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/
 
My name was used!

Also, when you go through those, the same exact message is used over and over for multiple submissions. How odd that random people would type out word for word the same thing to send in?
I mean, people on the opposing side used generic messages for people to submit as well. So its not that odd.
 
I mean, people on the opposing side used generic messages for people to submit as well. So its not that odd.
Chain mail for a pre written letter is possible. For the number submitted it seems unlikely that is all though, I could see maybe 10k or so but millions... yea something smells fishy, and not Phil's new vagina.
 
It seems like a better solution would be to bust out the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and start lobbing subpoenas at some of these ISPs (there's not a single damn thing Null said about those shits that's wrong. The monopoly issue is absolutely true).

Break this deadlock up, and things will improve. Right now we have a fairly extreme case of what's called 'regulatory capture'.
 
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 too complicated to predict and I’m too lazy to go over all dozen or so of the cases filed by states. Assuming the FCC did everything legitimately, it would have to do with first, whether their interpretation of the law is even valid (to change the law you need Congress), and to what extent an agency interpretation enjoys the protection of the Supremacy Clause and can override state law that is contrary. Also, to what extent states can regulate the Internet at all, which exists in interstate commerce.

And then, there’s the argument that Ajit Pai is actually a criminal who defrauded the FCC, took bribes, falsified signatures, and all this other conspiracy theory-sounding stuff that might render the decision invalid. I have no opinion on that yet, although I do think Pai should be sentenced to life on a designated shitting street.
 
Sarcasm aside, why didn't it jump more if in deed what everyone is saying and now it's shooting fish in a barrel for profits to them?
If your best argument for reducing consumer protection is, "well, it's been a few hours and i haven't been facefucked yet", you might be on the wrong team.

Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Spectrum Holdings, were all on a slow decline up until NN was reversed. They've either stabilized or gone up. It won't happen in one day, and the /r/The_Donald spergs going "IT GOT REVERSED AND WE'RE STILL HERE" going on for the last few months before the reversal even took effect are just the dumbest fucking morons.
 
What I find interesting is that even the old media is upset about this. Normally they are very anti-internet, or are not very for things that help it.

I am certainly worried about what this means, but the timeline is very interesting. Apparently in 2006 a bill was introduced in the House called "The Network Neutrality Act of 2006", and I'm sure it wasn't the first one or the last. And then later in 2011 SOPA was proposed. After SOPA and PIPA were stopped, everything kinda got quiet until the whole thing with the FCC came about, and I don't really know what to think.

While the concept of net neutrality is certainly one that I support, I'm just curious if the law/legalese of the thing that was repealed actually did what it said it would do. Especially since I know people who encountered slower services than ones they paid for during the years that it was active (of course, that could've been an anomaly).
 
If your best argument for reducing consumer protection is, "well, it's been a few hours and i haven't been facefucked yet", you might be on the wrong team.

Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Spectrum Holdings, were all on a slow decline up until NN was reversed. They've either stabilized or gone up. It won't happen in one day, and the /r/The_Donald spergs going "IT GOT REVERSED AND WE'RE STILL HERE" going on for the last few months before the reversal even took effect are just the dumbest fucking morons.
The stock is very cheap over all, and I'm late to the game and don't have a dog in the fight, please don't sink to putting words in my mouth.

If you are taking that angle and not all the day traders, brokers etc who are following this smashing F5 on their bloomberg terminals and it's indeed as big a deal as it claims, mere speculation would be worth a ton.

It's a valid point, but if you rather just blow it off by pointing out a different argument than what I pointed out, by all means :shrug:

We live in a era when any numb nuts with 500 or less can buy stocks if indeed this was the ordeal it was, you'd see serious movement, look at the history of facebook stock for example. Everyone thought something and made a wrong choice but there was a huge surge do to it being a big deal. World wide, American telecom is worth a good enough chuck the entire world should be reving up their trader accounts.
 
I don't trade stocks so I can't provide any further input on this. A speculator could take either side of the road. Being the first company to break the Internet would be a dangerous gamble.

Arguing via the stock market seems fucking autistic, though, whatever your position is.
 
I don't trade stocks so I can't provide any further input on this. A speculator could take either side of the road. Being the first company to break the Internet would be a dangerous gamble.

Arguing via the stock market seems fucking autistic, though, whatever your position is.

It's a fallback argument when you have nothing left because the intricacies of the stock market are difficult to understand, so pointing at a stock number to prove your point makes for a shit argument.
 
I don't trade stocks so I can't provide any further input on this. A speculator could take either side of the road. Being the first company to break the Internet would be a dangerous gamble.

Arguing via the stock market seems fucking autistic, though, whatever your position is.
What I'm trying to say is, if indeed this is some huge cash grab, people would be rushing on it. Much like many people (myself included) FB would implode, there's still enough movement to watch it shift alone from that.

If a cash grab was the goal, this was a monday... not a Xmas, launch day etc.

It's a fallback argument when you have nothing left because the intricacies of the stock market are difficult to understand, so pointing at a stock number to prove your point makes for a shit argument.
You honestly are saying, I don't understand your point of you so you are the dumb person?

I've been nothing but respectful, and more and more people are sinking to troon level shreeking instead of informing or bringing a point, I just before pointed out how well Null expanded on an issue.
 
Removing Net Neutrality (I love when shit is named to get sympathy from the fools that make up the masses) will remove some of the biggest cost barriers/penalties to new service providers according to most of the people in the industry, so expect those stock prices to remain neutral at best.

Smaller ISPs will now have a shot at surviving and providing to smaller population areas.
 
Removing Net Neutrality (I love when shit is named to get sympathy from the fools that make up the masses) will remove some of the biggest cost barriers/penalties to new service providers according to most of the people in the industry, so expect those stock prices to remain neutral at best.

Smaller ISPs will now have a shot at surviving and providing to smaller population areas.
Braindead kikes who say this kind of shit have no idea what the barriers of any ISP are. It's not the fact they can't prioritize traffic, dipshit.

/r/The_Donald get out
 
I like how there's perfect example of why Net Neutrality is good a couple pages back and people are just going HURR DURR MORE COMPETITION LESS RED TAPE FREEDOM #MAGA SHADILAY when, again, there was just an example of how it's literally the opposite
 
Braindead kikes who say this kind of shit have no idea what the barriers of any ISP are. It's not the fact they can't prioritize traffic, dipshit.

/r/The_Donald get out

The fact that you think I would ever visit Reddit or that I'm Jewish, makes me laugh.

Title II is a regulation that hampers Small ISPs because it doesn't allow them to compete price-wise with the big dogs. There is a financial burden that is imposed on smaller companies via NN and reversing it and removing the fees associated and will definitely provide them more flexibility.

This is sorta like how cable television is partly dying due to not offering a la carte services.

Meh. I'm just not a fan of any form of Socialism.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo