Internet Goes WILD After FCC Net Neutrality Vote
Simmer down y'all.
Are you ok? Is your Internet connection still copacetic?
Based on some of the reactions online, today's vote by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to rescind the so-called "net neutrality" rules (the "Open Internet Order") passed by the agency in 2015 signals an end to life as we know it.
Here's a real-life headline from CNN, the network that prides itself on telling you an apple is an apple, or something.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called the decision to reduce government regulation of the internet a "radical departure that risks erosion of the biggest free speech platform the world has ever known."
The ACLU's stance is a radical departure of sorts—the civil liberties organization has generally been one of the most outspoken skeptics of the Trump administration's use of government power. They should welcome the administration reducing its authority here.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), the Democrats' 2016 nominee for vice president, took full advantage of Twitter's new 280 character limit:
Thanks to
this vote
one day
it may
take
this long
for this
content
to
load
or you
may
never
get to
see it
at all.
Horrible step backwards for a free and open internet. https://t.co/qyzmLh9Ph3
— Tim Kaine (@timkaine) December 14, 2017
Of course it didn't take that long for content to come up before the 2015 rules went into effect. In fact, one of the first enforcement measures by the FCC in the wake of the 2015 rules was to crack down on "zero pricing" offers, where some streaming video and other data-heavy services don't count against monthly data limits. The horror.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) brought his usual over-the-top rhetoric:
This is an egregious attack on our democracy. The end of #NetNeutrality protections means that the internet will be for sale to the highest bidder. When our democratic institutions are already in peril, we must do everything we can to stop this decision from taking effect. https://t.co/8GGrJFMdrU
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 14, 2017
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), meanwhile, promised today's decision wouldn't last. Was he proposing to use Congress' power to review regulations to overturn the decision? Or even to reduce the power of the unelected bureaucrats to whom Congress has abdicated much of its authority?
Nope.
This is an outrageous assault on a fair and open internet. Mark my words, this decision will not last! We will reverse it by winning future elections. https://t.co/J6QXOXfwAm
— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) December 14, 2017
"Even our legislators admit that they're not the ones making our laws anymore," Seth Mandel quipped.
You can check out more mostly out-of-proportion Twitter comments here.
But these kind of apocalyptics can be expected when sober arguments aren't available, and there are very few that don't rely on misrepresenting what the 2015 rules are or what their repeal means.
It's worth noting that when the rules were passed in 2015, opponents did not turn into Chicken Littles warning of the sky falling, even though warnings that the rules would reduce investment in broadband and other infrastructure largely came true.
Related: Watch Reason TV's full interview with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.
-
I really didn't care about this at all. But the reactions after the vote have been pretty entertaining. So I'm all on board now with the repeal.
-
Indeed. Things that cause agony to progtards are their own reward.
-
Hopefully this will also help prosecutors and service providers work together to sanitize the net of inappropriately deadpan "parody" and other forms of criminal expression masquerading as "free speech." Surely no one here would dare to defend the "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated judge in America's leading criminal "satire" case? See the documentation at:
-
How many of them even know what net neutrality is? Probably the same people who would ban dihydrogen oxide.
-
Is your Internet connection still copacetic?
No, to steal an earlier joke, I'm publishing this via carrier squirrel.
-
Is your Internet connection still copacetic?
No, to steal an earlier joke, I'm publishing this via carrier squirrel.
-
Clearly, the effects are already being felt.
-
Real original, fuckface.
-
All credit goes to Inigo Montoya and whoever manages Reason's netcode.
-
I have it on good authority that Reason's net code is free range, and not managed in way.
It is free to go where it will.
(as long as it does not impact the right to make money off the site.) -
Oh my god Tim Kaine shut up shut up SHUT UP.
-
Who's Tim Kaine?
-
Old comedy partner from Herman Cain's old comedy show, K&C Fun Factory
-
Tim Kaine is the rightful Vice President of the United States, though sadly prevented from assuming that position by Russian hacking.
-
*waves tiny Russian flag*
-
Very sad indeed that he is still representing my state,
-
Can you imagine what the press reaction would be if Mike Pence's son was arrested for violently rioting if Hillary won?
-
I hate him too.
-
There are actual real people who are able to get dressed by themselves that believe that Net Neutrality regulations were specifically designed to promote the content of marginalized peoples.
-
You enjoyed the Bustle link, yeah?
-
It was probably better than many of the PM links will be.
-
In exactly what way did the Net Neutrality regulations actual do anything to "promote the content of marginalized peoples". Was that content somehow suppressed in 2014? What changed in 2015 that you think will now be undone?
-
You tell me, that's what people on the web are screaming.
-
Maybe they are naked?
-
"end of the internet as we know it"
So it's no longer going to be a hotbed of whining and melodrama? Why didn't we do this sooner?
-
Cats.
Don't forget the cats. -
I'm actually surprised that people aren't out there torching cars, assaulting strangers, and smashing windows over this.
How dare the FCC reset regulations to those in place in 2014? Don't they know how bad things were then with people being nickle-and-dimed per website?
-
-
He who is without sin, etc
-
If he gets banned from Twitter, maybe Reason could host him, too. That would be so awesome.
-
except he said he's too pro-border control for the Libertarians
-
I suspect Reason already does.
-
So you're saying that you're Iowahawk?
-
Just a fan.
-
He used to comment here some.
-
Socialists: is there anything they've ever been right about?
-
A massive union of workers can overthrow an oppressive government and usher in an era where things are better.
Granted, this was in 1980s Poland, and it was the Soviet regime that Solidarity stood up to, and the better era was one where capitalism was allowed rather than one where socialism was the standard of rule, but the point still stands.
-
People like the promise of free shit so much they will kill their countrymen by the millions to realize the utopia?
-
PLEASE stop using tweets in articles.
-
These people, these are not smart people.
"Even our legislators admit that they're not the ones making our laws anymore," Seth Mandel quipped.
This has been my main reaction today. All this talk of democracy and how voting will reverse this in the future. Fine, guys, if you want net neutrality, make a law authorizing net neutrality. But no, chances are they'll wait for the next D to be in the WH and then beg for the FCC to once again invoke a law written 60 years before the internet gained prominence.
-
Agreed. At this point, we might want to look into electing the heads of federal bureau's instead of wasting time with Congress. It's pretty obvious this was a way for the Progressives to maintain ruling power even while out of power.
-
All the right people hate it, so you know it was a good decision.
-
Those of us who are old enough can remember the "all circuits are busy" recording on Xmas Eve when trying to call home on the heavily regulated phone system back in the day. Because after you paid your service charge, all the minutes you talked long distance were free, lololol. These idiots can't see past the end of their nose, how their narrative has been so widely adopted just shows how short people's memories are.
-
Many of us still had party lines and thats only as far back as the early 70's in California.
-
Sexual assault roundup, Siesta Edition:
Apparently, Smiley knew what he was talking about.
All I know, is NPR must be an awesome place to work for gropers and whip-out artists.
-
Progressive Projection. Case #94955.
-
His brother Guy is speechless.
-
"But these kind of apocalyptics can be expected when sober arguments aren't available, and there are very few that don't rely on misrepresenting what the 2015 rules are or what their repeal means."
That's hilarious given how many times the writers on this site grossly misrepresent things or outright lie about objective facts (Mr Gillespie). To say nothing of the blatant and frequent pure unmitigated bullshit that spews out of Ajit Pai.
-
Tell us how NN rules kept alive the whimpering voices of the marginalized.
-
This is so stupid. More regulation makes technology advance quicker and operate more cheaply? Or is it the exact opposite?
The biggest problems we have are out of control spending and unlimited government. All these bullshit distractions are thrown up to cloud our vision and to keep evil, corrupt, fuckheads in power. In both parties, you fools.
-
The salt has arrived on our shores.
How are you going to feel when you're wrong a year from now? Or are you just going to conveniently forget this all happened? -
They don't give a shit about a year from now. This is 2018 election talking points.
The MSM is already trying to hit the brakes a little on the hysteria, saying that "it will take a while" for the effects of the repeal to become apparent.
-
But whatever bullshit he spews is several orders of magnitude less bullshit and nonsensical and hysterical as his opponents. The hyperbole and insanity is actually frightening.
-
His entire argument is basically if you don't support repealing NN you hate America and freedom. His one policy excuse is a flat-out lie.
-
Tony|12.14.17 @ 5:08PM|#
"His entire argument is basically if you don't support repealing NN you hate America and freedom. His one policy excuse is a flat-out lie."Tony, are you capable of posting anything that isn't a lie?
-
Are you capable of not reflexively supporting everything crony capitalist Republicans do? Are they that good at giving head or what?
-
Can you explain how reversing a cronyist regulation is supporting crony capitalism?
-
How do you manage to keep 'net neutrality is good' and 'corporations are bad' in your head at the same time when net neutrality is pushed by corporations?
I'm honestly kind of surprised you can put on pants.
-
Not gonna lie, we frequently go commando.
-
Is...is that what going commando means? Not wearing pants?
Wow, well that's just one more thing I've been doing wrong for years...
-
It's no underwear, but in our defense pants sometimes confuse us too.
-
I'm surprised he's able to breathe and type at the same time.
-
Tony|12.14.17 @ 5:17PM|#
"Are you capable of not reflexively supporting everything crony capitalist Republicans do? Are they that good at giving head or what?"So you're NOT capable of posting anything but lies.
What a pathetic excuse for humanity... -
Tony, Tony, Tony. It is disingenuous to assume supporting a Republican policy is done along tribal lines. No real libertarian is for either Team.
-
Well, actually, the argument was that overregulation has been crippling infrastructure development, and the regulations aren't actually protecting us from any consumer threat anyway. But, go on.
-
fafalone|12.14.17 @ 4:57PM|#
"That's hilarious given how many times the writers on this site grossly misrepresent things or outright lie about objective facts (Mr Gillespie)."
Cite missing."To say nothing of the blatant and frequent pure unmitigated bullshit that spews out of Ajit Pai."
So far, all we have is your obvious bullshit claiming that.
So fuck off. -
GET OF THE UN-NET NEUTRALITY INTERNETTING POTSIE!
-
Weird how you can't read Bernie Sanders's writing without hearing it in his voice.
-
Me too. I could hear his constipated-sounding impotent rage through the monitor.
Then I heard seals clapping. -
Whenever he speaks all the bearded millenials around me start weeping.
-
Isn't that hard to tell from down there?
-
Bitching about democracy is the ultimate virtue! Duh!
-
Horrible step backwards for a free and open internet.
Without rules and bureaucracies managing freedom, people would be able to do whatever they want!!
-
When our democratic institutions are already in peril, we must do everything we can to stop this decision from taking effect.
Is he referring to the FCC as a "democratic institutions?"
the man is even dumber than I first thought.
-
Maybe meant the Democratic Party?
-
I would like to take a minute to thank Reason for their restraint in using the word 'repeal' in this matter. Not that 'repeal' is exactly wrong per se but that 'repeal' in our traditional democratic sense implies some manner of procedured or process-oriented removal. As opposed to what's actually happening which is (not to diminish Pai's stance) more like kids in the car fighting over which radio station they're going to listen to.
-
I'm a software in the industry and have worked for ISPs. While I'm normally in agreement with the editorials and comments on Reason, I'm a little shocked that a libertarian-leaning site is on-board with the repeal.
These rules were intended to make sure we continue to have a level playing field. Those rules became necessary because companies like Verizon and Comcast have repeatedly attempted to implement policies that increase their control over content on the internet. These same companies have always been a utility as they are localized monopolies and provide a common use service critical to our daily lives. The rules just made their classification as a utility official. This is no difference than electricity, water, natural gas, telephone, etc.
The telecom industry is only looking to make up their losses. Not by investing in their infrastructure. Not by improving their customer service. Not by providing additional value to consumers. They are trying to act as gatekeepers so they can get money from large content providers via fast-lane deals, implement data caps and "over-usage" fees and throttle/block content they arbitrarily deem immaterial.
This is a problem about censorship, monopolies, and corporate greed. I'm a libertarian too, but when it comes to weighing interests of the citizens versus corporations: I choose the citizens.
-
If Sevo's not around would you be okay if I said "FUCK OFF SLAVER" until he got here himself?
-
I think ol' Sevo would be happy. I'm sure he's fatigued by now.
-
Ah yes, these local monopolies where internet speed keeps increasing and price keeps dropping. Truly menacing
-
Just as an anecdote, but the ISP known as Cox jacked rates twice this year.
Whether that has to do with NN or not, I don't know. But I've never seen prices fall for these services.
-
So go with one of the alternatives.
Cable or wireless.
Or maybe, just maybe, walk to a local library and read a dead tree newspaper for free.
Then write by hand a letter to the editor, and drop it in a post office pick up box.
Or did you go to public schools? -
I fail to see your point. I have cable broadband, which is pay a fairly hefty sum for (
-
I forgot you can't use certain mathematical symbols when HTML is enabled.
My point was, I don't know if the price increases are tied to NN. And I don't know if prices will rise slower now that NN is dead. I was never in favor of NN. But it seems a bit optimistic to assume my ISP will decide to take less of my money for the same service in the future. Rents don't go down, they just go up.
-
How much did 50 Mbps internet cost 20 years ago?
-
The point is simple:
No one is guaranteed a service from any supplier of any economic good.
If you don't like what's offered for X amount, you are free to explore any and all alternatives. You are not free to use government coercion to force a supplier to satisfy your desires.
People who attempt to do so are known as "slavers", and they are kindly requested to fuck off. -
I totally agree, but I feel I must stress, again, that I don't see prices for a leased service going down. It's not in the ISP's interest to lower prices for the same service when I already pay the amount I do. They're not a charity, they are a business.
This was all in reply to brentjr saying: "Ah yes, these local monopolies where internet speed keeps increasing and price keeps dropping."
I have never seen a price drop, though occasionally speed does improve. I can't recall the last time that happened though. I DO know my ISP recently instituted data caps. At some point I may change services.
-
Just an anecdote, but the ISP known as Spectrum is offering twice the connection speed - at the same price - as my previous cable/ISP was before they merged.
I've also never seen prices fall - but I've seen service improve faster than the prices have for 20 years now.
-
As a citizen I choose to have structured payment systems so that if I only want email I can get it at a reasonable cost but if I want to stream movies night and day such that no one near me can get on line then I should have to pay more just like long distance phone calls, if I make a lot of calls I pay more if I want to fly farther I pay more if I want premium channels on my cable tv I pay more. If I want my local paper I pay a little if I want the NYTimes I pay a lot. Why should the internet be any different, someone has to pay for the maintenance and the electricity to run it. nothing is free never has been never will.
-
My point for years.
All the whining about bandwidth hogs goes away if the providers go back to per minute pricing. -
I'm a libertarian, but[...]
Hilarious.Anyway, the reason there are localized monopolies is because local governments make stupid contracts with the telcos; NN has no affect on that.
You should realize that companies and the people running it should have control of what goes through their networks; they own it. This is a libertarian position.
-
If they are truly monopolies, why not focus on busting the monopolies?
Also, why are people mentioning water, natural gas, and electricity as models to emulate? My water company is the worst thing I deal in any given month.
-
If they are truly monopolies, why not focus on busting the monopolies?
Because people rely on the national government too much, and they are ignorant of their local government's retardation. If folks really wanted to stop local consolidation of ISPs, then they need to make their voices heard to the people making these contracts.My water company is the worst thing I deal in any given month.
My condolences. My well water is amazing. -
The water quality is fine. Just dealing with the company itself is often frustrating. And all around low quality.
-
Nevermind, I get it. You're bragging that you have a private well.
-
I'm glad you caught on.
There's a reason I'm banned from quite a few forums. -
Too many people jealous of your mad water reserves.
-
You know it, dog. Shitlording over water all day, everyday.
-
I've got lots of minerals and iron in mine. Still, no watering restrictions EVER!
-
First they came for our guns. Then they came for our water...
-
When I first moved into a place with gas utilities, I called to get service and they said I had to physically show up in their office with a piece of mail and official ID to get any. Apparently the previous tenant had been a scofflaw or failed to pay this bills, something.
It was utterly bizarre, and extremely vexing as I did not have a car at the time. 3 hours on a bus just to get basic utilities, when I had done nothing wrong. Government-run utilities are easily THE fucking worst for service.
-
^ This x1000 and it's been true in every city I have ever lived in.
-
No kidding.
My local water company is run by my city - if you don't pay your bill there's not even a courtesy 'we're turning off service tomorrow' from them. Which is something that you get from every other fricking provider.
Heck, if I forget to pay my internet bill I will *still* get service for a while after they leave a redirect page to notify me of being delinquent.
-
Hmmm. My city doesn't suck. My credit card on file expired. I got a courtesy call three days before the day they would have tagged on a late fee.
Contrast this with my electric utility. Holy fck. They screwed up my bill and have all kinds of asinine policies about what kinds of payments they will and won't take. They actually have a system that will ban you from auto debit for 12 months and if you try to use it before then, payment is denied and they restart the 12 month clock.
-
Well, one way of unwinding the monopolies, as I understand it, is to bring back last mile mmfrphbob... I forget and I'm heading out, but allowing competitors to share the connections to the end user, which the FCC could require under Title II. But, I think to placate the fears of us folk, the FCC had said it would not use that power.
-
but allowing competitors to share the connections to the end user
The last mile, not to be confused with The Green Mile which was about a magical black guy and bladder infections, at least from what I know, is quite expensive to not only build but maintain. Forcing an ISP to allow its competitors to use its infrastructure is wrong. With that said, if the ISP consented to sharing, then it's all gravy baby. -
I think the issue is that many local municipalities made agreements to give sole rights to infrastructure like that to specific companies. So even if other companies wanted build their own they are often not allowed to.
