Support Net Neutrality

So, what was the verdict? Is digital America doomed or not?

dont think they voted yet - but yes.

They're still delivering statements and such, voting isn't finished.

And they finally finished voting. Two dissented, three were for rolling back ISPs to Title I classification. Meaning yes, this was a victory for Ajit Pai and ISPs. Net Neutrality lost this one.

well assuming we take a big blow today, you can bet this is heading to the courts almost immediately. I don't anticipate them saving us either, but maybe it buys enough time for a new presidency and consequently new FCC chair to restore sanity.

The FCC voted yet the Internet still works??? With the way everyone has been having a meltdown, I would have thought nuclear disaster would have immediately struck.

"If the topic addressed in part 22 were served as a dish on the average american's dinner tables, they'd go as well rocky mountain oysters"

- Mignon Clyburn

Hah, good way to put it.

It's important to remember that Net Neutrality isn't dead yet. They still have present their decision to Congress, who can overturn it. And even if they don't, there are sure to be plenty of legal battles. That being said...

Ajit Pai is one of the most detestable piece of shits I've seen in a long time (which is saying a lot in this day and age) from his blatant, unapologetic corruption to his smug, condescending extremely punchable face. If we lived in a world that wasn't already completely demoralized and defeated, he would (and should) be terrified to ever show his face in public.

Score another for big business! Lets hope litigation keeps this from happening until 2020 or trump gets impeached.

The thing to do now is to contact your Representative and Senators with an outcry to overturn this decision. The District Court of Appeals typically tries cases involving the FCC and they are made up of 7 liberal judges out of 11. Tell your congressmen to support sending it to the District Court of Appeals.

@dafdiego777: it benefits no one, especially yourself, to be willfully obtuse. This is an important topic, and people are rightfully worried about it. Being sarcastic or dismissive says more about you than it does the people you're trying to "zing".

Anyway, this was not unexpected, but some sliver of me hoped that maybe cooler heads would prevail and the right thing would be done. Maybe it was the aftermath of Alabama, but I should have known better. Now I guess we just have to hope that Congress does its job and actually represents its constituents and rejects this.

@dafdiego777: this effect will be felt overtime if it is not overturned by the courts. Everyone is going to pay for this sooner or later if it comes to fruition. Broadband giants will sit in the dark and wait until the public is less riled up and will slowly creep out their new powers on people. This shit is unthinkably stupid and I still don’t understand how it has gotten this far.

@sethmode: the doomsday approach by the general internet is just as, if not more so, absurd. The internet was fine before Title II classification, it will be fine without it.

@sackmanjones: This hasn't happened in other countries where deregulation has occurred - do you have any sources or are you just making things up?

@dafdiego777: What cable package do you have right now?

@bstnrich: internet only

You're putting an awful lot of trust and faith in a organized component that is fueled by greed and filing their own back pockets to not to screw you over (as they have time and time again). Good luck with that.

You're right it was fine before, but the internet wasn't what it is today and has since evolved exponentially. The internet already sucks in America compared to the rest of the world, its slow as shit and it cost an arm and a leg to get 'decent' speed already. It will only get worse and that's just the tip...

@dafdiego777: Why just have internet when you can have a dedicated way to watch programs? You could probably save on your internet bill by lowering your bandwidth and paying for the channels that host the programs you watch.

@atastyslurpee: Actually - I'm putting trust in the Department of Justice (and the FTC to a lesser extent). Despite the horror show that is this administration, there are a lot of hardworking people there that review these sorts of transactions (as there was under the Bush and Obama administration as well).

@bstnrich - I don't watch any TV shows at all. I live in a dense city, so 1Gig service is relatively affordable.

@dafdiego777: But you do watch programs on the internet. What do you think of paying the same amount for your connection as you do now for less access across the internet and more targeted ads based on your search history? What do you think of paying the same amount for access only during certain hours? What do you think of these cable corps getting a say on what is profane and what is not?

Will all this happen? Can't say for sure. However, we have history to look on. Which is a stronger argument than saying you have trust in people doing the right thing. These are the same players who shaped cable television, and have we not seen a migration away from the old TV cable package over the past decade or so? Ask these people why they left cable: too many ads, scheduled watching, censorship, high price, little competition, paying for things you do not want, overpaying for things you do want, and so on.

What do you think of paying the same amount for your connection as you do now for less access across the internet and more targeted ads based on your search history?

