legal Net Neutrality Has Been Repealed!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?

 

[dorisjulba]

well good they will increase investment in Internet innovation

 

[anantj]

Ok, that hasn't happened either.

You're very poorly informed. Please read https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3rd-undersea-cable-cut-hampering-internet/ and a simple google search will several similar incidents

Edit: Small quote from the link above:

As in the case of the Mediterranean damage, which Egyptian officials said was caused by a ship's anchor when a vessel couldn't dock in the port of Alexandria, there was also speculation that an anchor had sliced the Persian Gulf cable.

 

[anantj]

The last three on your list are already illegal.

Not anymore with the repeal of NN regulations

 

[anantj]

Guys, the so called "Net Neutrality" regulations that the FCC repealed have only been in place for 2 years. What was the internet like at the end of 2015? That is all it is.

Prior to that, ISPs had already begun throttling traffic selectively and charging more to service providers (such as Netflix). That was the whole point of introducing the regulations. One of the previous comments has links to ISP behavior prior to NN Regulations.

 

[HotKey]

I for one am happy to see any government (in this case the US government) stay the heck out of everything in business.
To say you want the govt to regulate the ISP's instead of the market doing so, is saying that you are okay with the govt regulating your holding or selling your domain names.

The market won't be regulating ISPs, whatcha talkin' bout Willis? Unless, of course, you consider a board of directors run by wealthy shareholders "the market".

 

[Michael M]

Just a thought experiment:

NN (badly and falsely named) comes back into existence due to the backlash of comments... (oddly many are from people who do not live in the country that this regulation is up for debate at - but I digress)

A year passes, and people decide domainers are hogging all the good domains and hurting the economy. The US government's FCC moves in decidedly to update the regulation to include verbiage that "Domain Hording" is no longer legal. The people of the world cheer! Greedy domain corporations can no longer keep the little guy from registering "their" domain name.

No one voted on this law, just a bunch of people signed a petition because they were mad they couldn't register their desired domain name. They saw a post on Google and Twitter that the internet could not grow any further without some action. They acted!

Now on the other end are many domainers who supported this wide sweeping regulation (for whatever reason) start to scream foul! We are out 100k+ in inventory costs - but hey you can still stream your NetFlix.

All in the name of "progress"

Moral of the story - people blindly support things until they start to effect them personally. Then and only then can they see the light - and 99% of the time that will be too late.

If you open a can of worms, be ready to eat them.

NN is not Net "Neutrality" - it is a wide sweeping Internet Regulation who's main purpose is to give regulatory control over to the government - for your protection of course.

If you want Net Neutrality, then we need to work on passing a simple law to accomplish this. It could be done in ONE straight forward page of text. Period.

 

[anantj]

Just a thought experiment:

NN (badly and falsely named) comes back into existence due to the backlash of comments... (oddly many are from people who do not live in the country that this regulation is up for debate at - but I digress)

A year passes, and people decide domainers are hogging all the good domains and hurting the economy. The US government's FCC moves in decidedly to update the regulation to include verbiage that "Domain Hording" is no longer legal. The people of the world cheer! Greedy domain corporations can no longer keep the little guy from registering "their" domain name.

No one voted on this law, just a bunch of people signed a petition because they were mad they couldn't register their desired domain name. They saw a post on Google and Twitter that the internet could not grow any further without some action. They acted!

Now on the other end are many domainers who supported this wide sweeping regulation (for whatever reason) start to scream foul! We are out 100k+ in inventory costs - but hey you can still stream your NetFlix.

All in the name of "progress"

Moral of the story - people blindly support things until they start to effect them personally. Then and only then can they see the light - and 99% of the time that will be too late.

If you open a can of worms, be ready to eat them.

NN is not Net "Neutrality" - it is a wide sweeping Internet Regulation who's main purpose is to give regulatory control over to the government - for your protection of course.

If you want Net Neutrality, then we need to work on passing a simple law to accomplish this. It could be done in ONE straight forward page of text. Period.

You argument does not make sense. Preventing domaining is fully indepdendentand disconnected from "net neutrality". There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from a. starting a petition to prevent "domain hoarding" as you called it and b. for the government or FCC (if they have the power to do so) from enacting regulations to do so.

Also, to be accurate, the oversight of domain names is with ICANN. So, ICANN can enact such a regulation if they choose so. They usually leave it to the registry (please see the recent thread on b.ag where the registry's policies specifically forbid "domain hoarding"

 

[Michael M]

You argument does not make sense. Preventing domaining is fully indepdendentand disconnected from "net neutrality". There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from a. starting a petition to prevent "domain hoarding" as you called it and b. for the government or FCC (if they have the power to do so) from enacting regulations to do so.

Also, to be accurate, the oversight of domain names is with ICANN. So, ICANN can enact such a regulation if they choose so. They usually leave it to the registry (please see the recent thread on b.ag where the registry's policies specifically forbid "domain hoarding"

The post is meant as a thought experiement. To take you outside of your current line of thought and open it to possibilities you may have not considered.

