Dynadot

legal Net Neutrality Has Been Repealed!

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

Silentptnr

Domains88.comTop Member
Impact
47,110
I just read that...

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to dismantle rules regulating the businesses that connect consumers to the internet, granting broadband companies the power to potentially reshape Americans’ online experiences.

The agency scrapped the so-called net neutrality regulations that prohibited broadband providers from blocking websites or charging for higher-quality service or certain content. The federal government will also no longer regulate high-speed internet delivery as if it were a utility, like phone service.

Full Story: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html

How will this change things?
 
7
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
The people who are politically driven are most likely too blind to realize this
That's a strawman argument and applies equally to you as well. You have not qualified why NN is bad. Just saying it is bad and it should go does not make it true. Give a rational and clear explanation (preferably backed by data) to support why you believe NN should go
 
1
•••
If you want Net Neutrality, stand up, call your congressman, and make it a law. That's how it works in America. (or is supposed to)
I'm not an American but even I can see how fallacious that statement is. The power to regulate was vested with the FCC and they did so (and repealed it now as they equally have the power to repeal their own regulation as well). A law will, of course, supercede such a regulation but that's besides the point.

The point is, FCC was tasked with definining a policy regarding NN and the Internet and they did. Both back when they established NN and now, when they repealed it. And this is also the "american" way as it is also in a lot of other nations who establish authorities and comissions to make sure regulations.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Corporations don't typically censor. Governments do.
You are deluding yourself if you believe so. One example of "corporate" censorship - Apple does not allow most adult content on their app store. Instagram does not allow any form of nudity (even artistic) on their platform. Facebook does not allow any generic statement against "men" such as "all men are scum". All of these examples are private corporate "censorship"
 
2
•••
I described the advertised intent of the regulation as I understand it in much less than single page a couple of post ago...

If I described it wrong please correct me.

If that is indeed the main point of concern - then can we just discuss this single problem and not bundle it with the existing Net "neutrality" regulation?

Again I remind you there are 399 other pages to that regulation. What do those do and why do we need them? If someone more informed on the subject will ring and and explain that - I would appreciate it.
Otherwise I think it is good the regulation is gone.

Now if you are still highly concerned about about the situation I described - I think we should discuss what we can do and needs to be done to address people's concerns about internet infrastructure and how to distribute costs and avoid service disruptions and future roadblocks. Then write it down into a no non-sense, anyone can read, one page law and push for congress to pass it.

Is this not a reasonable approach?

Or lawsuits, boycotts, existing laws, etc?

Or trust a bloated regulation written by the Internet Giants to do that one thing you want?
You keep lambasting the said regulations. A question on that to you - have you actually read the regulations yourself or are you merely imagining them and stating them as useless and bloated?

Disclaimer: I have not read them and I don't intend to. But then I'm also not making a judgement call on the text of the NN regulation without reading them. All my arguments have been around the concept of NN and not on the specific text of the regulations
 
0
•••
@anantj

You are admittedly not an American so this won't impact you. You do not have any horse in American politics so I don't see the point in going into why I believe the FCC isn't the only way to enact laws or regulations to tackle a problem. There is no point in trying to explain that I believe our system is/was great and that is why we were so innovative. That is why the internet is what it is - and I don't want to see the industry hampered moving forward.

You admittedly don't care what the other 399 pages or even what the 400th says but amendmently support it because of it's name. FYI: Anyone can name something anything they want...

What does it matter if I have read it in its entirety or not? (i havent... sheesh who would?) Why should I have to read 400 pages of regulation when it is advertised to address one problem and I don't believe it takes 400 pages to tackle one problem, therefore bloated. I have asked someone to educate me on the good of the regulation (must be a lot of things it fixes for that much paper) and no one has.


You are obviously politically motivated to support regulation in general so there is no point in discussing it further with you.

There is no point in arguing over who is right because it really doesn't matter.

I would refer you/others to go read my other posts (and not fragmented segments you ranted on) and make their own conclusions. If you disagree with me that is fine but I feel it only right that I can share my opinion. My opinion is underrepresented in a Technical community, but that doesn't make it invalid. And there is no reason people can't be smart enough to make up their own minds.

Basically I want people to go look into it and not blindly support it. That is all.

Why would anyone oppose that?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
those that don't realize the impact of this, are on a pink cloud. I can already see "PLEASE UPGRADE TO READ FULL TEXT".....

 
1
•••
@anantj

You are admittedly not an American so this won't impact you. You do not have any horse in American politics so I don't see the point in going into why I believe the FCC isn't the only way to enact laws or regulations to tackle a problem. There is no point in trying to explain that I believe our system is/was great and that is why we were so innovative. That is why the internet is what it is - and I don't want to see the industry hampered moving forward.

You admittedly don't care what the other 399 pages or even what the 400th says but amendmently support it because of it's name. FYI: Anyone can name something anything they want...

What does it matter if I have read it in its entirety or not? (i havent... sheesh who would?) Why should I have to read 400 pages of regulation when it is advertised to address one problem and I don't believe it takes 400 pages to tackle one problem, therefore bloated. I have asked someone to educate me on the good of the regulation (must be a lot of things it fixes for that much paper) and no one has.


You are obviously politically motivated to support regulation in general so there is no point in discussing it further with you.

There is no point in arguing over who is right because it really doesn't matter.

I would refer you/others to go read my other posts (and not fragmented segments you ranted on) and make their own conclusions. If you disagree with me that is fine but I feel it only right that I can share my opinion. My opinion is underrepresented in a Technical community, but that doesn't make it invalid. And there is no reason people can't be smart enough to make up their own minds.

Basically I want people to go look into it and not blindly support it. That is all.

Why would anyone oppose that?

Its sad to me that you disregard peoples opinions because they seem politically motivated. I guess that's the stage we are at now. If you are willing to take a political stance you are discounted as being a nut. That might be the case where you are from, but here its a duty to be politically informed and think a little further than what you can think off yourself without opening a book.

But yes, I do agree with your sentiment that the US WAS at the forefront of innovation and critical thinking. All that is left of that is the money though.Your real treasure was thrown out with the bath water.

I do not oppose making enlightened decision, but frankly I don't think that is what you are doing or proposing.

EDIT
Let me ask you. Do you care your decision making system was gamed to reach the money decision? 2 million fake comments.. Its like your election.. But maybe you dont care about that either?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Its sad to me that you disregard peoples opinions because they seem politically motivated. I guess that's the stage we are at now. If you are willing to take a political stance you are discounted as being a nut. That might be the case where you are from, but here its a duty to be politically informed and think a little further than what you can think off yourself without opening a book.

But yes, I do agree with your sentiment that the US WAS at the forefront of innovation and critical thinking. All that is left of that is the money though.Your real treasure was thrown out with the bath water.

I do not oppose making enlightened decision, but frankly I don't think that is what you are doing or proposing.
Politically motivated opinions and positions are not usually rational ones. They are rank and file or driven by emotion - which I believe to be what is going on here... Playing on people's emotions to pass a much larger bill. Misrepresentation in a sense.

I prefer everyone to have their own opinion, do their own research, and not just latch onto political causes blindly.

And that is exactly what I am proposing... I expect 99% of you to disagree with me, and maybe I can come off strong, but I believe internet innovation is better without over-sweeping regulation - and it could be harmed with it.

So I put that opinion out that for the few that might be reading a lot of one side of an argument that is hyped by politics - and I just try to bring it down to realistic terms so maybe people will at least think for a minute about it. They may still disagree with me - but at least they thought it through and didn't repeat something they heard or saw blindly. If anything I am helping educate people for your cause if I am wrong. They will go research to prove me wrong.
 
0
•••
You are admittedly not an American so this won't impact you
I don't agree with this. Just because something does not impact directly me does not mean I don't care about it. For example, the mass shootings or terrorist attacks on America (and other countries) do affect me. They do not impact me directly but I do feel for those who are affected directly.

You do not have any horse in American politics so I don't see the point in going into why I believe the FCC isn't the only way to enact laws or regulations to tackle a problem
I have never claimed that FCC is the only way. It is one the ways and that is, in fact, in use in America.

There is no point in trying to explain that I believe our system is/was great and that is why we were so innovative
You don't need to. I've not claimed either way about American political system (I assume you mean the political system above) and your opinion or my opinion on that is inconsequential to this discussion.



You admittedly don't care what the other 399 pages or even what the 400th says but amendmently support it because of it's name. FYI: Anyone can name something anything they want...

Huh? Where have I said this? I said I've not read it. That does not mean I don't care about it or that it is immaterial. On the contrary, you've been saying that the 400 pages or regulations are immaterial and it is good that they were done away with. NN is not just a name, it is a concept and a concept that I strongly believe in. The concept itself is independent of the "regulations".


I don't believe it takes 400 pages to tackle one problem
What makes your belief right and other's beliefs that it takes 400 pages wrong? Especially after you've admitted that you've not read it so you do not know whether those 400 pages are really needed or not. You're hard set in your belief and refuse the even consider that perhaps those 400 pages of regulations were indeed needed. What is your basis of stating that they are not needed except a belief with you factual backing?

I have asked someone to educate me on the good of the regulation

Sorry but that's just laziness. Why don't you read it and educate others instead? You'll earn good karma that way.

You are obviously politically motivated to support regulation in general so there is no point in discussing it further with you.
Lol. You're masterful with words. I'll give you that. I'm stating here, very plainly and clearly - I support the regulation enforcing NN. But not due to politics. I support the concept of Net Neutrality because it provides a level playing field to everyone. In my country, when an ISP tried to make their "messaging app" and their media service free to their subscribers, it was opposed and shut down. And I'm glad for that. Why should the ISP's service (which, based on my own trial, was shitty) be provided for free and other superior services be paid for?

I would refer you/others to go read my other posts (and not fragmented segments you ranted on) and make their own conclusions. If you disagree with me that is fine but I feel it only right that I can share my opinion. My opinion is underrepresented in a Technical community, but that doesn't make it invalid. And there is no reason people can't be smart enough to make up their own minds.
I actually read every one of your posts (a few of them 2-3 times to make sure I understood your perspective fully). I only responded to fragments as quoting entire messages is messier and can cause more confusion. Your opinion is not necessarily invalid. But you've also not clearly explained why you believe NN is bad (besides your stress on it being politically motivated).

Basically I want people to go look into it and not blindly support it. That is all.

Why would anyone oppose that?
This I agree with. TBH, in none of your previous messages has this point come across as you've stated above. This is a very good aim and is what everyone should attempt. Try to understand all the nuances of this debate and the concept of NN. Not a low blow, but I feel this also applies to you as well. You are also not looking at the perspectives of the supporters of net neutrality and are stubbornly sticking to your perspective only.
 
0
•••
I don't care about politics. I just want a fair internet where all sites are given the same priority. What I fear most about net neutrality is the cable companies basically trying to mimic cable tv subscriptions for the internet.
 
0
•••
Politically motivated opinions and positions are not usually rational ones. They are rank and file or driven by emotion - which I believe to be what is going on here... Playing on people's emotions to pass a much larger bill. Misrepresentation in a sense.

I prefer everyone to have their own opinion, do their own research, and not just latch onto political causes blindly.

And that is exactly what I am proposing... I expect 99% of you to disagree with me, and maybe I can come off strong, but I believe internet innovation is better without over-sweeping regulation - and it could be harmed with it.

So I put that opinion out that for the few that might be reading a lot of one side of an argument that is hyped by politics - and I just try to bring it down to realistic terms so maybe people will at least think for a minute about it. They may still disagree with me - but at least they thought it through and didn't repeat something they heard or saw blindly. If anything I am helping educate people for your cause if I am wrong. They will go research to prove me wrong.

Is that because you think emotions are a bad thing?

I think that we are not vulcan. I think emotions and moral are paramount to doing sustainable business.
I think that its sentiments like yours that are causing millions of people to starve so someone can secure a better profit.

I think emotions and politics are important for you to make truly informed decisions.

I do agree though that American politics seem all to be about two sides shouting at each other. But that is not what politics really are.. I hope you are still aware of that?

EDIT
There is a person from my country that is a bannerholder for your view though. He is called Bjørn Lomborg and is a statistician. So he really knows how to twist the truth. He is truly amoral, since he thinks moral has no place in decision making.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
This I agree with. TBH, in none of your previous messages has this point come across as you've stated above. This is a very good aim and is what everyone should attempt. Try to understand all the nuances of this debate and the concept of NN. Not a low blow, but I feel this also applies to you as well. You are also not looking at the perspectives of the supporters of net neutrality and are stubbornly sticking to your perspective only.
This is not my first time around debating this topic, and have been drug through the mud going down different angles, and it always leads back to the same place. So this time I have tried to avoid arguing all the nuances of political positions and just stick to my opinion.

I can simply state (and have) to answer your question on why I oppose it - It is bloated regulation that very few people have read - to address one main topic that everyone is emotional about. I believe in addressing problems as directly as possible, and 400 pages of a regulation is not the most efficient way to address the main topic of debate... ISP Throttling of NetFlix or similar service.. Many ways to directly handle that problem with existing laws, which I have mentioned in other threads on NPs.

None-the-less...

I am glad we can agree that everyone should get educated on the subject.
 
0
•••
Yes. Well maybe you are right. As you said I did not read the 400 page proposal.

I do however fully support the notion of net neutrality.

I do also strongly oppose the gaming of democratic systems. Like the case here and in your presidential elections. If someone was willing to fake 2 million voices to secure their profits. I know I dont want to stand on their side for sure.
 
0
•••
Is that because you think emotions are a bad thing?
I do agree though that American politics seem all to be about two sides shouting at each other. But that is not what politics really are.. I hope you are still aware of that?
It's hard to be stay aware of that these days in this echo-chamber... But I am aware emotion will always play a very active role in politics. I try my best to keep everything on a rational level. I am tired of politics. I make my decisions based of morals and what I think is right and best for everyone.

I understand your position and I hope you understand mine.
 
0
•••
I think I now have a more nuanced understanding of your objections in regard to this specific regulation.

But I also sensed a more fundamental opposition in regards to regulation, which is what I am making a counter stance to.

I also understand your disgust of politics. Its hard to feel otherwise with the politicians we have today.
 
2
•••
You children should read what happened to the Bell Telephone System. Under neutrality there was ONE phone company in the USA.
Comparing apples to oranges. Back in 1984 the govt broke the telco monopoly. That wasn't neutrality at all, that was monopoly.
Repealing net neutrality means fewer protections for consumers. Net neutrality does not hinder competition at all. Actually, it provides a level playing field. Providers already had all the flexibility to operate.
Remember that some of the stakeholders have been investigated (and fined heavily) for abusing their position of dominance.
Stop thinking the market will always regulate itself in your favor. By the way, changing ISP (if you don't like their policies) is not that easy. Depending on where you live, your options may be few.

Also, imagine if the phone system was run like the 'new' US Internet, and phone calls get prioritized (or declined) depending on your subscription, the purpose and your net worth while we are it. Imagine Baby Bell deciding if your call is worthy/important and how or whether to handle it. Or maybe put you in a queue until more 'important' calls are completed. Yeah. Would you enjoy such a two-speed system ? I doubt.
 
1
•••
It will hamper entrepreneurial activity and startups if small business lack the ability to compete and provide services and content at the same speed as large corporations without having to pay more for it. Net neutrality ensures that it is relatively cheap to start an online business. If a startup or small business has to pay to reach an internet service provider's subscriber, it changes the current economic circumstances of the internet unfavorably for startups and small business, which in turn will hurt online innovation (and demand for domain names).
Just because something does not impact directly me does not mean I don't care about it.
US net neutrality may not affect us directly as internet users outside of the US, but net neutrality (or the lack thereof) has direct implications for us as domain investors.
 
0
•••
Why not consider an equivalent disaster - when a ship's anchor cut undersea cables and millions of folks were cut off from servers from Asia?

Ok, that hasn't happened either.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
You're claiming the exact opposite. Until the phone lines were nationalized and opened up, Bell Telephone had a monopoly. Only when other entities were given equal and unfettered access to the "pipes" that competition arose and bell's monopoly was broken. What neutrality are you talking about that Bell enjoyed?

1) No I'm not. Bell's monopoly was crushed by a lawsuit and enforced by the FTC.

2) Phone lines were not nationalized. New phone companies paid Bell for access.

3) After the forced break up of Bell Systems, new companies offered new services and started to upgrade service lines and software.
 
0
•••
I do not understand why some users here take such a blanket negative view towards regulations. Regulations are needed to protect consumers from the unfettered economic greed of corporations.

We as domainers benefit from domain name regulations. For example, ICANN has frozen .COM (operated by Verisign) registration and renewal prices until 2024, and thanks to this piece of regulation, we can pay relatively affordable .COM fees.

In contrast, a price freeze is not in place for .NET domains (also operated by Verisign), and they are allowed to increase prices by 10% yearly. Verisign has increase the price at every opportunity they have had so far (the wholesale price was just $4.65 in 2011), and in 2023, .NET is going to renew around $15-16 retail unless Verisign stops hiking the price every time they have the chance, while .COM is still going to renew at $8-9. If there was not a price freeze regulation in place, or if Verisign had any kind of option to increase .COM prices they would have increased prices as much as possible at every opportunity; the history of .NET price increases have shown us that. It's merely thanks to regulations that we still just pay $8-9 for our renewals, not due to the benevolence of Verisign...

Now if we move into the area of unregulated domains, in terms of registration and renewal prices, we have the ngtlds, that register and renew at $5 $50, $500, or even $5000 if the registry is greedy enough. And the renewal price may change from $50/year to $500/year based on the greedy whims of the registry. The ngtld space is a complete mess and will never succeed due to the unregulated nature of the ngtld program, where registry greed goes completely unchecked.
 
4
•••
Comparing apples to oranges. Back in 1984 the govt broke the telco monopoly. That wasn't neutrality at all, that was monopoly.

it was another company that wanted to complete with Bell Systems that sued in federal court to end Bell's monopoly. They paid Bell to transport calls for years.

Repealing net neutrality means fewer protections for consumers. Net neutrality does not hinder competition at all. Actually, it provides a level playing field.

Providers already had all the flexibility to operate.
Remember that some of the stakeholders have been investigated (and fined heavily) for abusing their position of dominance.
Stop thinking the market will always regulate itself in your favor. By the way, changing ISP (if you don't like their policies) is not that easy. Depending on where you live, your options may be few.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

1) Nobody expects the market to regulate itself. There are laws that make anti-competitive behavior illegal. The FTC makes rules based on those laws.

2) I'll continue thinking as I please until proven wrong by evidence, not your opinion.

3) 5G is coming to mobile. 20 GBS is many times faster than what I have now .

Also, imagine if the phone system was run like the 'new' US Internet, and phone calls get prioritized (or declined) depending on your subscription, the purpose and your net worth while we are it. Imagine Baby Bell deciding if your call is worthy/important and how or whether to handle it. Or maybe put you in a queue until more 'important' calls are completed. Yeah. Would you enjoy such a two-speed system ? I doubt.

1) Net Neutrality classified ISP's as phone companies, which they are not.

2) Your imagined scenarios are prevented by current law.

3) Who would pay for a system like you imagine? No-one I know.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
0
•••
I wonder how many of these thought leaders supported the U.S. Government transfering the management of the domain name system to ICANN ?

Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, Steve Wozniak and other internet luminaries had something to say on this matter:

Internet Pioneers and Leaders Tell the FCC: You Don’t Understand How the Internet Works

Internet creators and leading figures ask the FCC to cancel its vote repealing Net Neutrality protections



The Honorable Roger Wicker
Chair, Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet

The Honorable Brian Schatz,
Ranking Member, Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn,
Chair, House Energy Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

The Honorable Michael F. Doyle,
Ranking Member, House Energy Subcommittee on Communications and Technology



Senator Wicker:
Senator Schatz:
Representative Blackburn:
Representative Doyle:


We are the pioneers and technologists who created and now operate the Internet, and some of the innovators and business people who, like many others, depend on it for our livelihood. We are writing to respectfully urge you to call on FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to cancel the December 14 vote on the FCC’s proposed Restoring Internet Freedom Order (WC Docket No. 17-108 ).

This proposed Order would repeal key network neutrality protections that prevent Internet access providers from blocking content, websites and applications, slowing or speeding up services or classes of service, and charging online services for access or fast lanes to Internet access providers’ customers. The proposed Order would also repeal oversight over other unreasonable discrimination and unreasonable practices, and over interconnection with last-mile Internet access providers. The proposed Order removes long-standing FCC oversight over Internet access providers without an adequate replacement to protect consumers, free markets and online innovation.

It is important to understand that the FCC’s proposed Order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology. These flaws and inaccuracies were documented in detail in a 43-page-long joint comment signed by over 200 of the most prominent Internet pioneers and engineers and submitted to the FCC on July 17, 2017.

Despite this comment, the FCC did not correct its misunderstandings, but instead premised the proposed Order on the very technical flaws the comment explained. The technically-incorrect proposed Order dismantles 15 years of targeted oversight from both Republican and Democratic FCC chairs, who understood the threats that Internet access providers could pose to open markets on the Internet.

The experts’ comment was not the only one the FCC ignored. Over 23 million comments have been submitted by a public that is clearly passionate about protecting the Internet. The FCC could not possibly have considered these adequately.

Indeed, breaking with established practice, the FCC has not held a single open public meeting to hear from citizens and experts about the proposed Order.

Furthermore, the FCC’s online comment system has been plagued by major problems that the FCC has not had time to investigate. These include bot-generated comments that impersonated Americans, including dead people, and an unexplained outage of the FCC’s on-line comment system that occurred at the very moment TV host John Oliver was encouraging Americans to submit comments to the system.

Compounding our concern, the FCC has failed to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests about these incidents and failed to provide information to a New York State Attorney General’s investigation of them.

We therefore call on you to urge FCC Chairman Pai to cancel the FCC’s vote. The FCC’s rushed and technically incorrect proposed Order to abolish net neutrality protections without any replacement is an imminent threat to the Internet we worked so hard to create. It should be stopped.


Signed,

Frederick J. Baker, IETF Chair 1996-2001, ISOC Board Chair 2002-2006

Mitchell Baker, Executive Chairwoman, Mozilla Foundation

Steven M. Bellovin, Internet pioneer, FTC Chief Technologist, 2012-2013

Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web & professor, MIT

John Borthwick, CEO, Betaworks

Scott O. Bradner, Internet pioneer

Vinton G. Cerf, Internet pioneer

Stephen D. Crocker, Internet pioneer

Whitfield Diffie, inventor of public-key cryptography

David J. Farber, Internet pioneer, FCC Chief Technologist 1999-2000

Dewayne Hendricks, CEO Tetherless Access

Martin E. Hellman, Internet security pioneer

Brewster Kahle, Internet pioneer, founder, Internet Archive

Susan Landau, cybersecurity expert & professor, Tufts University

Theodor Holm Nelson, hypertext pioneer

David P. Reed, Internet pioneer

Jennifer Rexford, Chair of Computer Science, Princeton University

Ronald L. Rivest, co-inventor of RSA public-key encryption algorithm

Paul Vixie, Internet pioneer

Stephen Wolff, Internet pioneer

Steve Wozniak, co-founder, Apple Computer


Cc:

Members of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet

Members of the House Energy Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

Federal Communications Commissioners


Source:
https://pioneersfornetneutrality.tumblr.com/
 
Last edited:
0
•••
I think most net neutrality dooms day scenarios, including the death of the Internet as a free market, do not take into account improving / new technology.
 
0
•••
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back