Ending these type of shams are a good move, and gives a good show of how government is involved with another issue. My phone internet is getting close to my land line at this point, the only thing it really is too slow for is low ping tasks (AKA, Gaming) and I'm hoping that as this improves it will further remove the entire issue.
G5 wireless is coming, and if they meet the expected specification then wireless will become a feasible replacement for almost all network tasks.
-
I think the issue is that many local municipalities made agreements to give sole rights to infrastructure like that to specific companies. So even if other companies wanted build their own they are often not allowed to.
Ending these type of shams are a good move, and gives a good show of how government is involved with another issue.In accordance to what I've already posted, I agree 100% with you. As usual, people are looking for national solutions for local issues; this is costly, difficult, and not very effective. Compound that with ignorance of the situation, willful or otherwise, and you have this shitfest that is ubiquitous across the internet communities.
My phone internet is getting close to my land line at this point, the only thing it really is too slow for is low ping tasks (AKA, Gaming) and I'm hoping that as this improves it will further remove the entire issue.
G5 wireless is coming, and if they meet the expected specification then wireless will become a feasible replacement for almost all network tasks.
I'm glad you brought this up. New technology almost always brings business opportunities and thus more competition. -
I dunno about that. Texas separated power generation from delivery. Your wires are a regulated utility. Your electrons are a competitive market.
Not a bad compromise.
-
CLEC and ILEC and tariffs is what you were looking for.
-
Doesn't that only apply to copper?
-
The only problem is, that creates a scenario where no one wants to invest in the last mile, because everyone else will just ride on your coattails.
-
Way back in 2000 I had a friend with cable internet. The maximum speed available was 1.5Mbit and it was basically useless during prime time, especially for online gaming, and frequently was completely down.
Nowadays the typical cable ISP offers 60Mb-100Mb as their core service offering, even during prime time hours you can receive multiple HD streams and do gaming and other things at the same time without noticing any degradation in service, and its so reliable that maintenance on the physical hardware is the only thing that ever takes you offline, and their internal quality control systems often know there is a problem with the service before a customer even is aware of it.Oh, and today they are charging a rate that is within about $3 of what it cost adjusted for inflation back in 2000.
Clearly they have not bothered to improve their infrastructure, service, or provide additional value to customers.
-
In the last two years. Not 18. Two.
Huge difference.
-
In the last two years my ISP has bumped up its standard speed, bandwidth cap (despite being a streaming video household and 5 day a week telecommuter I have yet to hit the cap of 400GB), and re-adjusted the price up slightly to keep it in line with inflation.
Comcast has bumped up their standard speeds a bit as well in the last two years as far as I know.
Personally, if Comcast were to be allowed to purchase my ISP I'd be quite happy about it. While my current ISP is reliable, Comcast was even more reliable, and offers a bit more speed for the same price.
-
Maybe where you live.
Where I live we have multiple ISPs for a long time.
-
Congrats if you can get 60Mb connection at a reasonable rate. We all aren't that lucky.
-
See this has nothing to do with the FCC
If you only have a single provider then there are one of a couple reasons.
Your local government has forbidden other competitors.
Or, you live in a place with low population density and thus it is not worth anyone else providing service beyond the one that is already there. -
"Congrats if you can get 60Mb connection at a reasonable rate. We all aren't that lucky."
And you wish to use the guns of the government to take from others and force someone to give you what you want?
Arn't you...........
A raging asshole. -
No, you choose the megacorp content providers and the high bandwidth free-riders over the megacorp ISP's and low-bandwidth subsidizers.
-
so they can get money from large content providers via fast-lane deals
What's the problem with that? I generally like the idea of NN, but I don't understand why I should be mad or worried that the companies hogging much of the bandwidth might have to contribute to build up the infrastructure. I don't want ISPs censoring or throttling their competition, but Netflix or Google paying for the ginormous chunks of bandwidth they require to run their services? I see shielding them from that cost as a flaw with NN.
Ditto the idea of structured internet plans. If an ISP can give an old couple email + streaming video, but none of the social media crap they don't use, for a much lower price than the all-inclusive package, that sounds great! It's just what so many of us want from cable when it comes to TV, after all.
-
Exactly.
One would think that people who stream movies all day long OUGHT to pay more than people who just send emails. Why is this even controversial?
-
The only controversy is that there was not enough government control over what you can see and say. Regulations are needed before the 2018 elections so that the ruling parties can be sure you only get the 'fair' and 'true' and 'pure' information on extremely careless persons, to be sure the votes are correct.
-
Ditto the idea of structured internet plans. If an ISP can give an old couple email + streaming video, but none of the social media crap they don't use, for a much lower price than the all-inclusive package, that sounds great! It's just what so many of us want from cable when it comes to TV, after all.
It's unlikely that any ISP would 'block' wholesale services like Facebook or 'social media'. The most likely outcome is you could have a very low priced, introductory service that would give you slower speeds or bandwidth caps. If all you do is send emails and look up recipes online, you could probably live with a 1 meg internet connection, or maybe even a 5 meg with a few gigs capped with some charges if you go over. You know, exactly like how your phone works.
I can see whatever I want, but I'm 'capped' at 3 gigs with $15 per gig overage charge. If I want more, there are other plans. I have a friend who's on some other carrier which doesn't charge, but throttles over a certain bandwidth usage.
The fact that NN proponents want Grandma to spend $156 a month just so she can look at recipes online seems like a real crime to me.
-
It's unlikely that any ISP would 'block' wholesale services like Facebook or 'social media'.
Agreed. But that's the hypothetical that I keep seeing tossed around.
-
I find it amusing that the cable cutters who didn't want all you can eat tv are now demanding all you can eat internet.
It's almost as if they are merely self interested.
-
"This is a problem about censorship, monopolies, and corporate greed."
Not seeing that.
First, you're conflating a primarily mobile service provider (Verizon) with a primarily cable provider (Comcast) as equivalent monopolists. And claiming that they are somehow (magic?) able to "act as gatekeepers" to the Internet. These assumptions are simply wrong both in what is possible now with technology (e.g. I access the Internet via a WISP rather than cable or telecom providers) and shows a complete lack of trust in free markets.
ISPs are run by citizens. If you "choose citizens," why are you not choosing a set of regulations that treats them as equal to other citizens?
-
Only a government can censor.
-
Good point—it's very libertarian to force people to treat each other all the same, and to hand over huge chunks of power to the government.
-
"These rules were intended to make sure we continue to have a level playing field."
Price-fixing does not in any way constitute a "level playing field".
And a hearty THANK YOU to BestUsedCarSales! -
Someone should him and people like him that "level playing field[s]" don't exist, and advocating for them implicates superfluous government involvement.
I fucking despise that phrase.
-
Those rules became necessary because companies like Verizon and Comcast have repeatedly attempted to implement policies that increase their control over content on the internet.
Link?
These same companies have always been a utility as they are localized monopolies and provide a common use service critical to our daily lives.
No, they're not. You usually have at least the telephone and cable providers competing, as well as wireless providers. Not remotely comparable to water or gas, etc.
implement data caps and "over-usage" fees
They could do that even under a net neutrality regime.
-
ATT, Comcast, Consolidated in my area not even counting microwave or satellite or cellular.
Quite a monopoly.
-
Except A) they're not monopolies any more, since they compete with each other and with satellite providers, and B) libertarian-leaning sites should always be anti-regulation. It was Obama who regulated the internet by slapping it with "net neutrality" rules. Calling them "neutral" doesn't mean they're not a restraint of free trade.
-
So, you look around the world at countries like Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, *Germany, France and the UK* - but you're afraid that Comcast will censor the net?
You look around the world at these countries and you *don't* think that more government power is a problem?
-
Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are examples of corporations that censor too.
Of course, they're the beneficiaries of NN....
-
I'm a software in the industry and have worked for ISPs.
So what. NN is about network architecture which is not something software developers are usually well versed in.
These rules were intended to make sure we continue to have a level playing field.
No they were not. They were intended to push the added cost from the large content providers onto the ISP's.
-
I upped my donation to the EFF myself.
-
EFF myself
Please do.
-
"I upped my donation to the EFF myself."
Yep. Nothing says "freedom" as much as federal government regulations. We rely on idiots like to to keep us in giggles.
-
LACK OF NET NEUTRALITY KILLED REASONABLE!!!111!!!!111!!!!1111!!1111!
-
No, it died last night. Unless Ajit Pai isn' telling us something...
-
GUYS
GUYSI'M BEING CHARGED MONEY TO SHITPOST NOW.
HOW CAN I FLOOD BOARDS WITH MY SHITTY OPINIONS NOW? -
By using all caps?
Is that set of ones and zeros somehow cheaper in your universe?
-
I mean, if you only used capital letters you could have lower entropy, and thus encode it in less bits.
-
Internet as we knew it for 2 years end, will return to the status quo of the last time when internet was in existence in America.
-
Internet as we knew it for 2 years end, will return to the status quo of the last time when internet was in existence in America.
-
Looks like I'm back to this.
Thanks Pai, now I have to clean up copious amounts of bird shit again just look at some JAV. -
The latest thing is that ISPs will censor your free porn.
I forgot how censor-happy private enterprises are and how open governments are.
-
Thank God the companies producing my Japanese pornography already do this.
Me: 1
Verizon: 0 -
"NN is a blow to free expression"
but
"You can't go trick and treating dressed like a Hawaiian if you're white and the government should regulate how much money you can spend on political speech"
Someone help make sense of this?
-
Ed, with all due resepect, fuck you.
-
How rude. You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you (links).
-
You must be one of those people who threatened Pai's family.
-
*runs after crying kinghiram91 (91 probably being the birthday)*
What, what'd we say?
-
The usual hyper ventilating gibberish from progs suggests to me the right decision was made.
-
On one hand, their outrage is amusing; on the other hand, my usual virtual lounges were invaded by assiduous whining.
I hope Twitter does dies regardless.
-
[gasp]i.. i've been trying... [wheez] i've been trying to comment this whole time... [choke] don't know how long it's been... can't reach time source... [cough] tell my story... if you can... [hack]
...madness
-
Is this the end for Fist of Etiquette?
-
...you dropped your sunglasses.
-
*pours out a Yuengling for Fist*
-
MSM is already trying to give themselves cover by saying "it will take a while" for the pernicious effects of repealing net neutrality to become apparent.
So if November 2018 rolls around and the Internet is the same as it is now, the Dems can still use it as a talking point for the elections.
-
It will be better, due to less regulation.
-
"MSM is already trying to give themselves cover by saying "it will take a while" for the pernicious effects of repealing net neutrality to become apparent."
Krugman didn't make an ass of himself on November 9, 1916 without teaching some folks a lesson.
-
You know what really threatened a free and open Internet? Obama handing over the root servers to the UN.
-
Barely anyone noticed that.
-
Republican administration changes rules via bureaucratic fiat: Egregious attack on democracy.
Democrat administration changes rules via bureaucratic fiat: Protecting our democratic values from the anarchists in Congress. -
The reactions do seem just a wee bit over the top.
-
-
"Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson says he plans to file yet another lawsuit against the federal government,..."
WA-state lefties wet their pants!
-
I searched and yet the word "standing" wasn't found anywhere in that article - does a state AG have standing to file a claim under the Administrative Procedures Act?
-
They need to get their priorities straight. Listen to the man on the street. They need to first sue Trump over Seattle's homelessness problem. Then they can worry about suing him for NN.
-
Wow those were some fun replies to read. :) There's no outrage on my end, just frustration.
I prefer seeing my internet connection as a dumb pipe that I pay for access to. I may pay more for more bandwidth and that's fine too. But I don't pay my ISP for content distribution as I would a cable company. I pay my ISP for access and online content providers for their content.
If telecom providers want to offer a content service layer on top of the access that may have negotiated deals with content providers like the cable TV model, that's fine. I wouldn't buy it, but I'm sure it would benefit some people.
However my internet provider shouldn't be limiting my bandwidth when I'm using a VPN for work or using github for writing software.
Anyway, sorry to the general community for getting some folks panties in a twist. :)
-
"However my internet provider shouldn't be limiting my bandwidth when I'm using a VPN for work or using github for writing software."
Any evidence they are?
-
No, but I'm sure if we put the government in charge they'd assure me that they're preventing those awful things I have no evidence were ever happening.
DERP!
-
Yup. Comcast did for about 3 months back in winter 2013-2014. After complaining I got a nice apology saying they were testing network QoS which is throttling based on content type rules.
-
Ah, the "random person on the internet with an unverifiable story" kind of evidence.
-
"Yup. Comcast did for about 3 months back in winter 2013-2014. After complaining I got a nice apology saying they were testing network QoS which is throttling based on content type rules."
Well, I see there's a lack of intelligence here.
I asked for this thing called "evidence". Do you know what that is? Do you need a primer?
Because the bullshit you posted ain't it. -
nothing related to what you just said has changed.
-
I prefer seeing my internet connection as a dumb pipe that I pay for access to. I may pay more for more bandwidth and that's fine too.
Except that pricing model makes no sense for most people. They aren't going to be using 50 Mbps of bandwidth 24/7 -- they just want it in bursts during the times when they're using the net. A 24/7 dedicated 50 Mbps line is going to cost waaaaay more than you're willing to pay.
What NN does is force those people who just want occasional fast internet to either (a) heavily subsidize the people who are drinking from the pipe 24/7, or (b) downgrade to slower speeds so they don't get the speed they want.
-
"I pay my ISP for access"
Because… what you said so?