If you take the words Net Neutrality literally and don't care what is in the 400 pages of the actual regulation - then yes these two things are unconnected.

If you understand the name of a regulation does not define it - then all bets are off.

 

[anantj]

The post is meant as a thought experiement. To take you outside of your current line of thought and open it to possibilities you may have not considered.

If you take the words Net Neutrality literally and don't care what is in the 400 pages of the actual regulation - then yes these two things are unconnected.

If you understand the name of a regulation does not define it - then all bets are off.

No. Your argument is a red herring. Neither you, nor I have read the regulations in full. And so you cannot state factually that the regulations are incorrect or bad. It is your belief but one that is not based on fact.

And how is it even a thought experiment? If you make such random connections, then I can easily say that if North Korea is not allowed the freedom to develop their own Nuclear weapons, then the government will shut down the Internet in entirety. I mean, there is absolutely no logical connection between the two but I am free to call this a thought experiment.

 

[HotKey]

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?

It is a reasonable approach, however, what you describe is exactly the job of ISP. This is all they should be mandated to do. Net regulations, however, should not be their jurisdiction.

It's basically like giving the cable technician the ability to not only fix your line, but also manage your account.

 

[Michael M]

No. Your argument is a red herring. Neither you, nor I have read the regulations in full. And so you cannot state factually that the regulations are incorrect or bad. It is your belief but one that is not based on fact.

And how is it even a thought experiment? If you make such random connections, then I can easily say that if North Korea is not allowed the freedom to develop their own Nuclear weapons, then the government will shut down the Internet in entirety. I mean, there is absolutely no logical connection between the two but I am free to call this a thought experiment.

Sure... You are.

It comes down to people reading what you write, and rather or not it makes sense to them.

It makes no sense to you. That is fine. It is obvious how you feel and how I feel about this subject. So obviously I am not really trying to get you to think outside of your box. I would if I could - but we both know I can't.

I am open to you convincing me of the need for a regulation - if you can go beyond the main talking point. If it is the main talking point you seek then even though I oppose it - I can live with it. But it doesn't take complete regulation of an industry to accomplish one end goal. A single page (or how about 5-10 even?) of legislation can do it. Then we both can read it easily and know exactly what is being regulated. Then both of us are happy. So lets do that - or stop arguing about THIS regulation being struck down. Because still you can not say in any capacity why this regulation has to be so bloated and unreadable.

You are about the name - and the talking point.

 

[Dondomainer]

@Michael M

Please tell me how the FCC would be regulating the market with the neutrality law ?

 

[anantj]

Sure... You are.

It comes down to people reading what you write, and rather or not it makes sense to them.

It makes no sense to you. That is fine. It is obvious how you feel and how I feel about this subject. So obviously I am not really trying to get you to think outside of your box. I would if I could - but we both know I can't.

I am open to you convincing me of the need for a regulation - if you can go beyond the main talking point. If it is the main talking point you seek then even though I oppose it - I can live with it. But it doesn't take complete regulation of an industry to accomplish one end goal. A single page (or how about 5-10 even?) of legislation can do it. Then we both can read it easily and know exactly what is being regulated. Then both of us are happy. So lets do that - or stop arguing about THIS regulation being struck down. Because still you can not say in any capacity why this regulation has to be so bloated and unreadable.

You are about the name - and the talking point.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, your main opposition is the breadth of the regulation and not the concept of net neutrality itself? Where in, Net Neutrality is defined as an absolute neutral stance to all origins and forms of Internet Traffic including monetary charges?

 

[Michael M]

@Michael M

Please tell me how the FCC would be regulating the market with the neutrality law ?

That's the question.

If the regulation weren't so bloated maybe someone could answer that question.

The only way to know now is to re-enact it - and come back here in a couple of years and talk.

 

[Dondomainer]

That's the question.

If the regulation weren't so bloated maybe someone could answer that question.

The only way to know now is to re-enact it - and come back here in a couple of years and talk.

sure, lets back, in1920 you could sleep with the door of your house open. -Try doing it now

 

[Michael M]

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, your main opposition is the breadth of the regulation and not the concept of net neutrality itself? Where in, Net Neutrality is defined as an absolute neutral stance to all origins and forms of Internet Traffic including monetary charges?

I am not for Net Neutrality personally, but I wouldn't be nearly as vocal or really care too much if it were not bloated. I probably wouldn't even say anything.

So yes, in a nutshell my problem is the bloated and unknown regulation itself. Not it's advertised effect.

I think laws and regulations should be straight forward. Otherwise they get abused and have unforeseen consequences.

 

[Dondomainer]

I am not for Net Neutrality personally, but I wouldn't be nearly as vocal or really care too much if it were not bloated. I probably wouldn't even say anything.

So yes, in a nutshell my problem is the bloated and unknown regulation itself. Not it's advertised effect.

I think laws and regulations should be straight forward. Otherwise they get abused and have unforeseen consequences.

To summarize, you do not see a problem in which companies have the power to manipulate or restrict you access to the Internet if they wish. you give him the benefit of the doubt of doing it or not, in any case, you not see a problem that there are no regulations that protect you.

that is your position?

 

[Michael M]

To summarize, you do not see a problem in which companies have the power to manipulate or restrict you access to the Internet if they wish. you give him the benefit of the doubt of doing it or not, in any case, you not see a problem that there are no regulations that protect you.

that is your position?

I personally don't need to be protected in every scenario of life - but different people have different political views.

I can understand people's motivations behind wanting protection, and understand I live in a world with many other people and many other opinions and concerns. That means sometimes I have to live under laws or regulations that I don't believe in.

The reason I am vocal now - is because I have spent my entire career on the Internet. I have watched it grow and become what it is without 400 pages of regulation. So yes, it concerns me when the FCC wants to step in and regulate it with unknown consequences.

If you just want nothing to be throttled and the Net "Neutral" - I don't agree, wouldn't vote for it, but wouldn't say much... Have Congress or the FCC write that down in a few pages, pass it, and I will likely keep my mouth shut.

But obviously that isn't the point of any of my post here. You can try to paint me in a corner all you want, but I believe my position in pretty clear.

 

[Silentptnr]

Just a few hours ago....
Hit On Net Neutrality Could Be Blow To Bitcoin
FCC head Ajit Pai has managed to deal a major blow to free and neutral Internet usage by repealing the so-called Net Neutrality laws. Effectively, this allows broadband companies the power to potentially reshape Americans’ online experiences.

Effectively, the likes of AT&T and Comcast now have the ability to block certain websites to their customers or even charge more for usage of them. Now, the broadband providers can influence what sites of the Internet are used.

For Bitcoin, this could have huge implications as the digital currency operates totally online and within the sights of these companies. Bitcoin and its related sectors have also been eyed suspiciously by traditional monopolies, and their stance in the eyes of these broadband providers is yet to be known.

Source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/hit-on-net-neutrality-could-be-blow-to-bitcoin

 

[anantj]

I personally don't need to be protected in every scenario of life - but different people have different political views.

Need/Want for safety is not and should not be a political view.

 

[Dondomainer]

I personally don't need to be protected in every scenario of life - but different people have different political views.

I can understand people's motivations behind wanting protection, and understand I live in a world with many other people and many other opinions and concerns. That means sometimes I have to live under laws or regulations that I don't believe in.

The reason I am vocal now - is because I have spent my entire career on the Internet. I have watched it grow and become what it is without 400 pages of regulation. So yes, it concerns me when the FCC wants to step in and regulate it with unknown consequences.

If you just want nothing to be throttled and the Net "Neutral" - I don't agree, wouldn't vote for it, but wouldn't say much... Have Congress or the FCC write that down in a few pages, pass it, and I will likely keep my mouth shut.

But obviously that isn't the point of any of my post here. You can try to paint me in a corner all you want, but I believe my position in pretty clear.

I do not understand why, if you have seen the birth and development of the network, do not understand that, precisely this development makes business models change, and in any case, leave a door open, waiting for good attitude it is not how people's rights are guaranteed in the face of abuse.

 

[Silentptnr]

What protections do consumers have?
The net neutrality rules, passed in 2015 during the Obama administration, were intended to be a protective measure for consumers as more Americans migrated to the internet for communications. The regulations were also meant to make sure new and small companies, as well as media companies, could sell their goods and distribute information without restrictions from broadband companies.

Ajit Pai, the current chairman of the F.C.C., said transparency would act as the primary measure against wrongdoing. The agency will require broadband companies to disclose if they are blocking or throttling or setting up fast lanes for certain traffic. Mr. Pai, a Republican nominated to the chairmanship by President Trump, said that the disclosure would give consumers full knowledge of what they would be getting into and that if they didn’t like the practices, they could switch providers.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/15/technology/net-neutrality-repeal.html

 

[Silentptnr]

What protections do consumers have?
The net neutrality rules, passed in 2015 during the Obama administration, were intended to be a protective measure for consumers as more Americans migrated to the internet for communications. The regulations were also meant to make sure new and small companies, as well as media companies, could sell their goods and distribute information without restrictions from broadband companies.

Ajit Pai, the current chairman of the F.C.C., said transparency would act as the primary measure against wrongdoing. The agency will require broadband companies to disclose if they are blocking or throttling or setting up fast lanes for certain traffic. Mr. Pai, a Republican nominated to the chairmanship by President Trump, said that the disclosure would give consumers full knowledge of what they would be getting into and that if they didn’t like the practices, they could switch providers.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/15/technology/net-neutrality-repeal.html

Consumers won't even read that fine print.

 

[Michael M]

Need/Want for safety is not and should not be a political view.

If you are going to govern safety over every imaginable circumstance - it then becomes political.

 

[anantj]

If you are going to govern safety over every imaginable circumstance - then by definition it is political.

No it is not. What definition are you quoting here? Safety is a basic human need (and expectation in a civilized society). I have absolutely no idea what definition you are using to state that the need for safety is political