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.
Ironic that the source link is paywalled.
The article saying that Net Neutrality is going to be dismantled is behind a paywall. This is the Internet 2017.
I wish the U.S. had a healthy government. Let's work toward that goal.
all sites are paywalled
www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
Hope that the EFF's and ACLU's inevitable lawsuits are successful. Otherwise, good luck getting people to vote in the right people to enshrine into law some feasible NN protection.
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"])!
Because that's what is actually happening. Rules that even the Obama appointed FCC chairman said were overreaching and would stiffle Internet growth, while not doing what Net Neutrality proponents were even asking for.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
MAGA
I meant to write: But MAGA.
Mid term elections are one year away. Support the candidates that won't do Twitler's bidding. And make sure you vote.
In light of this tremendous achievement by Chairman Pai, I and many other Slashdotters will now begin the efficient and productive streamlining of our internet traffic so as to prioritize content and improve the internet experience.
These improvements include:
1: null-routing all known advertisement servers.
2: implementing our own caching DNS to avoid SRVFAIL redirection.
3: Installation of noscript, adblock, ssl everywhere and other script and advertising element blocking extensions to our browsers.
4: implementing open source VPN technology in our home networks
5: returning our wireless routers -- which are used by many providers to advertise public SSID's for other network subscribers to use -- and implementing secured open-source solutions.
Good people go to bed earlier.
As long as we have "news" outlets like Fox News misinforming people and people not willing to be skeptical, and the Republicans using Fox News to their advantage, we will continue to have this crap.
The tax bill that was passed by the House will screw us in the end (except if you are a 1+ percenter) and the Senate's isn't looking much better.
How did those people get elected? Because about half of our population believes in the non-sense that's spoon fed to them or vote on single (distraction) issues.
I wonder if this can be achieved via HOST FILES. Anyone have any idea?
So Title II: That's the thing that says Internet carriers are "telecommunications carriers". Right?
And by the way they shouldn't set up "highwayman" selective toll stations on their routes, and should just let all the legal traffic through without bias.
Yes. That sounds horrible. (sarcasm).
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
We've had Net Neutrality for a couple years now and yet the internet is an even worse place than it was several years ago when Net Neutrality wasn't even a thing.
This will allow ISP's to increase their revenue and use that money to improve and expand their infrastructure.
Haven't we been giving them millions in payments and tax breaks for years to do that very thing? Hasn't happened yet.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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.
2020 can't come soon enough to get Trump and these idiot Republicans out of the White house.
It's content-free
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
Then why aren't there more lawsuits about it and why aren't ISPs losing and being forced to build it out?
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.
I wonder how many more millions it will take to effectively combat the blind ignorance you've demonstrated here...
We've had Net Neutrality for a couple years now and yet the internet is an even worse place than it was several years ago when Net Neutrality wasn't even a thing.
Ah, so carving content up into basic, standard, and premium internet tiers will make that better, right? Because we all love how cable has fucked over content for the last quarter century.
Yes, the internet has gotten increasingly worse, but that's been going on for the last two fucking decades.
AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have government rights of way that are not granted to others. This gives them an unfair advantage and control of who gets to play in what markets. They have continually fought third party access to their sites and when they are forced to grant right of way to third parties they deliberately make the process slow and unmanageable to discourage (sabotage) their competition. Take away those rights and I would be able to get behind your argument. Until then government controls need to be in place since government rights have been granted.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
All is on course to screw the little guy and give the big companies more power, more money and less incentive to promote a healthy open internet.
It was fun while it lasted. Let the GREATNESS of ISP's dictating what we can access and how fast. Enjoy. Hope you guys got what you wanted.
How long before the ISP's in America start turning the screws and cutting off access to all but their approved sites list? Sigh. Is there any incentives for ISP's to keep things open? Sure is a lot of incentive now to closed the doors and tighten the screws and start nickle and diming us to death.
This honestly doesn't worry me too much. If the Trump admin can repeal the regulation so easily then the next democratic administration can re-institute it just as easily. The ISPs know this, so I doubt they'll invest too much in paid prioritization in the near future.
These are useful things, but there's something you can do which will also be helpful: Remember to vote in 2020 against the guy who appointed this, and before then help vote for pro-net neutrality candidates. In the very short-term you can donate to Doug Jones's campaign for senate https://dougjonesforsenate.com... .
The irony is that you are quoting Orwell but apparently have never actually READ Orwell, because his whole thesis is about the dangers of GOVERNMENT. Using Orwell to argue for more government is literally the 180 degree opposite of logic.
Serious question: Just how much money do you think they need to increase their network capacity and reach new communities?
https://www.divisionofwealth.c...
I see ... so NN is what is protecting the elections from being hijacked.
... oh wait! We're supposed to believe the Russians hijacked the elections while NN was in place!
Except
I am so dizzy trying to understand what we are supposed to believe.
If you take the government out of the equation, do you think corporations like Google, etc. are going to become somehow less-connected?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Ajit Pai (and his GOP-appointed counterpart) had their minds made up years ago, and his doggedly stubborn position feels like it's based in ideology instead of the facts presented by his opponents.
Just compare this PBS.org interview where Mr. Pai used the same selective dodging of the facts pointed out by NN advocates (especially John Oliver's piece on the subject back in the day) that don't support his point of view. Then watch John Oliver's simplistic but factually correct episodes from 2014 and 2017 - Part One and 2017 - Part Two on the issue.
Either John Oliver (and his writing/research staff) or Ajit Pai is an outright liar about this issue. Any bets on who's the fibber? It's either a left-leaning comedian, or a former Verizon Wireless lawyer. (TIP: Don't bet the farm on this being a bad John Oliver joke...)
Just like building codes regulate that structures should be able to withstand earthquakes in earthquake zones, and that public buildings need fire escapes, and that you just can't dump garbage into rivers, lakes and streams, etc.
So, yes, in that regard, most believe it's Government's job to setup protections - since corporations have shown time after time they put profit over safety or human life.
It this case, Net Neutrality tells ISP's they CAN NOT sell your personal surfing behavior or prioritize one source over another. Without NN your ISP will be able to sell you not only the connection, but also a "bundle" where if you don't pay for the "sports bundle", your ESPN will crawl, or if you don't purchase the "entertainment" bundle, Netflix / Hulu or Amazon Prime will be too slow to stream in HiDef. Remember, you are already paying for the connection (which is the DEFINITION of ISP), and you've likely had data caps put in place over the past year or two. Repealing NN is nothing more than an estimate $8 BILLION hand over to ISP's with ZERO consumer benefit, reduced protections and increased cost.
As far as "choice", most cable companies have used laws to ensure nobody else can compete in their market. I live in Seattle... My "choice" is Comast or DSL with Frontier... Ya, some choice.
This just epitomizes why consumer protections are necessary and proves the our government is actually an oligarchy.
NN is only an issue because there is no competition. And there is no competition mostly because only the big ISPs are allowed to do last mile service. A small mom and pop ISP could offer last mile internet to a LIMITED number of people. Just as a mom and pop sandwich shop can offer less coverage than McDonalds.
Fiber is cheap. The backbone providers are happy to connect ANYONE to the backbone that gets to them.
So why can't we run fiber? Because the big ISPs have exclusive franchise licenses that preclude anyone else from competing against them.
And if you try... you will get arrested.
THAT is the issue. Not NN.
We could all have gigabit fiber. The backbone is happy to supply the bandwidth at a price so low it isn't even worth treating like it exists. its all but nothing in your monthly ISP bill.
ISPs will not improve service or care about you without competition.
So no, do not treat it like a government utility.
Equality sounds nice unless you understand how Soviet and grim "equality" can get. I don't want equality. I want choices and excellence.
I want freedom to choose.
Isn't this America? I thought this was America?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
"With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters."
And now these same corporations have been given the freedom to control what you can see on the Internet.
Oops!
But think of all the new high paying jobs this will create for people who throttle websites!
(At least until all their jobs are replaced by a block of code that will take someone five minutes to write.)
