FCC Announces Plan To Repeal Net Neutrality (nytimes.com) 331
FCC on Tuesday said it plans to dismantle landmark regulations that ensure equal access to the internet, clearing the way for companies to charge more and block access to some websites. From a report on the New York Times: The proposal, put forward by the F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai, is a sweeping repeal of rules put in place by the Obama administration that prohibited high-speed internet service providers from blocking or slowing down the delivery of websites, or charging extra fees for the best quality of streaming and other internet services for their subscribers. The clear winners from the move would be telecom giants like AT&T and Comcast that have lobbied for years against regulations of broadband and will now have more control over the online experiences of American consumers. The losers could be internet sites that will have to answer to telecom firms to get their content in front of consumers. And consumers may see their bills increase for the best quality of internet service. Note from the editor: the aforementioned link could be paywalled; consider the alternative sources: NPR, ArsTechnica, Associated Press, BBC, Axios, Reuters, TechCrunch, and Slate.
FTC Commissioner Terrell McSweeny criticized the move. She said, "So many things wrong here, like even if FCC does this FTC still won't have jurisdiction. But even if we did, most discriminatory conduct by ISPs will be perfectly legal. This won't hurt tech titans with deep pockets. They can afford to pay all the trolls under the bridge. But the entrepreneurs and innovators who truly make the Internet great won't be so lucky. It will be harder for them to compete. The FCC is upending the Internet as we know it, not saving it."
This is what the internet looks like when there is no net neutrality. Earlier today, news outlet Motherboard suggested we should build our own internet if we want to safeguard the essence of open internet.
In a statement, EFF said: It is worth reflecting on just how wildly unsupported by the public and wrong the FCC is on its effort to end an Open Internet. More than 1000 small businesses, investors, and technology startups in all 50 states have publicly opposed the proposal. More than 900 online video creators that produce content for more than 240 million viewers oppose the FCC plan. Over 200 international businesses and organizations have weighed in opposition. Fifty-two racial justice, civil rights, and human rights organizations have filed in support of the current rules. Dozens of ISPs across the country have told the FCC to leave the rules in place. Libraries, around 120,000 in total, from across the United States support retaining the Open Internet Order. Privacy organizations have told the FCC that its proposal would further degrade broadband user privacy and therefore oppose the proposal. State Attorneys General from Illinois, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine and Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and DC support retaining the existing consumer protections. Sixty Mayors across the country have filed their opposition to the FCC plan. The National Association of Realtors expressed their support for keeping a legally enforceable Open Internet rule. And 1.52 million unique comments (as in people navigating the cumbersome FCC website directly to submit a statement rather than use a form letter website) were submitted in support of Title II and Network Neutrality versus only 23,000 supporting the FCC. A recent poll has found that 77 percent of Americans support retaining the current Network Neutrality rules (the poll broke it down to 73 percent of Republican voters, 80 percent of Democratic voters, and 76 percent of independents). The numbers are even higher when Americans are asked whether they support privacy protections, such as requiring ISPs to obtain consent from users before monetizing with third parties (85 percent Republicans, 82 percent Democrats, and 78 percent independents). So if the public and virtually every facet of Internet culture (including ISPs) oppose the FCC's plan, then why are we even going down this path? To put it simply: the FCC is not serving the public interest, but rather is serving the interests of the very few but massive vertically integrated ISPs that support the current agency's agenda.
FTC Commissioner Terrell McSweeny criticized the move. She said, "So many things wrong here, like even if FCC does this FTC still won't have jurisdiction. But even if we did, most discriminatory conduct by ISPs will be perfectly legal. This won't hurt tech titans with deep pockets. They can afford to pay all the trolls under the bridge. But the entrepreneurs and innovators who truly make the Internet great won't be so lucky. It will be harder for them to compete. The FCC is upending the Internet as we know it, not saving it."
This is what the internet looks like when there is no net neutrality. Earlier today, news outlet Motherboard suggested we should build our own internet if we want to safeguard the essence of open internet.
Paywalled (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Paywalled (Score:5, Informative)
The article saying that Net Neutrality is going to be dismantled is behind a paywall. This is the Internet 2017.
Allow me to offer a reasoned response... YOU STUPID FUCK.
People who write material designed to inform and improve your sadly deficient brain have every right to ask as much as they want in return. The right to be paid for services rendered was never the issue, and people who continue to conflate this with the actual problems solved by Net Neutrality are a mind-fuckingly vivid reminder of how we got into this bad acid flashback of a political environment in the first place. So kindly educate yourself and stop fucking making the case for euthanasia. You're not being clever, and this is the opposite of funny. This is the Slashdot equivalent of SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES.
Net Neutrality is not about stopping fair pay for services rendered. It's about blocking arbitrary and prejudicial behaviour that doesn't benefit the person who produced the content, and doesn't benefit the person who wants to download it. The only party it benefits is the person who owns the pipe. They're the ones who want to charge more depending on what they think the content is worth—not to you, but to them.
So your Netflix content gets slowed down because your provider has a sweetheart deal with Amazon. Or you never see that Walgreen's has a better price on your medication because CVS inked a deal with your provider to remove their competition from selected searches.
Yeah, you didn't think about that part, did you? The minute you remove the Net Neutrality provisions, you open the door to your ISP doing whatever the fuck it wants to your connection, up to and including MiTM'ing your SSL traffic. And if you think that can't happen, you've never been to China, or any one of dozens of other countries that intrude on secure communications.
If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that market forces have yet to win the race against the Greater Idiot. Thanks for taking your lap in the race. You have been a Great Idiot, although sadly not nearly the Greatest.
Hugs,
The sane and sensible population of the internet
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Paywalled (Score:5, Insightful)
Net neutrality has nothing to do with moderation.
You browse at -1, you get to ignore the moderation you don't seem to like. All comments are still treated equally in terms of you getting to see them. That's net neutrality.
If Slashdot starts charging money to transmit left-leaning comments, or reduces the bandwidth given to right-wing comments, that's non-neutral.
Really, it is not strange to be pro-net neutrality in a world where carriers are both bandwidth providers and content producers.
Government should protect citizens from abuse. (Score:5, Funny)
It won't happen (Score:2, Insightful)
As long as we have "news" outlets like Fox News misinforming people [usnews.com] and people not willing to be skeptical, and the Republicans using Fox News to their advantage, we will continue to have this crap.
The tax bill that was passed by the House will screw us in the end (except if you are a 1+ percenter) and the Senate's isn't looking much better.
How did those people get elected? Because about half of our population believes in the non-sense that's spoon fed to them or vote on single (distraction) issues.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Clinton did none of those things. She was never in a position to sell Uranium to Russia - indeed, that's not even the scandal! (The "scandal", which is also bogus, is she supposedly approved a Uranium ore mine sale to a Russian company after accepting a donation. Only the person who made the donation hadn't been linked to the Russian company for two years, having sold his stake completely, and AGAIN the approval was needed from numerous organizations unrelated to Clinton. It's a bust.
Clinton did not coll
Re:Government should protect citizens from abuse. (Score:4, Interesting)
If the local governments weren't granting service monopolies, then there would be competition between ISPs. Any ISP which degraded Netflix's speeds as part of a ploy to extort money from Netflix would be shooting itself in the foot. Its customers would notice Netflix was streaming badly, hear from their neighbor that Netflix worked fine on their ISP, and they'd simply cancel and switch their service to their neighbor's ISP. No net neutrality needed. They're prevented from doing this only because their local government has sold them out and granted their ISP a monopoly. Net neutrality is trying to fix a problem created by government regulation, with more government regulation.
If Ajit Pai and Trump truly believe in the free market, then they'll roll back net neutrality, then follow it up by prohibiting local governments from granting local service monopolies.
Re: (Score:3)
Because people make the decision of provider frequently and that's the only point of difference?
Look at cell phones. How was Verizon hurt when it was revealed that it exposed your name and history to websites you visit? Not at all, because most people don't understand what's happening and those that do are locked into multiyear contracts and forgot when it was time to renew them.
Also
Re:Government should protect citizens from abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Repeal and replace in one bill then. A gap in regulation shouldn't be allowed because it could be an attempt to use the "grinch tactic" to achieve deregulation.
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of time in lots of places. What kind of example do you want? Do you want real world? Do you want experimental? Do you macro or micro examples? Seriously there are thousands of results a google search away. Why are you even suggesting that it be done this way? It's not a good way to govern a nation, let alone a nation such as the US. It's bad policy on a number of levels.
But I don't think you want good, relevant policy. I think you don't want anything of the sort. I think you want governmental failure.
Re:Title II (Score:2)
So Title II: That's the thing that says Internet carriers are "telecommunications carriers". Right?
And by the way they shouldn't set up "highwayman" selective toll stations on their routes, and should just let all the legal traffic through without bias.
Yes. That sounds horrible. (sarcasm).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, what you don't understand is that the Internet used to run on phone lines. The "common carrier status" laws had the same regulatory effect as net neutrality. We didn't need it because we already had it under a different name.
