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.
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.
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
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.
I wonder if this can be achieved via HOST FILES. Anyone have any idea?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"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!
Obviously you haven't read Orwell, because a big part of his thesis is about language and how manipulating it can make people believe absurdities, like attacking rules that keep the Internet open will help to keep the internet open.
He makes another point, that repeating lies loud enough and often enough makes it difficult to discern the truth, such as "his whole thesis is about the dangers of GOVERNMENT."
Let's see, you have a loose social movement backed by powerful corporations dedicated to the theory that attacking internet openness will promote internet openness, vs. a loose social movement backed by a powerful government that until recently was dedicated to the theory that requiring internet openness is the best way to maintaining internet openness. I wonder which faction Orwell would find more disturbing?
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.
This is a load of horseshit.
You know why LCD's where so expensive for so long? Because those same companies in 'free' competition agreed to jack the prices up. You CANNOT TRUST companies looking for profits to do anything with the interest of the consumer in mind. The sort of statement you're making is the same one Ajit P has made about the internet. And it's a complete lie.
Well, I HAVE read it, and man did you REALLY take away the wrong lesson. His central thesis wasn't that government is bad, so be an anarchist. The dangers he lays out, very clearly, are ignorance, apathy, and cowardice in the face of growing injustice. GP interprets it far more accurately than you do. Ingsoc used doublespeak and paranoia to turn ITS PEOPLE against each other. Buying into this blind "government is bad" and "protecting innovation" is the very definition of being an Orwellian character.