In what way does Title II designation change this?

What do you think of paying the same amount for access only during certain hours?

See above

What do you think of these cable corps getting a say on what is profane and what is not?

I don't think I need to repeat myself

At the end of the day - the business environment of cable and the business environment of being an ISP is vastly different, despite using the same infrastructure. In cable TV, the burden is on the cable provider to provide access (ESPN gets a cut of every subscriber from Comcast for providing their content to Comcast). The internet is competitive enough that this isn't the case.

Guys, don't feed the troll. There is always someone that watch to watch the ship sink and laugh.

@dafdiego777: In the hearings today, they discussed giving priority to certain hosts on the internet. For example, automated vehicles will add a substantial amount of traffic to the network infrastructure. So those who are sending traffic over the network from home aren't prioritized the same as those who are sending traffic over the network from their car.

With net neutrality gone your provider can take huge payments from, let's say Google, to be the only search engine you are able to use. Meaning it is now even easier to trace your steps across the web.

With net neutrality gone your upstart web site about fidget spinners is blocked because Mega Fidget Spinner Corps paid your ISP big money to be the only fidget spinner site the ISP's customers are able to access.

At the end of the day, the few large corporations dictate and shape the business environment to increase their profits. Because that's the whole point in running a business (in their eyes).

Title II designation ensures that your ISP can't give preferential treatment to one service over another.

Do you like Youtube? Do you like having free access to Youtube? With the way ISPs were classified, as Title II, they could not legally prefer their own hypothetical video service over Youtube. Now that they're classified as Title I, they can slow down Youtube and potentially even block it altogether in favor of their own video service. They can do this to any web resource they want to now.

Regardless of what net neutrality's detractors say, this has happened. Verizon blocked the Google Wallet app from being installed on their phones. Comcast has been caught slowing down Netflix, even after doing so was illegal. Previously, the FCC was actually working towards net neutrality to block this very thing from happening, because it was happening, and it was happening more and more as the internet became bigger and better parts of our daily lives. I'm not a tinfoil hat kinda guy. I am the first to be suspicious of something and the last to be convinced. We have evidence of telecommunications companies in America trying to do the very things that net neutrality advocates want to stop.

The internet is competitive enough that this isn't the case.

Internet access has little competition. There are many places across America that have one, maybe two choices for ISPs. Yes, once you're on the internet there's lots of competition for your attention - but again, under Title I, ISPs can hinder your access to that competition. That's what we're afraid of, and we're afraid of it because it's happened.

I can only take them on their word and believe they are just voicing their honest opinion.

However, once net neutrality is gone, we will know for certain who they really are.

Let's not mention Verizon blocking dissenting opinions or a Canadian ISP blocking access to a Pro-union website. I don't want fast lanes, or preferential treatment to sites that pay the ISP. The tax payers paid for most of the infrastructure through tax break and higher prices, we deserve an open pipe.

Municipal networks would be an excellent home grown solution to a lack of competition, but ISPs are directly lobbying against it.

I wonder how this will affect giantbomb in the long run.

@dafdiego777: I think you're being willfully ignorant of the fact that prior to net neutrality regulations being put in place in 2015, a lot of service providers had for years been testing the boundaries of what they could get away with - Comcast blocking P2P traffic, cell providers blocking video/voip chat programs, zero-rated content, video speed throttling (including Comcast basically extorting Netflix into paying to not be throttled). The list goes on.

Sure, the FTC and DoJ could still potentially intervene in some cases, but why remove a significant boundary to these sorts of abuses?

Your whole point about competition also doesn't add up to me. With home broadband, a lot of people in the US don't actually have a choice - outside of major urban areas, you may be lucky to even have a second option and in the most rural areas you may not even have access at all.

They are part of CBS, who has money to throw at ISPs to include them in a package.

Which could look like this:

1. Paying for internet access and one-time fees

2. Paying for the package that includes CBSi (and possibly other crap you don't want)

3. Paying for premium membership to view content

For those of us who are still in the fight: donate!

Electronic Frontier Foundation

https://www.eff.org/

@chris_sereday@bstnrich: This shit is literally in peer-reviewed research from HBS economists - there are real trade-offs with Title II designation that I don't think are worth it.

@justin258:

Title II designation ensures that your ISP can't give preferential treatment to one service over another.

