Slashdot Mirror


FCC Explains How Net Neutrality Will Be Protected Without Net Neutrality Rules (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission is still on track to eliminate net neutrality rules this Thursday, but the commission said today that it has a new plan to protect consumers after the repeal. The FCC and Federal Trade Commission released a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) describing how the agencies will work together to make sure ISPs keep their net neutrality promises. After the repeal, there won't be any rules preventing ISPs from blocking or throttling Internet traffic. ISPs will also be allowed to charge websites and online services for faster and more reliable network access. In short, ISPs will be free to do whatever they want -- unless they make specific promises to avoid engaging in specific types of anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior. When companies make promises and break them, the FTC can punish them for deceiving consumers. That's what FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and Acting FTC Chair Maureen Ohlhausen are counting on. "Instead of saddling the Internet with heavy-handed regulations, we will work together to take targeted action against bad actors," Pai said in a joint announcement with the FTC today.

36 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. From the boardroom of Charter, Comcast, and friend by sconeu · · Score: 4, Funny

    CEO: So we can do whatever the hell we want, so long as we promise nothing? DO IT!

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  2. So if they DON'T promise not to... they can? by Kenja · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not really seeing an up side to this nonsense. Am I crazy, like the voices tell me, or am I missing something?

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:So if they DON'T promise not to... they can? by sconeu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, you are missing something...

      A briefcase full of cash.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:So if they DON'T promise not to... they can? by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's a point to this nonsense: ISPs who aren't siding with Comcast, and promised they will not shit on their customers, get heavily punished the moment something goes bad even due to a random outage. On the other hand, ISPs who are fully evil have free reign.

      It'll suck to live in the US...

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:So if they DON'T promise not to... they can? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      because corporations have never reneged on promises made to the government and/or consumers
      because verizon, comcast, et al have never made promises, then slowly backpedaled when the time came to pay up
      because none of these telecoms have ever put out feelers to see what they can get away with in regards to violating NN
      because without competition and / or regulators corporations have every incentive to forgo revenue because of ethics, morals, or the public good
      because these people have not bought and sold the FCC
      because corporations would never act in a manner that 'kicks the ladder out' from underneath competition.

      you can trust them, promise.

  3. Freedom is Slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ignorance is Strength

  4. Useless... by ZenShadow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We'll protect consumers! We'll stop Nestle if they put poison in their bottled water. But there's no need for heavy handed regulation; we'll only do it if they say their bottled water doesn't have poison in it."

    --
    -- sigs cause cancer.
    1. Re: Useless... by Xenx · · Score: 2

      If only ISPs were able to do that in the US. No sarcasm, if there was an even remotely free market this wouldn't be an issue.

  5. Competition by Concern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah, right. The feds will hold the ISPs to their word. Then the invisible hand of the market will take care of everything.

    It's like these assholes think the free market fairy can just wave her little magic wand and make anything work.

    Except they don't think that. They know you have only 1-2 choices for ISP, and if both suddenly decide to provide shittier service, you're fucked. They even know that you know that. They're just testing to see if this makes it in above the pain threshold of the American voter, because everything that you can suffer, you will be made to suffer.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    1. Re:Competition by msauve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "the invisible hand of the market will take care of everything."

      That's a great idea. No longer being common carriers, every local municipality and private landowner whose property their wires pass through should feel free to demand access payment, and cut the lines if they refuse. Fair is fair - free rights of way exist for regulated common carriers serving a public interest, not for unregulated for-profit corporations.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Competition by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      Don't forget the Nuclear Option; we bail on the Internet and go back to a life where we just do without. It won't be pleasant but if it gets bad enough that might be the only way to protest that actually has an effect; if half the country decided to stop having Internet service at home because it's just too expensive and restrictive, things would either have to change for the better or there wouldn't be an Internet anymore.

    3. Re:Competition by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      Can you get on Reddit and promote this? If you could convince Redditors to get off the Internet, that'd be great.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    4. Re:Competition by Concern · · Score: 5, Informative

      It still stuns me when people say stuff like this. But then I remember, maybe they weren't here, and didn't see what happened.

      The net has always been neutral. From time to time an ISP would try to test the boundaries, and then we would stop them:

      2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

      2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

      2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

      2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

      2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

      2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

      2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

      2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

      2015 was just the FCC formalizing what we've had since the internet was first invented. The Internet only exists because it was always neutral. This is about breaking the entire premise of the internet, after decades of it working properly.

      You think you can have meaningful competition in "last mile" for internet, any more than you can have it for electricity? Hilarious. Someone's going to start up a new ISP, somehow get right of way to everyone's last mile? That's your competitive marketplace?

      "Oh but the local governments." I can give you another list of all the cities and towns full of people who can't get decent service at all, from any ISP, and then when they try to build their own, the big ISPs sue and harass them to stop them from doing it...

      --
      Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    5. Re:Competition by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      As to your "1-2 choices" comment, that's a last mile issue. Net neutrality doesn't have anything to do with that.

      It actually has a lot to do with net neutrality. If there was real competition, neutrality wouldn't even be a question; neutral ISPs would get customers and restrictive double-dipping ISPs would not.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    6. Re:Competition by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Just be aware that any existing competing ISP will sue you (or worse) if you try.

    7. Re:Competition by jader3rd · · Score: 2

      They're just testing to see if this makes it in above the pain threshold of the American voter, because everything that you can suffer, you will be made to suffer.

      48% of the country will willing to destroy the internet in hopes that another Democrat won't be able to nominate a Supreme Court Judge. There is not pain threshold that will surpass that.

    8. Re:Competition by Altrag · · Score: 2

      Sure. You can live as a minimum wage farmhand fapping goats for $7.50/hr but if you want to do better than that in the world you're going to need to get online. Otherwise the guy down the road who does things faster is going to beat you to the punch every time.

      Just like you can get by without a vehicle (not even public transport) and walk everywhere, but it severely limits your opportunities.

      And yes the odd lucky person does manage to find those opportunities and manages to make out well despite their lack of internet (or car) but such people are few and far between. Its definitely not something "anybody" can do.

    9. Re:Competition by Maritz · · Score: 2

      MAYBE come election day we can turn things around. but I don't even have hope for that. I feel fully screwed by the powerbase that is installed. they used to at least act like they cared. now, they don't even try to do that, anymore.

      I'd like to think you're right, but you've clearly got countless millions of mouth breathers all to happy to vote for whoever seems to be the biggest cunt. And next time around, well - that'll be old Donnie again won't it. lol.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  6. The internet wasn't being regulated.... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The companies that give us access to the internet were being regulated....its completely different.....Regulating the internet is telling companies what services are and are not allowed on the internet (think China or Iran).....Regulating companies about how they are allowed to behave when giving people access to the internet prevents abuse of the people that use the internet.

  7. Exit strategy by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Better prepare your Internet exit strategies, folks. If the dark prophecies of Walled Gardens comes to pass, that may be the only effective form of protest available to rank-and-file citizenry. Small ISPs seem to have to piggyback on the larger ones' last-mile lines just to exist, so they likely wouldn't be any help, and while talk about creating our own Internet 3.0 is a nice fiction, that's all it is really; it'd take billions of dollars to get it started, thousands of people you could count on, and ISPs somehow not noticing, sueing the daylights out of us all, and/or just buying up any startups in hostile takeovers, the dismantling the whole thing -- assuming that is they don't outright lobby legislators to somehow prevent it. Continuing to pay ISPs who behave badly because "the Internet is essential" is just rewarding them for being evil. After the 2020 elections (if not sooner; Mr. Mueller, I'm looking at you when I say that) we'll likely not have a Republican in the Whitehouse anymore, but it'll take years for all the damage done, this included, to be reversed and repaired, and it's going to be a rough ride for all concerned in the meantime. If we somehow end up with a Republican until at least 2024, there may not be an Internet left to save. If someone else has any bright ideas how to mitigate evil behavior incoming from ISPs (because they will take full advantage of this, believe you me), I'm all ears.

    1. Re:Exit strategy by ezdiy · · Score: 2

      Not enough bandwidth in the overcrowded free spectrum (tragedy of the commons emerges in urban areas with healthy WISP market). Wifi great to cover rural areas tho (both long haul and last mile).

      Also stop calling it mesh, its a buzzword at this point. Just WISP.

      The problem US wired broadband is facing now is pains most of civilized world went through 10-15 years ago. Worst part is that FCC stance is just a spin on correct market shape - the desired endgame result. But they skimp over how you get there, which is always a disaster. The skewed market wont fix itself just by suddenly deregulating (the arguably already shitty regulation).

      US needs to do what rest of the world did - deregulate slowly, and only as a "reward" for improving competetiveness of market - first, force ISPs to open the door, on federal level, demand they sell local loops and coax docsis channels at fixed prices (simply by copying market prices from europe), allow competition to slowly build their last mile infra, and don't listen to retarded arguments like "theres no need for parallel last mile". There is shitton of need - incubent telco copper is ancient and neigh useless and no, they wont install more if there's no competitor. The more last mile (glass) bandwidth, the merrier. Less aggregation and oversubscription for the end user.

  8. Re: From the boardroom of Charter, Comcast, and fr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are one dumb fuck.

  9. THeir just repeating themselves by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is what they've been saying from the beginning. The correct summary is "you have no protection."

    All they're saying is that when your ISP decides to screw you, all they have to do is tell you they're doing it and they're home free.

    That solves nothing at all. It might be useful if you had the ability to use a different ISP with better policies -- but the odds are overwhelming that you don't.

  10. There's only one promise that matters by taustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "We reserve the right to change the terms of service at any time, without notice."

    And they will never, ever, ever break that rule.

  11. Re:The Other Side of Net Neutrality by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    So to sum it up, if your pockets are deep enough, you can ensure no competition will arise. Throw money at ISPs and ensure that they put you on the fast lane while your competitor will look like your modem just turned into a 33.6kbit.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Re:Other side of the coin by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe you live in a country where there is actually a competition between ISPs going on. For many US people, there is no competitor to switch to. The joke is that the country that prides itself to be the pinnacle of the capitalist economy has more ISP monopolies than even China.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. Re:From the boardroom of Charter, Comcast, and fri by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not sure why you resent the people that have put forth years and years of effort

    Because they received subsidies and exclusive use of public right-of-ways, and now they are trying to abuse their monopoly positions.

    Try putting in your own connection to the internet and then come back and complain

    I don't have a legal right-of-way to do that. The market can't fix the problem when there is no market.

    Net Neutrality should not be necessary. It is needed because the government screwed up, and sold/leased/gave-away the right-of-ways to a single vendor in most areas. What they should have done is either build, or required the first vendor to build, a publicly owned conduit, such as a 12" PVC pipe, that any bonded company could later use to pull cable or fiber. This would have cost little extra, since the cost of the pipe is low compared to the cost of the trenching. But it would have drastically lowered the barriers to entry, and allow real competition. I would also make upgrades much easier.

    FedEx, UPS, and the Postal Service don't each require their own set of roads. We should not expect every ISP to dig their own trenches.

  14. Re:From the boardroom of Charter, Comcast, and fri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The system in the UK is a lot better, but also a long way short of perfect.
    BT are the monopoly (the government originally built the early phone network, then sold it off) but are heavily regulated. Any other company can lease space in the phone exchanges and street side cabinets and pull their own cable through their ducts.
    ISPs then peer with BT at the edges of their network and provide outbound bandwidth.

    As a result just at my house I can pick my own bandwidth provider on top of:
    24Mbit ADSL to the exchange, BT equipment in the exchange
    24MBIt ADSL to the exchange, O2 equipment in the exchange
    24MBIt ADSL to the exchange, TalkTalk equipment in the exchange
    80Mbit VDSL to the cabinet, BT backhaul to the exchange
    1000Mbit Fibre to the exchange by BT

    For actual service on those connections I can pay anywhere from about 20GBP for a rubbish service that's just a bundle with voice calling, up to about 50GBP for a business SLA level service, to over 150GBP for the full fibre package

    Or there's Virgin cable offering 200Mbit on their own network, pricing mostly determined by choice of TV package.

  15. Corporate punishments in this day and age by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 3, Insightful

    are rarely comparable to the infraction.

    * * *
    For your crimes of deceiving customers and making a profit of $1.21 Billion dollars, we hereby fine you for $10 Million dollars and your promise to never do it again. You must, of course, pinky swear it and agree to undergo sensitivity training :|

    * * *

    Until he shows me otherwise, I have zero faith in the new head of the FCC. We can certainly hope it plays out like the Tom Wheeler era but, as we all know, lightning rarely strikes the same place twice.

  16. Re:From the boardroom of Charter, Comcast, and fri by omnichad · · Score: 5, Funny

    publicly owned conduit, such as a 12" PVC pipe, that any bonded company could later use to pull cable or fiber.

    The provider would respond by using 11.5" cables.

  17. Re:Other side of the coin by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

    What ISPs? My options are Comcast or paying way more for a high latency satellite connection. There's no competition most places.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  18. Dear Mr. Pai: by rnturn · · Score: 2

    In what way is telling ISPs to not screw around with the data packets transmitted across their network "heavy handed regulation"? Is it an especially onerous process for ISPs to not install special equipment and software that prioritizes network traffic?

    (Jeebus, he is such an idiot.)

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  19. Re:From the boardroom of Charter, Comcast, and fri by tsa · · Score: 4, Informative

    I live in the Netherlands and I can choose between at least ten providers for my glass fibre connection at home. And still we have net neutrality here because all providers are the same when it comes to earning money.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  20. Re:From the boardroom of Charter, Comcast, and fri by tsa · · Score: 2

    I meant to say that we still have net neutrality laws here.
    Thanks for that "Edit" button, Slashdot ;)

    --

    -- Cheers!

  21. Re:Comcast has already promised by Altrag · · Score: 2

    Slowed compared to _what_, precisely?

    "We're killing all our packages >10mbps. No grandfathering." So Netflix for you works just as fast as any other site, but its still slower than the 100mbps line you can get now. But don't worry, if you pay an extra $2/mo you can get Netflix boosted to 100mbps speeds.

    Even if they don't drop current packages and just stagnate them instead as technology improves, you're going to end up in a similar situation a decade from now when you theoretically have 1gbps to your door but Comcast will only provide it to you a-la-carte for specific approved services at $2/mo/service and everything else still shuffles along at 2017 speeds.

  22. Re: From the boardroom of Charter, Comcast, and fr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So wrong because you are making arguments based on what is technologically possible today and some propaganda by the major companies but that is not how this situation came to be.

    They have been playing dirty for decades to eliminate the competition. We can't just press reset and make everything the way it should have been but we can start making good decisions one at a time until it is.

    These companies have been blatantly lying to the public, exposed multiple times, but it seems many people are not aware of it.