same time


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/17 05:31:41


Post by: Wolfblade


 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Personally Im happy they killed it. My area is gonna get better internet, talked to a friend in the biz here. Finally I can get rid of my crappy stuff and play video games and watch Netflix far better than before, and guess what, piss you off at the same time


...except when you don't, the current company starts charging you more, then divides the internet up into cable style packages.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/17 05:38:43


Post by: LordofHats


There’s literally nothing in net neutrality preventing anyone from offering you better internet. If your getting better and someone is saying it’s because of the repeal they’re ileither idiots or lying straight to your face. Or your just telling which to be fair seems to be your current binge around here.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/17 09:28:21


Post by: lonestarr777


 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Personally Im happy they killed it. My area is gonna get better internet, talked to a friend in the biz here. Finally I can get rid of my crappy stuff and play video games and watch Netflix far better than before, and guess what, piss you off at the same time


While we're dreaming I want a pony!

I just, seriously man, ISP's take home billions in profits every year, the reason they haven't expanded into your area isn't because they can't shut down websites they don't like and force you to pay more for services that they shouldn't be allowed to overcharge for.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/17 10:53:23


Post by: Dreadwinter


 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Personally Im happy they killed it. My area is gonna get better internet, talked to a friend in the biz here. Finally I can get rid of my crappy stuff and play video games and watch Netflix far better than before, and guess what, piss you off at the same time


I bet they are going to have the money to pay for the infrastructure upgrades after they charge you twice as much for the same crappy internet.

Or they will just pocket that cash and keep on using the same stuff they have been using forever.

I WONDER WHAT THEY WILL DO

Hey man, wanna buy a timeshare?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/17 12:21:14


Post by: LordofHats


It doesn't even matter what the ISPs do or how much they upgrade your last mile lines as long as the lines beyond that remain the same (which they have for awhile). The bottleneck will remain.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/17 15:25:53


Post by: Tannhauser42


While I was reading this thread from my phone earlier, it got me wondering. What effect will this have on mobile internet service?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/17 15:35:03


Post by: NenkotaMoon


I so far haven't seen anything to support your doomsday crap anyway, just speculation for something that only existed for three years and hasn't down really anything at all.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/17 16:51:25


Post by: Wolfblade


 NenkotaMoon wrote:
I so far haven't seen anything to support your doomsday crap anyway, just speculation for something that only existed for three years and hasn't down really anything at all.


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Not sure it's been brought up here, but other people have said "The Internet was fine before the 2015 Net Neutrality ruling, so it should be fine now that that's dead!" Just in case you run into someone who argues that, here's a list of things before the 2015 ruling that WERE NOT fine:

2005 – North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked VoIP service Vonage.
2005 – Comcast blocked or severely delayed traffic using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. (The company even had the guts to deny this for months until evidence was presented by the Associated Press.)
2007 – AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.
2007 to 2009 – AT&T forced Apple to block Skype because it didn’t like the competition. At the time, the carrier had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and even then the net neutrality advocates were pushing the government to protect online consumers, over 5 years before these rules were actually passed.
2009 – Google Voice app faced similar issues from ISPs, including AT&T on iPhone.
2010 – Windstream Communications, a DSL provider, started hijacking search results made using Google toolbar. It consistently redirected users to Windstream’s own search engine and results.
2011 – MetroPCS, one of the top-five wireless carriers at the time, announced plans to block streaming services over its 4G network from everyone except YouTube.
2011 to 2013 – AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon blocked Google Wallet in favor of Isis, a mobile payment system in which all three had shares. Verizon even asked Google to not include its payment app in its Nexus devices.2012 – AT&T blocked FaceTime; again because the company didn’t like the competition.
2012 – Verizon started blocking people from using tethering apps on their phones that enabled consumers to avoid the company’s $20 tethering fee.
2014 – AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” scheme, offering content creators a way to buy their way around the data caps that AT&T imposes on its subscribers.
2014 – Netflix started paying Verizon and Comcast to “improve streaming service for consumers.”
2014 – T-Mobile was accused of using data caps to manipulate online competition.


Do you only post one line responses with nothing of value? Are you trying to be a less eloquent Gwar! ?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/17 16:55:39


Post by: lonestarr777


 NenkotaMoon wrote:
I so far haven't seen anything to support your doomsday crap anyway, just speculation for something that only existed for three years and hasn't down really anything at all.


Sssooo instead of reading and acknowledging a full thread of evidence you just dig in your heels and stick your fingers in your ears and say were all wrong cause screw us.

Yeah thats about right, god I hate this country.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/17 17:08:59


Post by: Vaktathi


NenkotaMoon wrote:Personally Im happy they killed it. My area is gonna get better internet, talked to a friend in the biz here. Finally I can get rid of my crappy stuff and play video games and watch Netflix far better than before, and guess what, piss you off at the same time
On what basis would that be? There's quite literally nothing preventing them from offering you that now.

NenkotaMoon wrote:I so far haven't seen anything to support your doomsday crap anyway, just speculation for something that only existed for three years and hasn't down really anything at all.
Then you're intentionally not paying attention.


#lowefforttroll


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/17 20:58:34


Post by: Ustrello


 Vaktathi wrote:
NenkotaMoon wrote:Personally Im happy they killed it. My area is gonna get better internet, talked to a friend in the biz here. Finally I can get rid of my crappy stuff and play video games and watch Netflix far better than before, and guess what, piss you off at the same time
On what basis would that be? There's quite literally nothing preventing them from offering you that now.

NenkotaMoon wrote:I so far haven't seen anything to support your doomsday crap anyway, just speculation for something that only existed for three years and hasn't down really anything at all.
Then you're intentionally not paying attention.


#lowefforttroll


Based on the number of posts he has, I agree with you


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 02:48:16


Post by: oldravenman3025


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The difference with gaming DLC is that is a requirement for game development to actually function. The price of a AAA game has gone down significantly since the 90s because $60 is worth less due to inflation, yet the development costs are tens times more. That money has to come from somewhere. Cable companies don't have anything analogous to that. So instead of an inevitable but unavoidable creep that undeniably has benefits, we will see a creep into charging more and more just for customers to get back to what they originally had.




Still don't mean that garbage like "Day One DLC" isn't a dick move on the part of the big publishers, like Electronic Arts. DLC, at one time, customarily came after a game had been out for a few weeks.

Greed still plays a part in it. Because they know that suckers will go for it. And it all isn't all about covering development costs, since the biggest offenders are the ones where the development studio don't call the shots, and are owned by a big publisher.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 03:05:58


Post by: NinthMusketeer


You have good points but I really just meant to say that game companies =/= cable companies so comparisons between the two aren't hugely helpful.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 04:37:33


Post by: sebster


 Ouze wrote:
Well, elections have consequences.


Yep. Because when you vote in one person and one party, you raise up all the underlings along with them, and oh man has that drawn some people out from under the rocks. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, the guy leading the move to end Net Neutrality, put out this video. Beyond the sheer horribleness of the video, it's worth noting who Pai worked with to make the video. The guy who made the video with Pai is The Daily Caller's Ben Johnson. This guy got fired from Buzzfeed for plagiarizing Yahoo Answers. A guy who was too crap to work at Buzzfeed is now working hand in hand with the Chairman of the FCC to sell the policy ending Net Neutrality. And then it gets worse, the girl dancing in the bottom right of the video, she's one of the pizzagate lunatics.

So yeah, elections have consequences.





 whembly wrote:
The Portugal comparison is nonsensical because it's a lie tailored to generate hysteria.


No, the comparison to Portugal is terrible because Portugal's land mass is smaller than just the state of Oregon. It is much cheaper to deliver when the population is more concentrated. So your article saying 'oh give me Portugal's basic package prices' is a really crap argument.

So instead we can look at Portugal's crappy micro-pricing schemes as being horrible, note that despite being a much smaller area to cover the place still isn't that cheap to get a provider, and realise it's pretty obvious ending net neutrality is pretty obviously a bad thing.

The point was, NN as envisioned by previous ruling adds regulatory burdens that the big guys can shoulder, which creates barriers for startups.


That's an absurdly terrible argument with absolutely no basis in any economic or financial reality. It's crude ideology reheated and served up to the gullible. There was a competitive market in internet provision, made possible by a ban on telephone operators bundling parts of their network. That FCC was undone in 2005 and the number of internet providers dropped by two thirds.

Regulation can, at times, be used to produce a barrier for entry to new competitors. Other times it is essential to producing a competitive market with many players. Both happen, but the latter is much more common. Any time someone just says 'regulation is killing competition' but they give no real examples of how, it's almost certainly because they're trying to bs you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Luciferian wrote:
This regulation was two years old. It's not like the internet came into immaculate existence in 2015 by some kind of miracle wrought by a Democrat's pen, and now is in danger of fading back into the realm of fairies and unicorns, beyond the grasp of mortals. This type of rule doesn't even exist in some countries, including EU members, and in those where it does exist it has only been introduced very recently.


You don't understand. The FCC decision two years ago wasn't a sudden beginning of net neutrality where no attempts at net neutrality had ever existed before. Really since 2004 the FCC has looked to enforce net neutrality. All that happened two years ago is that the FCC lost a case against Verizon, where the court said the FCC couldn't enforce net neutrality against internet providers unless those providers were deemed common carriers. So the FCC said fine, then they're common carriers, as this allowed them to enforce the regs they'd been applying before then.

Now the Republican appointments to the FCC have reversed that decision, meaning the FCC is going to have little ability to enforce neutrality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 LordofHats wrote:
There’s literally nothing in net neutrality preventing anyone from offering you better internet. If your getting better and someone is saying it’s because of the repeal they’re ileither idiots or lying straight to your face. Or your just telling which to be fair seems to be your current binge around here.


No, I don't think you read his post. He has a friend in the biz. How can you doubt the word of a friend in the biz, given to us by someone on the internet?

Next thing you'll be telling me that some people in the News and Rumours threads might only be claiming they know people in GW headquarters.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 05:20:04


Post by: Ouze


In Ajit Pai's defense, if he hadn't posted that video we wouldn't have this.

PS I know a lady who works in an office with a different lady who is dating a guy who delivers packages to a FLGS, and he said the plastic Thunderhawk is being released imminently. Checkmate, libs.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 10:12:17


Post by: Galas


That video is what you get when people outside internet culture tries to hang out with the cool kids.
And to be honest I find funny how he says he wants to bring "internet freedom" when NN is based on the premise of hallowing a equal playing field to everybody, where internet providers cant influece the internet... But I assume thats bad, because is socialism!
Regulations are a tool. As every tool they can be used for good or for bad. But regulations are a neccesity. The level and size of those regulstions is always open to discussion, but I dont understand this boogeyman abot ALL regulations being bad.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 10:19:44


Post by: Herzlos


 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Personally Im happy they killed it. My area is gonna get better internet, talked to a friend in the biz here. Finally I can get rid of my crappy stuff and play video games and watch Netflix far better than before, and guess what, piss you off at the same time


With your gaming and Netflix packages?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 12:37:48


Post by: LordofHats


 Galas wrote:
That video is what you get when people outside internet culture tries to hang out with the cool kids.
And to be honest I find funny how he says he wants to bring "internet freedom" when NN is based on the premise of hallowing a equal playing field to everybody, where internet providers cant influece the internet... But I assume thats bad, because is socialism!
Regulations are a tool. As every tool they can be used for good or for bad. But regulations are a neccesity. The level and size of those regulstions is always open to discussion, but I dont understand this boogeyman abot ALL regulations being bad.


Honestly freedom has at this point become a meaningless word in America. People throw it out so much whenever they can squeeze it in that it can mean "free to do as you want" at the same time it means "free to do as I demand."

Net Neutrality isn't about freedom. It's about equality and equity, and the massive power disparity between common people and massive faceless uncaring corporations. Somehow the later have been remarkable successful in convincing the former that their "freedom" is at stake even though it isn't, while using the inequity of their massive financial resources to goad and lobby politicians into putting out whatever policies benefit them often with no real regard for how it effects the rest of us.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 16:40:54


Post by: oldravenman3025


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You have good points but I really just meant to say that game companies =/= cable companies so comparisons between the two aren't hugely helpful.




Oh, I know. I just can't resist taking a swipe at EA whenever the opportunity arises.


And I agree. Two different animals here. The issues surrounding the practices of game developers/publishers and cable providers are like apples and oranges.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
 LordofHats wrote:
 Galas wrote:
That video is what you get when people outside internet culture tries to hang out with the cool kids.
And to be honest I find funny how he says he wants to bring "internet freedom" when NN is based on the premise of hallowing a equal playing field to everybody, where internet providers cant influece the internet... But I assume thats bad, because is socialism!
Regulations are a tool. As every tool they can be used for good or for bad. But regulations are a neccesity. The level and size of those regulstions is always open to discussion, but I dont understand this boogeyman abot ALL regulations being bad.


Honestly freedom has at this point become a meaningless word in America. People throw it out so much whenever they can squeeze it in that it can mean "free to do as you want" at the same time it means "free to do as I demand."

Net Neutrality isn't about freedom. It's about equality and equity, and the massive power disparity between common people and massive faceless uncaring corporations. Somehow the later have been remarkable successful in convincing the former that their "freedom" is at stake even though it isn't, while using the inequity of their massive financial resources to goad and lobby politicians into putting out whatever policies benefit them often with no real regard for how it effects the rest of us.




BINGO. This is it in a nutshell.


Too bad many can't see it. It's funny, but some of the same people I know who hate Net Neutrality, and bought into the fatcat line of BS, are the same union types that would piss themselves if the Clayton Act were to be repealed tomorrow. Or laws protecting unions from union busting.


It's uncanny and hilarious at the same time.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 17:19:25


Post by: Kanluwen


 oldravenman3025 wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The difference with gaming DLC is that is a requirement for game development to actually function. The price of a AAA game has gone down significantly since the 90s because $60 is worth less due to inflation, yet the development costs are tens times more. That money has to come from somewhere. Cable companies don't have anything analogous to that. So instead of an inevitable but unavoidable creep that undeniably has benefits, we will see a creep into charging more and more just for customers to get back to what they originally had.

Still don't mean that garbage like "Day One DLC" isn't a dick move on the part of the big publishers, like Electronic Arts. DLC, at one time, customarily came after a game had been out for a few weeks.

Yeah, and "back in my day..." DLC was a whole other game purchase called an Expansion Pack! It cost almost as much as the actual game in some cases...


Greed still plays a part in it. Because they know that suckers will go for it. And it all isn't all about covering development costs, since the biggest offenders are the ones where the development studio don't call the shots, and are owned by a big publisher.

Ignorance plays a large part in comments like yours.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 17:55:16


Post by: oldravenman3025


 Kanluwen wrote:
 oldravenman3025 wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The difference with gaming DLC is that is a requirement for game development to actually function. The price of a AAA game has gone down significantly since the 90s because $60 is worth less due to inflation, yet the development costs are tens times more. That money has to come from somewhere. Cable companies don't have anything analogous to that. So instead of an inevitable but unavoidable creep that undeniably has benefits, we will see a creep into charging more and more just for customers to get back to what they originally had.

Still don't mean that garbage like "Day One DLC" isn't a dick move on the part of the big publishers, like Electronic Arts. DLC, at one time, customarily came after a game had been out for a few weeks.

Yeah, and "back in my day..." DLC was a whole other game purchase called an Expansion Pack! It cost almost as much as the actual game in some cases...


Greed still plays a part in it. Because they know that suckers will go for it. And it all isn't all about covering development costs, since the biggest offenders are the ones where the development studio don't call the shots, and are owned by a big publisher.

Ignorance plays a large part in comments like yours.






You had both expansion packs AND a little something known as micro-transactions. And the micro-transactions didn't cost as much as an entire game. But you already know that.


As for the last....nice b8, m8. I r8 it an 8.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 18:29:56


Post by: Alpharius


IN THREAD GENERAL WARNING TIME!

RULE #1 AND RULE #2.

OR...lose your ability to post in the OT FORUM (and possibly Dakka Dakka in general) for quite some time...


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 18:52:40


Post by: Kilkrazy


 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Personally Im happy they killed it. My area is gonna get better internet, talked to a friend in the biz here. Finally I can get rid of my crappy stuff and play video games and watch Netflix far better than before, and guess what, piss you off at the same time


If you lived in South Korea or Japan, you would already have way better speed and reliability, up and down, than a lot fo the USA, thanks SOCIALISM.

if you lived in the UK, you would have moderately gakky speed up and down, with a wide choice of providers to switch between, thus limited prices.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 19:02:06


Post by: Unit1126PLL


What? No, places like Chattanooga have certainly not increased their speeds through uncompetitive "Socialist" policies.

(This post intended with clear sarcasm).


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 20:33:03


Post by: Bran Dawri


Interesting. In the Netherlands, the compamy building and maintainimg the infrastructure is simply a different one from the one offering the tv/internet/phone subscription.
The former is controlled (or at least tightly monitored-I'm not too well-informed on the specifics) by the city/government, the latter is a simple service provider, and you can switch between any number of them without needing new cables.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 21:03:37


Post by: NinthMusketeer


TBF none of those places have nearly as much area to cover as the US. Still good points though.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 21:28:39


Post by: Blacksails


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF none of those places have nearly as much area to cover as the US. Still good points though.


Canada checking in. Out here on the east coast in sunny Halifornia, I can get 100Mbps, unlimited data for $91.95/month, with options to go as high as 940 Mbps (for 149.95) on one of the networks (more on another I believe). I checked Maine's Comcast offering which was $89 for 100Mbps, but without the unlimited data.

I know that it gets cheaper in provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan that have an additional provider on top of our big 3 (Rogers, Bell, Telus), where those two provinces have/had a 4th provincial exclusive provider that was a crown corp or heavily regulated for the province's benefit. In more populated areas, there will be smaller ISPs that piggyback on the infrastructure of one of the big 3, same as our cell providers.

We not only cover a larger area up north, but also a vastly smaller population density. Our big issue up north is that the big 3 control most of the telecom infrastructure and business across the country and we suffer from lack of competition. I have a cell plan from my time in Manitoba, and I pay half what everyone does out here, for more data, simply because of the additional, provincially controlled/regulated carrier in that province.

We're also fortunate that net neutrality is more or less enshrined in law up here (though Bell is working to remove it), and our CRTC has done an okay job at being pro-consumer with striking down zero rating practices by some of our ISPs and keeping net neutrality in place.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 21:35:21


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Take Sweden as an example then. Even in the north where there's more moose per square kilometer than people we still get better internet for cheaper than much of the US.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 21:40:59


Post by: Alpharius


What's the tax rate in Sweden?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 21:42:52


Post by: LordofHats


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What? No, places like Chattanooga have certainly not increased their speeds through uncompetitive "Socialist" policies.

(This post intended with clear sarcasm).


That's actually kind of funny. I mean we all know Chattanooga exists, but who ever actually thinks of anything cool happening in Chattanooga XD


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 22:06:01


Post by: Easy E


 LordofHats wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What? No, places like Chattanooga have certainly not increased their speeds through uncompetitive "Socialist" policies.

(This post intended with clear sarcasm).


That's actually kind of funny. I mean we all know Chattanooga exists, but who ever actually thinks of anything cool happening in Chattanooga XD


Well, they do have the Choo-choo!



Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 22:07:43


Post by: Galas


 Blacksails wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF none of those places have nearly as much area to cover as the US. Still good points though.


Canada checking in. Out here on the east coast in sunny Halifornia, I can get 100Mbps, unlimited data for $91.95/month, with options to go as high as 940 Mbps (for 149.95) on one of the networks (more on another I believe). I checked Maine's Comcast offering which was $89 for 100Mbps, but without the unlimited data.

I know that it gets cheaper in provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan that have an additional provider on top of our big 3 (Rogers, Bell, Telus), where those two provinces have/had a 4th provincial exclusive provider that was a crown corp or heavily regulated for the province's benefit. In more populated areas, there will be smaller ISPs that piggyback on the infrastructure of one of the big 3, same as our cell providers.

We not only cover a larger area up north, but also a vastly smaller population density. Our big issue up north is that the big 3 control most of the telecom infrastructure and business across the country and we suffer from lack of competition. I have a cell plan from my time in Manitoba, and I pay half what everyone does out here, for more data, simply because of the additional, provincially controlled/regulated carrier in that province.

We're also fortunate that net neutrality is more or less enshrined in law up here (though Bell is working to remove it), and our CRTC has done an okay job at being pro-consumer with striking down zero rating practices by some of our ISPs and keeping net neutrality in place.


Wait. Do you have limited data on internet? Like, limited number of Mbs a month before being charged extra or your internet being slowed down? We have that on movile phones, but with normal internet we don't. I have optical fiber, 320mbps for 40€/month, with unlimited data.
And yesAlmightyWalrus, if I recall correctly, USA is one of the "civilized" nations with one the most expensive and worse internet service.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 22:08:52


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Alpharius wrote:
What's the tax rate in Sweden?


Depends on how much you earn, but generally around 33% on income. VAT varies wildly depending on what you're buying; petrol has a higher VAT % than books, for example.

IIRC (been a while since I did this law course) there's no monopoly on the usage of the internet infrastructure in Sweden because ISPs are bound by law to allow any other ISP that wants to to use their lines. As such, if ISP A wants to throttle YouTube unless you pay, for instance, any consumer can move to another ISP.

I don't know if there's any subventions for the construction of further fibreoptic lines or the like, but I highly suspect there is.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 22:15:24


Post by: Blacksails


 Galas wrote:


Wait. Do you have limited data on internet? Like, limited number of Mbs a month before being charged extra or your internet being slowed down? We have that on movile phones, but with normal internet we don't. I have optical fiber, 320mbps for 40€/month, with unlimited data.
And yesAlmightyWalrus, if I recall correctly, USA is one of the "civilized" nations with one the most expensive and worse internet service.


Yeah, I get unlimited data on the internet. My cell plan has a limit, unfortunately, but that's life when we have a functional oligopoly up here.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 22:17:10


Post by: whembly


 Galas wrote:
 Blacksails wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF none of those places have nearly as much area to cover as the US. Still good points though.


Canada checking in. Out here on the east coast in sunny Halifornia, I can get 100Mbps, unlimited data for $91.95/month, with options to go as high as 940 Mbps (for 149.95) on one of the networks (more on another I believe). I checked Maine's Comcast offering which was $89 for 100Mbps, but without the unlimited data.

I know that it gets cheaper in provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan that have an additional provider on top of our big 3 (Rogers, Bell, Telus), where those two provinces have/had a 4th provincial exclusive provider that was a crown corp or heavily regulated for the province's benefit. In more populated areas, there will be smaller ISPs that piggyback on the infrastructure of one of the big 3, same as our cell providers.

We not only cover a larger area up north, but also a vastly smaller population density. Our big issue up north is that the big 3 control most of the telecom infrastructure and business across the country and we suffer from lack of competition. I have a cell plan from my time in Manitoba, and I pay half what everyone does out here, for more data, simply because of the additional, provincially controlled/regulated carrier in that province.

We're also fortunate that net neutrality is more or less enshrined in law up here (though Bell is working to remove it), and our CRTC has done an okay job at being pro-consumer with striking down zero rating practices by some of our ISPs and keeping net neutrality in place.


Wait. Do you have limited data on internet? Like, limited number of Mbs a month before being charged extra or your internet being slowed down? We have that on movile phones, but with normal internet we don't. I have optical fiber, 320mbps for 40€/month, with unlimited data.
And yesAlmightyWalrus, if I recall correctly, USA is one of the "civilized" nations with one the most expensive and worse internet service.

Erm... I get 60 mbps for unlimited data for $45/month ($52 with taxes). My cable company is Charter Spectrum... and I've never seen the need to go to the Ultra package (100Mbps) at $90/moth. Even though we stream everything in my house as we don't have cable TV. Service, in my area at least, is excellent.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 22:25:55


Post by: Galas


I wouldn't call 60mbps for 45$/month excellent service, but of course this is different from country to country.
Of course, is not just about speed but how stable it is. I have lived in zones with high speed, but the net was very unstable, so it wasn't even good enough. And to be honest, I didn't feel a need to upgrade from my previous 40mbps to 300mbps before. 40 was good enough. But after having 320, I can't go back even to 80-100. It feels slow as f****


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 22:28:44


Post by: whembly


 Galas wrote:
I wouldn't call 60mbps for 45$/month excellent service, but of course this is different from country to country.
Of course, is not just about speed but how stable it is. I have lived in zones with high speed, but the net was very unstable, so it wasn't even good enough.

Yup... I get extremely low latency. I can have 4 TVs streaming at the same time, plus one PS4 online gaming, plus me on dakka on my laptop and my wife on her phone/wifi doing whatever without any issues.

Only time we've experience bad service is if some act of god knock out power, or something like that.




Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 23:32:49


Post by: Mario


Bran Dawri wrote:Interesting. In the Netherlands, the compamy building and maintainimg the infrastructure is simply a different one from the one offering the tv/internet/phone subscription.
The former is controlled (or at least tightly monitored-I'm not too well-informed on the specifics) by the city/government, the latter is a simple service provider, and you can switch between any number of them without needing new cables.
There's usually some law/rule like that. Sometimes they can even be the same company but the infrastructure is regulated so you don't end up with half a dozen ISP's digging lines to the same block. To make this workable whoever lays down the connection has to allow others ISP to use the line at a low and regulated price. That way all ISPs can use the same infrastructure, the companies who actually build it get it cheaper (more profit from their own endusers), and also get a little bit form the other ISP who use it to connect to their customers. And we, the people, get competition between multiple suppliers.

NinthMusketeer wrote:TBF none of those places have nearly as much area to cover as the US. Still good points though.
bs. For one Scandinavian countries can do it. And on the other hand the same happens all over the USA even in population dense regions (NYC, Los Angeles,…). According to your hypothesis those should be teeming with an abundance choices (as so many people are living in comparatively little space) but strangely that's also not happening.

The main problem is not that the USA is huge—It's a problem but even if one were to compress the USA into 1/20 of its size it wouldn't change the situation—but that the laws, regulations, and rules are messed up which leads to most people ending up with not enough competing options. If I remember correctly the early ISP got billions to build the high speed internet infrastructure for the USA but the wording was so bad that high speed was defined as barely above ISDN level of bandwidth and that led to them pocketing most of the money while providing not much of a service (and having huge bottlenecks when, later, the big pipes were needed). The ISP also whined and wanted—for building that infrastructure—control which led to them often being able to veto things like municipal ISPs and other competition.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/18 23:34:07


Post by: Haighus


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What? No, places like Chattanooga have certainly not increased their speeds through uncompetitive "Socialist" policies.

(This post intended with clear sarcasm).

That is awesome! More cities need to do stuff like this- investing in proper infrastructure is a no-brainer really.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 00:49:22


Post by: Vaktathi


 Haighus wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What? No, places like Chattanooga have certainly not increased their speeds through uncompetitive "Socialist" policies.

(This post intended with clear sarcasm).

That is awesome! More cities need to do stuff like this- investing in proper infrastructure is a no-brainer really.
The problem is that frequently they get sued by telecoms and forced to stop, or lobby at the state level and get laws put on the books banning municipalities from engaging in such investments.

No joke.





Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 01:11:33


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF none of those places have nearly as much area to cover as the US. Still good points though.
Because people seem to be reading my first sentence and not the second. Seriously, I didn't at all suggest it was some sort of excuse.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 02:52:08


Post by: sebster


I pay $80, and I get about 60mbps. But that's for more than the internet, it also comes with a landline connection with free, and a DVR with a built in basic cable package.

When the broadband network comes to my area, which will be soon, apparently we'll be able to go to 100mbps and a lower price. But rollout of the new fiber to the node scheme has been fairly disastrous so far, so we'll probably wait about 6 months before we sign up.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 02:53:49


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


My parents pay like £30 a month for 30 mbps...and we get 10 mbps on a good day.

Wish I had 60 mbps.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 03:29:49


Post by: Galas


Well, I have 320 mbps but my super old PC only supports max 100 mbps... first world problems


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 04:36:01


Post by: Gordon Shumway


I pay about $95 for 100mbps, but the speed is actually around 20-30mbps. I wonder how many people regularly check their actual speeds. For me, it's sort of become a weird OCD thing.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 06:07:22


Post by: Kilkrazy


Here in Henley-on-Thames I pay £20 a month for 17mbps down, 1mbps up.

At my house in Japan it was about £25 a month for 100mbps in both directions.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 06:46:53


Post by: tneva82


 Blacksails wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF none of those places have nearly as much area to cover as the US. Still good points though.


Canada checking in. Out here on the east coast in sunny Halifornia, I can get 100Mbps, unlimited data for $91.95/month, with options to go as high as 940 Mbps (for 149.95) on one of the networks (more on another I believe). I checked Maine's Comcast offering which was $89 for 100Mbps, but without the unlimited data.


YIKES! Not sure how fast I have(4G anyway. good enough for HD youtube videos which is more than I need anyway) unlimited for 20€ per month(well 19.95€ to be exact).


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 15:05:37


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Vaktathi wrote:
 Haighus wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What? No, places like Chattanooga have certainly not increased their speeds through uncompetitive "Socialist" policies.

(This post intended with clear sarcasm).

That is awesome! More cities need to do stuff like this- investing in proper infrastructure is a no-brainer really.
The problem is that frequently they get sued by telecoms and forced to stop, or lobby at the state level and get laws put on the books banning municipalities from engaging in such investments.

No joke.





"Free & open internet."


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 15:29:27


Post by: Sasori


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I pay about $95 for 100mbps, but the speed is actually around 20-30mbps. I wonder how many people regularly check their actual speeds. For me, it's sort of become a weird OCD thing.


I read an article about a guy who had a script (Python I think) check his speed, and whenever it fell below a threshold it would automatically tweet at Comcast. I thought that was pretty funny.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 15:59:07


Post by: Haighus


 Sasori wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I pay about $95 for 100mbps, but the speed is actually around 20-30mbps. I wonder how many people regularly check their actual speeds. For me, it's sort of become a weird OCD thing.


I read an article about a guy who had a script (Python I think) check his speed, and whenever it fell below a threshold it would automatically tweet at Comcast. I thought that was pretty funny.

I think this script needs to be built into all operating systems... just add a bit which detects your ISP/you add your ISP in computer settings.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 16:06:57


Post by: djones520


Yeah, this is definitely one where I'll say the republicans are out to total fething lunch on this.

Since this nuetrality thing was put in place, our ISP has installed Fiber, increased our speeds, and lowered our bill.

Furthermore, out here in Romania, my phone service that I'm paying for? 5 Euro a month, and I get so much free bonus data, that it's effectively a better plan then the one I'm paying about $60 a line for back in the US.

So yeah, obviously this whole "holding everything back" schtick is total BS. Especially when we take a look at other countries out there that are providing so much better then we are, for so much less.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 17:58:43


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I pay about $95 for 100mbps, but the speed is actually around 20-30mbps. I wonder how many people regularly check their actual speeds. For me, it's sort of become a weird OCD thing.


Checked just now...

13.7 mbps download, 2.99 mbps upload.

This is one of the good days...


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 19:01:35


Post by: Ouze


Man, you guys are getting railed. I'm paying $70/mo and getting 270mbps down, 30mbps up and a 2TB cap. My plan plan is straight internet (no TV or cable) and it's like the 4th best plan - my ISP has gigabit ethernet now (cable, not fiber). But I feel like once you exceed around 200mbps, it sort of isn't worth it anymore - cap becomes more important than speed.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 19:39:39


Post by: kronk


 LordofHats wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What? No, places like Chattanooga have certainly not increased their speeds through uncompetitive "Socialist" policies.

(This post intended with clear sarcasm).


That's actually kind of funny. I mean we all know Chattanooga exists, but who ever actually thinks of anything cool happening in Chattanooga XD


A bit off topic, but we have a manufacturing plant nearby. Decent Bar-B-Que and 2 bourbon bars on the same block. They really made an effort making their downtown "entertainment friendly". Lots of parking, bars, restaurants, and hotels in the past 10 or so years. Nice little place.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 19:42:03


Post by: feeder


 kronk wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What? No, places like Chattanooga have certainly not increased their speeds through uncompetitive "Socialist" policies.

(This post intended with clear sarcasm).


That's actually kind of funny. I mean we all know Chattanooga exists, but who ever actually thinks of anything cool happening in Chattanooga XD


A bit off topic, but we have a manufacturing plant nearby. Decent Bar-B-Que and 2 bourbon bars on the same block. They really made an effort making their downtown "entertainment friendly". Lots of parking, bars, restaurants, and hotels in the past 10 or so years. Nice little place.


Plus it's a hell of a lot of fun to say, "Chattanooga"


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/19 20:23:55


Post by: Bran Dawri


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I pay about $95 for 100mbps, but the speed is actually around 20-30mbps. I wonder how many people regularly check their actual speeds. For me, it's sort of become a weird OCD thing.


Checked just now...

13.7 mbps download, 2.99 mbps upload.

This is one of the good days...


If you're consistently only getting 1/3rd of what you pay for, surely there's something you can do? Only pay a third, since you're only getting a third (after logging this over an extended period of time so you have proof, of course).

I mean this happened with my previous provider, and they would do jack about it, so I switched.

...

Oh wait. Sorry. Couldn't resist.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/20 01:31:54


Post by: whembly


 Sasori wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I pay about $95 for 100mbps, but the speed is actually around 20-30mbps. I wonder how many people regularly check their actual speeds. For me, it's sort of become a weird OCD thing.


I read an article about a guy who had a script (Python I think) check his speed, and whenever it fell below a threshold it would automatically tweet at Comcast. I thought that was pretty funny.

I can do that in PERL.

Also write a wall post on Charter's facebook page.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/22 01:06:15


Post by: CptJake


 Ouze wrote:
Man, you guys are getting railed. I'm paying $70/mo and getting 270mbps down, 30mbps up and a 2TB cap. My plan plan is straight internet (no TV or cable) and it's like the 4th best plan - my ISP has gigabit ethernet now (cable, not fiber). But I feel like once you exceed around 200mbps, it sort of isn't worth it anymore - cap becomes more important than speed.


Some of us live in areas where satellite is The Only broadband solution. I can't even get DSL.

I have the highest bandwidth allocation at 50 GB a month*, and it costs a crap ton. And the service is slow.


* I also get a bonus 50 GB a month I can use between 2300-0600 or something like that...


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/22 11:56:27


Post by: Kilkrazy


In the UK the average usage per month is something like 150GB per household. I don't know how that is worked out. It's just something I read.

My own house uses about 30 to 40GB a month, because we are on a 17mbps (max) copper ADSL line and we don't even try to watch a lot of VOD and so on. We don't have a monthly cap, but we probably wouldn't reach it anyway.

Obviously on a faster line you are likely to use more data, but the cost of the usage is mainly in the installation cost of the line. The incremental cost is the electricity and maintenance of the various routers and data centres.



Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/22 12:09:18


Post by: Herzlos


Bran Dawri wrote:
If you're consistently only getting 1/3rd of what you pay for, surely there's something you can do? Only pay a third, since you're only getting a third (after logging this over an extended period of time so you have proof, of course)..


