Disaster Net neutrality is officially dead (June 11 deadline passed)

Monday, June 11, is the first day of the post-net neutrality internet. In December, the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal the Obama-era rules that prohibit internet companies from slowing down or speeding up access to certain websites, but it took about six months for the repeal to get a sign-off from the Office of Management and Budget and for the new rules to be published in the federal register. Beginning, well, now, your internet access could—emphasis on could—feel dramatically different than it did yesterday.

Under the new network neutrality rules, internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T are allowed to throttle traffic that travels over their network or even block access to entire websites as long as the companies alert their subscribers in their terms of service that they reserve the right to do so. But since most people in the United States don’t have more than one or two internet providers to choose from for broadband service, that means if users don’t wish to accept those terms, many won’t have anywhere else to go for their internet. Without net neutrality rules stopping them, internet providers will also be able to charge websites a fee to reach users faster.

Those internet providers stand to win the most from the net neutrality repeal, since they’ll be able to operate what is essentially a two-way toll, collecting money from both subscribers and websites that want priority access to users. Already-powerful, deep-pocketed companies that can afford to pay for the fast-lane service, like Facebook or Yelp could wind up in a position to set the price, relegating smaller companies, nonprofits, or struggling news organizations to what is, in effect, a slower internet.

The FCC’s move to rescind the Obama-era open internet protections, however, is facing serious challenges, both from multiple lawsuits expected to be filed in the coming days against the repeal, as well as from Congress, where Democratic lawmakers have led an effort to undo the FCC’s actions. In May, every Senate Democrat and three Republicans—Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, John Kennedy of Louisiana, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska— voted to reverse the net neutrality repeal with a Congressional Review Act resolution, which is used to overturn or eliminate a federal agency’s action. Congressional Republicans have used the same process to reverse more than a dozen regulatory actions since Donald Trump won the election in 2016—but those were rules passed under President Obama. In order for the resolution to go into effect, a simple majority in the House also has to vote to undo the repeal, and President Trump has to sign it. But in the House, Republicans outnumber Democrats 235-193, meaning more than 20 Republicans would have to get on board if every Democrat voted in favor.

Advocacy organizations that opposed the net neutrality repeal, like the National Hispanic Media Coalition and Free Press, are also planning to sue, as well as a coalition of 22 states attorney general, over what they claim was a corrupt rulemaking process in the months leading up to the final vote. Although more than 23 million comments were submitted on the net neutrality repeal, the overwhelming majority of which were in favor of keeping the open internet regulations—many of those comments were faked, submitted using stolen identities and the names of dead people, or filed by bots, not people. Hundreds of thousands of comments were filed using Russian email addresses, which were mostly in favor of rescinding the internet rules. The FCC’s online public input system was even hit last year by a mysterious cyberattack, which is currently the subject of an ongoing federal investigation. The FCC is required by law to hold a fair process for collecting feedback from the public when passing major new regulations, which the agency’s nonelected commissioners are supposed to use to inform the writing of new rules and help ensure the agency is acting in the interest of the public. But with so many problems with the comment process, those planning to sue the FCC may have a strong case that the agency’s push to undo the net neutrality protections wasn’t above-board.

Still, just because the FCC is going to get sued doesn’t mean a judge will issue an injunction, and in the interim, internet providers will be able to throttle traffic and block access to websites as they wish. While it’s unlikely internet providers are going to significantly change your internet experience overnight or in any overt way anytime soon, companies may well start to toy with connection speeds in more elusive ways. If Comcast, for example, makes a special deal to speed up their customers’ access to Netflix, that change in load times may be subtle. But it will still give Neflix an added boost over a competitor like Hulu, inspiring its subscribers to jump ship. If the New York Times loads faster than your local newspaper’s website, it may be a reason for you to stop checking in on its hometown reporting. If Yelp always loads even just a little faster than your favorite restaurants’ websites tend to, those local businesses could see such a dip in traffic that they eventually decide to abandon their private website all together and host everything on Yelp. But at first, users might not notice what’s happening, allowing internet providers to make the argument that an internet without network neutrality isn’t as a big deal as some advocates have made it out to be.

These examples may be the worst-case scenario for what might happen in the near future, but they’re by no means as bad as it could get. Take what happened in one particularly egregious scenario in Canada in 2005, when the telecom Telus blocked access to a union website that promoted a labor strike against the internet provider. Then there was what happened in 2012 in the U.S., when AT&T announced it would block U.S. users’ access to FaceTime on iPhonesunless they paid for a higher data plan; the company reversed course after consumer advocates sent complaints to the FCC. With the new FCC rules, though, internet providers companies will be able to do any of these things as long as they say they might in their terms of service.

The internet is already massively concentrated, with just a few platforms commanding the majority of people’s time online. Once those entrenched powers can start to set the price for priority service, they stand to become even more powerful. Those smaller websites that are taking longer to load may slowly start to disappear too, and the great promise of the internet—that there’s no telling what someone might create next—may become an even more distant dream.

So be on the lookout Monday and over the next few weeks for notices from your internet service provider with changes to your terms of service. If you get an email from Comcast saying it’s updated its policies, don’t immediately delete it. Take a look: Nestled inside may well be the first strikes against net neutrality. But the fight to bring the internet rules back from the dead is still ongoing. In order for those working for a more open internet to have any chance at success, users are going to have to continue to care and speak out about why open internet protections matter to them—even, perhaps especially, if it’s not immediately clear anything has changed.

https://slate.com/technology/2018/0...lly-dead-heres-how-youll-notice-its-gone.html

Other sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-repealed-today-heres-what-that-really-means/
 
It seems like the real problem here is lack of competition in the ISP market. In that sense Net Neutrality is not only a cure for the symptom and not the cause, it also keeps smaller ISPs from being able to grow by limiting the revenue they can receive from bandwidth hogs like Netflix & Google.
 
To lighten everyone's spirits, I offer a video of two funny guys mocking the shit out of Ajit Pai.

 
I am genuinely curious as to what the public's reaction will be if ISPs do go ahead and throttle certain websites. I'd be a little disappointed if there weren't riots.
 
Nicely done. While I dislike Pai, I don't think anyone needs to shoot him in the face (nor do I think anyone here, at least the sane non-weens).
 
All the "warnings" of what would happen if net neutrality were repealed didn't happen for the years leading up to 2014 when the rules were first put into place.

I also don't imagine it's the worst thing when ever major web super-corporation is lobbying to keep it and telling their hundreds of millions of consumers to advocate for it, too.

A government policy Google wanted? Probably a good thing it's gone.
 
ISPs would all have to act in unison to make any of the dire predictions true.

All it would take is one of them, or even an upstart saying "no" and the scheme falls apart.

I have no doubt that people like Verizon saw "$" in their eyes at the prospect of being able to institute tiered speeds and charge a premium for the "best" but when it comes to implementing this, I don't think they've thought through how it will go down in terms of PR or that, like DLC on consoles, the vast majority of people will opt for "normal" access. Lots of people take that base level and say "good enough", I doubt they'll even notice a drop in quality or if they do, will pay to make it better.

It's why I don't believe the conspiracy about that supposed 500-mile-a-gallon carburetor that Ford Motor Company has locked up in a safe.... if they DID have it, they'd be using it to put GM and Honda down for good, no "Gentleman's" agreement would keep that sucker under wraps for long. If net neutrality was the key to winning the internet, someone would break ranks and do it no matter what the "industry" was allegedly colluding to do.
 
What irritates me is how willfully blind people want to be about it.

'Yes, let's totally regulate the Internet using Title II, which was used to regulate landlines... and was passed in 1934.'

Come. The fuck. On. If you've got that much of a hard-on to regulate the 'net, shouldn't you be doing it with regulations and laws developed at least after WW2?
 
Net Neutrality is dead. Begun, the Net Wars have.

As someone who actually used a service where the provider has arbitrarily blocked competition to upsell their own in house shit, I do not look forward to that again.
 
All the "warnings" of what would happen if net neutrality were repealed didn't happen for the years leading up to 2014 when the rules were first put into place.
No, we've always had net neutrality. The FCC was enforcing it up until 2014, apparently illegally. Their authority to enforce it was called into question then, and so they specifically added the necessary rules to provide that authority.
ISPs would all have to act in unison to make any of the dire predictions true.

All it would take is one of them, or even an upstart saying "no" and the scheme falls apart.

I have no doubt that people like Verizon saw "$" in their eyes at the prospect of being able to institute tiered speeds and charge a premium for the "best" but when it comes to implementing this, I don't think they've thought through how it will go down in terms of PR or that, like DLC on consoles, the vast majority of people will opt for "normal" access. Lots of people take that base level and say "good enough", I doubt they'll even notice a drop in quality or if they do, will pay to make it better.
In my area, Comcast has a contract with the city. A legalized monopoly, essentially. Basically this:
Net neutrality is necessary specifically because most people won't notice anything. Because most people just use facebook, which can afford to pay the necessary fees.

But a smaller startup can't afford to pay, so they'll go out of business or pass the cost onto their customers or something like that.

Losing net neutrality will condense content onto a few big sites like facebook. Less kiwifarmses, more facebook traffic.

The fact that any of us can rent a server for $15/month and push out content to the world, for cheap, is a huge boon to everyone.
 
No, we've always had net neutrality. The FCC was enforcing it up until 2014, apparently illegally. Their authority to enforce it was called into question then, and so they specifically added the necessary rules to provide that authority.

In my area, Comcast has a contract with the city. A legalized monopoly, essentially. Basically this:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=xJxapWB_G3kNet neutrality is necessary specifically because most people won't notice anything. Because most people just use facebook, which can afford to pay the necessary fees.