Is this a good thing? There's a reason why Riot is building that weird alternate internet for LoL. It's at least a business decision that shouldn't be dictated top-down from the government with zero flexibility.

Do you like Youtube? Do you like having free access to Youtube? With the way ISPs were classified, as Title II, they could not legally prefer their own hypothetical video service over Youtube. Now that they're classified as Title I, they can slow down Youtube and potentially even block it altogether in favor of their own video service. They can do this to any web resource they want to now.

They could - but what's the business case for this? Is vertical integration really that profitable (I wonder why Google Fiber stopped and why Netflix and Amazon haven't been building their own networks)? Comcast makes more money by servicing as many people as possible (which is important because they've already made the investment in infrastructure).

Verizon blocked the Google Wallet app from being installed on their phones.

This is a wireless broadband issue - which even Title II rules have looser standards for. Not a relevant argument.

Comcast has been caught slowing down Netflix, even after doing so was illegal

Sorry to be pedantic - but this was not illegal. Rather, these are interconnection issues that Title II designation doesn't address in the first place.

That's what we're afraid of, and we're afraid of it because it's happened.

It hasn't really happened though - the only relevant case I can think of was the Madison River case, and look how that turned out. Market failures are real - but I think the burden is on the government to prove that this is the case, and so far, they haven't.

These are all anti-competitive issues that anti-trust law has precedence on. What do you think happened to Microsoft when they tried to use the market position to dominate the web browser space?

Considering how fundamentally different your perspective is than most people posting here (and the majority of US citizens in general), I don't think this debate is really going to go anywhere.

@chaser324: I'm not being willfully ignorant - but a lot of people don't understand the difference between neutrality and title II designation. For instance -

Comcast blocking P2P traffic

This was a network congestion issue (ie there weren't enough ports to go around). Title II designation allows for regular network maintenance, so it wouldn't have effected this.

cell providers blocking video/voip chat programs, zero-rated content, video speed throttling

Wireless broadband is held to an almost completely different standard (that was already much looser). Today's ruling won't change much on that front.

Even if you've somehow managed to convinced yourself that getting rid of net neutrality is a good thing and the benevolent corporations will take care of you, this is still an issue of democracy. 83% of voters support net neutrality yet these decisions are made in closed rooms with zero consideration for the will of people. That's not a healthy democracy.

(And please don't respond to this with some "um actually we live in a republic, not a democracy" shit)

@milkman: Oh, a few weeks back he was online whining because people were putting up signs outside his house and he was feeling "threatened" Hmmm... wonder why?

@milkman: Congress ultimately has the final decision in this - take it up with the people who voted for the party that controls the house, senate, and executive branch (I'm not one of them before you go there)....

@dafdiego777: What benefit do you think the repeal has then? I know you're probably just being the devils advocate for the fuck of it but answer that one for me because i haven't heard a single compelling argument for it just people saying "oh it's not going to change anything". :-/

@oursin_360: I'm not really playing devil's advocate - it's more like this whole circlejerk around NN is absurd and that there are real tradeoffs (like any major piece of regulation). Frankly, there's not enough information to know if it's needed or not. I know this is a dirtbag center take - but both sides make gross over-exaggerations without a lot of facts to back it up.

From a consumer standpoint - I don't think much will change. Comcast isn't going to package the internet up into tiny plans (the economies of the industry are different from cable tv). I think we will see some flexibility on the lower end packages (ie pay $5-$15 and you get access to all the NBC sites, etc). The paid prioritization stuff will be interesting to watch (if only because I might be able to finally play on west coast servers with some friends).

This is (and always has been) a pissing match between the content providers (google, fb, netflix, etc) and the infrastructure holders. Before today's ruling, the law has favored the content providers (with the cost falling on the infrastructure holders, and by proxy, the consumer). Now, the infrastructure holders can charge the content providers for access as well. The aggregate price between the isp service and the content providers should roughly remain the same, but the individual prices could change (ie netflix may go up in cost but my comcast bill should go down - this might not be a 1:1 factor due to inefficiencies but will be fascinating to watch).

I do think that this will cause a shakeup on the provider side though. I guess the grey area would be if Comcast is going to charge content providers based on bandwidth they use - or on visitors. Are there any high-bandwidth content sites that don't have subscription models (maybe youtube / twitch)?

