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

An anonymous reader shares a report: Internet users are complaining more about net neutrality-related issues since the FCC voted to repeal the existing net neutrality rules earlier this month, according to the FCC's consumer complaint data. The FCC allows consumers to submit complaints about a variety of telecom-related problems, from receiving unwanted phone calls to billing fraud. After adopting net neutrality rules in 2015, the FCC added net neutrality to the list of possible gripes, such as slowed-down internet service or content being blocked. The FCC can use those complaints to spot trends or even launch investigations. According to the data (via the FCC's Consumer Complaint Center), people appear to file more net neutrality complaints when the topic is in the news and people are paying more attention to their internet performance.

Comments

Oh, stop

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:Oh, stop

[neurojab]

>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

[penandpaper]

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

[peragrin]

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.

Re:Oh, stop

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

IOW

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Monster_user]

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.

Re:So net neutrality now means slow internet

[Geoffrey.landis]

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

Ajit Pai is blindingly obvious

[Rick Schumann]

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

[Altrag]

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.

This is only going to change

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:This is only going to change

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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.

Re:This is only going to change

[penandpaper]

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

[Dragonslicer]

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.

Pissing in the wind?

[grasshoppa]

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?

Simple solution

[ChatHuant]

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

[rsilvergun]

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.

How to report on this.

[AlanObject]

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.

[DNS-and-BIND]

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

I keep hearing people say this

[rsilvergun]

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.

Huh?

[rsilvergun]

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.

Hamburger Neutrality

[MikeDataLink]

This helped my non-technical friends:

Hamburger Neutrality

Re:So net neutrality now means slow internet

[jbmartin6]

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

Re:Proof title II was joke.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

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.