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/
 
I know it's pre my time and I'm an old fart by this site's standards, but let me ask you all do you know much of the ma bell break up?

Verizon, Comcrap etc aren't Ma Bell. That much I'll agree to you.
 
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.
Trump is a president with a big propensity towards using Twitter to air out his views or announce his upcoming actions, so his radio silence in this matter is most likely a sign of acceptance (that, or him not caring, which is probably worse).

Not to mention that he went ahead and promoted Pajeet to a position where he act as the Verizon shill tendencies he was always meant to be, so he at least should get some of the blame for this, if not all of it.
 
Yeah anyone trying to say the guy who appointed the fox to guard the henhouse is entirely blameless is.... well, wrong. It's okay to like Trump. It's also okay to acknowledge when he fucks something up. They're not mutually exclusive.
 
The economist in me wants to chimp out so badly. NN dying is good, in theory but it's not great because the gov goes LOL want free market, here but you also can't have it thanks to us making monopolies legal. So it dying, sucks. But NN sucks.

I swear this the tin foil hat in me but rigging the game and then saying you are free, this is very training day (you chose to smoke that) or SAW esque move to spit on what a real free market is. To make people beg for central planning.

Honestly, keeping NN was gonna fuck us just as bad.

I'm not drunk and I don't know how in depth people want me to expand on it, but we were fucked either way, frankly about now I miss the salt mine because look if we are gonna get shit on, I rather at least have a glass of vodka with a dash twitter tears to help null the pain.

This is all aside the man who was a want to be meme poo in the loo, and how crooked he is.

Literally how was keeping NN going to fuck us? Please explain, because I'm genuinely confused?
 
Literally how was keeping NN going to fuck us? Please explain, because I'm genuinely confused?
Since everyone seems to be die hard in the camp of NN was literally saving the internet I'm sure you'll see 5 dozen replies calling me an idiot, so feel free to read with caution, and or a grain of salt. I'm also not going to get into the tech side of this since I can barely check my email so i won't comment on things I don't get this is strictly on the market/econ point.

As I said before, the big problem is while dropping NN could in theory open doors, the gov kept an allowance of monoplies in this, @Null who's typed out some of the reasons pro NN very well even posted this so it's not at all a hyperbolic claim.

The mis understanding is now it's free market and competing, well it's not, still. That's the sticky wicket. NN had no real way of not saying fuck you everyone gets 1kb, or fuck you we don't run X in your town. There's a lot of things NN couldn't stop places from doing.

Now, in theory and we all see how damned much these companies make, you could grab a shit ton of investors and lay some new cable, if you had to choose from We throttle what we want and no 4chan Verizon, vs Bassomatics net server... we got a market.

NN dying, they can say Nah, Bassomatic can't open his own company. It's cool only Verizon is there.

I guess in ways to think of it, aside the extreme cost being locked out keeps competing, look at something like a large cities, bus or subway. Let's pretend you had enough room to run more buses or cars etc. You just can't. They are almost all private corps, with a gov blessing to keep anyone out even if they had the cash. Some states power companies are like this but not all. Thankfully in my state it's open (you have two options pay a good price for nuclear power that we make a fuck ton of, or get your smug points pay for some solar farm that is in the red... and then still get your power off our sweet sweet fission reactors paying double)

Long story, short, they are opening the market and allowing the companies to do more, with out giving you more power to shop around.
 
I would like some of the law kiwi's to chime in because in my little understanding toward the legal section, I don't see grounds to stand on other than, this sucks I don't like it.
I think it's over Pai trying to force states to go with his no NN thing, which supposedly goes against the law.

Fun fact: the state attorney at that was at the head of all of this? Eric Schneiderman.
 
I would like some of the law kiwi's to chime in because in my little understanding toward the legal section, I don't see grounds to stand on other than, this sucks I don't like it.
It's not just that, but there's allegations (and these are, afaik, confirmed) that Pajit rigged the whole thing illegally, even using dead people to sign letters saying how they approve of the FCC's repeal of NN. This caught the attention of the New York District to file a lawsuit against the FCC for fraudulent and illegal behavior. And more companies and states decided to add their names to it, either because the FCC are fucking r.etarded for pulling this and thinking they'll get away with it, or because it'll inconvenience them monetarily because it allows Comcast and co. to fuck with their bandwidth.
 
It's not just that, but there's allegations (and these are, afaik, confirmed) that Pajit rigged the whole thing illegally, even using dead people to sign letters saying how they approve of the FCC's repeal of NN. This caught the attention of the New York District to file a lawsuit against the FCC for fraudulent and illegal behavior. And more companies and states decided to add their names to it, either because the FCC are fucking r.etarded for pulling this and thinking they'll get away with it, or because it'll inconvenience them monetarily because it allows Comcast and co. to fuck with their bandwidth.
They're confirmed. The telco lobby organized a flood of fake comments in favor of repeal. Pajit is a lawyer, he knows how to cover his tracks. He might get forced to resign (unlikely, and Trump can't fire him, even if he was inclined), but he'll never be held accountable for that stunt.
 
They're confirmed. The telco lobby organized a flood of fake comments in favor of repeal. Pajit is a lawyer, he knows how to cover his tracks. He might get forced to resign (unlikely, and Trump can't fire him, even if he was inclined), but he'll never be held accountable for that stunt.
I wouldn't at all rule it out, Lobbying is a bitch like that. But I'm sorry no cite and "well he covered his tracks" is pretty weak. Because perhaps, either people were lied too enough to not want to keep NN, had vested reasons to repel or this is indeed, a squeaky wheel issue.

If there was some proof of the rigging I missed as this thread is ripping along, please just post it I don't think for something moving this quickly people would be upset to relink some damning info like that. Again, I am not saying it's not possible but "it's confirmed" isn't exactly the best says pitch to sell me and I mean with all due respect.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo