Slashdot Mirror
FCC Says Net Neutrality Rules Will End On June 11 (reuters.com)
The Federal Communications Commission said in a notice Thursday that landmark 2015 U.S. open-internet rules will cease on June 11. From a report: The FCC in December repealed the Obama-era "net neutrality" rules, allowing internet providers to block or slow websites as long as they disclose the practice. The FCC said the new rules will take effect 30 days from Friday. An FCC spokeswoman confirmed the new rules will take effect on June 11. A group of states and others have sued to try to block the new rules from taking effect. The revised rules were a win for internet service providers like AT&T and Comcast but are opposed by internet firms like Facebook and Alphabet.
You heard it here first.
I hope you're right. I'm all for deregulation and hope the market can favor companies who don't throw the little guy under the bus. I hope that companies can keep companies accountable by exposing it.
Enjoy your "Oh, you want to look at YouTube instead of our preferred video partner site? Sure, that's just an extra $10.95 a month."
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I hope you're ready to put your money where your mouth is.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Fortunately, the telecom industry has a rich history of operating as a healthy open, transparent market. Your hope is well placed and you seem to be very familiar with how the industry has acted and operated in the past.
*rolls eyes*
"Old man yells at systemd"
Umm, that is the purpose of gov't, to ensure the public good.
ISPs are the railroad or lumber barons of the 21st century.
If you think the collusion between ISPs is bad now, just wait.
Can't happen soon enough. This was a great call. Get government out of regulating business.
Just remember when you're paying more, for less Internet access, that this is what you wanted.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Business does a crap job of providing utilities without regulation. All that happens is that the provider ensures that it becomes a monopoly and then sits back on its fat lazy ass and gouges customers.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Since I am no longer required to treat all packets equally, I have:
-Installed noscript
-Installed uBlock origin
-Installed Pi-Hole
-Installed Restrictive Firewall
-Installed Ad-Free hostfile
I get the message, bandwidth is precious, I am doing my part to help!
Those web pages seem to load much faster!
You forgot privacy badger from EFF.
https://www.eff.org/privacybad...
and running your browser in private mode almost always.
And tossing your cookies and cache every couple days.
Yeah, there's no way ISP wanting to increase their profits are going to start charging businesses based upon their bandwidth.
Not gonna happen. The big ISPs are going to do what they've always done: increase their revenues by innovation, new infrastructure, and services that people want to buy. Improving their service and customer experience. Why, I'm so exited with my AT&T 1.5 Mbps down/.25Mbps up connection! And XFinity wont' sell me anything until I realize the value of their $200/month package.
It's all for my best interest!
We all know that the ISPs have the consumer's best interests at heart.
I'm gonna to petition the Pope to have all the CEOs at AT&T, Verizon, Comcast turned into Saints.
Every couple days?! Pft, make those suckers create a new Ad profile for you on every page load. Block all cookies and caching.
The share price is floundering - partly because of Trump's immoral behaviour - and I need that investment to pick up.
I hope they gouge Netflix, Hulu, CBS, and get Time Warner to cut them a break so that my investment will pay off.
If they don't do what everyone is afraid of, I'll be pretty pissed.
That's Capitalism boys!
And that in a nutshell is the problem with deregulation.
You are left hoping that companies don't act like assholes, when then regulation was there to prevent it in the first place.
The market can't and won't solve this problem, because all of the power lies with the companies who will basically do whatever makes them the most money.
There is no such thing as a free market, and there certainly is no such thing as the market finding optimal solutions for anything other than greedy corporations who will change the rules, lie to you, and basically eliminate any of the things which the free market people claim will happen to balance things.
Hope in one hand and shit in the other, see which fills up first. I guarantee you, it won't be the one full of hope.
These rules classified an ISP to be regulated with Title 2 with exceptions (which probably won't stand up against the first lawsuit as the law says those exceptions do not exist for that classification). Nothing about them were related to "Net Neutrality". Why is Title 2 the answer?
How can TV do what you are saying with HBO even though TV falls under Title 2?
How does the NN rules being repealed stop things like "HBO/Youtube package Title 2 internet"?
let the innovation and investment begin!
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
If I have $600,000 to bribe Trump through his lawyer, can I get net neutrality reinstated?
If Comcast starts slowing down our internet service, would this be justification to cancel our service contract and go with a better one (Sonic.net for example?)
The states can pass laws to prevent this...
Please remember the 10th amendment.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
What a terrible point. Google and Facebook are for these rules, but they are lousy with user data, so therefore the telecom industry has traditionally responsibly self-governed their market and can be trusted to continue to do so? That's your point?
Google and Facebook have nothing to do with my point that the telecom industry moves to market monopolies (historically and for good reason) in an industry in which the products and services make it tantalizingly easy to engage in anti-competitive behavior.
Hell, given that Google and Facebook are far less regulated than companies in the telecom industry, they're pretty good examples of companies which might benefit from being forced to act in manners you deem more responsible. Your argument reads more like a pro-regulation argument than anti.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Yeah, back when isps blocked netflix and bittorrent :/ Guess you forgot about that.
Love the way you stand boldly forth and display your valor by posting this as AC.
Check your premises.
Enjoy your "Oh, you want to look at YouTube instead of our preferred video partner site? Sure, that's just an extra $10.95 a month."
In all seriousness, you don't think that will end up right back in the Supreme Court due to class action lawsuit?
We'll make great pets
Enjoy your "Oh, you want to look at YouTube instead of our preferred video partner site? Sure, that's just an extra $10.95 a month."
In all seriousness, you don't think that will end up right back in the Supreme Court due to class action lawsuit?
Oh, I'd love to see that--especially if the suit were successful. But I don't see it being successful, alas, since this SCOTUS is essentially the same one that gave us that horrid Citizens United decision.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
LOL. Do you really think I'm behind every (or for that matter any) AC post here that's, ahem, less than complimentary to your fine self?
And, no, I'm not *from* Sweden--I do *live* there (when I'm not elsewhere), which is not quite the same thing. And I have never said otherwise.
Hope you continue to enjoy yourself replying to people who've not said anything to you,
--Z.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
ISPs have announced that their internet packages are going up in price on the 12th.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
Because that is always how it works, right?
"Oh, I see now the error of my ways! I was so shortsighted and now the scales are lifted from my eyes!"
I don't think so.
Even if we do end up paying more, for less Internet access, there will be some new (or old) development that will be held up as a scapegoat as to why things didn't turn out in everyone's favor. But it won't be the fault of repealing the regulation.... no, that was the right step, it is just that they damn keep screwing things up!
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
There isn't a critical mass of enough people to get this done. I'll doubt there is in your country either.
If any people did want to use violence to achieve their policy goals, you need a decent sized minority to go along with it. Otherwise you're just asking to be shot by a police officer.
Yeah, back when isps blocked netflix and bittorrent :/ Guess you forgot about that.
Yes, and they didn't stop until NN came along and...oh, wait...they stopped without any NN regs.
All the horror stories trotted out by NN proponents have a fatal flaw.
All those bad things were stopped before NN was passed, and were halted by the markets and the courts without needing NN.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Yes. And as owner of your ISP...I'll be sure to block Fox News and Trump's Twitter feed because nothing says I can't.
About time that ISPs can charge for the right to access information you get through THEIR networks THIS IS AMERICA -- if you want free information build your own internet you fucking commie liberals
I'll remember this come November. Ending Net Neutrality is a call to arms AFAIC.
Given Netflix didn't start streaming anything until 2007, and the FCC has been enforcing Network Neutrality since 2005, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Are you under the impression the current Title II classification was the first and only attempt to enforce neutrality? Because the only reason the FCC adopted that was because of legal challenges to the 2005 order.
It still remains unclear exactly what was going on between Netflix and Comcast anyway, with the latter adamant it never blocked or throttled anything. But it certainly was resolved at a time when the FCC was enforcing neutrality, and the eyes of legislators and government were on Comcast, ready to add more restrictions on Comcast's business if it didn't behave itself and somehow got away with it legally.
For more information on NN, Wikipedia covers the history quite well.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Do you really think Google and Facebook
Take this fucking logical fallacy and shove it so far up your ass, that it re-materializes in your brain and forces you to re-evaluate it.
Absolutely nothing is forcing you to use Google or Facebook. They may abuse their positions in the industry, but you can still choose not to patronize their services. Also, anyone can easily register a domain and start their own search engine or social media business. It's not quite so easy to start a broadband ISP.
Many Americans (myself included) have one choice of landline broadband provider, and if they decide to start charging extra for Netflix, or a "premium online gaming package", cancelling service in protest would be a significantly larger sacrifice than switching to DuckDuckGo/deleting Facebook.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
When exactly are you cowards planning on starting to fire guns?
Most of the "cling to their guns" crowd supported the administration which allowed this to happen. They believe that if you make businesses happy by removing regulations, the economy will prosper, and a brand new 4x4 pickup truck will miraculously appear in their driveway.
And they have the nerve to call the left "snowflakes"...
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Get government out of regulating business.
You mean like having an Iowa Senator get the taxpayers to subsidize ethanol producers year round?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Glad we now know your stance on neutrality. What's your name? I want to make sure the reward is delivered appropriately.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
You do not have a 'Liberal' political party. The Democrat Party is centre-right when compared to the rest of the West.
The Republican's are well to the Right.
New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
It's precious that you think the ISPs aren't collecting, indexing, and selling to the highest bidder any and all metadata they can harvest about what you are passing through their network.
Your argument is completely invalidated by the fact that the ISPs are not only doing exactly what Google / Facebook are doing (less now that HTTPS is in use everywhere, but they can still get metadata), they are making you pay them for the privilege and then asking for more.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
...call your ISP "Heyyyy, this website is slow, can you tell me if you're throttling it?..."
Oh, I'd love to see that--especially if the suit were successful. But I don't see it being successful, alas, since this SCOTUS is essentially the same one that gave us that horrid Citizens United decision.
You might actually. It depends on if Supreme Court Justice seats are appointed during the current administration. I know Trump's not the nicest guy but he is a populist president and whether you want to admit it or not that means he is regularly giving the US Chamber of Commerce and their sponsored Super PACs the finger in a lot of cases. That is in stark contrast to the past 30-40 years where politicians were exclusively bought off and marionettes dancing on puppet strings. Sometimes I wonder if some of these memes against Trump are actually coming from the tentacles of the US Chamber of Commerce because Populism would be in direct opposition to Oligarchy.
We'll make great pets