But a smaller startup can't afford to pay, so they'll go out of business or pass the cost onto their customers or something like that.

Losing net neutrality will condense content onto a few big sites like facebook. Less kiwifarmses, more facebook traffic.

The fact that any of us can rent a server for $15/month and push out content to the world, for cheap, is a huge boon to everyone.

The problem is that I don't think everyone realizes that some ISPs up and rule the roost in some states. People talk about competition keeping things okay, but in some places there is no competition.

So if Buttfuck Nowhere, Missouri only has Time Warner? Well the townsfolk better lube the hell up because they're not gonna consider what their non-existent competition may do if they start requiring a pint of blood with your internet bill payments.
 
The problem is that I don't think everyone realizes that some ISPs up and rule the roost in some states. People talk about competition keeping things okay, but in some places there is no competition.

So if Buttfuck Nowhere, Missouri only has Time Warner? Well the townsfolk better lube the hell up because they're not gonna consider what their non-existent competition may do if they start requiring a pint of blood with your internet bill payments.

In my hometown, Frontier Wireless was the only ISP. We paid something like 75 dollars a month for 10 Mb/s download and 1 Mb/s upload. What we got, however, was roughly 30 Kb/s download and an upload literally so slow that the speed testing websites couldn't recognize it at all. It took 5-10 minutes to load any given .jpg, and was markedly slower than the dial-up I had when I was 10. It was so bad that a class action suit went out against Frontier, and it won, but nothing changed in the aftermath even though Frontier was ordered to fix all the lines to actually support what we paid for. It's still that bad to this day. ISPs are fucking evil when they have no competition, it's unreal.
 
In my hometown, Frontier Wireless was the only ISP. We paid something like 75 dollars a month for 10 Mb/s download and 1 Mb/s upload. What we got, however, was roughly 30 Kb/s download and an upload literally so slow that the speed testing websites couldn't recognize it at all. It took 5-10 minutes to load any given .jpg, and was markedly slower than the dial-up I had when I was 10. It was so bad that a class action suit went out against Frontier, and it won, but nothing changed in the aftermath even though Frontier was ordered to fix all the lines to actually support what we paid for. It's still that bad to this day. ISPs are fucking evil when they have no competition, it's unreal.

But fat people with blue hair got upset, so actually there's no problem with any of this.

All pithiness aside, I'm reasonably confident this won't shake the boat much more than it's already been shaken. If only because ISP workers would rather NOT be dragged out of their corner offices and burnt at the stake.
 
So why is Facebook telling its users to support continuing Net Neutrality rules? And Comcast?

That's what I don't understand.
They don't want to pay the extra fees.

Comcast doesn't support net neutrality though. They endorse a non-mandatory, watered down net neutrality. Which they'll just gradually ignore anyway.
 
So why is Facebook telling its users to support continuing Net Neutrality rules? And Comcast?

That's what I don't understand.

Because repealing Net Neutrality was an immensely unpopular decision and the higher-ups realized that even if it got repealed, everyone would hate them if it even seemed like they supported the decision.

Ultimately, supporting NN was a win/win situation. If it stays, they look like brave heroes and nothing changes. If it dies, they reap the benefits and get to pretend they didn't want it either.
 
However people are throwing shitfits on Buzzfeed right now accusing Trump of repealing it instead of Pai, guessing it’s because Ajit isn’t an icky cis white male so it’s harder to blame him.
It's also possible they think Trump was responsible for putting Ajit in the FCC (he's not, he just promoted him. Obama's to blame in regards of letting him in in the first place). But you're not going to see people go "Thanks Obama" from that since A) he's black and B) NN was established while he was in office. And Trump's an easy target when it comes to hate to begin with, so why not add more fuel to the ever-burning fire?

But fat people with blue hair got upset, so actually there's no problem with any of this.

All pithiness aside, I'm reasonably confident this won't shake the boat much more than it's already been shaken. If only because ISP workers would rather NOT be dragged out of their corner offices and burnt at the stake.
It depends on what goes down. Sure, they won't do it right away in risk of people either sending death threats or just doing without losing money. On the other hand, they're corporations, and they need money to survive and sucker people out of in order to keep the competition away (or just kill them off completely) and their subscribers in check.

Since I don't live in the US, I'm not sure how it'll affect people outside the country (might be minimal, might affect them greatly depending on whether the site only has servers in the US, meaning it could affect service worldwide). But all I can say is that as soon as Comcast or AT&T begin charging Trump and the other politicians extra or they too suffer slowdowns/physical blocking of websites. Assuming the companies just don't pay them off (or were paid off by Pai not to affect the government), it's possible even they would get pissed off and demand some course of action. I mean they already are, considering Pai committed illegal actions and still got away with all the shit he pulled in the lead up to this.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo