Slashdot Mirror
The Trump Administration Just Voted To Repeal the US Government's Net Neutrality Rules (recode.net)
The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to dismantle landmark rules regulating the businesses that connect consumers to the internet, granting broadband companies power to potentially reshape Americans' online experiences. The agency scrapped so-called net neutrality regulations that prohibited broadband providers from blocking websites or charging for higher-quality service or certain content. The federal government will also no longer regulate high-speed internet delivery as if it were a utility, like phone services. From a report: Under the leadership of Chairman Ajit Pai -- and with only the backing of the agency's Republican members -- the repeal newly frees telecom companies from federal regulation, unravels a signature accomplishment of the Obama administration and shifts the responsibility of overseeing the web to another federal agency that some critics see as too weak to be effective. In practice, it means the U.S. government no longer will have rules on its books that require internet providers to treat all web traffic equally. The likes of AT&T and Verizon will be limited in some ways -- they can face penalties if they try to undermine their rivals, for example -- but they won't be subject to preemptive, bright-line restrictions on how they manage their networks. Meanwhile, the FCC's repeal will open the door for broadband providers to charge third parties, like tech giants, for faster delivery of their web content.
I'll be neg repped into oblivion but it was NOT the Trump Administration that repealed net neutrality, there are 5 people who are in charge of this and they voted down party lines. You want to go after someone, go after these folks. Trump didn't make this happen, these folks did:
Name Position State of Residence Party Term Expires†
Ajit Pai Chairman Kansas Republican June 30, 2021
Mignon Clyburn Commissioner South Carolina Democratic June 30, 2017
Brendan Carr Virginia Republican June 30, 2018
Michael O'Rielly New York Republican June 30, 2019
Jessica Rosenworcel Connecticut Democratic June 30, 2020
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
Pretty sure last year there were Trump supporters swearing up and down that this would never happen.
Why? Just because a law is old, that means it's not suitable? The FCC should Rey was created using the force, like Anakin, by Yoda and Obi-wan use the tools available to us, it's not as if it was regulating in a heavy handed manner, and requiring something as simple as "Do not discriminate when providing a telecommunications service" doesn't require a 21st Century law.
Thank you for subscribing to your basic internet service. Please choose between the below options: 1) 100mb uncapped video service, included with your basic service. 2) 1gb uncapped video service, only $10/mo. 3) Each additional 1gb only charged at $5/mo. What a deal! ((Please note that the capped speed will limit you to 56k speed. The speeds you receive will also be limited by the service agreements we have reached with the provider of the video you desire and the contracts they have with all of the ISP's between your IP address and theirs so even with an unlimited speed agreement you may notice 56k speed caps due to those arrangements.)) Have a nice day!
Netflix pays for their internet access just like everybody else, you numbnut.
Hillary had the same exact plan.
Citation for that? She is on the record supporting net neutrality, possibly going even further than the FCC has so far.
You wanna see what FCC chairman Ajit Pai thinks of you? Here is a video he posted yesterday to tell you why you should not worry about losing Net Neutrality.; He posted it on the right-wing website Daily Caller. (for real, you should watch this 1.5 minute video from Trump's FCC chairman, as he reveals he has no idea what Net Neutrality is, and also that he is a massive fuckwit.)
https://youtu.be/JeKK637IYAg
He's telling you all the things you'll still be able to do on the Internet after he signs over control to Comcast. Oh, and by the way, in the part of the video where he does the "Harlem Shake", one of the girls he's dancing with is a blogger who promoted the "Pizzagate" pedophilia controversy.
https://gizmodo.com/ajit-pai-t...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ok so you have no evidence and are just talking out of your ass, glad we settled that.
An ISP is a telecommunications service provider. Where is the argument that it isn't, outside of nutty libertarian blogs trying to torture language?
Their sole job is to provide connectivity between their customers and the Internet, a massive telecommunications network.
It should have been regulated like this from the start. I appreciate why it wasn't from the start, but the network is mature now, and most people only have a choice of two wireline providers. The technical issues are long resolved. The old excuses about hampering innovation no longer apply - if they ever did.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This isn't theoretical at all. That's disingenuous. There are plenty of examples of ISPs attempting to engage in behavior that was prohibited by NN rules. Those rules are now gone.
This allows ISPs to block content as they see fit. Large ISPs like Comcast have already attempted to do this, though the NN rules did not allow that. Ajit Pai has said he believes Comcast should have the ability to block content or entire protocols. ISPs have engaged in zero rating services or content. For example, Verizon allows businesses to pay for their content to be zero rated. Comcast implemented their own streaming video service that didn't count against their data caps. None of this is theoretical at all.
This policy was pushed through in an extremely corrupt manner. Ajit Pai has made numerous false and misleading statements about NN. Many comments were submitted on behalf of individuals without their consent, people who aren't American citizens, people who are dead, or even people who don't exist at all. Most of the fraudulent comments were opposed to NN rules. The FCC has been far less than transparent in investigating this matter. They've selectively disregarded comments based on standards such as the legal language of the comments that weren't made known to the public during the commenting period. The process was rushed through despite the many objections I just listed. It was an extremely corrupt process by an extremely corrupt administration. If eliminating the NN rules isn't harmful, there would be no need for the process to be opaque, for Pai to make dishonest statements, and to rush the process.
Psst...there were no price controls in Obama's Net Neutrality.
Companies charged what the market would pay.
Netflix pays for internet access, not for a connection to a third party. Just like you pay Comcast for internet access, not just for access to Comcast's WAN. There is enough bandwidth on Netflix's side to reach all transit providers without congestion. The amount of traffic that can pass from the Tier 1 backbone operators (transit providers) into Comcast's WAN is a matter of negotiation between Comcast and the backbone operators. Comcast is not buying enough of that access to satisfy the contracts it has with its customers, who paid for internet access, not Comcast access.
The above explanation of the way every bit of Internet traffic is already paid for should be sufficient, but just to prove that Comcast really has no leg to stand on with that argument, here's more: Netflix will, at their own cost, provide servers and direct peering connections to any medium and large ISP, to cut the transit providers out and reduce the cost to themselves and the ISPs. They don't have to do that. Comcast thinks it should be paid for direct access to the Comcast network. Fine, then they should pay the transit providers. They took their customers' money for internet access, and they need to provide it.
But isn't buying enough transit to carry the data that Comcast's customers paid to access expensive? No, it's ridiculously cheap: You can buy 10Gbps unfettered bandwidth (transit to and from the whole internet) at $1500/month. That's $15 for 100Mbps, with a 1:1 contention ratio. Typical contention ratios for business connections are 1:10, for consumer connections 1:50. That means Comcast would have to pay between $0.30 and $1.50 to actually provide the internet access that Comcast's customers already pay for, but they want to get paid by both sides, so they make up these stories about expensive bandwidth and how content providers get a free ride. They're holding their captive customers hostage to extort money.
Hi. I'm Sarten-X. It's a big deal to me.
I've been working on a silly little web project, that someday I hope to turn into an income-generating company.
Unfortunately, my project relies on having fairly snappy response times (mostly low bandwidth/low latency, but occasionally having bursts of high bandwidth usage) for a good user experience. Without neutrality, I can't expect that any more. Traffic to and from my tiny little project will be queued behind the high-definition stream for Netflix, because I can't afford to pay Comcast (or Spectrum, or Verizon, or AT&T, or whoever else owns the customers) the millions of dollars in fees to get fast-lane prioritization.
Yes, it's speculation. It's also history, because I lived through the last round of these problems. I remember working with ISPs in the 90s and 2000s to figure out why certain traffic was unusually slow... sure enough, it's because that particular service had been deemed "low-priority" and was throttled. Fortunately at the time I had a big enough team of corporate lawyers that we could force a bit more throughput from the small ISP, but that's not usually the case today.
The reality is that probably 90% of Americans won't notice a difference. Their Netflix subscription might cost a few cents more, or their telecom stock value might get a small boost, but that's about it. The real loss is in potential. The next big Internet-based success might just be someone's silly little project today, and it'll likely never be able to grow because of the arbitrary limits placed by ISPs.
No, it's not just about torrents. It's about waiting for a product demo video to buffer, or waiting for an AJAX call to update a GUI, or waiting for a site's style sheet to properly load. It's about my user experience (and thus my project's success) being heavily dependent on how much extra money I pay to which ISPs, rather than how good my actual product is.
Yes, it's a big deal.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
So I see a lot of negativity about this, even though in the past with no NN rules almost nothing happened, and when it did was shut down quickly (like torrent throttling).
You are mistaken. There's a rich history of actual and intended net neutrality violations in the past before the regulations went into effect. Unfortunately the top link returned by a search on this currently offline, but here is some info pasted from this reddit thread:
There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated. I'm going to steal a comment previously posted by /u/Skrattybones and repost here:
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, Sprint, 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.
And...
2005, AT&T suggested giving preferential treatment to some web giants in exchange for money, starting the whole thing.
2014, Verizon and Comcast throttled Netflix data and held those customers hostage to a huge bribe from Netflix.
Also, links for everything you just said.
Madison River Communications: https://www.cnet.com/news/telc...
Comcast hates pirates: https://www.lexology.com/libra... (article from '08)
AT&T VOIP hostage: https://www.wired.com/2009/10/...
Google wallet hostage: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/0...
Verizon hates tethering apps: https://www.wired.com/2011/06/...
AT&T claimed blocking facetime wasn't a net neutrality issue: http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/2...
"Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker made the companyâ(TM)s intentions all too clear, saying the company wants to prioritize those websites and services that are willing to shell out for better access.": https://www.savetheinternet.co...
Also, the thing to realize is that violations of net neutrality are not likely to be reflected on a general speed test, or necessarily in the fees the ISPs charge. It's much more likely that they will violate it by charging the content providers, like they have already done with Netflix. It will be insidious, and most people will not notice unless they are watching very closely. The effects will like
To be fair, none of them were embroiled in scandal *while campaigning.* ...and Most of them resigned as the scandals came out.
Republicans, on the other hand, almost seemed to use the accusations as a positive point.
=Smidge=