The people who don't think the loss of Net Neutrality is that big a deal, and won't have much of an impact on the internet will think they were right if we lose Net Neutrality because mostly what will be lost will be intangible. The internet will seem fine because that's all you'll see. What you won't see is what could've been. Like all those weekend warriors who do their own electrical work, saying, "That shit's easy. Hook up a few wires. I can do that!" Next thing you know, they burn their neighborhood down (along with any evidence that caused it). Because trained electrical work is more about what you're not supposed to do. No one ever sees that. The masses will never notice the absence of Net Neutrality. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have it.

I am not sure I know the ins and outs of it all, but I do know one thing, it's very weird to read anyone defend the repeal or say it'll be okay compared to what we currently have. To me, it's like not actually looking into things you vote for, before voting for it and then when things turn to crap, you realize you made a mistake, or have no idea you voted for such a thing.

Data centers are already connected to the internet by paying a telecom company for circuits with a certain bandwidth rate! Unless I'm missing your point, that is already the mechanism by which to charge content providers for the bandwidth they use.

I mean, the spirit of the thing is not specifically that ISPs should adhere to Title II, and really it would be for the best if new legislation is drawn up specific to the concerns of the internet. There could be a silver lining to all this if we want to be optimistic. The thing that people care about is that ISPs should be providing the service of routing IP packets, not the content of 'facebook' 'google' or whatever. The source/destination/content should be irrelevant to the ISP as long as it is not malicious (DDoS etc), and the reason for that is obviously anti-censorship. To say we don't need that protection because you can't envision a business reason for censorship is pretty short-sighted. There will always be a business reason for censorship.

@xkkzz: I think he means charge them for access to their users. "You want to stream to Comcast users? Here is our fee"

@dafdiego777:

<blockquote>This is (and always has been) a pissing match between the content providers (google, fb, netflix, etc) and the infrastructure holders. Before today's ruling, the law has favored the content providers (with the cost falling on the infrastructure holders, and by proxy, the consumer). Now, the infrastructure holders can charge the content providers for access as well. The aggregate price between the isp service and the content providers should roughly remain the same, but the individual prices could change (ie netflix may go up in cost but my comcast bill should go down - this might not be a 1:1 factor due to inefficiencies but will be fascinating to watch).</blockquote>

That's a real weird argument - infrastructure providers can, and do, charge for bandwidth. That is, in fact, all they should do. Using their position as a monopolistic (in a specific location) actor to undersupply bandwidth and gain a profit by taking out an extra charge is wrong. Roads are charged, in various ways, by use, they don't make individual deals with certain market actors, because that would disrupt the market in a horrible way.

You mention content providers like Google, fb, YouTube, but what about new entrants like a Whiskey Media. Now the thresholds for new entrants is higher, leading to a worse market.

Again, internet infrastructure at the last mile is often a local monopoly, so I think you'll get less of a benefit than you think.

I just read a news article that stated Net Neutrality is officially gone in the US now. Is that for real? Is this actually happening? What the hell is going on over there?

Do you not have a democracy or do you just not have enough people that understand what Net Neutrality is?

@zevvion: We have a democracy; it's just that there is a powerful political movement that our democratically elected 'guvment bad' and we should instead grovel at 'jerb creators'. Truly these kings of industry are better than us and deserve to run everything otherwise they might decide to not make money and punish us. I don't and will never get people who distrust elected government more than unelected megawealthy who wield capital and power that essentially makes them the ruling class. Thank goodness my town has municipal internet and we get to vote for city commissioners to oversee our cheap high speed internet access.

@zevvion: It still needs to go through the courts, but the thing with the government in The United States is bribery is totally legal. This is the core issue Americans face in terms of getting the government to represent them rather than a few wealthy donors. Most Americans are against Citizens United, which is what allows the legal bribery, but wedge issues are used to divide and conquer the general population.

The thing with dealing with people is you need to compromise and allow them to save face when they make poor decisions, but the climate here is such that all sides viciously take aim at their counterparts missteps to discredit them.

We are seeing signs of life in our democracy, but it is far from thriving and is actively being attacked. The majority of people just keep their heads down and out of politics for one reason or another, but even they are starting to express disdain for the government. Americans tend to vote based on a single issue, which they are totally entitled to do, but it isn't the most effective way to run a country.

@bstnrich: Congress can also still kill the repeal, but fat chance that will happen. They only have 60 days to do so, and they've become very adept at ignoring their constituents.