Slashdot Mirror
Aftermath From The Net Neutrality Vote: A Mass Movement To Protect The Open Internet? (mashable.com)
After Thursday's net neutrality vote, two security guards pinned a reporter against a wall until FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly had left the room, the Los Angeles Times reports. The Writers Guild of America calls the FCC's 2-to-1 vote to initiate a repeal of net neutrality rules a "war on the open internet," according to The Guardian. But the newspaper now predicts that online activists will continue their massive campaign "as the month's long process of reviewing the rules begins." The Hill points out that Mozilla is already hiring a high-profile tech lobbyist to press for both cybersecurity and an open internet, and in a blog post earlier this week the Mozilla Foundation's executive director sees a larger movement emerging from the engagement of millions of internet users.
Today's support for net neutrality isn't the start of the Internet health movement. People have been standing up for an open web since its inception -- by advocating for browser choice, for open source practices, for mass surveillance reform. But net neutrality is an opportunity to propel this movement into the mainstream... If we make Internet health a mainstream issue, we can cement the web as a public resource. If we don't, mass surveillance, exclusion and insecurity can creep into every aspect of society. Hospitals held hostage by rogue hackers can become the status quo.
Meanwhile, The Guardian reports that it's not till the end of the FCC's review process that "a final FCC vote will decide the future of internet regulation," adding that however they vote, "court challenges are inevitable."
Meanwhile, The Guardian reports that it's not till the end of the FCC's review process that "a final FCC vote will decide the future of internet regulation," adding that however they vote, "court challenges are inevitable."
The central idea of the Internet is that every service has the same priority, so any user and company can deliver data over the Internet without having to pay way tolls. FCC regulations were in place to ensure this neutrality, and now they are about to be taken away. If they are taken away, the Internet in the US will be gone. It will be a "data delivery service to whoever can afford to pay" network and small Internet companies can close their shops in the US.
On a side note, people like you are bigots, because everybody with a brain already knows all of what I've just said.
This is Trump's legacy: thugs employed by the government feel immune to any restraint. The stories just keep on coming about this type of behaviour from government employees, for example, the abuses committed by ICE.
Look at the assaults committed by Erdogan's bodyguards. Yes, Erdogan has immunity as head of state, but his bodyguards don't. Why hasn't anyone been arrested and charged?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
FCC regulations were in place to ensure this neutrality, and now they are about to be taken away.
The FCC regulations to reclassify under Title II were ruled in February 2015, but were not yet in effect. Furthermore, those regulations did not exist before 2015. Thus the internet spent almost its entire existence without the regulation people are convinced is essential. Somehow, it managed.
Who is saying NN is to empower the government to thoroughly regulate the internet? It's as insane as saying all the laws on the books are there to empower the government to thoroughly regulate the private lives of citizens. Do you even hear yourself?
NN allows the government to force ISPs to treat the network as a series of tubes.
That's all.
ISPs aren't forced to spy on people with NN, it never was needed.
Yes. The same way the key to open and free roads ist the power of the government to make laws how everyone can use said roads.
Both, internet and roads, are essential infrastructure for society to actually work and therefore cannot be left in the hands of private interests. So even if either of them are (partially) privatized, one still needs very strict laws and regulations.
Yes, the government's biggest job is to ensure a free environment. E.g. there are laws that forbid people to rob or kill others. This allows you to freely roam the country without fear of being robbed or killed. Of course, you could say such rules are just government intervention, and require private armies to be set up, or gated communities, etc. But generally, gated communities are not a good solution to the problem, as a) it is only a solution for people who can afford it and b) it impairs freedom.
The net neutrality rules are similar here: they ensure that the companies don't fuck with their customers, and ensure that you can enjoy any service you want. Yes, its limiting the ISP's but it creates a big free environment in turn for competition, companies and business to thrive.
Let me see if I have this right: the key to an open and free Internet, and limiting mass surveillance, is empowering the government to thoroughly regulate the Internet?
No, not regulate the Internet itself but rather thoroughly regulate your connection to the Internet.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Let me see if I have this right
No, you do not have it right. If the market for ISPs was competitive, then Net Neutrality would not be needed, because if consumers didn't like their ISP's policies, they could just switch to another. But the ISP market is NOT competitive, not even close. Most consumers have a choice of exactly one broadband provider.
Regulating monopolies to prevent them from abusing their dominance is a legitimate role of government.
Wrong! The key to an open and free Internet is to regulate the Internet providers.
-rd
if we want Net Neutrality back. I know it's not popular to bring up politics (which is odd, since this discussion couldn't get any less political) but the ruling party has always been opposed to NN. Their arguments are pretty straight forward: It's undue and unnecessary regulation that stifles innovation. Let the Market sort it out.
There's plenty of counter arguments that I want get into. I don't want to get off track anymore. Bottom line is this: The Republican party is ideologically opposed to Net Neutrality. It is, after all, a massive government regulation. It just so happens to be one that's popular with techies. Said it before, say it again: If you elect a party that takes as a central tenet that regulation is usually unnecessary, bad and a drain on Free Market principles you're going to have to accept the results. Net Neutrality is fundamentally incompatible with that ideology.
TLDR; Vote in your Mid Terms.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
A little disingenuous of you to lump everything under the same "regulation" umbrella, don't you think?
Anti-trust laws, consumer right regulations and criminalizing murder are also "regulation".
It all depends on the actual and specific mandate.
Base the whole thing on Wifi, and a very few strategic tunneled internet hops?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Mozilla is already hiring a high-profile tech lobbyist to press for both cybersecurity and an open internet
When your so called democracy has paid high-speed lanes, what do you expect from your Internet service?
and it's ridiculously counter intuitive.
Look, I get it. Nobody likes to have a ruling class. But you've got one. You always will. That's because people pass money, property and other advantages to their children and those things build up over time. Then those children form groups, organizations and societies to protect and expand that wealth. It's always been this way and it will continue for the foreseeable future. These days the way it works is they form mega corps and sit on each other's board of directors.
Now, you've got two options. First, pretend the ruling class doesn't exist and ignore their influence. Second, form a large organization comprised of members of the working class who can counteract that influence by shear weight of numbers. We call that organization Government and we call the system that manages it Democracy. When it actively looks out for the interests of the working class we call it Democratic Socialism.
Think of it this way: Government is like a box of loaded rifles sitting out in the open. If you pretend the box isn't there somebody's gonna come along and pick up those rifles (e.g. your ruling class). The only real option is to pick one up yourself. But now you've got a different problem, everybody's armed to the teeth. So you've got to start making rules to keep them from shooting & looting. What I'm saying is, Government is a tool. It's a tool so useful that if you don't use it somebody else will. You're letting somebody else use that tool right now, and they're running roughshod over you with it.Please stop it. The rest of use don't have enough rifles to stand up without you.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Uh no that is not the reason...
The reasons that there is not competition are:
1) Large players buying up smaller providers.
2) Monopolistic agreements between localities/buildings and providers that prevent other companies from competing if they even wanted to.
3) The few providers that are available are colluding with one another to NOT compete (see Time Warner and Comcast circa 2006), or simply deciding to not go into markets that are already served by another provider. (Verizon has been doing this for years)
4) The tele-comms are no longer required to allow access by third parties to the central offices (happened in early 2000). After the courts ruled on this the number of available providers went to nil almost overnight. I personally had tried 5 different DSL providers and finally found one whose price vs service was great then this ruling came down and I was FORCED to switch to the the monopoly phone companies (SWBell) service which was more expensive and had crappier service BEFORE my contract with my existing provider was over.
Before you start saying that it was "Their Infrastructure" keep in mind most of the phone infrastructure was build with govt grants and using the FUSF (Federal Universal Service Fee) that are a fee specifically allowed by the government to go on top of our payments whose sole purpose is to expand and maintain the infrastructure, so in effect most of said infrastructure is paid for bu public funds
Except someone decided you're not free to use the roads without government permission in the form of a license.
They decided no such thing. There's nothing stopping you walking down a road, cycling down a road, or otherwise. You're not restricted from using the road, only using it in a way that could negatively impact others (i.e. driving a 2T metal deathtrap without training or after specifically showing you're incapable of doing so within the rules).
And the government didn't build the internet
Before you look any more ignorant you may want to look up the history of your country with regards to:
a) where the telcoms came from and with whose money they were built.
b) where the internet itself came from and with whose money it was built.
c) just how much government funding goes into the companies currently providing said internet to citizens.
The FCC regulations to reclassify under Title II were ruled in February 2015, but were not yet in effect. Furthermore, those regulations did not exist before 2015. Thus the internet spent almost its entire existence without the regulation people are convinced is essential. Somehow, it managed.
Yes, Response #2 in the shill playbook.
Prior to 2015, asshats hadn't thought of breaking the fucking Internet for profit. Monopoly ISPs realized they were monopolies and are now trying to break the Internet. Therefore, they must be regulated. Regulations are for reining in asshats. Don't want regulations? Don't be an asshat. But you are, aren't you, shill...
Paid fast lanes are what Big Media wants. It protects the established big guys and penalizes new entries. Also since Big Content owns the big ISPs (AT&T is Time Warner, Comcast is NBC etc), they can make it easier for consumers to get to their own stuff at the expense of everything else out there. Being ISPs allows them to prioritize their own content, which is what the zero-rating thing was all about.
So yeah, care to try again to claim that Net Neutrality protects the interests of the largest of corporations? Seriously? Why do you think Big Media and the ISPs are spending millions on politicians here? Because they expect to make billions doing so. They're doing this at the expense of everyone else - the little guys, other content distributors, and the customers!
Do you know why the market for ISPs isn't competitive?
Yes, I do. You don't. Or you pretend that you don't.
Excessive government regulation.
No, that's not it.
Removing these pointless regulations is just one step in increasing competition.
No, that's not a step in the right direction.
Stop getting in the way of the market.
That would be you getting in the way of an actual free market.
Seriously. Do you shills think everyone buys your crap?
It's time to start seriously talking about the Sherman Antitrust Act. It has been illegal since 1890 for monopolies to leverage their monopoly status in one line of business into another line of business. ISPs breaking the Internet by violating Net Neutrality are a posterchild for illegal activity. And this isn't difficult to understand. Let's look at the text of section 1, in its entirety:
15 U.S. Code 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Obviously Comcast doesn't give a damn about a piddling million dollar penalty.[1] But Comcast executives might care a little bit about a federal felony conviction.
There's 38 sections in 15 U.S.C., half a dozen of which have been repealed. Section 15c is an interesting one. That's the one that says State attorneys general are allowed to sue to enforce this law. It does not require a federal prosecutor. There's an aggressive New York state attorney general who might be interested.
Section 15 is also interesting. That's the one that says, "any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court", and recover triple damages plus attorney's fees. And since corporations are persons... Netflix needs to grow some balls and sue Comcast in federal court. They qualify. It's black letter law, with zero difficulty proving damages. The dollar amount Comcast extorted from them is the amount of damage they suffered. It's trivial to prove Comcast is an interstate monopoly. Done and done. I just wish Netflix had a lawyer like NewEgg's general counsel.
ISPs might be more interested in Title II protections after a few felony convictions. Eric Schneiderman, are you listening?
----
[1] Obviously the law needs to be inflation-adjusted. That penalty cap should be at least $25,791,700. Still a drop in the bucket. I would argue it needs to be 10 times the inflation adjusted amount.
BULLSHIT.
There is no reason to pay to prioritize Netflix traffic if it already has the same priority as other traffic. The only reason to pay to increase priority is if it will otherwise be de-prioritized.
As a customer, I have already paid for all of my data traffic. Now you demand that I pay more for certain bits than for the rest?
"The central idea of the Internet is that every service has the same priority"
Right, VOIP from one company doesn't have priority over other VOIP services, streaming video from one company isn't prioritized over streaming from another, and so on.
Who is saying NN is to empower the government to thoroughly regulate the internet?
Talk radio.
LOL
See that "Preview" button?
No, it just depends on how you read it.
And there is no reason ISPs couldn't just give all services the same priority. It would then be up to the customer to decide, according to what he wants to pay, if/what he wants to prioritize, latency, bandwidth, and so on.
I'm not in South Korea or Canada, and I have access to two fiber optic ISPs, plus DSL from the phone company, plus two wireless ISPs, plus I think 3 cellular ISPs. I'm in the US, in a semi-rural area a few minutes outside of a small town and about 100 miles from a major metro area.
There are anti-monopoly regulations here, but they are inoperative. Meaning that the phone company must allow competing companies access to their physical infrastructure at below-cost rates, but no one is interested.
The competing fiber ISPs are the result of not having pro-monopoly regulation, and I strongly suggest that you urge your local regulator bodies to consider it if you are unhappy with your local options. And don't try the "it costs too much to build two plants" line of bullshit on me - I've debunked it many times in my post history.
See that "Preview" button?
Do you think speech would be free if it wasn't legislated? Not every regulation is bad.
helps protect in the largest content providers from upstarts trying to cut it with discounted services
That's the exact opposite of what's good for consumers.
If there is one thing social media is good at, it's stirring people into a frenzy, and previous frenzies have worked to boycott companies that are deemed offensive. Hit a corporation in the money bags, and it'll adjust. Talk is cheap and politicians can be bought, but corporations fear loss of revenue more than anything else.
Well, given that you can get Gbit internet some places if you're willing to pay more for the connection, I'm not sure I'm seeing much difference really.
Except that lack of Net Neutrality laws will allow ISPs and such to be sued for the content they prioritize/deprioritize. That's what this is all about, ultimately. Net Neutrality protects ISPs from (some) lawsuits. It won't after this change goes through. If it goes through.
The problem is that what we had was regulations, not laws. Laws would provide the ISPs reliably with that protection in court, and given that the MAFIAA and co have been moving to going after ISPs, the odds are likely very good that ISPs will not fight a law that gives them those protections even if Net Neutrality is explicitly intrinsic to getting said protections.
Prior to 2015, asshats hadn't thought of breaking the fucking Internet for profit.
The Netherlands got their net neutrality in 2011 because one of the big telco's was dreaming aloud about new pricing schemes. Chile was the first in the world in 2010.
"I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
The network would exist without government interference, but the internet certainly wouldn't. The whole point is to make the connections between the networks transparent.
You may not understand why that's valuable to the country, but it is.
Play Command HQ online
What the government wont do is set a faster speed for Chevys over Toyotas because Toyota won't pay up.
Play Command HQ online
The internet was regulated under Title II until a Republican FCC Commissioner named Kevin Martin deregulated it in 2004.
Oh god shut the frack up you stupid anarchist 12 year old piece of trash. No, we will not let you drive like a drunken maniac and endanger those around you.
You're a freaking moron. Even Google is giving up on building out fiber to compete, and you think it's not too expensive?
You don't even understand the basic problems inherent to infrastructure markets.
Oh, I see, since the government used its power to create monopoly ISPs, it needs to have even more power to ensure that the ISPs do not abuse the power which the government gave them. Who is going to make sure that the government does not abuse this power?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Got it. Since the government created a problem it needs to be even more powerful to fix the problem which it created.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I see, so they won't regulate the Internet, just what my ISP is allowed to let me see on the Internet.
Incorrect. They will legislate that your ISP cannot interfere with what you can see on the internet.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I think you're the one who doesn't understand how the Internet works if you're making a comparison between your rackspace and BGP announced subnets to the companies that provide last-mile service throughout the country. I suggest that you need to do a lot more thinking about your statements before you try to explain that which you lack understanding of yourself.
No, that is what you want them to do, not what they will actually do.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Yes, the government's biggest job is to ensure a free environment. E.g. there are laws that forbid people to rob or kill others. This allows you to freely roam the country without fear of being robbed or killed. Of course, you could say such rules are just government intervention, and require private armies to be set up, or gated communities, etc. But generally, gated communities are not a good solution to the problem, as a) it is only a solution for people who can afford it and b) it impairs freedom.
The net neutrality rules are similar here: they ensure that the companies don't fuck with their customers, and ensure that you can enjoy any service you want. Yes, its limiting the ISP's but it creates a big free environment in turn for competition, companies and business to thrive.
When neutrality is taken away, the Internet providers, who by the way, earn their money from your connection, are going to be in the position to refuse a small business (or you ) to provide the small business's website access (your contacting his site), unless the business pays a fee to allow him to use the web. You already pay the ISPs a fee through your monthly bill, and they, the ISPs want more. You will be paying for sending your emails, perhaps a 1/10th cent or so, and yes, its a money grab.
Shame Shame Shame.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Amusing pair of Slashdot stories today.
Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Then throw the executives of companies who violate the regulations in jail. Problem solved.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
As more and more people become disenchanted with the Internet, don't you think that the money that is made with it will drop? (Money speaks louder than perverted laws!!)
Got it. Since the carriers are in a psudo-monopoly position they should be free to exploit their protected position for all its worth.
-rd
"The government does not get to interfere in private property"
The government permits and manages the very existence of private property so of course they (we) get to say how it works.
How would it help to do that when the executives will be perfectly happy to follow the regulations which give them more power and make it hard for startups to compete with them?
The problem is that A) you do not realize that the FCC does not legislate, it regulates and B) you think that the FCC net neutrality rules will be that the ISP cannot interfere with what you can see on the Internet when in fact the regulation will require your ISP to interfere in what you can access on the Internet according to the whims of the bureaucrats at the FCC.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
No, we should pressure the government to break up the semi monopolies which it created.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I don't disagree with breaking up the semi-monopolies. The problem is that spectrum and last mile right of way tend to put companies into a monopoly position. It is probably easier to open up the last mile market, but pole rights complicate things greatly. Some carriers "service the poles" in exchange for exclusive competitive access. Spectrum, on the other hand, must be governed if it is to work at all.
-rd
How would it help to do that when the executives will be perfectly happy to follow the regulations which give them more power and make it hard for startups to compete with them?
Obviously you don't understand what net neutrality is.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Do you think it is good for unelected representatives of the Oligarchs to control access to information?
Well WELCOME to Nazi Germany!
Where Fascism is the perfect power, the joining of the Corporate power to the power of the State!
No, just bigots tend to hold contra-factual beliefs
Obviously, you don't understand how government regulatory bodies work.
I understand what you mean by net neutrality, but I also know that government regulations always end up favoring the incumbents, not the consumer.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I understand what you mean by net neutrality, but I also know that government regulations always end up favoring the incumbents, not the consumer.
Generalizations are easily proved wrong.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
That's true, sometimes government regulations have negative consequences for both the incumbents in the industry AND the consumer.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Without discrimination ... QoS, IP phones, teleconferencing, digital telephony ... could not exist.
You are Wrong.
My ISP is Shaw. My independent VOIP service worked fine until they came in with their own VOIP service. I did not realize immediately, because they forced me to take a "free" service upgrade. When the upgrade expired and I was returned to my original service, my own VOIP did not function properly. When I confronted them on this, they told me to upgrade my plan or pay them an additional $10/month QOS service fee. I know that the fee was BS and my previously working service now used traffic shaping to intentionally cause my competing VOIP service to fail.
In essence, my ISP (Shaw) used QOS as an excuse to effectively tax users of competing internet services to make their own service appear more attractive in price.
Providing Internet access and providing internet services should be as separate as Church and State. That is why I support net neutrality. Because without it, people will be harmed financially through lack of competition.