It's likely sold as "up to" whatever mbit, so as advertised.

I'm on 38mbit and get something about 24mbit, but I don't mind because it's the same price as the 16mbit service


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/22 12:24:48


Post by: LordofHats


In the US a common issue is that the last mile lines are much faster and more modern than the lines behind them. Having a 200 mb cable is kind of pointless when three miles down the line it connects to a 100 mb cable.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/22 12:55:06


Post by: Bran Dawri


That's is why you guys need actual competition on a local level. Like I said, the service I had was crap, so I switched to a different provider who actually gets me what I'm paying for. Capitalism as it should work.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/22 13:58:21


Post by: lonestarr777


One of the biggsst issues is everything is decided by short term gains. Sure you may gain x amount of loyal customers for years if you run cable down that road, but what does that get you right now?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/22 14:31:02


Post by: Alpharius


I think in most areas in the USA there is little to no competiton on a town to town basis.

Towns/counties enter into agreements with cable companies, and then most other companies can't offer you much, if anything.

In my town, you can get Comcast or Verizon for 'everything' (TV, internet, phone) or Direct TV for TV, but no internet, etc, etc, etc

I do wonder what towns get for entering into these 'contracts'...

For $175 a month I get unlimited 175mbps internet, way too many TV channels and a landline with unlimited calling in the USA.

I only have the landline because cell service isn't the greatest in my neighborhood/in my actual house...

I am a bit concerned about what all the cable/internet providers will get up to now though.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/22 14:37:05


Post by: Easy E


Do we need a FDR style rural electrification project, only for broadband/fiber?

Oh wait, then we would need Internet access to be a Utility. Drat!


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/22 16:34:48


Post by: whembly


I 'member the internet all the way back before 2015....

*takes long drag on cigarette*

Back then, it was... well...

*waves hand holding cigarette*

...kind of mostly the way it is now...

*shudders in horror*

Am I doing this right?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/22 16:53:57


Post by: skyth


If by 'right' you mean making the same dishonest argument then sure.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/22 16:58:54


Post by: Vaktathi


 whembly wrote:
I 'member the internet all the way back before 2015....

*takes long drag on cigarette*

Back then, it was... well...

*waves hand holding cigarette*

...kind of mostly the way it is now...

*shudders in horror*

Am I doing this right?
while I admire the styling, the issue wasn't "they broke the internet, fix it post facto with net neutrality!" It was "hey, we're seeing these hijinks going on, they look to be getting worse and their impact more widespread, as the internet becomes more and more entrenched this could get real bad, we see how these hijinks are abused elsewhere in the world, lets nip it in the bud before it gets bad."



Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/22 18:34:54


Post by: lonestarr777


I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/22 20:48:55


Post by: Ustrello


lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.


If this gets you annoyed, wait till he starts talking about Climate Change.

Hopefully these lawsuits and the anti-NN people turning out to be bots, dead people, or Obama will kill the anti-NN stance of Pai and possibly force congress to change internet to title 2


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/22 22:29:25


Post by: whembly


 Vaktathi wrote:
 whembly wrote:
I 'member the internet all the way back before 2015....

*takes long drag on cigarette*

Back then, it was... well...

*waves hand holding cigarette*

...kind of mostly the way it is now...

*shudders in horror*

Am I doing this right?
while I admire the styling, the issue wasn't "they broke the internet, fix it post facto with net neutrality!" It was "hey, we're seeing these hijinks going on, they look to be getting worse and their impact more widespread, as the internet becomes more and more entrenched this could get real bad, we see how these hijinks are abused elsewhere in the world, lets nip it in the bud before it gets bad."


My opposition isn't opposing any governmental rules or policy that addresses NN.

It's treating the internet as if it's a utility, hence the previous' FCC ruling to reclassify it as Title II.

 skyth wrote:
If by 'right' you mean making the same dishonest argument then sure.

Merry Christmas buddy.

lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.

And Merry Christmas to you too!

 Ustrello wrote:
lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.


If this gets you annoyed, wait till he starts talking about Climate Change.

Wanna tango again?

Hopefully these lawsuits and the anti-NN people turning out to be bots, dead people, or Obama will kill the anti-NN stance of Pai and possibly force congress to change internet to title 2

Please do read up on the Chevron Doctrine.

The best thing forward *is* for Congress to pass NN principles into law.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/22 22:53:01


Post by: Ustrello


 whembly wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
 whembly wrote:
I 'member the internet all the way back before 2015....

*takes long drag on cigarette*

Back then, it was... well...

*waves hand holding cigarette*

...kind of mostly the way it is now...

*shudders in horror*

Am I doing this right?
while I admire the styling, the issue wasn't "they broke the internet, fix it post facto with net neutrality!" It was "hey, we're seeing these hijinks going on, they look to be getting worse and their impact more widespread, as the internet becomes more and more entrenched this could get real bad, we see how these hijinks are abused elsewhere in the world, lets nip it in the bud before it gets bad."


My opposition isn't opposing any governmental rules or policy that addresses NN.

It's treating the internet as if it's a utility, hence the previous' FCC ruling to reclassify it as Title II.

 skyth wrote:
If by 'right' you mean making the same dishonest argument then sure.

Merry Christmas buddy.

lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.

And Merry Christmas to you too!

 Ustrello wrote:
lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.


If this gets you annoyed, wait till he starts talking about Climate Change.

Wanna tango again?

Hopefully these lawsuits and the anti-NN people turning out to be bots, dead people, or Obama will kill the anti-NN stance of Pai and possibly force congress to change internet to title 2

Please do read up on the Chevron Doctrine.

The best thing forward *is* for Congress to pass NN principles into law.


Considering pretty much every knowledgeable person agrees with my stances and not yours nah I don't think I will try it again. But hey, its just your children's, and grandchildren's world your views are ruining.

I will read that when I got a second, but there is already some motion to do so, though it is in the form of forbidding throttling or choking of internet speed


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/22 23:10:00


Post by: Kanluwen


 Ustrello wrote:
lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.


If this gets you annoyed, wait till he starts talking about Climate Change.

Hopefully these lawsuits and the anti-NN people turning out to be bots, dead people, or Obama will kill the anti-NN stance of Pai and possibly force congress to change internet to title 2

I have a feeling that there's already been some motion in the form of those employing the bots to counter this argument.

I noticed a few pro-NN bot posts when I was checking to see if my name was being used.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/23 01:11:37


Post by: NinthMusketeer


lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.
About a third of the time his posts provide value to the discussion, which is far more than can be said for a troll or the outright delusional. Think of it more as an opportunity to see a different perspective that has a decent chance of being based in reality, even if most of the time it largely isn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.


If this gets you annoyed, wait till he starts talking about Climate Change.

Hopefully these lawsuits and the anti-NN people turning out to be bots, dead people, or Obama will kill the anti-NN stance of Pai and possibly force congress to change internet to title 2

I have a feeling that there's already been some motion in the form of those employing the bots to counter this argument.

I noticed a few pro-NN bot posts when I was checking to see if my name was being used.
It does look like there's some bots in support of NN, but the percentage of 'supporters' on the anti side which are bots still much much higher. Personally I'd rather supporters refrain from bots since sinking to that level does more harm from de-legitimizing than it does good. Of course I imagine people who didn't vote are somewhat desperate to show some action in support of NN since they opted to do nothing when it mattered most.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/23 01:32:09


Post by: whembly


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.
About a third of the time his posts provide value to the discussion, which is far more than can be said for a troll or the outright delusional. Think of it more as an opportunity to see a different perspective that has a decent chance of being based in reality, even if most of the time it largely isn't.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.


If this gets you annoyed, wait till he starts talking about Climate Change.

Hopefully these lawsuits and the anti-NN people turning out to be bots, dead people, or Obama will kill the anti-NN stance of Pai and possibly force congress to change internet to title 2

I have a feeling that there's already been some motion in the form of those employing the bots to counter this argument.

I noticed a few pro-NN bot posts when I was checking to see if my name was being used.
It does look like there's some bots in support of NN, but the percentage of 'supporters' on the anti side which are bots still much much higher. Personally I'd rather supporters refrain from bots since sinking to that level does more harm from de-legitimizing than it does good. Of course I imagine people who didn't vote are somewhat desperate to show some action in support of NN since they opted to do nothing when it mattered most.

The bots are flat-out fraud... in fact, if they catch the perps who deployed this, they could theoretically be charged with making false statements:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2017/12/23 03:03:39


Post by: Kanluwen


 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
lonestarr777 wrote:
I seriously don't understand why you folks engage him. He doesnt live in reality.


If this gets you annoyed, wait till he starts talking about Climate Change.

Hopefully these lawsuits and the anti-NN people turning out to be bots, dead people, or Obama will kill the anti-NN stance of Pai and possibly force congress to change internet to title 2

I have a feeling that there's already been some motion in the form of those employing the bots to counter this argument.

I noticed a few pro-NN bot posts when I was checking to see if my name was being used.
It does look like there's some bots in support of NN, but the percentage of 'supporters' on the anti side which are bots still much much higher. Personally I'd rather supporters refrain from bots since sinking to that level does more harm from de-legitimizing than it does good. Of course I imagine people who didn't vote are somewhat desperate to show some action in support of NN since they opted to do nothing when it mattered most.

I'm less concerned about the number of bots than I am about the timing of the posts. When I saw the pro-NN bots, the post approval dates trended towards being post-NYAG's announcement of an investigation.

I made sure I noted it and passed it along.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2018/01/02 15:42:46


Post by: Easy E


Despite all the stuff we may or may not disagree with in Whembly's post, his conclusion is spot-on.

The only way forward is by Congressional Action. If that is the direction, then NN supporters will have to organize, make it a campaign issue, and vote at the polls.

There is no other way forward.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2018/01/02 16:15:47


Post by: Kanluwen


 Easy E wrote:
Despite all the stuff we may or may not disagree with in Whembly's post, his conclusion is spot-on.

The only way forward is by Congressional Action. If that is the direction, then NN supporters will have to organize, make it a campaign issue, and vote at the polls.

There is no other way forward.

But there's the rub. Whembly can make that conclusion because his "side" has gerrymandered their way to being able to basically be uncontested.

It's easy for one side to say "If you want to fix it, you have to play by the rules!" when they edited the rules to the point of "Play our way or don't play at all".


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2018/01/02 16:28:25


Post by: skyth


In most cases that would be true. However, this is not a 'sides' issue. There is support for net neutrality from Whembly's side as well.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2018/01/02 16:33:29


Post by: Alpharius


Is there a Whembly Party in the USA now too?


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2018/01/02 16:45:28


Post by: Kanluwen


 skyth wrote:
In most cases that would be true. However, this is not a 'sides' issue. There is support for net neutrality from Whembly's side as well.

There's token support, at best. It's one thing for that side to say they support something; their voting record on the issues is clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Alpharius wrote:
Is there a Whembly Party in the USA now too?

It's the politest thing I can think of to describe a specific party in the US without delving into politics. By putting it as 'side', I'm hoping to make it clear that this specific party has no interest in actually representing their constituents' best interests(whether the constituents realize it is in their best interests or not) or anything beyond the lobbyists that line their campaign chests.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2018/01/02 18:08:22


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Yeah it's nearly undeniable that the GOP isn't very interested in serving their constituents anymore. It would take a massive demand from their side for them to act on NN. The only reason they even rolled it back is because Obama did it.


Net Neutrality repeal in USA @ 2018/01/02 18:23:36


Post by: Easy E


 Easy E wrote:
Despite all the stuff we may or may not disagree with in Whembly's post, his conclusion is spot-on.

The only way forward is by Congressional Action. If that is the direction, then NN supporters will have to organize, make it a campaign issue, and vote at the polls.

There is no other way forward.


I quoted myself for clarity. So stop whining about Gerrymandering and go out and do something about it.

NN is dead unless there is congressional action. Elections have consequences.