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/
 
Nah it's just one of many sites showing NN is stupid and a huge waste of time.

The problem is that people who write shit like this generally have no idea how the internet works or how relationships between data centres/ISPs and websites/services work.

The article itself cites the constitution which is of little consequence when discussing the repercussions of policies which will potentially change the nature of internet access.

It also goes on to give an example of how the postal system can charge differing rates for differing speeds. That's already the case with internet access and agreements between data centres. You pay differently for different speeds, different SLAs and different bandwidth caps (not all are actually unlimited).

Its unclear how much of an effect net neutrality being abolished will actually have and whether individual states will actually have much success if enforcing it after today.

If it all goes to shit and you end up having to pay extra because your ISP uses deep packet inspection to artificially slow down traffic from sources it doesn't like (doesn't matter if its encrypted, its still possible) then hopefully you'll remember this moment in time when you took a website like "redstate.com" seriously.

An article written by an inept faggot who quoted the constitution and compared the internet to the postal system.

I'll make this a separate post because Seton Motley, the author of the redstate article is a fucking re.tard:
upload_2018-6-11_21-36-20.png

https://www.heartland.org/news-opin...-dumb-and-unnecessary-net-neutrality-regs-are

@Cthulhu I hope you don't download HD movies or consider yourself an "incessant-gaming freak"
 
Nah it's just one of many sites showing NN is stupid and a huge waste of time.
Moron.

Anyone who thinks that COX Communications, AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner Cable (sorry, Spectrum, as in 'Autism Spectrum'), et al have your best interests in mind and are just blossoming centers of inventiveness need to get their fucking heads checked.

These companies hold monopolies in every city. The vast majority of homes in this country have access to one, and only one, fiber optic Internet service provider. Many do not even have fucking dial-up alternatives.

We already went through this song and dance with Bell South. Bell South held a monopoly on telegrams, and began to use their position of power to give certain customers preferred access to their lines. The FCC required them to be a neutral provider for the fairness of all people relying on them, and that precedent has stuck around since the 1920s. Contrary to popular belief on /r/The_Donald, Net Neutrality was not spun out of an Obama-era supreme court ruling. How anyone can fucking believe that when there's been International news coverage about Net Neutrality rulings since the fucking Clinton administration blows my mind.

If you want to go this autistic ancap child slave route towards government regulation, you have to first understand there is already government regulation with monopoly guarantees at a local level. If you really, really want to go the "competition will make NN obsolete on its own (????????)" route, you have to first get rid of these bullshit monopoly grants. They didn't. So now you have state-protected monopolies without any state consumer protections reigning them back in.

Anyone who supports the removal of Net Neutrality is a proper fucking moron.

And need I remind you, again, that there is no slippery slope. In the Philippines, they have the same thing. State-level monopolies with mega corporations who provide tiered Internet packages that limit sites. The cheapest packages only allow you to 10 websites, Facebook included, because Facebook subsidizes the telecom companies for this. As a result, almost no small business in the Philippines has a real website. They have Facebook pages. YouTube and Google intermittently refuse to load, even on the full-access package I was paying for, because the companies throttle Google services.

Wow! What a spectrum (as in an autism spectrum) of diversity and choice! Fucking dipshits.

That's why Google is pro-NN. It's not because they're evil and eat babies and so does Net Neutrality, it's because the second NN goes under, they have to start bidding wars with every fucking ISP to ensure that Google stays unthrottled in the US. Facebook and Google are about to open wallets and try to buy the rights to fuck you, and you just let it happen, because you're STUPID.
 
No clue how much it was blue sky but I recall Clark Howard jizzing himself some months back over how the imminent G(whatever the new one will be) phone protocol was going to make worrying about the land-based ISP services about as important as your local dial-up ISP.
 
The idea that free market competition will incentivize ISPs to play fair and not throttle services for the benefit of the large tech companies and their fat wallets is an uncritical and dogmatic position to take.

Anyone who understands economics knows that the effectiveness of economic competition is largely dependent upon elasticity of supply, and the market occupied by internet service providers is inherently inelastic due to the infrastructure needed to support it. Not many companies can afford to build vast swathes of fiber optic cable across an entire city or region, nor secure the relevant approval to do so. Thus, it's a seller's market. If you only have the choice of buying from one particular ISP in your area, then what recourse do you have if they start throttling the services you use? Stop using the internet entirely in protest? Good luck with that.
 
If you're against Net Neutrality, you're either in the pocket of the ISPs, or don't understand it. That Red State article is the stupidest shit I've read in a while. NN doesn't violate the 1st Amendment, no one is being prohibited from speaking or assembling or whatever bullshit he vomited up. Also, the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerace, which is what the net is by definition. It's this bullshit knee-jerk reaction to any government regulation (which is its fucking job) that allowed this to happen. I will laugh when Infowars or another conservative website gets throttled or blocked because they couldn't pay up.
Oh, and just in case you were wondering: yes, your ISP can now block sites.
Yeah, all these morons cheering NN's demise will, I'm sure, be perfectly fine when Comcast decides to block Voat because alt-righters use it. Or Gateway Pundit.
 
Yes, let's bank on government mechanisms to ensure a free and open Internet.

The same mechanisms we've seen subverted repeatedly and weaponized for political ends.

About the only thing I agree with is the assessment of Ajit Pai. He has a pretty punchable face.

Some states are trying to write their own net neutrality rules, so that is kind of a silver lining.

It's stupid though, it is much more efficient being enforced at a national level, but people don't support because muh oppressive gubmnt.
 
I really, genuinely think a good chunk of "I'm glad NN is dead" posts are simply because it got SJW dangerhairs upset and therefore it must be a good thing. I will go to my grave believing this.

ISPs basically have soft monopolies over entire chunks of the country and thanks to a fucking smug FCC shill they've been given carte blanche to fuck us raw, but at least the government isn't getting their mitts into it and the perfectly moral, logical CEOs will be free to make smart business decisions that make us, the consumer, the priority.
 
Some states are trying to write their own net neutrality rules, so that is kind of a silver lining.

It's stupid though, it is much more efficient being enforced at a national level, but people don't support because muh oppressive gubmnt.
We have the way of life we do because we have a strong central government. The ancaps should go live in South Sudan for a while, then get back to us about how government is bad.
 
We have the way of life we do because we have a strong central government. The ancaps should go live in South Sudan for a while, then get back to us about how government is bad.
The Philippines is basically Ancap. South Sudan is just a shithole.

Here's the thing: when you have a country with no government and strong corporations, you essentially just have strong government again. What is the practical difference between a country with big corporations deciding what websites you can go to based on how much money you have, and a country with government entities deciding what websites you can go to based on your political clout? Very little, and frequently those things blend murkily together, as they do in the Philippines.

You need a balance. You need enough space for corporations to breathe, but you need enough government to tame the spread. Going all-anarchy or all-authority just makes you stupid.

You might say, "but a corporation can never put you in jail, never silence you" -- you're wrong. If corporations decide to stop doing business with you in a society where corporations hold all the power, guess what? You're fucked! You need the government to say, "well no, you have to do business with this person because you're an essential service". "Well, no, you have to let traffic pass unmitigated because you are a backbone of telecommunications".


There's a reason the founders wrote a fucking constitution and delegated in that constitution the powers of government. They didn't just pass out as many guns as possible and say "fend for yourself", cuz that's dumb.
 
I'll be honest I'm hoping this means that net company's will make each other compete for better service. I'd love to have cheap internet. Yay capitalism...

jokes on you, internet plebs
8evcLrD.png

pay up for best internet
I do pay for the best and I still end up with it dropping spontaneously and ridiculous amounts of lag that I’m afraid to play anything online because the experience is so inconsistently buggy it’s more annoying than just being a total mess. These companies won’t be trying to improve.

It was supposed to be repealed today? Haven’t really noticed any change whatsoever but the major stuff is most likely going to happen in a few months.

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.
Trump had been advocating for the repeal, so he does has a hand in it, albeit not that huge. Similar to the Korean peace summit.
 
Not American, don't care. Enjoy your pain, Trumptards. But hey, Ivanka 2024, eh?
Drink bleach sped. It's not a Trump thing. Trump has expressed no opinions either way on this. This is all Pajeet and his corporate owners.

because the people we voted in to represent us don't actually represent us and they sold their constituents out to greedy ISPs

so basically money. it's always money
Pajeet was unelected.
 
The Philippines is basically Ancap. South Sudan is just a shithole.

Here's the thing: when you have a country with no government and strong corporations, you essentially just have strong government again. What is the practical difference between a country with big corporations deciding what websites you can go to based on how much money you have, and a country with government entities deciding what websites you can go to based on your political clout? Very little, and frequently those things blend murkily together, as they do in the Philippines.

You need a balance. You need enough space for corporations to breathe, but you need enough government to tame the spread. Going all-anarchy or all-authority just makes you stupid.

You might say, "but a corporation can never put you in jail, never silence you" -- you're wrong. If corporations decide to stop doing business with you in a society where corporations hold all the power, guess what? You're fucked! You need the government to say, "well no, you have to do business with this person because you're an essential service". "Well, no, you have to let traffic pass unmitigated because you are a backbone of telecommunications".


There's a reason the founders wrote a fucking constitution and delegated in that constitution the powers of government. They didn't just pass out as many guns as possible and say "fend for yourself", cuz that's dumb.

I feel like it's a combination of a bit too much Libertarian Kool-aid and "The Grass is Greener" mentality. People get sick and tired of what they see as government overreach, and hear about how much better things would be if we just let corporations make all their own choices, and they fire up twitter and talk about things like Ajit Pai committing career suicide for our online sins.

And, again, "People I disagree with got mad about it so I must defend it with my life."
 
Actually they reversed their decision. It was a close one, but it was done. We still have Net Neutrality.

EDIT: I can be wrong. Forgive me.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo