Net neutrality

[GoTfan]

The FCC is planning to roll it back very soon. So basically major companies are going to be able to throttle ISPs unless you buy special packages from them.

Needless to say, this is concerning, namely because when Ajit Pai asked for public input before, he stuck his fingers in his ears and pretended not to hear anyone. In other words, he won't listen to public opinion while gutting consumer protections. The scary thing is, the FCC will likely vote in favour of it.

[fluffypanther19]

Damn, I thought we had won this fight; going to have to double the pressure on this administration.

[Mr. Reactionary]

[Dr. Arch]

This country will be a full-on oligarchic dystopia soon. It's already well on its way.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

100% of dead people oppose net neutrality though, as evidenced by their many comments to the FCC.

[Landslide Lyndon]

But at least we didn't elect that corporate sellout warmonger, Hillary.
Amirite jfern?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I forgot there was once a poster more obsessed with Jfern than BRTD

[Dr. MB]

This is the worst action the government has taken since January...

[Person Man]

Got any good Telecom picks?

[muon2]

It's unfortunate that so few of the officials involved in this (elected or appointed) were active on the internet in the years just before the World Wide Web rolled out. There was no net neutrality, but the big telecoms weren't involved. Once the WWW came out, no one cared about the service providers other than that their interface had a url entry.

However, for a few years before the WWW there were dial up portals through companies like Compuserve, The Source, GEnie, Prodigy, and AOL that also controlled the content. I subscribed to most of them in the late 80's and early 90's. The problem was restricted access to just those commercial sites that had relationships with the ISP unless you knew which specific IPs you wanted to reach. For example, it was hard to find appliances other than Kenmore on Prodigy which was owned by Sears. If the officials involved truly realized how parochial those early providers behaved without net neutrality, I'm not sure they'd be happy with the direction things could go.

[JGibson]

This is a sad day for America. Net neutrality makes the internet fairer.

[Virginiá]

This country will be a full-on oligarchic dystopia soon. It's already well on its way.

It's ok, while repealing these rules is certainly bad and might lead to some unsavory behavior from the ever-consolidating telecoms, it also is worth noting that we'd simply be back to where we were around pre-2015, minus the weaker NN rules that were struck down (and thus led to Title II). It will also be harder for ISPs to start screwing people with the exact kind of behavior net neutrality proponents have been ringing the bell about, as it is more widely known than before.

In the end, since there has been no legislation forbidding net neutrality rules (yet), once Republicans are booted from the White House, a new Democratic administration can reinstate Title II. I'm just fine keeping this up until the telecoms/conservatives relent, because this is non-negotiable (imo).

[Cory]

This should be a campaign issue for Democrats in 2018. Make it a big deal and force the GOP to address the issue as well. This is too important.

[publicunofficial]

This should be a campaign issue for Democrats in 2018. Make it a big deal and force the GOP to address the issue as well. This is too important.

"F**K Comcast" would win over middle America.

[pbrower2a]

An absence of net neutrali9ty means that internet providers could effectively censor the web of material that offends the political, economic, or cultural interests of the provider. Comcast might block one from getting any programming schedule for networks competing with NBC.

Internet providers could make special arrangements that essentially block alternatives, thus supporting monopoly in marketing. They could censor something like Project Gutenberg so that Karl Marx would be off limits so that one could never contemplate him as an answer to a bad capitalist order, or Bertrand Russell for his atheism.  (Even if I were a Christian supporting libertarian capitalism, I would want people to know about Marx and Russell so that people could discuss what is wrong with them). Thinking of a uniion to improve conditions at work? Perish the thought -- by killing access to any pro-union material.

The idea is to intensify the trend of monopolization  of the American economy and entrench the power of extant elites who, so far as I can tell, want America to be a place in which 95% of the people suffer for the 2% that forms the elite -- or else.

...The more I see of Donald Trump as President, the more I wish I were a citizen of some other country.

[MasterJedi]

Welcome to Trump's America. The rich get to tell you what you can and can't view! Watch the YUGE blowback from this.

[SoLongAtlas]

Live shot of Comcast CEO right now



Another reason why I don't do Internet after work unless it's via my phone or wifi. I refuse to pay the bucks to enable crap like this and honestly, there's Internet overload as well.

[HisGrace]

An absence of net neutrali9ty means that internet providers could effectively censor the web of material that offends the political, economic, or cultural interests of the provider. Comcast might block one from getting any programming schedule for networks competing with NBC.

Internet providers could make special arrangements that essentially block alternatives, thus supporting monopoly in marketing. They could censor something like Project Gutenberg so that Karl Marx would be off limits so that one could never contemplate him as an answer to a bad capitalist order, or Bertrand Russell for his atheism.  (Even if I were a Christian supporting libertarian capitalism, I would want people to know about Marx and Russell so that people could discuss what is wrong with them). Thinking of a uniion to improve conditions at work? Perish the thought -- by killing access to any pro-union material.

Is there any evidence media companies were actually doing that, though? There's never been any difficulty finding left wing subversive content on the web and the big companies could have been doing this all along if they wanted to.

The only thing net "neutrality" does is enable the government/FCC to do things like that since they're the ones who define what constitutes "neutrality" with no possibility for judicial review if I recall correctly. So if you don't think the way the FCC is administering this stuff is neutral you can't sue them. With Trump of all people in charge of the executive branch you'd think that would be the last thing the left would want.

[Virginiá]

Is there any evidence media companies were actually doing that, though? There's never been any difficulty finding left wing subversive content on the web and the big companies could have been doing this all along if they wanted to.

The only thing net "neutrality" does is enable the government/FCC to do things like that since they're the ones who define what constitutes "neutrality" with no possibility for judicial review if I recall correctly. So if you don't think the way the FCC is administering this stuff is neutral you can't sue them. With Trump of all people in charge of the executive branch you'd think that would be the last thing the left would want.

But this has already happened to varying degrees. This is from Wiki:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, something not covered by net neutrality rules is ISPs instituting data caps then exempting certain services from said caps, which has the effect of driving users to those services because they don't count against their artificially-low data caps. I mean that really works out for the ISPs - they institute data caps that are completely arbitrary, then exempt their favored services, possibly because they've gotten kickbacks or other treats from those businesses/services. Charging your competitors extra money or flat out throttling their access to their networks is the logical next step, and arguably was the first step, but was limited by law for a short time.

Everything the telecoms have become and everything they continue to do and push for indicates they will abuse the internet in the ways people have warned about. These are not benevolent companies by any means. If they had no intention of not pursuing such strategies down the road, I don't think they'd have fought tooth and nail against net neutrality restrictions.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Got any good Telecom picks?

All of them. The crappy evil ones will be more exploitative and make money, while the semi-decent ones will provide "better" service than their rivals (and charge for it) and make money. I'm planning on doubling my budget for internet for next year and I think that's optimistic.

Unless we are very lucky, this moment is going to go down in history as the end of the golden age of the internet as the fragmentation begins. One more success for Trump and his cultists' agenda of ignorance.

[SoLongAtlas]

Is there any evidence media companies were actually doing that, though? There's never been any difficulty finding left wing subversive content on the web and the big companies could have been doing this all along if they wanted to.

The only thing net "neutrality" does is enable the government/FCC to do things like that since they're the ones who define what constitutes "neutrality" with no possibility for judicial review if I recall correctly. So if you don't think the way the FCC is administering this stuff is neutral you can't sue them. With Trump of all people in charge of the executive branch you'd think that would be the last thing the left would want.

But this has already happened to varying degrees. This is from Wiki:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, something not covered by net neutrality rules is ISPs instituting data caps then exempting certain services from said caps, which has the effect of driving users to those services because they don't count against their artificially-low data caps. I mean that really works out for the ISPs - they institute data caps that are completely arbitrary, then exempt their favored services, possibly because they've gotten kickbacks or other treats from those businesses/services. Charging your competitors extra money or flat out throttling their access to their networks is the logical next step, and arguably was the first step, but was limited by law for a short time.

Everything the telecoms have become and everything they continue to do and push for indicates they will abuse the internet in the ways people have warned about. These are not benevolent companies by any means. If they had no intention of not pursuing such strategies down the road, I don't think they'd have fought tooth and nail against net neutrality restrictions.

Also, a big reason why Comcast and Verizon want net neutrality repealed is a further push to tiered internet packages. I am sure a high-tier gaming/media streaming package is in the works. They already have these but when NN is repealed, it would open the floodgates for this package, esp to compete for the business of cord cutters.

[pbrower2a]

Is there any evidence media companies were actually doing that, though? There's never been any difficulty finding left wing subversive content on the web and the big companies could have been doing this all along if they wanted to.

The only thing net "neutrality" does is enable the government/FCC to do things like that since they're the ones who define what constitutes "neutrality" with no possibility for judicial review if I recall correctly. So if you don't think the way the FCC is administering this stuff is neutral you can't sue them. With Trump of all people in charge of the executive branch you'd think that would be the last thing the left would want.

But this has already happened to varying degrees. This is from Wiki:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, something not covered by net neutrality rules is ISPs instituting data caps then exempting certain services from said caps, which has the effect of driving users to those services because they don't count against their artificially-low data caps. I mean that really works out for the ISPs - they institute data caps that are completely arbitrary, then exempt their favored services, possibly because they've gotten kickbacks or other treats from those businesses/services. Charging your competitors extra money or flat out throttling their access to their networks is the logical next step, and arguably was the first step, but was limited by law for a short time.

Everything the telecoms have become and everything they continue to do and push for indicates they will abuse the internet in the ways people have warned about. These are not benevolent companies by any means. If they had no intention of not pursuing such strategies down the road, I don't think they'd have fought tooth and nail against net neutrality restrictions.

Also, a big reason why Comcast and Verizon want net neutrality repealed is a further push to tiered internet packages. I am sure a high-tier gaming/media streaming package is in the works. They already have these but when NN is repealed, it would open the floodgates for this package, esp to compete for the business of cord cutters.

More expensive Internet for people who use huge amounts of bandwidth is in  itself reasonable. Gamers and commercial users are obvious enough. People who use the Internet for streaming high-data material, like video in extreme definition, might as well pay more.  But price associated with cost  is the norm  in the American economy.

The solution is more competition -- not less. If one does not trust one's Internet provider, one should have an alternative even if that is more costly.

I can imagine some people wanting certain material, like pornography, blocked. (But there are Net-minder programs that can do that anyway).

     

[Person Man]

Can Restoring Net Neutrality be a major legislative plank for Democrats in 2018-2024?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Can Restoring Net Neutrality be a major legislative plank for Democrats in 2018-2024?

It ought to be.

[KingSweden]

I’m fully in support of net neutrality, but: I think unaccountable tech giants like Facebook and Google pose a bigger long-term threat to the health of the Internet and USA than ISPs rolling out overpriced tiered/ala carts services