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

Congrats, now you know why he said it.

Title II is a regulation that hampers Small ISPs because it doesn't allow them to compete price-wise with the big dogs.

Yes, because charging websites & customers more money to use your service as opposed to Comcast or Verizon will turn out well for that startup.

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.

Net Neutrality doesn't impose fees. There are no annual license renewal fees or penalty fees imposed by Net Neutrality.

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

Consumer protectionism =/= socialism.
 
Última edición:
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 utter nonsense. I can't even counter it because you've said something factually incorrect.
 
There have been multiple instances of ISPs throttling services and websites before in the U.S. prior to the ruling during the Obama Administration.

In 2005, Madison River Communications throttled Vonage & the FCC had to get involved to force them to stop.

In 2007, Comcast were caught throttling BitTorrent for two years and even outright blocked it for some of their customers. The FCC forced them to stop doing it in 2008.

Cox Cable disciplined users of virtual private networks (VPNs) and AT&T, as a cable operator, warned customers that using a Wi-Fi service for home networking constituted "theft of service" and a federal crime.

Comcast blocked ports of VPNs, forcing the state of Washington, for example, to contract with telecommunications providers to ensure that its employees had access to unimpeded broadband for telecommuting applications. Other broadband providers proposed to start charging service and content providers in return for higher levels of service (higher network priority, faster or more predictable), creating what is known as a tiered Internet.

In September 2012, a group of public interest organizations such as Free Press, Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute filed a complaint with the FCC that AT&T was violating net neutrality rules by restricting use of Apple's video-conferencing application FaceTime on cellular networks to those who have a shared data plan on AT&T, excluding those with older, unlimited or tiered data plans.

These are just major examples I pulled from Wikiped. Never mind small time every day instances like some have noted in earlier pages of this thread.

Tell me Net Neutrality's not important.
 
Última edición:
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.
Good god, there's so much dumb in this one post. But here's the basics that you got wrong:

- Reddit or not, you're acting like an ill-informed tard, hence Null's callout.
- NN was there to make companies like Comcast and the startups be on an even keel with one another. It's not the smaller ISPs fault they can't get a foothold in the market. And NN was there to at least help them out a bit by forcing those giants to price reasonably and not gouge the fuck out of their customers (how well that ultimately succeeded is a mater of debate). Removing those laws mean they'll never have a chance. Comcast and AT&T/Spectrum are monopolies, they don't fucking care about competition and if both were in a city together, would try to run the other out just as much as they would a regional provider. Hell, if Comcast could buy out AT&T or run them out of business (or vice-versa), they fucking would.
- Cable Television is irreverent in this discussion about the fucking internet. But if you want to play that game, then no, you're wrong there too. Cable's dying because people are preferring streaming services, both legal and illegal, more than the shit the networks are airing, hence their consistently declining ratings. Not to mention, many of the shows they air eventually get put onto said streaming sites anyway, so what's the point of cable these days?
- And if you're against socialism, then why the hell did you come to this thread and try to debate? Null knows firsthand how ISPs fuck you over, you don't. Rate me dumb for all I care, point is, you're an idiot and should have realized you were going to fight a losing battle the moment you came into this thread.
 
And laying new lines for an ISP is fucking expensive and big ISPs are not going to share existing lines. Free market is all well and good, but when the price of entry is so high and no one new can break in, it's not a free market. Government monopoly and corporate monopoly are virtually indistinguishable at this point.
 
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.
Explain and expand on the cause/effect in the quoted statement, what financial burdens were shed by smaller ISPs and what additional flexibility did they gain now?
 
And laying new lines for an ISP is fucking expensive and big ISPs are not going to share existing lines. Free market is all well and good, but when the price of entry is so high and no one new can break in, it's not a free market. Government monopoly and corporate monopoly are virtually indistinguishable at this point.
This is why Google Fiber stopped expanding. It just cost too fucking much to lay down fiber. Or any utility lines en mass tbh.
 
So how did this pass despite the growing lawsuits? And one of the members of the FCC openly said what they're doing is a fraud and got fired from the FCC itself for stating that (Not sure about that last part but I need to check).
So how come all the things and the stuff that happened on the Obama Administration didn't ring any alarm bells? Is someone out there, gaslighting those who dares to check their track records? This seems way more than a "Money, dear boy" type of thing.
 
So how did this pass despite the growing lawsuits? And one of the members of the FCC openly said what they're doing is a fraud and got fired from the FCC itself for stating that (Not sure about that last part but I need to check).
So how come all the things and the stuff that happened on the Obama Administration didn't ring any alarm bells? Is someone out there, gaslighting those who dares to check their track records? This seems way more than a "Money, dear boy" type of thing.
Because the FCC is headed by a tool, the president either approves of what the FCC is doing or is ignorant of it, and Congress is wothless on the best of days and filled with doddering elderly who don't understand what the big deal is. Everyone in a position to do something is useless or complicit.
 
And laying new lines for an ISP is fucking expensive and big ISPs are not going to share existing lines. Free market is all well and good, but when the price of entry is so high and no one new can break in, it's not a free market. Government monopoly and corporate monopoly are virtually indistinguishable at this point.
I'm sorry first of all I've been trying to be mature because I think the net is the printing press of our era and too many people are jumping on me for not carving pro NN into my arm. @Null did a great job showing how it's a rigged game and bull shit. @DrJonesHat linked to faked signs.

I'm trying to say in theory i'm for it. How it happened sucked. It's why I mentioned Ma bell. Cost wasn't the only thing keeping google out. Both economically, and tin foil hat.

The GOV allows corp monopolies. Again referring to Ma Bell. Please PLEASE tell me who says wow, my net is too good and cheap. For those not aware, it was like saying walmart is making too much money lets force them to close a few stores and charge tax payers to open target.

My problem it was sold as open market when it was a rigged game. It sucks. My issue is two fold, aside whom I quoted before I had dumb as rocks insults thrown at me for not jumping reee it's bad. Second the concept is good, if not handled as such.
 
Alright, so I think I can summarize the responses to this into 4 categories, at least from what I've seen around the web:

1) People who wanted NN down because Obama did it and because God Emperor will #MAGA.
2) People who wanted NN to stay because Obama did it and because we need to #RESIST evil orange Drumpf.
3) People who feel that losing NN is too risky and allows ISPs to fuck with our internet at some point, if not directly.
4) People who feel that dropping NN is going to help the internet by re-incentivizing investment into infrastructure, whether by existing ISPs or new ones.

#1 & #2 are equally massive autists who will probably (and sadly) dominate the conversation with their loud shrieking and clickbait articles.

#3 is what probably comes to mind when discussing policy, and while distrusting corporations is perfectly valid, if not necessary. However, I feel that #4 is the most intriguing group to me, because I want to discuss things with them and see how their arguments will play out against what reality actually pan out, and we're probably in it anyways, so might as well get some decent discussion out of it, that, or some lulzy wrong reasoning.

I'm sorry first of all I've been trying to be mature because I think the net is the printing press of our era and too many people are jumping on me for not carving pro NN into my arm. @Null did a great job showing how it's a rigged game and bull shit. @DrJonesHat linked to faked signs.

I'm trying to say in theory i'm for it. How it happened sucked. It's why I mentioned Ma bell. Cost wasn't the only thing keeping google out. Both economically, and tin foil hat.

The GOV allows corp monopolies. Again referring to Ma Bell. Please PLEASE tell me who says wow, my net is too good and cheap. For those not aware, it was like saying walmart is making too much money lets force them to close a few stores and charge tax payers to open target.

My problem it was sold as open market when it was a rigged game. It sucks. My issue is two fold, aside whom I quoted before I had dumb as rocks insults thrown at me for not jumping reee it's bad. Second the concept is good, if not handled as such.
Everything that isn't free can be cheaper, that's a principle that won't necessarily change even if prices change, the real problem here is that there's seemingly nothing* preventing ISPs from throttling access to sites like the one we're browsing now, or even more "respectable" sites that may go against the desired narrative.

* This needs to get fact-checked btw, some dude from the FCC is saying that the regs governing ISPs will change from being Title II to Title I or some shit like that. I have no idea what that means, @AnOminous and @gobbogobb , can you guys help us out here?
 
My favorite Facebook tards have been doing shit like this all. day. long.
20180612_021230.png

20180612_022750.png

Fucking idiots.
 
Alright, so I think I can summarize the responses to this into 4 categories, at least from what I've seen around the web:

1) People who wanted NN down because Obama did it and because God Emperor will #MAGA.
2) People who wanted NN to stay because Obama did it and because we need to #RESIST evil orange Drumpf.
3) People who feel that losing NN is too risky and allows ISPs to fuck with our internet at some point, if not directly.
4) People who feel that dropping NN is going to help the internet by re-incentivizing investment into infrastructure, whether by existing ISPs or new ones.

#1 & #2 are equally massive autists who will probably (and sadly) dominate the conversation with their loud shrieking and clickbait articles.

#3 is what probably comes to mind when discussing policy, and while distrusting corporations is perfectly valid, if not necessary. However, I feel that #4 is the most intriguing group to me, because I want to discuss things with them and see how their arguments will play out against what reality actually pan out, and we're probably in it anyways, so might as well get some decent discussion out of it, that, or some lulzy wrong reasoning.


Everything that isn't free can be cheaper, that's a principle that won't necessarily change even if prices change, the real problem here is that there's seemingly nothing* preventing ISPs from throttling access to sites like the one we're browsing now, or even more "respectable" sites that may go against the desired narrative.

* This needs to get fact-checked btw, some dude from the FCC is saying that the regs governing ISPs will change from being Title II to Title I or some shit like that. I have no idea what that means, @AnOminous and @gobbogobb , can you guys help us out here?
Nigger, I am not all jerking NN off.

I don't like how so many people are assuming calling me an anti for barely asking questions. I want to restate, I pointed out supported @Nulls post this is NOT free market, it's shifting monopolizes to another.

It's looking clearly from the links in this thread said poo in the loo is a FELON and should be treated same as a drunk driver who hit someone or a man who brought a gun in a court room, while he's gonna make 6 figures retired at 34. Fuck that cunt. I hope his kids die in his arms, on his birthday.

This bill is a total lie, it is a locked market says it will be. It's like a craps game on loaded dice. I understand costs and risk, even rolling craps is safer and better.

tl;dr
i don't like what was passed nor do I like what was forced before. Also I'm scared AF of making a life essential of net. That's another story.
 
Nigger, I am not all jerking NN off.

I don't like how so many people are assuming calling me an anti for barely asking questions. I want to restate, I pointed out supported @Nulls post this is NOT free market, it's shifting monopolizes to another.

It's looking clearly from the links in this thread said poo in the loo is a FELON and should be treated same as a drunk driver who hit someone or a man who brought a gun in a court room, while he's gonna make 6 figures retired at 34. Fuck that cunt. I hope his kids die in his arms, on his birthday.

This bill is a total lie, it is a locked market says it will be. It's like a craps game on loaded dice. I understand costs and risk, even rolling craps is safer and better.

tl;dr
i don't like what was passed nor do I like what was forced before. Also I'm scared AF of making a life essential of net. That's another story.
Lol I didn't actually categorize you among the 4 categories, mainly because I didn't understand your views, are you saying that you are afraid of the bill going? Or that you are seeing it as a nothingburger that will change little? You keep adding in hints of both, and they're kinda contradictory, no?

Also, lol calm down.
 
* This needs to get fact-checked btw, some dude from the FCC is saying that the regs governing ISPs will change from being Title II to Title I or some shit like that. I have no idea what that means, @AnOminous and @gobbogobb , can you guys help us out here?

There’s no specific law. I still think it would be outright fraudulent to advertise Internet service while delivering fake crippled Internet in some walled garden format that basically blocks you from actually using the Internet.
 
verizon stock : 49.30 USD +0.12 (0.24%)
wow.... it make a "killing" on a winning day.

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?

Verizon/Comcast/AT&T stock is in a strange hold because: a court has to determine whether AT&T can buy Time Warner or not.

Its a decision which is like the first domino and how it goes will affect what a number of ISPs and cable companies do (regardless of net neutrality decisions).

Here's an article about it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/10/technology/att-time-warner-ruling.html

"Disney’s offer to buy 21st Century Fox. CVS’s bid for Aetna. T-Mobile’s proposed merger with Sprint.

The path for these blockbuster deals and others could be transformed in an instant on Tuesday, when a federal judge is expected to issue his opinion on the government’s effort to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner. It is one of the most influential antitrust cases in decades, enthralling Hollywood, Silicon Valley and Madison Avenue."
So anyone thinking that nothing came of this net neutrality autism, you'll have to wait for basically every major ISP/cable company in the US to sperg out after the antitrust case is decided.

I made a dedicated thread for that shit now because the judge is expected to issue a ruling during the day today (Tuesday)
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/at-t-time-warner-antitrust-case.44282/
 
Última edición:
I don't see how net neutrality was ever going to be allowed to be upheld. Companies and websites have been poking this bear for years to see what they could get away with. If it wasn't one asshole that was in FCC pushing for it, it'd be another suit hired to push FCC. The corps want it, and they will throw as much money at people to make it so they can stave out competition, make deals for better throttling, detrend political or corporate opponents.

The freer the market, the freer the people right? :P
 
Última edición:
Atrás
Top Abajo