legal Net Neutrality Has Been Repealed!

[Silentptnr]

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?

 

[pokainc]

they were just a short time ago, during which time the internet and tech really evolved to a new level

@mr-x
really depends of what kind of change haha. Also I prefer cash lol

 

[Michael M]

they were just a short time ago, during which time the internet and tech really evolved to a new level

Due to Moore's law - not Net Neutrality.

But we can agree to disagree.

 

[mr-x]

they were just a short time ago, during which time the internet and tech really evolved to a new level

@mr-x
really depends of what kind of change haha. Also I prefer cash lol

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[pokainc]

I agree that it's not because or not because of net-neutrality.. but the reality of the internet a few year ago vs today in terms of importance in people's lives is very different... but that's a whole new topic

 

[Michael M]

I agree that it's not because or not because of net-neutrality.. but the reality of the internet a few year ago vs today in terms of importance in people's lives is very different... but that's a whole new topic

It has and will continue to evolve at a faster and faster rate, no doubt.

My main argument is you guys don't need to worry, and IMO Net Neutrality needed to go. It was bloated and written by the big players in the industry - but championed as the bill for the little guy.

In reality - things are changing, there will be stress put on different areas of the internet as it grows, and any problems that arise need to be addressed - intelligently. And problems will arise.

Let's step through the life-cycle of the Internet together, discuss how it can be better, and champion for laws or regulations that are straight forward and solve real problems with the least consequences.

Let this regulation go away, and no worries - there is more to come soon. But, hopefully they will be constructed in a more thoughtful manner and hype and political tensions won't be at a peak. And there can be more transparency in it's debate and passing. We will all be better for it.

 

[mr-x]

How long existing FTC rules would prevent the nightmare scenarios imagined by proponents of "net neutrality"

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/m...rality-debate-with-former-fcc-chairman-video/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/m...rality-debate-with-former-fcc-chairman-video/

 

[Jasonn]

It says our current leadership would rather have a free market with innovation than a centralized bureaucracy telling people what they can and can't do on the Internet.

Phone service providers were not covered by "net neutrality" and their is more competition, better service and prices are getting lower.

Federal Trade Commission still enforces the law for ISP just like phone companies.

Lets just wait and see what happens. Of course they will do nothing right away but lets revisit this thread in 3 years and if nothing changed or got better, great. If certain companies are getting blocked and certain others getting "fast lanes" then net neutrality (or something similar) is and was needed. I don't know all the rules and regulation of net neutrality but I don't see treating all internet traffic equal as a bad thing.

 

[Michael M]

Lets just wait and see what happens. Of course they will do nothing right away but lets revisit this thread in 3 years and if nothing changed or got better, great. If certain companies are getting blocked and certain others getting "fast lanes" then net neutrality (or something similar) is and was needed. I don't know all the rules and regulation of net neutrality but I don't see treating all internet traffic equal as a bad thing.

I think all us talking in time to see where it is at will be great. Either way we will learn something.

Keep in mind though, if a company is using all of the bandwidth of another company - that is where the problem comes in:

People who want net neutrality don't care if it cost Company A 1 billion dollars to build a network. They care that Company B has the right to use as much as that network as they want with no price agreement reached - so that Company B does not pass any price increase down to their customer.


Who will pay for that 1 billion dollar network in the end? Company A - who has to pass it to their customer. Even though Company B is the one utilizing the majority of it - they don't have to pass it to their customer.

Either way the network has to be paid for.

So with Net "neutrality" the Company A customer has to pay for the increased cost for Company B's internet pipeline usage.

Without it - there is the potential that Company B's customer would have to pay for Company B's stress on the network.

FYI:
Company A = ISP
Company B = Netflix

 

[Internet.Domains]

Anything this politically charged will have mis-information coming from both sides of the aisle.

 

[Jasonn]

I think all us talking in time to see where it is at will be great. Either way we will learn something.

Keep in mind though, if a company is using all of the bandwidth of another company - that is where the problem comes in:

People who want net neutrality don't care if it cost Company A 1 billion dollars to build a network. They care that Company B has the right to use as much as that network as they want with no price agreement reached - so that Company B does not pass any price increase down to their customer.


Who will pay for that 1 billion dollar network in the end? Company A - who has to pass it to their customer. Even though Company B is the one utilizing the majority of it - they don't have to pass it to their customer.

Either way the network has to be paid for.

So with Net "neutrality" the Company A customer has to pay for the increased cost for Company B's internet pipeline usage.

Without it - there is the potential that Company B's customer would have to pay for Company B's stress on the network.

FYI:
Company A = ISP
Company B = Netflix

Maybe I'm thinking in too simple of terms but what someone uses their internet bandwidth on shouldn't matter. ISP's offer unlimited or 100 gig packages or whatever and what the consumer chooses to use it shouldn't matter. Lets say people streaming netflix using 50% of bandwidth at any given moment (just an random number example)..if netflix didn't exist and people used 10 other different services instead...what would the difference be? The same amount of bandwidth would be used but spread among different streaming companies or whatever the consumer might be using it for.

And even if netflix pays extra because they are the most used, what about when another company comes along that does something even better than netflix but because netflix is paying to get their content to consumers faster, this new company can't afford to compete with it and folds as a result?

 

[Michael M]

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?

 

[promo]

I for one am glad that I live in a part of the world that has no issue incorporating net neutrality as a part of our legislative network.

I understand some people that are hard core capitalists / liberalists want the companies that built the pipelines (you think they did this without public subsidies?) to own them afterwards. Here in Europe we see the internet as an integral part of the global infrastructure and as an important avenue to secure global democracy. Others will have other concerns.

But if you think that ISPs will "behave" if let loose, then I think you are being naive. We already saw how Facebook tried offering "internet 0.1" in Africa. Its "free" if you just ONLY visit facebook.

Also it should raise some concern that they apparently have no scruples using corrupt and criminal means of furthering their agenda.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/14/fake-net-neutrality-comments-stolen-identities/

 

[Michael M]

I have one question for you to truly consider...

From the very beginning of the internet - imagine that Net "neutrality" regulation had been enforce:

Would the internet exist anywhere near how it does today without the initial freedom and "capitalistic" ways that thrived? Would the networks and sites and services have been built?

Or would you still be using a dial up modem and Netflix would be only a dream?

Just a thought experiment...

 

[Jasonn]

I have one question for you to truly consider...

From the very beginning of the internet - imagine that Net "neutrality" regulation had been enforce:

Would the internet exist anywhere near how it does today without the initial freedom and "capitalistic" ways that thrived? Would the networks and sites and services have been built?

Or would you still be using a dial up modem and Netflix would be only a dream?

Just a thought experiment...

"net neutrality" has existed in canada since 1993.

 

[promo]

Let me in turn ask you a question. Do you think that the internet is still the same beast as it was in 1995 or is it something different and more important on a global scale?

To me its kind of absurd you are saying that if people are looking at this politically they can not participate with rational arguments. Its ALL about politics and beliefs. I dont believe in the benevolence of capitalism and free markets. I believe in curbing human nature and becoming more civilised than the last generation.

Granted its going the other way. But I decry your steps back in America. I do not applaud it in any way.

That you are using an argument off, but this is the way it was built, is a little silly. Things evolve. I would say its built, and we now have some new power players with wallets the size of nation states. Their ONLY agenda is to make those wallets fatter. I think the internet is more important than being just another cash cow. I think its part of the democratic backbone of the world.

I however do recognize that these concepts carry little weight in the US atm. Your grandparents shed their blood to ensure global democracy only to have 1 uninformed generation to throw it all away because they are to focused on what kind of naval lint they find that day.

 

[Michael M]

Its ALL about politics and beliefs. I dont believe in the benevolence of capitalism and free markets. I believe in curbing human nature and becoming more civilised than the last generation.

Wow...

I believe I have said as much as I can on the subject at this point, and your statement above perfectly illustrates my concerns on the motivations behind a lot of people's posts.

My motivation is continued innovation, not curbing human nature.

 

[promo]

Well as mentioned we come from very different places.

You are a liberalist. Thats the right wing in our country. I am decidedly left wing.

Your motivation might be continued inovation but what kind? You think the kind of innovation we see today is sustainable? You think that having a system that has the goal of creating increased growth each year is positive?

I think we have finite ressources. I think that a goal of single mindedly increasing growth is counter productive. I think that concepts like built in expiration of products is the symptoms of how sick our system is.

You want to see growth and inovation next year. I want to see uour race live another millenia and another after that. See the differences in perspective?

So I can understand you say wow. Must be hard to have your short perspective brought into light like that..

 

[think]

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/

 

[Marshall]

Hoping this won't slow down the PornHub

 

[anantj]

How many companies own nuclear weapons? When was the last time a fiber optic cable over heated and caused a natural disaster?

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?

 

[learie]

I am not surprised at all this looks like bible prophecy if you ask me

 

[anantj]

Exxxactly!

Yet it is championed to support the small guy. That should seem odd to you, if you were the thinking type...

Hope you realize, the largest squeeze will also be felt by the largest corporations who are not associated with the ISP. For example, Comcast, which part owns Hulu, might require Google to pay for fast transmission of Youtube content (or FB's video service or Apple's iTunes or whatever their video service is called). Currently, all these organizations have the same and equal access to the Internet. But without NN, the ISPs become the judge and the jury. They decide who gets fast access and who does not. Hell, to subvert a competitor, they can very easily say no even to a monetary deal while giving the fastest pipe to their own service - even if the competition is far superior.

 

[anantj]

Should someone/a company who is using all of another company's "pipeline" have that right and pay no more than someone who uses 1/1000000 of that amount?

Umm, corporations/individuals pay for the bandwidth they use by volume. So if someone is using 1/1000000 of another's bandwidth, obviously they should pay lower for the bandwidth. The "larger corporation" does not get it for free... Not sure what point you're trying to make

 

[anantj]

You children should read what happened to the Bell Telephone System. Under neutrality there was ONE phone company in the USA.

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?

 

[Brandables]

This will kill the internet.... Definitely for worse