Net Neutrality Complaints Rise Amid FCC Repeal (axios.com)

Oh, stop by PopeRatzo · 2017-12-26 06:07 · Score: 4, Funny

You'll take what internet Comcast gives you, and you'll like it. Don't pretend you have a voice (or a choice) in these matters.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:Oh, stop by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 06:14 · Score: 1, Interesting

Wow, second post in and we have our first internet monopoly poster! The nearest Comcast to here is several hundred miles away, but I do have 3-4 local broadband options. I suspect until someone runs a fiber optic line into your house and gives you internet for free, you'll bitch about whoever your current provider is and whatever agreement you sign with them. Infrastructure like broadband cables, sewer, and electricity do not lend themselves to multiple providers in direct competition with each other. It's just the way things work. The capital expenditures are too large. And wireless is unworkable because people hog the bandwidth if you let them, and if you try to reign them so others aren't affected in they complain that you're a big asshole. The only answer is to basically ignore loudmouths like you and just keep on trying to do the best you can.
Re:Oh, stop by arth1 · 2017-12-26 06:27 · Score: 1

I do have 3-4 local broadband options
That puts you above what's common.
Where I live, I have the choice between partially crippled cable, overshared and with no bandwidth rate guarantee, and 1.5/384 ADSL (which some politicians consider broadband).
And the town politicians dictate who can provide me internet service based on how much they get bribed. I have no choice. It's the one cable provider that pull their strings, or none.
Re:Oh, stop by chispito · 2017-12-26 06:28 · Score: 1, Offtopic

You'll take what internet Comcast gives you, and you'll like it. Don't pretend you have a voice (or a choice) in these matters.
What did Net Neutrality have to do with broadband competition?

--
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Re:Oh, stop by PopeRatzo · 2017-12-26 06:43 · Score: 1

What did Net Neutrality have to do with broadband competition?
https://www.wired.com/story/he...

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Oh, stop by PopeRatzo · 2017-12-26 06:45 · Score: 1

but I do have 3-4 local broadband options
Name them.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Oh, stop by jellomizer · 2017-12-26 06:48 · Score: 1

Well the FCC needs to be punished for making a stupid decision.
If it was going to make a political decision based on support of big companies. Expect a lot of little people to flood their complaint department.
Actions have consequences.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Oh, stop by neurojab · 2017-12-26 07:00 · Score: 2

>I suspect until someone runs a fiber optic line into your house and gives you internet for free, you'll bitch about whoever your current provider is and whatever agreement you sign with them. Infrastructure like broadband cables, sewer, and electricity do not lend themselves to multiple providers in direct competition with each other. It's just the way things work. The capital expenditures are too large.
Your having 3-4 local broadband options makes you an outlier. Most people have one choice for broadband, which makes them a natural monopoly. Natural monopolies tend to abuse their positions of power unless regulated. This is where net neutrality comes in.
Re:Oh, stop by penandpaper · 2017-12-26 07:11 · Score: 1

Cable, Dish, DSL.
Although, the latency for dish is a little high it is "broadband" by definition.
Re:Oh, stop by PopeRatzo · 2017-12-26 07:53 · Score: 1, Troll

Cable, Dish, DSL.
Only 9% of Americans have three or more choices for broadband. So, statistically speaking, you're probably lying.
https://arstechnica.com/inform...

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Oh, stop by penandpaper · 2017-12-26 08:16 · Score: 2, Funny

You said name "broadband" options not 25+mbps options. You are shifting the goal post. There is a technical legal definition of "broadband". Even then I am not lying about cable and DSL offering 40mbps in my area (small-medium city) (I haven't looked into dish because I won't use it and your link doesn't include).
I am not lying about my choices. Your link even agrees with me; "The competitive landscape for wireline broadband services typically consists of the telco, a cable company, and in rare instances a cable overbuilder."
I am of the typical competitive landscape according to your link for having a cable and DSL option.
Re:Oh, stop by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 08:36 · Score: 1

I can't get Comcast/Xfinity where I live. I only have a choice between AT&T and Charter/Spectrum.
AT&T offers three options:
1) shitty ADSL that they don't maintain properly over wires that they're letting decay to the point of uselessness... max speed is 52m/3m
2) shitty VDSL that they don't want to offer anymore because everyone saw through their lies and called them out for saying it's "fiber" when it's really just FTTN, also, good luck getting them to extend more nodes anywhere near where you live because they've essentially mothballed the whole thing... max speed is 3m/768k
3) shitty satellite service through DirecTV/Dish/whatever dinosaur they absorbed to compete with Charter a few years ago, complete with all the shittiness that shitty satellite internet offers... max speed is god-only-knows... unladen swallow, perhaps?
Charter, now renamed to Spectrum offers one option, with or without bundles of other crap attached:
1) 100Mbps DOCSIS 3.0-compliant service, and they actually deliver on the 100Mbps... max speed is 100m/7m
AT&T stops selling services 1 & 2 about 0.25 miles from my house, which is at the far edge of a metro area, and in rough terrain. Charter offers their service and delivers.
I have a hard time believing that Comcast would be willing or able to provide that same level of service.
Re:Oh, stop by hAckz0r · 2017-12-26 09:33 · Score: 1

Yea, I see how they work. They blocked my non-Comcast voip outgoing calls and DNS blacklisted access to the FCC website. Anyway, all that shows is just how really desperate they are to get my business back. I've really got them over a barrel right now! They should be come crawling back to me any minute now. You'll see! Any minute now.
Re:Oh, stop by Dusty101 · 2017-12-26 10:51 · Score: 1

You are Ajit Pai & I claim my $5.
Re: Oh, stop by peragrin · 2017-12-26 11:31 · Score: 2

Everything. It stopped last mile isps from dictating which websites you could visit by giving fast lane for their services, while crippling the primary line with slow speeds.
Wait until Comcast who owns nbc blocks Fox news and fox companies from all streaming services.
Don't think that's possible? Comcast was doing that to Netflix and Republicans do nothing. When fox gets pushed off the internet they will scream.
Their will be nothing the goverent can do as net neutrailtiy has been removed and Republicans legistation to replace it specifically allows Comcast to do just that.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:Oh, stop by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 15:59 · Score: 2, Informative

You said name "broadband" options not 25+mbps options.
From 2015 BROADBAND PROGRESS REPORT AND NOTICE OF INQUIRY ON IMMEDIATE ACTION TO ACCELERATE DEPLOYMENT

We take the needs of multiple users into account when considering what level of service is necessary to be considered advanced telecommunications capability. We consider, too, the services that providers are offering today, as well as the services that American consumers are choosing. With these factors in mind, we find that, having “advanced telecommunications capability” requires access to actual download speeds of at least 25 Mbps and actual upload speeds of at least 3 Mbps (25 Mbps/3 Mbps).
Re:Oh, stop by Altrag · 2017-12-26 20:21 · Score: 1

Except that article was not this. It was extremely brief but it amounted to "people complain more about shit when its on their mind."
That is, there isn't anything new being complained about (yet.) Just more people complaining about existing things. In particular that unfortunately means that the new complaints probably aren't specifically related to the rescinding of net neutrality, and therefore really don't have much bearing or indication on how screwed the US is now.
I've said it on a few other posts.. Comcast and Verizon probably aren't going to do anything dramatic right away. That would be too big of a slap in the face even for republicans and the last thing the ISPs want is the republicans to start thinking net neutrality is actually important.
No, the ISPs will hold off for maybe a year and then slowly start mucking with things. In the meantime they'll be pushing congress to regulate net neutrality in a way that's far less easy to rescind and essentially enshrine their definition of "neutral" in law.. and they don't really want congress understanding the full implications of what they do until its too late.
Except some ISP shill in congress to propose legislation and try to get it rammed through before the 2018 midterms (while the republicans still hold majority..) and then once that's done, give it another few months to let everyone forget (and to buy off any new congresspeople) and then the real games begin. So basically expect to start getting truly screwed by late 2018 or early 2019. If we're really lucky they might hold off until 2020 to see how the next generals go, but by that point the president won't really have much to do about it, whether its Trump again or not, so I doubt the ISPs will even bother waiting that extra year.

IOW by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 06:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hypochondria for the internet. Same thing happens when there is a TV show talking about rare diseases.

Color me shocked people associate a problem with a topic being discussed that they don't understand.

Re:IOW by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 06:13 · Score: 1

To be fair Ajit Pai claims that the new regulations are already in effect. The reality is that they won't be coming into effect for a while. The regulation has to be written up and published before it goes into effect. But, barring a court injunction it will be going into effect.
I personally have the choice of Comcast or, well nothing else, the building I live in only allows Comcast service and that's it.
Re:IOW by jellomizer · 2017-12-26 06:50 · Score: 1

Well kinda, but before we had the law to assume that these companies are not abusing their powers. Now we don't so if there is a problem we can and should expect foul play. Being that these companies put a lot of time and money for a rule, just so they don't do anything with it.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:IOW by Monster_user · 2017-12-26 07:20 · Score: 2

The courts decided the FCC had no authority to enforce "Net Neutrality" in 2015 without Title II, Verizon won the case. The FCC was advised to categorize ISPs as Title II, and they did so. Now that Title II has been repealed, the FCC no longer has any authority.

So Ajit Pai is correct. The "new" rules are in effect now. They are just now whatever the FTC has on file, and whatever little authority the FCC has left.

I have proof that it's not NN! by Kenja · 2017-12-26 06:12 · Score: 1

Bandwidth limit exception : to view this message, please upgrade to the Uber Platinum Unlimited Web package from your ISP.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

Re:So net neutrality now means slow internet by Geoffrey.landis · 2017-12-26 06:16 · Score: 2

So has anyone ever posted a legitimate "violation" of net neutrality.

The new rules haven't started yet, so, no.

In other countries, however: yes,

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-portugal-internet-20171127-story.html

http://www.iflscience.com/technology/country-net-neutrality/

http://bigthink.com/design-for-good/heres-what-a-country-without-net-neutrality-looks-like

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

Ajit Pai is blindingly obvious by Rick+Schumann · 2017-12-26 06:21 · Score: 2

The more and more Ajit Pai and the FCC ignores what citizens are saying, the more obvious it becomes that Ajit Pai is in the hip pocket of corporations and does not care at all about what's good for U.S. Citizens. Ajit Pai needs to be removed and NN needs to be not just reinstated but expanded. The Internet isn't some Boutique 'service' that doesn't matter anymore, it's too important and too ubiquitos to be treated as such.

Re: Ajit Pai is blindingly obvious by fortfive · 2017-12-26 06:26 · Score: 1

Speaking of obvious, captain.
This joke is not on you though, itâ(TM)s on all of us, and the punchline is pain.
Letâ(TM)s hope we can gather some political will and elect some decent representation moving forward. Hashtags: vote in the primary elections, vote in the state and local elections, not just federal.
Re: Ajit Pai is blindingly obvious by pr0fessor · 2017-12-26 07:08 · Score: 1

Hashtags: vote in the primary elections, vote in the state and local elections, not just federal.
This is a really good point. I live in a small mid-western town and it's well known in these small towns that it is really important to have good community leadership where even a small change like loosing a couple businesses could cause a town to fail.
I lived in a small town (population 36k) that had a factory which supported the a good chunk of people in the town in one way or another but was closed almost 20 years ago they never managed to bring in any new business and the town has large sections of vacant and condemned homes and businesses.
Re:Ajit Pai is blindingly obvious by Altrag · 2017-12-26 20:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

Uhh.. that was obvious from day one. He was installed as chairman specifically because he's in the hip pocket of corporations.
Just like a guy who doesn't believe in science runs NASA, a guy who was suing the EPA now runs the EPA, a lobbyist for the drug industry now runs the FDA, a woman with a BA from a liberal arts college runs the department of education, a guy who wanted the department of energy shutdown -- because he didn't know what the hell it actually did! -- now runs the DOE. It just goes on and on.
Basically Trump has appointed the fox to watch the hen house in almost every government agency. Its absolutely insane, and its going to do a lot of long-term damage to the US both economically and in the opinion of the rest of the world. The US is no longer going to be taken seriously when Trump does things like instructing the EPA to take down half their site because it deals with you know.. protecting the environment. Or when he tells the CDC and other science-based organizations that they shouldn't use phrases like "science-based." What the fuck is that? Does he expect the CDC to offer thoughts and prayers when there's an outbreak somewhere? I mean that's all we can be arsed to do when a shooter kills 50+ people so why put any more effort towards a disease doing the same?
The US government is a joke right now. Its sad that many within the country can't (or just refuse) to see it.. especially those in government who have the power to do something about it. Americans are blinded by Trump's spectacle and big claims and the whole reality-TV aspect of it and completely ignore that all the shit Trump does, both in front of the camera and behind the scenes, will have long-lasting and potentially disastrous consequences for the country.. probably long after Trump's gone and it'll fall on someone else' shoulders to try and pick up the pieces and put the country together again in a world where China is racing full steam ahead to overtake the US as the #1 superpower, and India is probably only 2 or 3 decades behind if they can get their shit together. The US wasting a decade going backward will make it that much harder to stay ahead of the game.
Re:Ajit Pai is blindingly obvious by Altrag · 2017-12-26 21:10 · Score: 1

I am not convinced that Title 2 is the proper way to regulate ISPs
Its not. Its just better than leaving them entirely unregulated. The incumbent ISPs have shown zero trustworthiness at every step of the way -- its why net neutrality regulations were brought in in the first place.
Ideally, we would have their regulations tailored to the industry rather than cobbled together from old telephone regulations. But unfortunately all we're likely to get these days is regulations bought and paid for by the incumbents and will be anything but fair. To that end, I expect the ISPs will be pushing congress to get on with new set-in-stone net "neutrality" regulations before the 2018 midterms while its still in republican control. Damned democrats are too unpredictable with their whole "not screwing the average person" shtick that they trot out once in a while.

This is only going to change by rsilvergun · 2017-12-26 06:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

if the party in power changes. And yes, this is a partisan issue. The Republican party opposes Net Neutrality. The facts there speak for themselves. Ajit Pai is their appointee, they just proposed a law that doesn't restore NN but does prevent the States doing it, etc, etc. Meanwhile it was a Democrat appointee that protected it for 8 years under a Democratic president. Furthermore, the Republican party makes deregulation and laziee fair capitalism a central plank of it's party. To call this anything other than a partisan issue is disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst.

Here's the real question: How important is NN to you? Gun Control and Abortion are both powerful wedge issues that drive people to the polls. I don't see NN being one of those. Maybe if we could get this framed as a small business concern we'd have a chance, but I've yet to see anyone even mention that angle.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:This is only going to change by penandpaper · 2017-12-26 07:04 · Score: 1

Yes, it is a partisan issue and that is why to properly solve it Congress has to act or else the rules will change with every new FCC chair with a different team color. I am not certain that Title 2 is the proper regulatory framework for ISPs. TBH, I don't think NN is as important as creating competition. You don't need NN if you have proper competition in the market. How do we create competition is the problem not how do get NN out of Title 2.
Re:This is only going to change by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-12-26 07:08 · Score: 3, Informative

Pai was appointed by Obama.
Only technically true. Pai was appointed to a reserved Republican seat by Obama, at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell (as the opposition leadership in the Senate chooses executive branch appointees for seats dedicated to their party, by longstanding custom.)
You either didn't know that Obama didn't choose Pai, or were lying. I choose to assume the former, but your combative attitude implies it may be the later.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:This is only going to change by penandpaper · 2017-12-26 07:19 · Score: 2, Informative

McConnell recommended. Obama appointed. The Senate approved. Trump promoted.
Obama did choose Pai to serve on the FCC at the recommendation from McConnell that Obama could have ignored. Obama had all the discretion in the world to pick any other Republican but he chose Pai.
Re:This is only going to change by Dragonslicer · 2017-12-26 08:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

McConnell recommended. Obama appointed. The Senate approved. Trump promoted.
Obama did choose Pai to serve on the FCC at the recommendation from McConnell that Obama could have ignored. Obama had all the discretion in the world to pick any other Republican but he chose Pai.
Would appointing any other Republican have changed the outcome in any way?

There is a valid point in saying that Pai is being personally blamed too much. Two other Republican commissioners also voted for the change. Pai is just a lying face of his party.
Re:This is only going to change by penandpaper · 2017-12-26 08:44 · Score: 1

Would appointing any other Republican have changed the outcome in any way?

Probably not as you say Pai is being personally blamed for too much. If the Republican view is such that Title 2 is not the answer then it is a matter of time before it becomes a party line vote in the commission to revoke those rules just as they were implemented along party lines.
There is a good reason to force both parties to be in the commission and if there is too much back and forth then it is up to Congress to fix it through law.
Re:This is only going to change by DCFusor · 2017-12-26 09:38 · Score: 1

The problem is that congress is just as corrupt, and like other big bills, will let lobbyists write the law. Then they'll say they "did something" but the resulting law will be more full of loopholes than my colander. And now, harder to change. I wish people would understand that green is the party that controls this, and I ain't talkin about the environmentalists. It's that other golden rule - them with the gold...makes the rules.

--
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Re:This is only going to change by DCFusor · 2017-12-26 09:43 · Score: 1

You can count on a law that "we have to pass to see what's in it" if that happens. It'll be written by the lobbyists, like most important ones are. It won't solve anything, but will now be harder to change, as you point out.
Yes, what we actually need is competition, particularly at the last mile. I have zero non-satellite options where I live, for example, just DSL and slow at that. This would all go away I'd bet if we hadn't already succumbed to total corruption and cableco influence. But trying to make sense on slashdot can be like trying to empty the ocean with an eyedropper, so many rabid sure-of-themselves but actually ignorant posters make it pretty hard to be informative and honest - the closer to the truth, the more you get drowned out, because the truth upsets someone's (often unstated) unstated agenda.

--
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Re:This is only going to change by penandpaper · 2017-12-26 10:03 · Score: 1

Yes, it sucks but that is a whole hell of a better than an unelected commission in a federal bureaucracy deciding on a whim how something as pivotal as the internet be regulated.
I hope you understand why I would rather Congress do this than the FCC, warts and all.
Re:This is only going to change by DCFusor · 2017-12-26 10:21 · Score: 1

I could think that you're honest but have been misled, will that do? I've been around the block on many issues (since Eisenhower) and am looking at this through the lens of history. It doesn't always repeat, but it often rhymes, eh?

--
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Re:This is only going to change by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2017-12-26 10:23 · Score: 1

Maybe not...but Pai seems to enjoy really "rubbing it in", making sarcastic videos, and out-right insulting anyone who doesn't agree. It's one thing to just repeal NN; it's wholly another to actively be publicly sarcastic and belligerent about it while doing so. It's not civil, isn't no "adult", but it IS pure Trump.

Pai also spreads disinformation about what NN actually is about, complaining about "Facebook censorship" that has nothing to do with the idea of packet inspection and various layers of throttling for no real technical reasons. For me, that is the heart of NN; modifying network topologies and data flows for various non-technical (profit, political, etc) reasons. Making videos while in various costumes with Pizzagaters (who was actually smoking in the video) is not how federal policy should be handled but seems to be the new "Standard" for the USA now.
Re:This is only going to change by penandpaper · 2017-12-26 10:33 · Score: 1

I could think that you're honest but have been misled,
Well, that's a lot better than being called a shill, that I work for telecom, a Russian, or all of the mentioned.

. It doesn't always repeat, but it often rhymes, eh?
Agreed. One rhythm is the linguistic dance of the courts, the lawyers, and the government arguing how an old law will apply to modern ISPs. There is enough wiggle room in the language that both sides can be right and wrong. I don't know if Title 2 is the answer but I do know that the current law needs clarity to avoid this from being an issue every 4-8 years.
Re:This is only going to change by Dragonslicer · 2017-12-26 10:41 · Score: 1

And now, harder to change.
This is the part that I don't know if I should agree with. Executive agencies have a defined procedure for changing regulations, and Congress can repeal any law it wants whenever it wants.
Re:This is only going to change by Dragonslicer · 2017-12-26 10:46 · Score: 1

Yes, it sucks but that is a whole hell of a better than an unelected commission in a federal bureaucracy deciding on a whim how something as pivotal as the internet be regulated.
They can't decide "on a whim". There is a defined procedure for creating or changing regulations; the EPA was smacked by a court earlier this year for trying to delay a regulation without following the procedure defined by Congress.

And in theory, the point of having the regulations written by the FCC instead of Congress is that the FCC is run by people with some amount of experience and expertise in the field. Having Congress pass legislation to try to define and enforce Network Neutrality would mean the bill was written either by whoever spends the most money on bribin- sorry, "lobbying"- members of Congress, or by people with as much understanding of the topic as Ted "It Took All Weekend for My Staffer to Send Me an Internet" Stevens.
Re:This is only going to change by penandpaper · 2017-12-26 11:13 · Score: 1

But if the law that the FCC uses to execute those regulations is flawed then it will always be a fight never settled. I think that is part of the problem. Congress doesn't have to spell out net neutrality as it needs to ensure that the distinctions made in the law cannot be argued by the courts, lawyers, or government in an inclusive way when the law makes an exclusive distinction. That is, if Title 2 is the answer. I don't know if Title 2 is the answer but I do know that a problem EVERYONE agrees with is competition. We should start with what we all agree with, fix that, and then move onto to more technical solutions in either the regulations or the law. Net Neutrality isn't necessary if you have proper competition.
It may not be 'on a whim' and is clear defined procedure but certainly more whimsical than changing a law.
Re:This is only going to change by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-12-26 11:48 · Score: 1

I mean Obama did what he had to do under law and custom. Did you read the rest of my post? Or are you trolling? Because it takes someone acing in bad faith to claim that when someone does what they are obligated to do, to execute an action that someone else defines, it's somehow their fault.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:This is only going to change by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-12-26 13:35 · Score: 1

Obama did choose Pai to serve on the FCC at the recommendation from McConnell that Obama could have ignored. Obama had all the discretion in the world to pick any other Republican but he chose Pai.

He did not legally have to choose Pai, but presidents have deferred to Senate leadership to fill "their" seats of the opposition party for decades.So, I think, in a very real way, he did have to.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:This is only going to change by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-12-26 15:44 · Score: 1

Obama appointed Pai. Deal with that painful fact.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:This is only going to change by Altrag · 2017-12-26 21:33 · Score: 1

I would rather it be completely unregulated than letting the lobbyists write it and congress pass it without even reading it as they've been doing with so many important bills lately.
At least if its completely unregulated, there's a chance (however small) that competition could start up.. or the states could write their own individual laws.. If Verizon and Comcast are writing the legislation though, you can bet all those loopholes will be closed and that they'll encase their monopoly in stone on top of giving themselves essentially unlimited power to break the internet in whatever way best suits their bottom line.
At this point, you may as well consider congress to be unelected as well.. they rarely write the bills, they rarely even read the bills, they just pass whatever their donors tell them to pass and the will of the voters is basically ignored other than for a few months before each election when they need to earn some brownie points. For the ones that even do.
Re:This is only going to change by k6mfw · 2017-12-27 10:25 · Score: 1

What is with goals of making internet slower and more expensive? If throughput throttled to dial-up speeds then most webpages will not be viewable (I've seen more and more become hugh data hogs with scripts and ads). If make it too expensive then makes it more difficult to buy cheap crap from China? Not able to conveniently watch videos of useless stuff? (perhaps not such a bad thing after all).

--
mfwright@batnet.com

Pissing in the wind? by grasshoppa · 2017-12-26 06:35 · Score: 2

So we're sending complaints to the organization that effectively ignored millions of complaints in overturning net neutrality rules.

I don't mean to be the downer here, but what precisely are we hoping to accomplish that we haven't already accomplished? Wouldn't it make more sense to send your NN complaints directly to your senator and representatives?

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

Re:Pissing in the wind? by jmccue · 2017-12-26 06:42 · Score: 1

So we're sending complaints to the organization that effectively ignored millions of complaints in overturning net neutrality rules.
True, but if the complaints keep going to the FCC and this issue remains in the press, maybe congress-critters will start to worry their gravy train will end in 2018 :)

Proof title II was joke. by will_die · 2017-12-26 06:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

Going with Title II for ISPs was a joke and should of never been implemented.
Since the change from Title II does not go into effect until at least February that they are getting all these complains now shows that.

Simple solution by ChatHuant · 2017-12-26 06:47 · Score: 2

There is a simple solution which will both reduce or eliminate the complaints and align with FCC policies and culture. Remove net neutrality from the list of possible gripes.

I don't think they want to kill it by rsilvergun · 2017-12-26 06:51 · Score: 2

but they want to stop disruption. They want to put a stop to this thing were their investments can turn out to be worthless, where a company like MySpace can get overwhelmed by Facebook in a few years. To a certain extent that's what conservatism is: Favoring the establishment over new players, stability over progress.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

How to report on this. by AlanObject · 2017-12-26 06:54 · Score: 2

In case you haven't seen it I rather liked Huffington Post's editorial on the subject. Basically it says "We're owned by Verizon so we win and you lose."

Re:How to report on this. by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-12-26 09:52 · Score: 2

Now there's a reliable source. LOL. The Infowars of the far left.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!

Why not add it to your party's position? by Okian+Warrior · 2017-12-26 07:06 · Score: 1

if the party in power changes. And yes, this is a partisan issue.[...] Gun Control and Abortion are both powerful wedge issues that drive people to the polls. I don't see NN being one of those. Maybe if we could get this framed as a small business concern we'd have a chance, but I've yet to see anyone even mention that angle.

Then why don't you add "right to own firearms" and "abortion is regulated at the state level" to your party's platform?

Not every position your party takes needs to be the opposite from the other side.

Re:Why not add it to your party's position? by Altrag · 2017-12-26 21:24 · Score: 1

Not every position your party takes needs to be the opposite from the other side.
In the Trump era it seems to. Even under Obama, once congress fell into republican control they flat out said, on the record, that they were going to vote down everything, good or bad, purely to spite the democrats. At that point, every issue becomes a partisan issue because they've completely cut off any potential lines of negotiation. If you want it I don't. If you want to get rid of it I'll make sure it stays. Doesn't matter if I personally believe you're right -- maintaining strict party lines is more important.

That's fine and all by rsilvergun · 2017-12-26 07:51 · Score: 1

but it won't do any good if the Republicans pass a law blocks the States from any action while not restoring NN. Right now that looks like what's going to happen. We need to change who's running the country _before_ passing any laws. That means showing up for the Mid terms. And vote in your primary too. There's a lot of 'Blue Dog" Dems around that are just Republicans with a D next to their name. It won't do any good if we vote those jokers in.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:That's fine and all by penandpaper · 2017-12-26 08:03 · Score: 1

We need to change who's running the country _before_ passing any laws.
The point in passing a law is that it is hard and done in the open. It doesn't matter who does it right so long as it is done. Everyone will be able to see what the proposed law would do.
To get the law passed you have to establish common ground. Work from that common ground to meet the goals. Voting along party lines will not do that because both parties are for and against it for different reasons.
Everyone agrees monopolies are bad. Everyone agrees that more competition is needed. From there I think it should be pretty easy to identify what law everyone can agree on even if it isn't "Net Neutrality". That is an easier argument than NN through Title 2.
Re: That's fine and all by MattKeith · 2017-12-26 18:44 · Score: 1

How would you accomplish encouraging more competition?
Re:That's fine and all by Altrag · 2017-12-26 21:18 · Score: 1

Done in the open? Have you not been following the news? The multiple health care bills were written by a very small group and even the rest of the republican party didn't get to see them until almost the day of the vote. The recently passed tax disaster was still being amended -- via handwritten notes in the margins -- right up until the vote. And again, few people got to see it before that. In both cases multiple congresspeople from both parties have said they didn't even read the thing before voting on it. How the hell are they representing your wishes if they literally don't even know what legislation they're passing that affects you?
Congress has always been the butt end of the joke, but the current political atmosphere has magnified their issues manyfold. I wouldn't trust them to vote on the lunch menu at this point.

I keep hearing people say this by rsilvergun · 2017-12-26 07:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

and it pisses me off. Obama is _required_ to appoint 2 Republicans. Had Trump left Obama's appointees in then we wouldn't have lost NN. You're lying by omission, and if you're smart enough to tell that nuanced a lie then it's probably deliberate. On the off chance it's _not_ deliberate then please, wake up. It might already be too late but we can at least _try_ to fix the Internet.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:I keep hearing people say this by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-12-26 08:40 · Score: 1

In fairness, we would have had another year of NN if Obama's appointee hadn't stepped down.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:I keep hearing people say this by DCFusor · 2017-12-26 09:36 · Score: 1

There appears to be no fairness here about this, but yes - on the other hand, I'm grateful for Wheeler, and I'm not even a leftie. The situation actually appears to be one of corruption, which as far as I can tell, isn't partisan, most big outfits bribe both sides. It's in the public record, but the rabid partisans only seem to point out something bad the other guys do. Follow the money, if it's not too much work for your attention span. I have to for a living, and it makes one a bit cynical, but there it is.

--
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Re:I keep hearing people say this by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-12-26 12:34 · Score: 1

See, you say, without evidence, the fix is more competition. I'll say, with slight evidence, the fix is more regulation. Why? Because when the FCC started regulating, a bunch of BS the ISPs started doing got shut down.
Fun question, without NN, what's to stop Verizon, Comcast, etc from saying as a group "You can serve your website to our customers, or to little startup ISPs, but not both"?

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:I keep hearing people say this by SlaveToTheGrind · 2017-12-26 16:57 · Score: 1

Fun question, without NN, what's to stop Verizon, Comcast, etc from saying as a group "You can serve your website to our customers, or to little startup ISPs, but not both"?
Antitrust law. Just as it has prevented companies from colluding to harm competition for over 125 years.
Re:I keep hearing people say this by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-12-27 15:45 · Score: 1

Yup, let's put our trust in antitrust law. As Sinclair Broadcasting is doubling its size, Disney is swallowing up Fox (except a couple channels), the number of major airlines have shrunk to four which act in seeming concert with regard to bag fees, and AT&T is merging with Time Warner.
Not that it wouldn't be nice if antitrust laws were enforced. I just cannot remember the last time they were in the US (with the exception of MS bundling IE)

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:I keep hearing people say this by SlaveToTheGrind · 2017-12-28 05:46 · Score: 1

Not that it wouldn't be nice if antitrust laws were enforced. I just cannot remember the last time they were in the US (with the exception of MS bundling IE)
Then why would you believe that a net neutrality law would be enforced? If you feel like the current laws aren't being enforced, shouldn't our focus be on that rather than passing new laws that will make people feel good but then sit on the shelf with the others?
Re:I keep hearing people say this by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-12-28 06:48 · Score: 1

Net neutrality is a crisper line. Antitrust laws have a lot more judgement involved, which is usually siding with the corporation. Also, IIRC, antitrust complaints have to start from a competing company, but NN can start from a customer. Lastly, the FCC seems better able to do their job than the FTC. Maybe because there are competing big money interests who want NN, but don't want to start the *opoly accusations flying.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!

You have a voice by rsilvergun · 2017-12-26 08:08 · Score: 1

you get it every 2 years. It's just most either choose not to speak up or if they do they speak up about different things.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re: You have a voice by orlanz · 2017-12-26 10:48 · Score: 1

I bet you some who read that were thinking of their cellular contracts rather than local elections.

Huh? by rsilvergun · 2017-12-26 08:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hypochondria is abnormal concern for one's health. If one has just been diagnosed with a terminal illness I hardly see a strong reaction as "Hypochondria". And I have no doubt that the change of administration has already impacted the internet negatively. Cox waited 8 years to impose bandwidth caps and just happen to do it this year. There's no way in hell you'll convince me that's a coincidence. Next thing you'll tell me they did it for traffic management instead of profit.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:Huh? by UnderCoverPenguin · 2017-12-26 17:56 · Score: 1

Absent new law that grants the FCC the appropriate powers, Title II classification is what gave the FCC the power to mandate net neutrality.
As for why net neutrality is important, one only needs to look at the situation in Portugal: https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/s...
"Last mile" service to homes (and businesses) should be no different for Internet access than it is for telephone access. Without Title II, AT&T, for example, could charge extra for its customers to place or receive telephone calls to or from, for example, Verizon. Or AT&T could even only allow calls between AT&T customers, which would require businesses to be customers of both AT&T and Verizon (and, probably several other phone companies).
Likewise, without Title II (or other law), Comcast, for example, could charge its customers extra to access services provided by customers of other ISPs. Or require those services to be Comcast customers.
Also, note that Comcast owns NBC and Universal Studios, so is not just an Internet Service Provider. It is also a content provider. Therefore, it has a vested interest in promoting content from NBC and Universal and demoting content from other content providers.

--
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr

Re: So net neutrality now means slow internet by Lohrno · 2017-12-26 08:18 · Score: 1

Unlimited, uncapped, unfiltered data should be the default. We're moving farther and farther from that. Cable companies even have usage caps now. If companies aren't going to do it, we need regulation.

Re:So net neutrality now means slow internet by Dragonslicer · 2017-12-26 08:19 · Score: 1

So has anyone ever posted a legitimate "violation" of net neutrality or are these whines simply "muh internetz are t3h slowz!" which is the new definition of net neutrality being "violated".

If only there were some way to find out...

Re:This is only going to change..corruption by DCFusor · 2017-12-26 08:23 · Score: 1

Corruption is NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE!!! Both sides are bought in fee simple by big outfits. Remember how we were all afraid that Wheeler, a former CableCo lobbyist, was going to do what Pai actually did do? But then he turncoated on his former employers, and probably the fellow who appointed him. There's no knowing - and that's my point. All you sure of yourself "it's partisan" people who don't know how stuff really works are powerless to affect what happens. Educate yourselves. Partisanship is a false dichotomy. They both work for the same guys, and because one is wrong, doesn't make the other right. They're both dead wrong, don't work for us at all. This is shown in several studies, including one from Stanford, that report we have lost democracy (or a representative republic) long ago, we are now and have been an oligarchy for quite some time. There is no perceptible response to the will of the public except for roughly one hobby-horse program per president - as if a life of preparation and at least 4 years of power could at most begin to almost solve a single problem.
Before I retired, we engineers were expected to solve lots of problems....in a lot less than 4-8 years, and yes, some of them were rocket science.

--
Why guess when you can know? Measure!

Placebo effect by fustakrakich · 2017-12-26 08:26 · Score: 1

One person pukes, all of a sudden, everybody does

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re: So net neutrality now means slow internet by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-26 08:42 · Score: 1

Classic example: I wanted to VPN into my home router using strong ipsec encryption from my phone. All isps blocked it before net neutrality. I filed complaints with the fcc and behold... I can now VPN into my home router. I guarantee they will once again block this. It's not much traffic... for whatever reason they don't like me having secure access.

Hamburger Neutrality by MikeDataLink · 2017-12-26 08:47 · Score: 4, Informative

This helped my non-technical friends:

Hamburger Neutrality

--
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!

Re:Hamburger Neutrality by Altrag · 2017-12-26 21:53 · Score: 1

Yes, I want to keep the neo-Nazis off of the internet
Why? If you don't like their sites, don't go to them. Suggesting that Comcast and Verizon should get free reign of everything because you want legalized censorship seems a bit.. not great.

Yes, I want the applications that are important to me (VOIP for example) to cut in line because their latency/jitter matter
And your point is? Protocol-based traffic shaping was never banned and much of the internet would fall apart without it. Its endpoint-based traffic that Net Neutrality was protecting. That is, under NN, you get to use whatever VOIP app you like. Without NN, you get to use the one your ISP says you can use (ie: owns or gets a kickback from) and that's it. Hope you like it.

lets all eat at McDonalds since 2.99 is good enough for everyone
Where the hell did you get McDonald's from? I'm guessing purely based on the fact that whoever made the graphic just pulled an image from the web rather than going out and photographing their own cheeseburger? Hell if McDonald's burgers were actually as good as their pictures make them look, they probably would be good enough for everyone!

Re: So net neutrality now means slow internet by penandpaper · 2017-12-26 08:50 · Score: 1

Unlimited, uncapped, unfiltered data should be the default.

Why?

Re:So net neutrality now means slow internet by jbmartin6 · 2017-12-26 08:56 · Score: 2

The Portugal MEO example, to which all of these links refer, is false

--
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.

Re: So net neutrality now means slow internet by will_die · 2017-12-26 09:14 · Score: 1

WHAT!! For my phone I currently pay around $150 per year for 4 GB along with phone and text and don't use that, why should I have to pay the thousands for unlimited access?

Re:So net neutrality now means slow internet by phantomfive · 2017-12-26 09:17 · Score: 1

I would argue that DNS Hijacking is a violation of net neutrality, no matter what the law particularly says. I would also argue that the primary problem is lack of competition between ISPs.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Remember? by Karmashock · 2017-12-26 09:19 · Score: 1

Remember how the internet was an unending hell hole of bad service in 2015 before NN was passed?

Remember how the internet suddenly changed in any noticeable way between 2015 and 2017 when the internet was perfect and good and amazing?

Remember how when NN was struck down by the FCC it all went back to how it was before 2015?

Have your opinions... we all have them... but when your argument rests upon the listener having the attention span of a gold fish... consider that it won't be taken seriously.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

Re:Remember? by Altrag · 2017-12-26 22:05 · Score: 1

Remember how the internet was an unending hell hole of bad service in 2015 before NN was passed?
Yes.

Remember how the internet suddenly changed in any noticeable way between 2015 and 2017 when the internet was perfect and good and amazing?
No, but I remember it not getting significantly worse. Other than the introduction of zero-rating systems (which also break NN but either the FCC didn't care, or just didn't get around to it when they had the chance and it doesn't matter now..)

Remember how when NN was struck down by the FCC it all went back to how it was before 2015?
No, but seeing as its been less than two weeks since the vote that's not exactly surprising. Come talk to me this time next year. If Slashdot isn't blocked by your ISP.
Re:Remember? by Karmashock · 2017-12-26 23:11 · Score: 1

Your first point is about VPNs which were associated with commercial connections. I agree the move was shitty... though it was not throughout the whole industry. It was something a few ISPs did because they could because of the duopoly stuff.
I hear you, but do consider that a big part of the NN fight was not the last mile people but what was going on with asymmetrical back end data contracts at the back bone level. There was shenanigans with Netflix etc that were a problem.
We're also seeing that between the repeal of NN and the tax bill that all the telecomms and ISPs are dumping huge sums into infrastructure. So, let us see what happens.
Keep in mind, I feel the major issue is the lack of competition that is largely the result of restrictive franchise agreements that prevent alternative ISPs from competing thus creating monopolies that then lead to people getting screwed. I want right of way to the poles and conduits with reasonable regulations and flat rates per pole etc.
But we're going to see the results of the changes. Thus far nothing has happened. Tell you what, for whatever it is worth to you... if the result of NN repeal is all the frogs raining from the sky that we're hearing from the alarmists... then I'll concede that was a mistake.
I don't think it will happen. And if it doesn't... will you be as adaptable with your position? That is between you and the setting sun. Let us hope I am right and you are wrong... my assumptions are rosier if they manifest.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Re:Remember? by Altrag · 2017-12-27 15:39 · Score: 1

it was not throughout the whole industry
No, but if you read the rest of the page, there were things pretty much across the board.. not always the same things, and some certainly less good than others.. but still.

a big part of the NN fight was not the last mile people
No, that's a big part of what the ISPs wanted to (avoid) fighting about. From the users' perspective, all we care about is "will they make Netflix go faster than Hulu? Or block me from Skype because it competes with their super expensive telephone service?" Anything that doesn't specifically relate to those type of issues is not the problem, and is mostly just strawmen that various (usually pro-industry) groups are throwing out to intentionally confuse the issue.

between the repeal of NN and the tax bill that all the telecomms and ISPs are dumping huge sums into infrastructure
Most of which was already planned anyway, like the AT&T hiring spree that Trump bragged about.. that they'd started before Trump was elected (and when everyone still thought he had no chance.) They just let Trump take the credit because its politically expedient to stroke his ego and he's not terribly concerned with whether its deserved.

the major issue is the lack of competition
Agreed.

largely the result of restrictive franchise agreements
No. Its definitely partly a result of that, but as has been dragged out many many times -- all those extra criss-crossing wires everywhere isn't really something anyone wants. There's a limit to how much unrestricted competition you can support before the right-of-way requirements and pure city aesthetics is too much for people to take. It may not be a truly "natural" monopoly like a river is, but its damned close to one.
Of course there are alternatives -- you could privatize the service while keeping the physical lines public, as is done with other utilities in some places (power, water, sewage.. many cities are just fully public for those utilities but some aren't -- and those that aren't rarely have say duplicate water lines running everywhere.) But the ISPs aren't likely to give up control of either side of the equation, and the government forcing them to sell their lines to a public utility would face a lot of public backlash.

Thus far nothing has happened.
Its been 2 weeks. How much do you expect to have happened? And I've seen some talk that the rule change doesn't even take effect until February (though I can't find any corroboration on that so I'm not positive.) In any case though, I've said on several other posts now that I don't expect to see massively noticeable fallout until at least 2019. Especially if they're expecting congress to pass pro-industry legislation that can't be changed on a whim. No point making massive changes when things might be changed again (for better or worse) by next year.

if the result of NN repeal is all the frogs raining from the sky
It won't be. Especially at the start. Its likely going to appear at a glance as a benefit -- lower prices and faster speeds for your favorite services! The "cost" to them comes in the form of never having the chance for a competing, possibly better service to become their new favorite. The whole Friendster->MySpace->Facebook->Snapchat->whatever is next transition may never have happened if Friendster was straight up 10x faster and zero-rated when MySpace first came on the scene. They would have been unable to compete with that on any sort of a balanced playing field.

I don't think it will happen.
I hope you're right. I just don't think you are. As you said, lack of competition is the biggest problem and there's nothing to suggest competition will be improved other than Ajit Pai and industry pundits making entirely baseles
Re:Remember? by Karmashock · 2017-12-28 02:29 · Score: 1

justifications for restriction to poles and thus reductions in competition is part of the problem. Open up the right of way with reasonable rules and fees. And if the poles get congested the fees should justify sub surface conduits. Regardless, this is the least of our current problems. I'll hazard this scenario and I think there is little justification at this point for not hazarding it.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Re:Remember? by Altrag · 2017-12-29 19:40 · Score: 1

Subsurface conduits aren't a whole lot better. Sure they're not an ongoing ugliness but any time they need to be serviced, you have to dig up the entire street. Still not great, even if you can convince the companies to foot the bill (which of course means customers foot the bill -- company money doesn't appear out of thin air..)
I agree its the least of our current problems, mostly because its irrelevant when competition is already restricted in so many other ways (legal, political, etc.)
Re:Remember? by Karmashock · 2017-12-29 23:08 · Score: 1

They can be as large as you need them to be... the complaint doesn't matter. Currently you have an average of TWO service providers in an area... a phone and a cable tv provider... and should I suggest we have a third apparently this leads to chaos and ugliness...
Listen, if you want to break the monopolies you have to have as many companies running cable as the MARKET will bear. You say but the AESTHETICS... this is your argument... aesthetics. Tsk tsk and tut tut, sir.
if you have people running cable and paying a reasonable rate for their right of way then the city which provides the poles and the conduits can offer something reasonable.
I do not find it a credible argument to say that I must suffer the duopoly for your fears of wire ugliness and aesthetics. I think we can have something quite reasonably attractive if not utterly invisible depending on the situation. Big cities naturally have very extensive subsurface conduits already. Our cities are crisscrossed with disused gas mains etc. All of which has ALREADY been re purposed in many cases for communications wires etc.
This line of thinking leaves us with only two options which I find very rhetorically convenient. Either I must suffer a monopoly created by government regulations or I must "socialize" the internet... which means state ownership of the lot. uh huh.
Interesting. And since the monopoly is unacceptable on those terms... its socialism or nothing. Total government control or nothing.
Very convenient indeed.
You appreciate that I can reject your idea as frivolously as you rejected mine. We can run more cable and arguments to the contrary have boiled down to aesthetics and bluster.
Consider your position here. Maybe consider your whole stance on this issue. Because if this is what you've got, might not have thought about it as much as you think you have.
Good day, sir.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

Correction by Geoffrey.landis · 2017-12-26 09:21 · Score: 1

Thanks for the correction.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

Re: So net neutrality now means slow internet by Lohrno · 2017-12-26 09:37 · Score: 1

Because it's been the default since the early days of broadband. We should not be moving backwards.

Re: So net neutrality now means slow internet by penandpaper · 2017-12-26 09:46 · Score: 1

How am I a shill and who am I shilling for? I am just asking why the default should be unlimited. Could you kindly clear up the shill position so I know not to ruffle your jimmies.

Because it doesn't cost them any extra to move bits thru a pipe im already paying for

Can the pipes support unlimited usage and throughput?

. Why should I have to pay extra for essentially doing what I'm already paying for

Why should I have to pay extra for something I don't use?

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2017-12-26 09:47 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Proof title II was joke. by CrimsonAvenger · 2017-12-26 09:52 · Score: 1

should of never been implemented.

And that spelling of "should've" should've never been implemented either....

Why is it that supposedly educated people can't spell as well as the average fifth grader?

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Re: So net neutrality now means slow internet by Lohrno · 2017-12-26 10:11 · Score: 1

You shouldn't. You should pay about that or cheaper for unlimited. It's not a magical fairytale or anything, the companies have just decided they'd rather throttle than pay for infrastructure. So instead of using money to expand, they are just adding more customers to what's already there and doing almost nothing to expand. Meanwhile we are getting smoked bandwidth wise by almost all of the rest of the world. We can and should do better.

Re: So net neutrality now means slow internet by penandpaper · 2017-12-26 10:14 · Score: 1

I don't like the phrasing of "moving backwards" because it implies that anything prior is better.

But to your point, fair enough.

Re: So net neutrality now means slow internet by will_die · 2017-12-26 10:14 · Score: 1

Start up a phone ISP at that price and you will have me as a customer.

Re: So net neutrality now means slow internet by Lohrno · 2017-12-26 10:17 · Score: 1

Alright just need some uhh venture capital... A few billion might cover it... Let me check my left sock.

Re: So net neutrality now means slow internet by penandpaper · 2017-12-26 10:18 · Score: 1

errr.. sorry "anything prior is worse".

Re:Proof title II was joke. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2017-12-26 10:29 · Score: 2

What is really needed is a "Title IIX", since this is an entirely new "beast" that didn't exist in 1934; IIX is the next number available in the Act.

Re: So net neutrality now means slow internet by Lohrno · 2017-12-26 10:52 · Score: 1

Yeah I can see that... Not everything from the past is unworthy of revisiting. Mechanical keyboards and such have made a comeback. (I think we're okay leaving mouse balls there though).

Speaking of interference... by niftymitch · 2017-12-26 12:23 · Score: 1

The Net Neutrality rule change process had exposed the worst imaginable
folly in our current body of law.

The folly is the rule and regulation process that is not election based and
is not identity trackable.

Early reports disclosed an astounding number of stolen identities of US citizens were used
to file statement in favor of the elimination of regulations. In the Russian meddling not
a single vote was cast by a Russian cyber bot.

This matters because in many cases current law is an enabling framework that establishes
an agency and leaves the reality of the law to rule and regulation process. The ACA was
short but the regulations behind it had a ten fold page count. i.e. the Regulations are ten times bigger.

Approval of the regulation changes is guaranteed by inaction. Should the elected officials object the
entire set of regulations both good and bad are stopped. The design allows the relentless addition
of troubling regulations. Even technical flaws fail to get corrected.

In a recent EPA regulation the definition of acid mine water effluent was called out. It terms out the the regulation (law)
codified acid mine water at a level that was less acid than common rainwater over the eastern US. The implications of
this blunder is that rain water can trigger EPA legal action on a moning property. Shutting it down, guns drawn, bank
accounts locked, employees unpaid and more for rain water.
This allows the shutting down of operations where the traffic and noise were the personal objection of someone owning
a cabin with a view.

Backlash... most regulations championed by ill informed do gooders are obviously foolish and elections turn
little different than propaganda like "Reefer Madness" turned a generation on to herb. Yet some forget that it
is called "dope" for a reason (enjoyable but still dope).

Beware the regulation process it is flawed and open to ABUSE.

--
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.

You consider 906 pages.. by MerlynEmrys67 · 2017-12-26 13:03 · Score: 1

This matters because in many cases current law is an enabling framework that establishes an agency and leaves the reality of the law to rule and regulation process. The ACA was short but the regulations behind it had a ten fold page count. i.e. the Regulations are ten times bigger.

You consider something that is 906 pages of fairly dense text as Short

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

I would hate to see what you consider substantial. I do agree with you that the following regulations are probably an order of magnitude longer and more complicated

--
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them

Re:You consider 906 pages.. by niftymitch · 2018-01-01 08:52 · Score: 1

Fair point! The 906 pages of the ACA are fairly dense text and not short
especially since it cross links and modifies many other pages of law ....
However the regulations behind it are ten times the page count and denser
further modifying other regulations and law. So compared to the regulations
it spawned it is short.

--
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.

Net Neutrality is a partisan issue by rsilvergun · 2017-12-26 15:35 · Score: 1

don't let anyone fool you. The Dems get a ton of money from tech companies that are at least indifferent to NN and often in favor of it. The Repubs don't get nearly as much if any from those folks.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Paid shill detected by Rujiel · 2017-12-26 16:00 · Score: 1

The "ISPs want net neutrality" claim is absolutely laughable to anyone who pays attention.

Re:Paid shill detected by Altrag · 2017-12-26 20:23 · Score: 1

The ISPs definitely want net neutrality.
They just want to also be able to define the term however suits them best, rather than using its actual definition.

Re:Proof title II was joke. by Altrag · 2017-12-26 21:42 · Score: 1

Why is it that supposedly educated people can't spell as well as the average fifth grader?

Well, since you asked..

Re: So net neutrality now means slow internet by Altrag · 2017-12-26 22:11 · Score: 1

Generally speaking, that's exactly what's meant. "Backwards" in terms of progress more than time, though of course the two often proceed in lockstep.

In the case of NN, there's a moderate to high chance that barring a miracle (and barring the democrats changing things whenever they take over next,) we're going to see Comcast and Verizon (slowly) transition to the sort of curated crap system that AOL was providing in the dial-up days and if you want more freedom, be prepared to pay through the teeth. They won't do it overnight. Even if they had it all prepared they're not just going to flip a switch on day one. That would be too much of a slap in the face even for republicans. But they'll go that way one step at a time because its in their best interest for you to stay within their bubble of subsidiaries and partners and never venture out / spend money elsewhere.

Re: So net neutrality now means slow internet by Altrag · 2017-12-26 22:23 · Score: 1

Can the pipes support unlimited usage and throughput?

In practice? Of course not. But anyone with a brain realizes that "unlimited" in that kind of context still means "limited by technology and physics." I can, in theory, drive my car an unlimited amount. In practice I'm going to run out of gas, blow my tires, etc. People understand the difference. Unless they're intentionally trying to be obtuse.

Why should I have to pay extra for something I don't use?

This question only makes sense in a context where unlimited is not the default option. Not to mention you're already paying for something you don't use. The modem they provide you on your 15mbps connection is the same one they provide me for my 150mbps connection. They just have you artificially limited because they can -- you've still paid whatever rental fee for a full fast broadband modem though. And unless you use exactly every single bit of your package, you're still paying for the leftovers.

I mean you could equally ask why you pay for a full month of phone service when you only make a few calls? Because as any cell phone user (or Brit) knows, paying by the minute is so much better.. Or cable TV? Its not like you're watching 47 channels at once so why can't you just pay for the one you're watching at the time?

Re: So net neutrality now means slow internet by Altrag · 2017-12-26 22:31 · Score: 1

If the default was unlimited, presumably you wouldn't be paying "thousands" for it. You would be paying a reasonable rate.

Just like the TV stations don't stop running when you turn off your TV -- they're still streaming you content, multiple channels worth, in a completely unlimited fashion for the entire month whether you're using it or not -- and I'm pretty sure cable hasn't hit the $thousands range yet.

Internet is expensive because they've convinced you to pay that much. There's absolutely no reason why they couldn't provide you unlimited (or well, as much as your pipe can hold) GB for that same $150. The total number of bits per second is limited by hardware and upgrade schedules/costs, but each bit costs them millionths of a cent to transmit.

That is, the speed you get (MB/sec) has a justifiable technical limit but the data cap (total GB/billing period) is purely a sales construct and has essentially zero justification beyond "how much will those suckers pay?"

Re: Not First Post by Altrag · 2017-12-26 22:33 · Score: 1

I don't have to. That's basically White House policy right now.

We consumers are just plain... by martinfb · 2017-12-27 10:45 · Score: 1

We consumers are just plain fucking brow-beaten!

It is plainly obvious that the more overwhelmed we become - via corporate brain-damaging things like their ad lies and brain-washing ads -
the easier it is for them to keep us suppressed!

Most folks are happy with the "blue pill"! (Cowards!)

--

Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.

Is it fake news or clueless lack of memory... by MercTech · 2017-12-27 20:54 · Score: 1

"Net Neutrality" was codified by the FCC in 1996 when some ISPs were caught blocking and throttling.
Every time an ISP company went to court trying to bypass net neutrality; the FCC had to make the code more specific so kill the wiggle room forbidding predatory use of a public resource.

2015 was just the last time that the code was modified and that was the result of a lawsuit against the FCC by Verizon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014)

The ARPANET became the Internet in 1990 when civilian access was allowed. At first, big companies ignored the nerd playground. But, by 1995, the big boys started trying to cash in but their efforts fell flat. Do you remember the abortion that AT&Ts "Worldnet" was? (been there, beta tested that... a good year of free internet but buggy as {insert favorite epithet})

What several large companies tried to do was go back to the Compuserve and AOL model where their own content came in lightning fast but the rest of the net only got in through a throttled low bandwidth portal. The FCC had to draft regulations to stop that and implemented in 1996.

Someone should get a cluebat after Aijit Pai.

--
NRRPT/RCT

Slashdot Mirror

Net Neutrality Complaints Rise Amid FCC Repeal (axios.com)

116 of 183 comments (clear)