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/
 
Now, the ISPs are so entrenched, it will be very difficult to take them on. Not impossible. But harder than it needs to be.

At the very least it should serve as a future warning for letting government interfere or impede when it comes to new communication industries. Although it might be too late for the internet, hopefully whatever replaces it in the far future wont be strangulated by a government created monopoly where the only stop gap between it and basic consumer rights is a single piece of legislation that can be repealed on a whim.
 
When exactly did I say it only applied to certain states?

You didn't, nor did I claim you did. That's not the point of what I said.

the bill allowed for deregulation only in areas which specifically benefited already-existing megacompanies

This deregulation was not location selective, it applied everywhere. Did you mean to say it only mattered in those areas?

I'm speaking in general terms. Allowing companies to buy each other out obviously benefits those with more established capital.

That's been my point the entire time, deregulation caused a monopoly to emerge. They deregulated in an attempt to breed more competition and it backfired.

Regardless, you never actually addressed my original point.

What was it other than that the 1996 Telecommunications Act somehow played a part in the way local governments handle pre-deployment for infrastructure? You pulled a quote from Michael Bock's article, a quote discussing the 1996 Telecommunications Act specifically, & suggested that local pre-deployment costs were what he, and by extension the Telecommunications Act, were addressing, and thus the reason behind the act being passed in the first place.
 
At the very least it should serve as a future warning for letting government interfere or impede when it comes to new communication industries. Although it might be too late for the internet, hopefully whatever replaces it in the far future wont be strangulated by a government created monopoly where the only stop gap between it and basic consumer rights is a single piece of legislation that can be repealed on a whim.
In 20 years we'll probably be complaining about companies beaming ads directly to our brains.
 
This deregulation was not location selective
Again, I never implied it wasn't. I was referring to "areas" as in industry rules and regulations, not as any geographic location, and I thought that was pretty obvious based on the context of what I was saying, but apparently not. Does that clear things up for you?
They deregulated in an attempt to breed more competition and it backfired.
Except, once again, they didn't actually deregulate those areas that mattered most, which were those pre-deployment barriers.
What was it other than that the 1996 Telecommunications Act somehow played a part in the way local governments handle pre-deployment for infrastructure? You pulled a quote from Michael Bock's article, a quote discussing the 1996 Telecommunications Act specifically, & suggested that local pre-deployment costs were what he, and by extension the Telecommunications Act, were addressing, and thus the reason behind the act being passed in the first place.
I never claimed that the telecommunications act is in any way responsible for pre-deployment barriers on a local government level, and I frankly have no idea how you got that out of what I said. The article specifically mentioned how pre-deployment barriers were a factor in small companies not being able to compete
"but high barriers to entry in the now “non-franchised” markets prevented new cable entrants from competing with the entrenched cable companies. "
so I went off that and elaborated on what I saw as the major problem at play by citing another article. The telecommunications act is only relevant in the sense that it was a double whammy which allowed larger companies to buy out larger market shares of the industry.
 
I never claimed that the telecommunications act is in any way responsible for pre-deployment barriers on a local government level, and I frankly have no idea how you got that out of what I said. The article specifically mentioned how pre-deployment barriers were a factor in small companies not being able to compete
"but high barriers to entry in the now “non-franchised” markets prevented new cable entrants from competing with the entrenched cable companies. "
so I went off that and elaborated on what I saw as the major problem at play by citing another article. The telecommunications act is only relevant in the sense that it was a double whammy which allowed larger companies to buy out larger market shares of the industry.

No it doesn't. Michale Bock never mentioned local governments or pre-deployment in the three paragraphs I quoted. You specifically said
What do you think those barriers of entry are exactly?
to imply that was what he was describing. The "high barriers" that quote describes are in reference to phone companys' inability to participate in selling access to the internet, which is why the '96 Act was implemented, and I quote:

Michael Bock dijo:
It was a given that if only cable companies could compete with telephone companies, cable would be forced to lower its prices and telephone would be able to offer sufficient broadband connections over DSL.
 
to imply that was what he was describing. The "high barriers" that quote describes are in reference to phone companys' inability to participate in selling access to the internet, which is why the '96 Act was implemented, and I quote:
That was poor wording on my part, but I was referring to pre-deployment barriers mentioned in the article I cited, not the ones in the article you cited. If this is the source of the confusion, then I should have elaborated that I was talking about different ones, but my point still stands about the original article.
 
That was poor wording on my part, but I was referring to pre-deployment barriers mentioned in the article I cited, not the ones in the article you cited. If this is the source of the confusion

Yeah it was. S'all good, man.

but my point still stands about the original article.

Yes it does, but it's only one of the many layers of power these monopolies want, & yesterday they just got another one.
 
In 20 years we'll probably be complaining about companies beaming ads directly to our brains.

By then, we’ll have brain implants to keep us from complaining, as well as brain implants to make us enjoy whatever shit they shovel into our heads.

So uh, what happens now? Like what do we do now? I mean the (justified let’s be honest) hysteria isn’t helping any one here.

Get a VPN for starters and study all the other methods of bypassing surveillance and censorship, whether government censorship or censorship for profit.
 
Been meaning to post my thoughts here. Honestly, I’m glad that NN’s gone, because I don’t think there was any chance of changing the minds of the muppets voting in favor of this. It wasn’t a matter of “if”, but rather a matter of “when”. I just hope the public backlash is harsh enough to screw these guys out of office though. And as for Pai? I’m not calling for him to get assassinated or some shit like that, but goddamn, do I want to see that shit-eating, phony-ass grin wiped off his ugly mug.
 
Not entirely unrelated:

Do you live in an area where your only choices are Time Warner and AT&T?

Well get ready cuz you're about to get a mouthful of delicious, thick, salty freedom!

https://arstechnica.com/information...veal-merger-to-create-isp-tv-and-media-giant/
The Time Warner Cable company is owned by Spectrum aka Charter now. Time Warner hasn't owned the Cable company for almost a decade now (2009 is when they sold them off). The major issue IMHO is now that AT&T owns Warner, they can keep its content behind a paywall if they want. That paywall being a cable subscription to AT&T. I assume this is the same reason Comcast wants fox as well.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo