Slashdot Mirror
FCC Announces Plan To Repeal Net Neutrality (nytimes.com)
FCC on Tuesday said it plans to dismantle landmark regulations that ensure equal access to the internet, clearing the way for companies to charge more and block access to some websites. From a report on the New York Times: The proposal, put forward by the F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai, is a sweeping repeal of rules put in place by the Obama administration that prohibited high-speed internet service providers from blocking or slowing down the delivery of websites, or charging extra fees for the best quality of streaming and other internet services for their subscribers. The clear winners from the move would be telecom giants like AT&T and Comcast that have lobbied for years against regulations of broadband and will now have more control over the online experiences of American consumers. The losers could be internet sites that will have to answer to telecom firms to get their content in front of consumers. And consumers may see their bills increase for the best quality of internet service. Note from the editor: the aforementioned link could be paywalled; consider the alternative sources: NPR, ArsTechnica, Associated Press, BBC, Axios, Reuters, TechCrunch, and Slate.
FTC Commissioner Terrell McSweeny criticized the move. She said, "So many things wrong here, like even if FCC does this FTC still won't have jurisdiction. But even if we did, most discriminatory conduct by ISPs will be perfectly legal. This won't hurt tech titans with deep pockets. They can afford to pay all the trolls under the bridge. But the entrepreneurs and innovators who truly make the Internet great won't be so lucky. It will be harder for them to compete. The FCC is upending the Internet as we know it, not saving it."
This is what the internet looks like when there is no net neutrality. Earlier today, news outlet Motherboard suggested we should build our own internet if we want to safeguard the essence of open internet.
In a statement, EFF said: It is worth reflecting on just how wildly unsupported by the public and wrong the FCC is on its effort to end an Open Internet. More than 1000 small businesses, investors, and technology startups in all 50 states have publicly opposed the proposal. More than 900 online video creators that produce content for more than 240 million viewers oppose the FCC plan. Over 200 international businesses and organizations have weighed in opposition. Fifty-two racial justice, civil rights, and human rights organizations have filed in support of the current rules. Dozens of ISPs across the country have told the FCC to leave the rules in place. Libraries, around 120,000 in total, from across the United States support retaining the Open Internet Order. Privacy organizations have told the FCC that its proposal would further degrade broadband user privacy and therefore oppose the proposal. State Attorneys General from Illinois, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine and Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and DC support retaining the existing consumer protections. Sixty Mayors across the country have filed their opposition to the FCC plan. The National Association of Realtors expressed their support for keeping a legally enforceable Open Internet rule. And 1.52 million unique comments (as in people navigating the cumbersome FCC website directly to submit a statement rather than use a form letter website) were submitted in support of Title II and Network Neutrality versus only 23,000 supporting the FCC. A recent poll has found that 77 percent of Americans support retaining the current Network Neutrality rules (the poll broke it down to 73 percent of Republican voters, 80 percent of Democratic voters, and 76 percent of independents). The numbers are even higher when Americans are asked whether they support privacy protections, such as requiring ISPs to obtain consent from users before monetizing with third parties (85 percent Republicans, 82 percent Democrats, and 78 percent independents). So if the public and virtually every facet of Internet culture (including ISPs) oppose the FCC's plan, then why are we even going down this path? To put it simply: the FCC is not serving the public interest, but rather is serving the interests of the very few but massive vertically integrated ISPs that support the current agency's agenda.
FTC Commissioner Terrell McSweeny criticized the move. She said, "So many things wrong here, like even if FCC does this FTC still won't have jurisdiction. But even if we did, most discriminatory conduct by ISPs will be perfectly legal. This won't hurt tech titans with deep pockets. They can afford to pay all the trolls under the bridge. But the entrepreneurs and innovators who truly make the Internet great won't be so lucky. It will be harder for them to compete. The FCC is upending the Internet as we know it, not saving it."
This is what the internet looks like when there is no net neutrality. Earlier today, news outlet Motherboard suggested we should build our own internet if we want to safeguard the essence of open internet.
In a statement, EFF said: It is worth reflecting on just how wildly unsupported by the public and wrong the FCC is on its effort to end an Open Internet. More than 1000 small businesses, investors, and technology startups in all 50 states have publicly opposed the proposal. More than 900 online video creators that produce content for more than 240 million viewers oppose the FCC plan. Over 200 international businesses and organizations have weighed in opposition. Fifty-two racial justice, civil rights, and human rights organizations have filed in support of the current rules. Dozens of ISPs across the country have told the FCC to leave the rules in place. Libraries, around 120,000 in total, from across the United States support retaining the Open Internet Order. Privacy organizations have told the FCC that its proposal would further degrade broadband user privacy and therefore oppose the proposal. State Attorneys General from Illinois, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine and Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and DC support retaining the existing consumer protections. Sixty Mayors across the country have filed their opposition to the FCC plan. The National Association of Realtors expressed their support for keeping a legally enforceable Open Internet rule. And 1.52 million unique comments (as in people navigating the cumbersome FCC website directly to submit a statement rather than use a form letter website) were submitted in support of Title II and Network Neutrality versus only 23,000 supporting the FCC. A recent poll has found that 77 percent of Americans support retaining the current Network Neutrality rules (the poll broke it down to 73 percent of Republican voters, 80 percent of Democratic voters, and 76 percent of independents). The numbers are even higher when Americans are asked whether they support privacy protections, such as requiring ISPs to obtain consent from users before monetizing with third parties (85 percent Republicans, 82 percent Democrats, and 78 percent independents). So if the public and virtually every facet of Internet culture (including ISPs) oppose the FCC's plan, then why are we even going down this path? To put it simply: the FCC is not serving the public interest, but rather is serving the interests of the very few but massive vertically integrated ISPs that support the current agency's agenda.
