Slashdot Mirror


Net Neutrality Repeal Is Official (cnet.com)

The Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality rules, which had required internet service providers to offer equal access to all web content, took effect on Monday. The rules, enacted by the administration of President Barack Obama in 2015, prohibited internet providers from charging more for certain content or from giving preferential treatment to certain websites. CNET: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has called the Obama-era rules "heavy-handed" and "a mistake," and he's argued that they deterred innovation and depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks. To set things right, he says, he's taking the FCC back to a "light touch" approach to regulation, a move that Republicans and internet service providers have applauded.

But supporters of net neutrality -- such as big tech companies like Google and Facebook, as well as consumer groups and pioneers of the internet like World Wide Web creator Tim Berners-Lee -- say the internet as we know it may not exist without these protections. "We need a referee on the field who can throw a flag," former FCC Chairman and Obama appointee Tom Wheeler said at MIT during a panel discussion in support of rules like those he championed. Wheeler was chairman when the rules passed three years ago.
We expect to see some protests today as the tussle to convince House representatives to reinstate the regulations continues. Some members of Congress are still fighting to overturn the ruling, so there's hope for a net neutrality return if legislators agree to it.

Further reading: The Washington Post published an interview of Pai over the weekend. In the interview, Pai remained bullish that the FTC could stop abuses. He also criticized Senate Dems and others for spreading misinformation during net neutrality debate. Over at CNET, Ajit Pai has written an op-ed, in which ... he is defending his move. Fight for the Future: The FCC repeal of net neutrality goes into effect TODAY, but Congress can still stop it and save the Internet.

10 of 333 comments (clear)

  1. No worries... by Kenja · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They wont start actually acting on the repeal until after the 2018 elections. So we got time before everything goes to hell.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:No worries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > handled fine
      In the case of Netflix vs. Comcast, nothing was "handled fine." Netflix ended up paying Comcast to stop throttling. This opened the door and soon every ISP would be extorting every content provider. If NN hadn't come in 2015 (in part because of this), we would be living in a much different, content restricted world. The ISPs need to replace the revenue stream from cord cutters. They will start extorting money from Netflix and others. Guess who will subsidize that?
      https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/index.html

    2. Re:No worries... by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the bigger problem is allowing local and state governments to block new entries to the market.

    3. Re:No worries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Everything was fine, huh?
      --
      Remember when AT&T blocked facetime on Apple devices?
      Link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/att-says-it-never-blocked-apps-fails-to-mention-how-it-blocked-facetime/
      --
      The internet wasn’t broken before 2015 and ISPs don’t block or throttle

      Internet providers have attempted to throttle traffic by type or by user (Comcast in 2007), have imposed arbitrary and secret caps on data (AT&T 2011-2014), hidden fees that had no justification or documentation (Comcast in 2016), and tried to give technical advantages to their own services over those of competitors (AT&T in 2016). These attempts were only revealed in retrospect once they were discovered and lawsuits filed. If the deterrents those lawsuits provided eventually had been part of preemptive rulemaking then these practices would never have been attempted at all.

      2015 wasn’t some magic year, either: the FCC and Congress had proposed net neutrality rules going back more than a decade before then. It’s only in 2015 that they made them stick.
      Link: https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-are-the-arguments-against-net-neutrality-and-why-theyre-wrong/
      --
      And another:
      Lie: Everything was great back before 2015.
      The original net neutrality rules didn’t come out of nowhere. In fact, there were several rather important things that happened before they were put in place.

      Perhaps the biggest issue happened in 2014 when Level 3, a telecommunications company that helps ISPs connect to the Internet, found major ISPs throttling internet speeds on services like Netflix.

      In 2012, AT&T blocked users on its lower tier services from using Apple’s FaceTime video chat feature, a move that caused huge public outcry.

      When Google announced its Wallet app, mobile providers tried to block it for competing with their own solutions.

      AT&T tried blocking Skype to cut down on competition with its own services,

      Or, look to the parts of the world. KPN, a telecom company in the Netherlands, tried to apply an extra tariff on messaging apps force people into buying texting plans that worked on the cellular network. The move was blocked by the government.
      Link: https://www.popsci.com/net-neutrality-lies#page-4

  2. That would be the Constitutional way by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Agreed, the Constitution gives Congress the power to make law, not Ajit Pai. Pai's contention that the FCC doesn't have the authority to make NN laws isn't completely unfounded. There are arguments both ways, but any time it's unclear whether an unelected bureaucracy has the authority to do X, I'd rather them not do X. I get a chance to vote for or against my Congressman every two years. I don't get to vote on FCC commissioners.

    I hope whatever does get passed, whenever that happens, has a lot of input from people who really understand carrier-grade networks. One draft bill proposed in Congress would have actually made it illegal to block spam. "Treat every packet the same" would be disastrous, making VoIP virtually impossible. Some of the goals related to NN are certainly good, and I'd like to see them happen, but writing a law will be tricky because the technical details are very complex.

  3. Comcast could block Cloud Gaming unless you buy tv by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comcast could block Cloud Gaming unless you buy an tv package just like how ATT blocked facetime on some plans.

  4. Re: Praise King Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    > forcing others to kneel

    got a cite for that? i don't see anyone being "forced" to kneel, I see patriots using their free speech rights (and in honor of our veterans) and being attacked for it by the likes of you. republicans regularly attack veterans like john mccain and anti-veterans like YOU support them for it.

    republicans are not only against freedom of speech, they are also anti-veteran.

  5. Right.... by sjbe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm just guessing here.. But it seems to me that returning to a pre-NN regulation environment won't be a huge issue even then.

    I'm sure companies like AT&T and Comcast are fighting hard against Net Neutrality with no further goals and only the most altruistic of intentions. I'm sure that Comcast will be thrilled to compete fairly against Netflix and Google and countless tiny companies.

  6. Re: Praise King Trump! by Sperbels · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I see "patriots" forcing people to stand for the national anthem and pledge of allegiance. Forcing one to stand or kneel...whatever, it's basically the same thing.

  7. Regulations = Laws by sjbe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's the way that comports with the Constitution. Congress makes laws, the executive *implements* the law passed by Congress. Which includes details of *how* the Congressional law is implemented. How, not *what* the law is.

    That's a distinction without a difference. Any decision on a means of implementation (a regulation) de-facto IS a decision about what the law is. Congress delegated law making power. If Congress does not like a particular interpretation of the law they are empowered to pass legislation to clarify the powers they are delegating to the legislative branch or to give them further constraints. Congress is empowered to be as specific as they like with how they want a federal agency to behave. But in the absence of specificity from the Legislative branch federal agencies can and do write laws in the form of regulations on a daily basis within whatever mandate they are granted. Regulations ARE laws. Whether Congress writes a detailed law itself or delegates that authority to the Executive branch (which they do most of the time) has exactly the same effect at the end of the day. There is NO difference.

    The Constitution, and common sense, disagree with you on this.

    You would fail Constitutional Law 101 with that opinion. You're not arguing with my opinion and whether or not you think it sensible is irrelevant because that is how it works. I suggest you educate yourself on this point because it's important.

    IF Congress passed a NN law, we could discuss at what level of detail Congress should act and what level the can legitimately leave to the FCC.

    The FCC has already been granted powers by Congress. We can debate whether those powers extend to regulating Net Neutrality or not (the Judiciary has held that they do thus far) but the fact is that the FCC like all other federal agencies is granted substantial power to interpret the laws via regulations and to enforce those regulations. EVERY federal agency has the power to write laws via regulations. Regulations ARE laws whether you like it or not. That is how it works whether you like it or not.

    In fact Congress chose NOT to make NN law.

    That does not matter if the powers Congress already granted the FCC are broad enough to permit them to create (or remove) regulations surrounding Net Neutrality. It appears that the FCC does indeed have powers that broad as the Supreme Court has issued a ruling supporting the FCC's authority to write (or not) such regulations back in 2005. There have been other federal rulings that similarly affirm the FCC's authority to make such regulations under their existing authority. If Congress wishes to change this state of affairs they are empowered to do so.