You're the customer, your power is to refuse to buy, not to force them to provide what you want at gunpoint.
"However my internet provider shouldn't be limiting my bandwidth when I'm using a VPN for work or using github for writing software"
Why not? Because you decided?
Would you pay for that privilege, or would you socialize the cost to Grandma?
-
Nah, because that's how ISPs sold it from the start (as internet access) to distinguish from content services like BBS systems, CompuServe, etc.
Yeah really didn't phrase my musings in a proper light for the audience here.
Lesson learned. Only muse if the majority is going to agree. Well that and just don't muse on comment threads.
-
"Lesson learned. Only muse if the majority is going to agree."
Wrong lesson: You were hoping someone would read your bullshit and not gripe.
Real lesson: Don't bullshit in public, or don't gripe when called on bullshit. -
There are times when it seems like NN advocates think that Google, Netflix, and Facebook blast out bits that naturally want to flow into their computers really fast, sort of like inertia. But then the greedy, mean old ISPs lower a toll gate and block* the nice bits from flowing where they want to.
* we need to stop calling an ISP choosing not to forward traffic "blocking" or "throttling", as if the traffic would go anywhere without the ISP's assistance.
-
Do you agree that Comcast and ATT generally have monopolies or an oligarchy in most geographies? Do you acknowledge that ATT and Comcast are primarily motivated by profit, as corporations should be because they are required to do so by design? Do you acknowledge that these entities have been strongly in support of the repeal of these regulations? Then one must assume that the reason they favor the repeal is because it will enhance their profits by increasing their monopoly rent. Increasing monopoly rent is always at the expense of consumers. If I had 10 broadband pipes into my house, I would be totally in favor of this repeal. But with only 2-3 choices it doesn't make sense. This is clear to anyone who has taken Econ 101 and learned about monopoly pricing.
-
"Then one must assume that the reason they favor the repeal is because it will enhance their profits by"
Lowering their regulatory burden and overhead.
Which kind of doesn't really work with your screed.
-
This is clear to anyone who has taken Econ 101 and learned about monopoly pricing.
In the Econ 101 that I took, a market with 2-3 competitors wasn't considered a monopoly.
-
"But with only 2-3 choices it doesn't make sense."
What doesn't make sense is saying having a choice of two or three companies is an example of a monopoly.
-
Do you agree that Google, Netflix, and Facebook generally have monopolies or an oligarchy in most geographies? Do you acknowledge that Google, Netflix, and Facebook are primarily motivated by profit, as corporations should be because they are required to do so by design? Do you acknowledge that these entities have been strongly in opposition to the repeal of these regulations? Then one must assume that the reason they oppose the repeal is because it will enhance their profits by increasing their monopoly rent. Increasing monopoly rent is always at the expense of consumers.
-
All true, but there are other aspects worth considering.
Before this repeal and after the basic setup hasn't changed really. Big telecom companies with billions of dollars, and lots of Congress people for sale. Why are there about 400 pages of FCC regulations, if all they were saying is that there has to be net neutrality. Word is a lot of those 400 pages were exceptions, exceptions and more exceptions.
Also, the Internet has governance. International governing committees. It's an international network, not a U.S. network. It's better if those committees address these issues.
-
"Do you agree that Comcast and ATT generally have monopolies or an oligarchy in most geographies?"
Well, maybe you should learn that a monopoly is not an oligarchy. But learning is hard."Do you acknowledge that ATT and Comcast are primarily motivated by profit, as corporations should be because they are required to do so by design?"
Yes."Do you acknowledge that these entities have been strongly in support of the repeal of these regulations?"
Yes"Then one must assume that the reason they favor the repeal is because it will enhance their profits by increasing their monopoly rent."
Bullshit. Maybe you should have learned something from that Econ 101. -
"The end of #NetNeutrality protections means that the internet will be for sale to the highest bidder."
First the wheat farms, then the factories, now this... Tovarisch Zandurzh can*not* catch a break, da?
-
Let the bedwetting begin!
-
It's like drinking their tears, only more sensual and warm.
-
You have to know this has been focus-grouped out the wazoo. Just like the War on Women BS from 2012, the Dems think it's a winning set of talking points for 2018.
Most people who depend on the internet know nothing about how it works and have an indifferent or bad relationship with their ISP. At the very least, Google and Facebook are giving them stuff for "free" while their ISP is sending them a bill for it.
And of course for millennials the internet is the bedrock of their world, unlike us Xers/Boomers who appreciate how easy it makes things, and the gens before us who prefer the old days of snail mail and card catalogs and when people actually talked to each other.
