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/
 
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?

Title II were regulations imposed on ISPs in the form of fees and demands on what they had to provide at what price to the public, thus a hindrance on competition. Regulations are always a hindrance to flexibility and generally injure the less ingrained company above the Comcast-esque monster.

The regulations were a weight on smaller ISPs because if they have to choose between dumping a few million into making sure they stay in compliance or expanding their current infrastructure, they are probably going to stay out of the marketplace altogether.

But it really doesn't matter because NN is dead now and things are about to revert to the dark ages of 2015.
 
@PantsFreeZone explain why, in depth, abolishing Net Neutrality will give rise to new ISPs? Why would some nobody startup succeed where Google failed?

All I said was that in extremely rural areas, smaller companies can build coverage at a fraction of a cost with the flexibility granted by not having to meet specific government regulations. The impositions placed on smaller ISPs at the whim of the FCC, under NN, included a system whereby the ISPs had to submit proposals that could be rejected without any reason or more information could be requested indefinitely.

It made the FCC a regulatory commission with the power to tax which is unpalatable to smaller companies. I think the amount of new money that was lost to investment under Title II was somewhere around $50 billion.

Again, I'm more of a fan of the free market and against the government. Granting the FCC powers of what akin to censorship just feels wrong. There is probably a better way to prevent large ISPs from fucking us over.
 
I got nothing on this one because I don't have time to really dig through the reg history and such.

I will prognosticate this much:. None of the big ISPs are going to move quickly on this. Not only are they afraid of reversals, they don't know quite yet how much bullshit the public will put up with re: censoring the net

If sites start getting blocked I can guarantee we are on the wall right after the literal terrorists and neo Nazis, but well before porno.

Edit:. Don't think buying all access coverage is a good thing either. That's just gonna put you on a watchlist
 
I got nothing on this one because I don't have time to really dig through the reg history and such.

I will prognosticate this much:. None of the big ISPs are going to move quickly on this. Not only are they afraid of reversals, they don't know quite yet how much bullshit the public will put up with re: censoring the net

If sites start getting blocked I can guarantee we are on the wall right after the literal terrorists and neo Nazis, but well before porno.

Edit:. Don't think buying all access coverage is a good thing either. That's just gonna put you on a watchlist
And that's the thing, there's still a pending lawsuit. Plus the fact that if they did it right away, their consumer bases would be furious.

Guess we'll have to wait and see just how exactly they plan to fuck up the internet.
 
All I said was that in extremely rural areas, smaller companies can build coverage at a fraction of a cost with the flexibility granted by not having to meet specific government regulations. The impositions placed on smaller ISPs at the whim of the FCC, under NN, included a system whereby the ISPs had to submit proposals that could be rejected without any reason or more information could be requested indefinitely.

It made the FCC a regulatory commission with the power to tax which is unpalatable to smaller companies. I think the amount of new money that was lost to investment under Title II was somewhere around $50 billion.

Again, I'm more of a fan of the free market and against the government. Granting the FCC powers of what akin to censorship just feels wrong. There is probably a better way to prevent large ISPs from fucking us over.

That's not how Title 2 of the Communications Act of 1934 works. Title 2 defines you as a common carrier, which means you can't discriminate against who you'll service and you operate under the authority of a regulatory body. It's funny how you'd call neutral service provision an act of censorship when it outright prevents it. And the FCC doesn't impose taxes, they imposes fines if you're found doing shit like throttling.

A lot of these claims your making, especially the fifty billion dollar loss, beg for sources.
 
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.
I didn't mean you personally, but yeah, feel free to look back and me not seeing issue with it and simply asking things was met with both insult and anger really makes me raise an eyebrow towards people's vesting.

When someone pulls the same listen and believe shit, no matter the issue I don't like it and don't tend to buy it. When you try to educate yourself to a subject and people bring the bayonet point, it's not something that says thoughtful or respect worthy.

I don't much like the bill I've said that but if the bill was how they sold it I'd be more fond of it. It's fucking scary and autismo as hell that the internet is looked at as a right or utility, the latter more so being an issue I don't want niggers to get free wifi like how I have to pay for their power and water. I don't care if you don't pay your power bill, you don't get lights period, same with I don't care if world star hip hip loses viewers. This is a later issue, but if the net becomes viewed legally as same as your water bill, will happen. Mark my words and read this post in 10 years when you have to make sure trash people still have 30 mps down loads the same they can't turn off grandma no job's heat in the winter.

I'm sorry if I come heated, it's just many people whom here I respect sunk to absolutely childish behavior over this and wouldn't give a straight reply. I'm trying to see, and learn on it and being disregarded as well as insulted was a bit of an ego bruise, the fact I let it get to me was my own fault. In reality, end of the day I know my employer will pay any amount for net as it's needed. Me? I don't fucking care much like I've dropped cable tv, home phone and other services I'll drop net if it sucks. It's not a big deal and I'll have just as great and happy a life. If the internet is your sword to die on, your life is pretty fucking worth ending.

In theory again, if NN is what they told us it would be allowing more competing, I'd honestly be in support but as stated very well early on, it's got the same road blocks to compete, literally and legally ruling competing out it sucks. It's a bill that just kicks the consumer how it's written and the reality I know many people, most won't just say fuck it and cut the cord. Now in an economic sense, I can't say I blame the gov and corps for wanting this. But really it's fault of the consumers. Same thing with why cocaine isn't cheap, people rob steal and kill for the money for drugs, so why not let them do it? If you pay 200 a month for net and willing to pay 400? Why not charge it? Why not slow your shit making loads easier ? Reminds me of the old lady selling apples on wall street joke.
 
Do you guys seriously not have any small ISPs anywhere near you? There's two near where I live, even though AT&T and Google Fiber are both around too.
Nope. In Canada, our equivalents to Comcast and AT&T are Bell and Rogers. and the only other one we get in Canada pretty much rivals both in terms of being a major ISP.
 
Where I live, I have like two choices: One cable internet provider, and one DSL provider.

That's it. There's also a satellite internet provider but L O fucking L, satellite.

We're fucked if they decide to screw with their new-found freedom.
 
So anti-trust laws would seem to be frequently failing us and I don't buy the natural monopoly defense. Trust busting when?
It's hard to force an anti trust law when the gov also says, oh yeah it's ok you can monopolize on things.

I have no problem with a natural monopoly, you know a service so fucking good no one wants someone else. You have no legal protection it's just everyone wants to go with you because you rock.

As I stated before my power is like this, but there's also bull shit attached. I do not know a single person dumb enough to buy into our alt power company. They get huge props from "green" bills, but still buy their power and sell it to you for more. As I've tried to say before meeting with REEEEing, is NN nor it's death doesn't allow this, if it did... I'd be more happy about it's death.
 
So Canada's laws are as limpdicked and unenforced as US ones, is what I'm getting here.
Pretty much. Our companies are just as corrupt, and our government just as incompetent.

Sure, we can download as much as we want and get away with it (as long as we don't do it for profit), sure, we might be legalizing weed, but it's a shitfest beyond that.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo