ISPs Won't Promise To Treat All Traffic Equally After Net Neutrality (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The FCC voted to put an end to net neutrality, giving internet providers free rein to deliver service at their own discretion. There's really only one condition here: internet providers will have to disclose their policies regarding "network management practices, performance, and commercial terms." So if ISPs want to block websites, throttle your connection, or charge certain websites more, they'll have to admit it. We're still too far out to know exactly what disclosures all the big ISPs are going to make -- the rules (or lack thereof) don't actually go into effect for another few months -- but many internet providers have been making statements throughout the year about their stance on net neutrality, which ought to give some idea of where they'll land. We reached out to 10 big or notable ISPs to see what their stances are on three core tenets of net neutrality: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. Not all of them answered, and the answers we did get are complicated. [The Verge reached out to Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, Charter (Spectrum), Cox, Altice USA (Optimum and SuddenLink), and Google Fi and Google Fiber.]

Many ISPs say they support some or all of these core rules, but there's a big caveat there: for six of the past seven years, there have been net neutrality rules in place at the FCC. That means all of the companies we checked with have had to abide by the no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization rules. It means that they can say, and be mostly correct in saying, that they've long followed those rules. But it is, on some level, because they've had to. What actually matters is which policies ISPs say they'll keep in the future, and few are making commitments about that. In fact, all of the companies we contacted (with the exception of Google) have supported the FCC's plan to remove the current net neutrality rules. None of the ISPs we contacted will make a commitment -- or even a comment -- on paid fast lanes and prioritization. And this is really where we expect to see problems: ISPs likely won't go out and block large swaths of the web, but they may start to give subtle advantages to their own content and the content of their partners, slowly shaping who wins and loses online. Comcast: Comcast says it currently doesn't block, throttle content, or offer paid fast lanes, but hasn't committed to not doing so in the future.
AT&T: AT&T has committed to not blocking or throttling websites in the future. However, its stance around fast lanes is unclear.
Verizon: Verizon indicates that, at least in the immediate future, it will not block legal content. As for throttling and fast lanes, the company has no stance, and even seems to be excited to use the absence of rules to its advantage.
T-Mobile: T-Mobile makes no commitments to not throttle content or offer paid fast lanes and is unclear on its commitment to not blocking sites and services. It's already involved in programs that advantage some services over others.
Sprint: Sprint makes no commitments on net neutrality, but suggests it doesn't have plans to offer a service that would block sites.
Charter (Spectrum): Charter doesn't make any guarantees, but the company indicates that it's currently committed to not blocking or throttling customers.
Cox: Cox says it won't block or throttle content, even without net neutrality. It won't make commitments on zero-rating or paid fast lanes.
Altice USA (Optimum and SuddenLink): Altice doesn't currently block or throttle and suggests it will keep those policies, though without an explicit commitment. The company doesn't comment on prioritizing one service over another.
Google Fi and Google Fiber: Google doesn't make any promises regarding throttling and paid prioritization. However, it is the only company to state that it believes paid prioritization would be harmful.

Comments

No shit

[silverkniveshotmail.]

You think any company put money towards this to not benefit from it?

Re:No shit

[The Cynical Critic]

Man do you have a lot of holes in your knowledge on this subject...

First of all, other countries with similar population distributions with lower average GDP have been much more successful at building up internet infrastructure so the argument that the current state of affairs is explained by geography is provably wrong. Sure, more dense countries have it easier, but the sparcity isn't really an excuse for things to be anywhere near as bad as they are in more rural parts of the country. Even at that, it's not like companies can't charge more for connections in areas where the per-subscriber infrastructure costs are higher (they already do).

Secondly, ISPs are on the whole a very profitable industry and thus definitely have the money to spend of improving their infrastructure. However seeing how people need internet connections these days people will pay for substandard service. What this means is that in areas where companies have a monopoly, which covers a very large part of the U.S, there is little financial incentive to spend any money on new infrastructure. This is why they fight so hard against people when they decide to get together and build their own fiber, meaning that to compete they'd actually have to make the infrastructure investments they decided were unnecessary. Companies simply don't want the no competition gravy train to come to an end in these areas.

So what this all really boils down to is ISPs trying to maximise profits by minimising infrastructure investments (and ensuring that people can't get together and build their own competing infrastructure).

The plural of anecdote

[Okian Warrior]

And yet here you are writing things and I'm reading them without any of those companies being involved. But my ISP is still in the loop.

Check the news some time.

Google was recently caught reading the content of documents stored online, and locking people out of access to their own files because Google felt the content was inappropriate.

Twitter bans, shadow-bans, and permanently deletes accounts that have inappropriate content.

Reddit got rid of lots of conversations that had inappropriate content. Note that those conversations are opt-in; meaning, you have to seek them out to view them. People who don't participate in those conversations got those conversations banned because they don't like other people talking about certain things.

It seems conservative viewpoints are overwhelmingly censored for nothing, while liberal viewpoints that flagrantly violate the rules are given a wink and a smile (viz: "let's kill all white people").

Ajit Pai's recent video defending the NN decision was censored by YouTube.

You can post 1-line vanilla text is an anecdote.

The plural of anecdote is not "data".

Re:The plural of anecdote

[Opportunist]

And yet I can use the internet just fine without google, without twitter and without reddit having any kind of interference with whatever I try to do there, as long as I don't plan to use any service they offer.

Now please show me how to do the same concerning my ISP. Bear in mind that many people don't have the option to simply switch to another one, lacking any other ones.

Re:Good thing

[Areyoukiddingme]

You want fast access, pay for it. You want any access at all, pay for it. Let the market decide not the government. The less regulation the better off we are.

Ok. I'll go out and buy a spool of fiber right now. Can I walk across your property on my way to the peering location in my city? No? Then you're a fucking idiot and should shut up about things you don't understand.

SONIC.NET is the best!

[BancBoy]

A very satisfied customer here, full disclosure. Sonic.Net sent this out to their users. "Today, net neutrality regulations, which protect your right to an open and fair internet, have been repealed. For anyone who uses the internet (so, everyone), you may think this sounds really scary. And you’d be right. The protections that made it illegal for ISP’s to throttle certain websites or make you pay more to access others are gone. But, what we’re here to tell you is that no matter what, Sonic will remain committed to the principles of net neutrality. Sonic always has and always will keep our internet connections open and equal. You can watch what you want, when you want, on any content provider you choose (Netflix, Hulu, HBO, SlingTV-- it’s all the same to us). We will continue to protect your right to privacy, and your right to not have your own data sold or shared. Ever. We will never charge you more to access certain sites, and we will never slow down others for any reason. Sonic will continue to stand up for everything net neutrality stands for, whether the regulations require it or not. Since the beginning, Sonic has stood up for our customers. And that’s never going to change. For us, the responsibility we have to our members is not a passing trend. When we say there is nothing more important than the customers who make up the Sonic network, we mean it. We’ll continue to back up our words with official policies that benefit you. Please also share with your friends, family, and colleagues: you have a choice to support the ISPs that continue to support net neutrality and consumer privacy."