Once the poor are back to read-only and providers consolidate the internet can finally become the great profit generator it has always hinted at being.
The solution to bad government is more government
Yes it is odd that we tackle a lack of law enforcement by adding more law enforcement.
So your answer is to allow the telecoms to choose web sites that they can block?
Or do you want to let anyone with string and nails to run wires on poles?
What is your answer?
Coming soon....
Your future choice of water utility:-
1. Deluxe water - $500 per month - filtered plus just the right amount of minerals
2. Superior water - $400 - average filtration - its clean and healthy
3. Economy water - $350 - probably healthy, maybe the occasional interruption in service
4. Trickle-down water - $100 - Recycled deluxe water (from the sewage outlet of your nearest "deluxe water" neighbor)
The libertarian troll position: "Regulation to prevent the control of internet content actually controls internet content".
I don't think your grasp on Orwell is too solid.
Play Command HQ online
I would submit the 1st step is to alter how elections are funded. Removed the umbilical cord linking politicians to corporations.
it's cute that you think your ISP will still allow VPNs after Net Neutrality is gone.
i could live a little longer in this prison
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
That’s how you think people make decisions? "We're swimming in cash, let's do random shit without regard to ROI."
Fire up those VPNs, you'll need them after this passes. I have been VPNing 100% of the traffic going though my Charter connection since this was being announced and the stories about how ISPs could sniff your traffic for marketing purposes. Got all the kinks worked out of the setup now, so I'm ready. Bring it on!
I use Private Internet Access as my VPN provider with my 10/100 Charter connection, I see about 10/50 using 256bit encryption. All of the encryption is done on my router, so it doesn't matter what devices are on my LAN it all goes through the tunnel.
It's funny the Govt bitches about encryption, but they are doing all they can in their power to encourage more of it's use. Will be funny if at some point the whole internet becomes encrypted VPNs or TOR, with all the uneducated stuck out in the cesspool of the unencrypted tolled internet.
It could potentially be the return of the likes of AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, etc.
Table-ized A.I.
Any ISPs that block VPNs will probably quickly go out of business. Considering how much they are used in the corporate world. I guarantee that will be nixed the 1st time Charter's CEO can't send out a memo from his yacht about reducing toilet paper usage in the corporate offices
Ah, so carving content up into basic, standard, and premium internet tiers will make that better, right? Because we all love how cable has fucked over content for the last quarter century.
You mean the same way Sling has carved it's content up into tiers? Seems like a consistent business model, even for a company that is billing itself as "ala-carte".
Yes, it can
Good people go to bed earlier.
We keep trying but the rest of the world keeps buying all our shit and supporting these rich asshats. Please, stop doing business with us so we can get rid of them.
Ah, so carving content up into basic, standard, and premium internet tiers will make that better, right? Because we all love how cable has fucked over content for the last quarter century.
You mean the same way Sling has carved it's content up into tiers? Seems like a consistent business model, even for a company that is billing itself as "ala-carte".
I don't give a shit what Sling or any other greedy cable provider calls their services; keep that fucked business model away from the internet.
AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have government rights of way that are not granted to others.
Until someone else comes along and gets a franchise and then they have access to the rights-of-way, too. Or uses a delivery system that doesn't need access to rights-of-way.
I don't give a shit what Sling or any other greedy cable provider calls their services; keep that fucked business model away from the internet.
You might want to google for "sling TV" or just go to their website. They are not a cable provider. They are on the internet. They are content providers, carving up their content into tiers.
It's too late. That business model is already here. You can't keep it away.
You have to say his name 3 times to summon him...
You can't have a discussion with ACs, it's like shouting into the darkness.
Please try to keep in mind that virtually everything you ever loved or hated about the internet came about in the total absence of these so-called net neutrality rules.
That's because the internet largely operated based on neutrality principles until recently, when some companies started "innovating".
We need the rules now to enforce the status quo of the last several decades.
Basically, we didn't need rules until people started stepping out of line. They're stepping now, so they need to be put back in line ASAP.
Ajit Pai has no ideology. His mind was made up that if he did this, he could leave government and work at some telecom for a salary the rest of us can only dream about. He's merely an industry tool.
There hasn't been a new "franchise" granted in 70 years. They are using their pre-existing mandates for the phone/cable lines but saying they aren't subject to the rules dictated (common carrier) in those agreements since they aren't phone lines anymore. They are playing the system from both ends and getting away with it! And when someone tries to get a "franchise" as you call it they spend lots of money at the state level to get it blocked at the local level. If that doesn't work they sue the local government for unfair competition! Hypocrisy at its finest.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
https://supporters.eff.org/don...
Political opinions aside, the EFF has been pretty solid in standing up for the People in opposition to corporate greed.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Billions, 200 of them.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Everyone assumes that without neutrality regulations the big guys - chiefly Google and Amazon will get priority. But I would expect Comcast to put search out for bids. Whoever bid the most would be authorized to supply search services, and that might be Bing, or much worse. The loser wouldn't get private peering, and might even be subject to unfortunate drop outs. Google might think that Comcast wouldn't dare throttle their link, but Google would be mistaken. In these restricted choice situations the authorized supplier is typically a vendor specializing in situations where the buyer/user has no choice.
AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have government rights of way that are not granted to others.
Then how about passing "government rights of way" neutrality?
Trump and GOP have been trying to stack deck against fairness and democracy here ever since you lot voted him in. He has already been stuffing the judiciary with his cronies. He is 'fixing' the us census to bias the next election Now for the media! Now for example he can get ISPS to give him the names of those critical to him and sue them or put pressure on the likes of google to remove shows like "The young Turks" etc. from you tube. Want access to the 'Failing New York Times' or the BBC or any liberal media? Sorry, not allowed in this state or prohibitively expensive All hail the beloved Trump great leader and dictator for life! The internet will just be in the end just like cable tv. IT is the job of government to protect its citizens against rapacious big business.
Oops my ISP proxy says this is blocked Apparently, these people are SOCIALISTS!
There hasn't been a new "franchise" granted in 70 years.
This does not change the fact that they are available. I would also question your statement, since 70 years ago was 1947 -- a year before the first CATV systems popped up. I doubt those had "franchises", but perhaps they did. That leaves a huge amount of the country that has managed to grant franchises over the last 69 years, and all of them would be new.
They are using their pre-existing mandates for the phone/cable lines
The "pre-existing mandates" for cable expired and have been recast as non-exclusive franchises. But thankfully, cable is not the only internet game available.
And when someone tries to get a "franchise" as you call it
It's not "as I call it". It's what the law calls it.
If that doesn't work they sue the local government for unfair competition! Hypocrisy at its finest.
When the local government puts contractual requirements on a cable company before they can provide service, and then tries to start its own cable or internet service without the requirements, and costs associated with them, that is unfair competition. It's hypocrisy when the city says "you must do X if you want to provide service here" and then doesn't believe they must also do X.
There have been many attempts to do this but the money spent lobbying to prevent it is in the millions. But lobbying isn't at all shady. /s
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
you'd have done that anyway. And besides, they don't care. You're gonna hurt a few advertisers, but unless you stop consuming content (particularly video) then your ISP is about to get a cut of everything you do online. Heck, even if you just shop they'll probably get a cut.
If you want to do something that matters vote against the Republican party, because it's _always_ the Republicans that do this crap. Then show up at your party's primary (Libertarian, Democrat, Green, Monster Loony, whatever) and _vote_ or the folks who run the Republicans will just take over whatever party you defected to to get away from them like they did with the Democrats. Right now there's a movement called Justice Democrats trying to take back the Dems. Libs and green are still too small to matter.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't get the legalization of a content service provider determining what they will slow down and speed up, considering that most of that content they don't own. They are just there to provide service of data to from one point to the next and back. Period. What or who gave them that right?
Exactly, consumer choice. Which requires that there are no monopolies.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Then how about passing "government rights of way" neutrality?
There have been many attempts to do this but the money spent lobbying to prevent it is in the millions.
In 1992 the US Congress passed Public Law 102-385. Section 7 amended the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the grant of an exclusive franchise and the franchise authority may not "unreasonably refuse to award" additional franchises. Franchises are how a government grants access to the government rights-of-way.
That was 25 years ago.
No, the government didn't "say it". I'm saying it.
I'm an Electrical Engineer, I understand how the Internet works, and I understand the importance of net neutrality. I don't need the government to explain anything, I can do the math myself.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
And removing net neutrality affects this how? Oh wait, it makes it worse. Because now that single ISP can throttle you to hell for using Netflix, and there is no recourse for you as a consumer. So there is literally no way for the free market to do jack shit.
If net neutrality is so GOOD for BIG BUSINESS, then why do the BIG ISPs want to get rid of it?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Or the problem is that someone doesn't remember their junior high econ, as market consolidation would leave you with a single provider, even if you live in a mythical county with four cable companies and three dsl providers wiring each and every house. Thus the deal for right-of-ways in return for regulation.
Because both parties are big believes in giving public tax dollars to corporate entities who have to do little to nothing in return for it.
Regarding choice: the funny thing is that there is something in place to promote choice. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 had a provision to require line sharing by the telecomms. In other words, selling access to the infrastructure at bulk rates in order to allow for third party ISPs. This has never been implemented thanks to the FCC's decision to classify ISPs as something other than telecommunications services. A decision which was corrected in 2015. The same correction which Ajit Pai is now talking about reversing.
There is no doubt that internet data is required for fair market competition throughout our economy.
Given that the legitimate public concern is over private sector dominance against the public good, unfair data discrimination should be treated as an antitrust violation.
Antitrust laws were put in place to stop monopolies and such, so it makes sense.
Net neutrality law is on path to fall, but antitrust law likely will not.
Sines of Impending Sines
I don't give a shit what Sling or any other greedy cable provider calls their services; keep that fucked business model away from the internet.
You might want to google for "sling TV" or just go to their website. They are not a cable provider. They are on the internet. They are content providers, carving up their content into tiers.
It's too late. That business model is already here. You can't keep it away.
Verizon delivers "cable" service over fiber. DirectTV delivers "cable" service via satellite. SlingTV delivers "cable" service via streaming. Therefore, they are a cable provider. The term "cable" in this sense no longer refers to the physical medium; it's merely the residual moniker.
Regardless, the rest of the internet sure as hell doesn't need to follow that greedy model.
My driveway interconnects with roads that interconnect interstate highways or "transit backbones" which are owned and operated BY THE STATE/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT(s). Comparing Internet as an "interstate transit system" is rubbish. I am allowed to have a highway and my community is ALLOWED to build/manage their own roads. Internet SHOULD be the same way, so the road paradigm doesn't fit.
SlingTV delivers "cable" service via streaming.
No, they deliver video services via streaming.
Regardless, the rest of the internet sure as hell doesn't need to follow that greedy model.
You missed the news. Sling isn't the greedy model, it's the way things are supposed to be. Ala carte.
Hope that the EFF's and ACLU's inevitable lawsuits are successful. Otherwise, good luck getting people to vote in the right people to enshrine into law some feasible NN protection.
Who is this "EFF" and "ACLU"? I cannot find their online presence.
lol I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you cheap.
Free market my ass; the market hasn't been "free" for more than a decade at the very least. The hell of it is it's impossible to tell if your naive, stupid, or a paid shill.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Who the fuck is trusting the government to make neutrality neutral? Trust the routers dumbass. Packet prioritization is easy to test, right?
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
You realise voting AGAINST the people responsible for is how you got Trump in fhe first place. Right? You keep voting against people and you can watch your country go further down the drain.
That's the problem with big government. Remove the tax breaks for these corporations, open up the market so any actor can get involved and stop giving these same damn companies monopolies and actually get some innovation going. It might slow down the internet in the short term, but the internet we will eventually get will eventually be better. At the moment it's pure cronyism and it stinks. These are not the ideals upon which America was founded and are evidence of the sickness that is big govwrnment.
And how do you propose to do that in a way that does not violate the 1st Amendment?