I'm the Company. I do charge for:
1) (End-user) Giving "faster" access to more part of the Web.
2) (Websites) For adding them to the "faster" list.
It's a Win-Win! Thank you very much Trump (and start paying me right now you thieves [aka "users"])!
This will allow ISP's to increase their revenue and use that money to improve and expand their infrastructure. I'm actually for reduced latency and increased bandwidth, unlike many here it seems.
Since I don't have any mod points now to downmod you as a troll, I'll take the bait instead. Dude! Do you really think AT&T, Comcast, and their like, really NEED more money in order to "improve and expand"? They're swimming in cash right now, and they still take, and make, every possible opportunity to charge more for less. And what good are "reduced latency and increased bandwidth" if you can only take advantage of them when connecting to the sites and services your provider has climbed into bed with, and when other traffic is artificially throttled just to encourage you to drink their particular brand of Kool-Aid? Fer chrissake, they're turning what should be considered public infrastructure into a series of private toll roads - are you seriously OK with that?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Clinton did none of those things. She was never in a position to sell Uranium to Russia - indeed, that's not even the scandal! (The "scandal", which is also bogus, is she supposedly approved a Uranium ore mine sale to a Russian company after accepting a donation. Only the person who made the donation hadn't been linked to the Russian company for two years, having sold his stake completely, and AGAIN the approval was needed from numerous organizations unrelated to Clinton. It's a bust.
Clinton did not collude with Russia, the Trump campaign did.
Clinton is not responsible for her husband's behavior, but that said, it is highly unlikely any allegations of sexual harassment, let alone rape, are true again him, given he has been the victim of a smear campaign concerning this since 1991, a campaign that started in large part because Republicans were angry that sexual assault allegations against a Supreme Court nominee were made public. Bill Clinton's sex life has been under scrutiny since then, culminating in the revelation that... uh, he had a 100% consensual affair with Monica Lewinsky.
The Obama administration's IRS never attacked citizens based on political views. It, as it is required to do by law, gave special examination to organizations claiming tax immunity that were apparently political given certain keyword and key phrases. One such key phrase was "Tea Party". Another was "Occupy". The Republicans admitted it was a fictional smear against the IRS today, as it happens.
Hillary Clinton has not been shown to have lied under oath.
Hillary Clinton's Husband did not threaten the head of the DoJ. That's just entirely made up.
Hillary Clinton did not rig the DNC primary, she wouldn't have been able to if she tried, she doesn't and didn't run the DNC.
At least the GP didn't uncritically repeat seven complete BS conspiracy theories about someone knowing full well that she and her husband have been victims of a continuous smear campaign since 1991. I'm surprised you didn't mention Vince Foster.
The article saying that Net Neutrality is going to be dismantled is behind a paywall. This is the Internet 2017.
Allow me to offer a reasoned response... YOU STUPID FUCK.
People who write material designed to inform and improve your sadly deficient brain have every right to ask as much as they want in return. The right to be paid for services rendered was never the issue, and people who continue to conflate this with the actual problems solved by Net Neutrality are a mind-fuckingly vivid reminder of how we got into this bad acid flashback of a political environment in the first place. So kindly educate yourself and stop fucking making the case for euthanasia. You're not being clever, and this is the opposite of funny. This is the Slashdot equivalent of SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES.
Net Neutrality is not about stopping fair pay for services rendered. It's about blocking arbitrary and prejudicial behaviour that doesn't benefit the person who produced the content, and doesn't benefit the person who wants to download it. The only party it benefits is the person who owns the pipe. They're the ones who want to charge more depending on what they think the content is worth—not to you, but to them.
So your Netflix content gets slowed down because your provider has a sweetheart deal with Amazon. Or you never see that Walgreen's has a better price on your medication because CVS inked a deal with your provider to remove their competition from selected searches.
Yeah, you didn't think about that part, did you? The minute you remove the Net Neutrality provisions, you open the door to your ISP doing whatever the fuck it wants to your connection, up to and including MiTM'ing your SSL traffic. And if you think that can't happen, you've never been to China, or any one of dozens of other countries that intrude on secure communications.
If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that market forces have yet to win the race against the Greater Idiot. Thanks for taking your lap in the race. You have been a Great Idiot, although sadly not nearly the Greatest.
Hugs,
The sane and sensible population of the internet
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.