Special new net neutrality policies were needed as the major cable providers, who were never beholden to common carrier regulation, became the new ISP cartel. And we got it just in time.
But now we are losing it. You will soon learn, first hand, just how important it is.
editor's note (Score:2, Funny)
Best chance at reversal of this in the near future (Score:5, Interesting)
Hope that the EFF's and ACLU's inevitable lawsuits are successful. Otherwise, good luck getting people to vote in the right people to enshrine into law some feasible NN protection.
Re:Best chance at reversal of this in the near fut (Score:5, Insightful)
Ajit Pai (and his GOP-appointed counterpart) had their minds made up years ago, and his doggedly stubborn position feels like it's based in ideology instead of the facts presented by his opponents.
Just compare this PBS.org interview [pbs.org] where Mr. Pai used the same selective dodging of the facts pointed out by NN advocates (especially John Oliver's piece on the subject back in the day) that don't support his point of view. Then watch John Oliver's simplistic but factually correct episodes from 2014 [youtube.com] and 2017 - Part One [youtube.com] and 2017 - Part Two [youtube.com] on the issue.
Either John Oliver (and his writing/research staff) or Ajit Pai is an outright liar about this issue. Any bets on who's the fibber? It's either a left-leaning comedian, or a former Verizon Wireless lawyer. (TIP: Don't bet the farm on this being a bad John Oliver joke...)
Re: (Score:2)
Ajit Pai has no ideology. His mind was made up that if he did this, he could leave government and work at some telecom for a salary the rest of us can only dream about. He's merely an industry tool.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Please try to keep in mind that virtually everything you ever loved or hated about the internet came about in the total absence of these so-called net neutrality rules.
That's because the internet largely operated based on neutrality principles until recently, when some companies started "innovating".
We need the rules now to enforce the status quo of the last several decades.
Basically, we didn't need rules until people started stepping out of line. They're stepping now, so they need to be put back in line ASAP.
A Win-Win Scenario! (Score:3, Informative)
I'm the Company. I do charge for:
1) (End-user) Giving "faster" access to more part of the Web.
2) (Websites) For adding them to the "faster" list.
It's a Win-Win! Thank you very much Trump (and start paying me right now you thieves [aka "users"])!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comcast already tiers my internet and I pay for the Blast! one or whatever which has artificial boosts. I don't see a big difference here.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until Comcast starts charging websites for access to their network and then slows down your internet access to extort those companies. That's the basic of NN. Without NN the last mile providers become the trolls under the bridge tolling access so that Comcast doesn't deliberately slow down their connection.
This will start with Video where Comcast, ATT and Verizon will start extorting any new streaming video operator just as they did with Netflix. This will prevent any serious competition to Netflix eve
Re: (Score:2)
NN holds that if you pay for X speed then you should get X speed no matter what site you go to.
You were doing reasonably well until you dropped this whopper into the discussion.
Net neutrality is when an ISP treats all of the same kind of services that traverse it's net the same way.
Repeal of *2015* FCC Title II you mean ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Repeal of *2015* FCC Title II you mean ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Rules that even the Obama appointed FCC chairman said were overreaching and would stiffle Internet growth
Except for the part where Wheeler's rules included built-in exemptions for the parts he thought were too demanding or inappropriate for the internet.
What more do you want the guy to do? He fine-tuned the rules to exactly the level he wanted. Net neutrality advocates didn't get everything they wanted, but it was enough to prevent serious abuses.
But sure, take his words and rules completely out of context if that's what you need to be right.
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation needed]
None of what you said is true.
Except it is true. What is being discussed here is the following policy :
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub... [fcc.gov]
This was enacted in 2015. You can read Micheal Orielly's dissent, but most important is this part :
The FCC "fact" sheet promised bright line rules, but the reality is that the bulk of this rulemaking
will be conducted through case-by-case adjudication, mostly at the Bureau level and in the courts. To be
sure, there are three bright line rules: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. But those are
mere needles in a Title II haystack.
Before you lob accusations of Michael being a Trump crony, you need to read up on him. He's the Obama appointed FCC Commissioner, and was appointed in 2013, 2 years before Title II was applied as a form of "Net Neutrality" that just isn't Net Neutrality. It's government overreach.
Michael, the commision
Re: (Score:2)
Michael, the commisionner of the FCC, wants the same thing we all want. 3 simple guiding principals.
What does Ajit Pai want?
Re: (Score:2)
What the Internet looks like with no net neutrality.
Or one could look back to those dark years of..oh, wait, what we have today, since the rules have never been in effect.
I can't wait for the new rules because AT&T is constantly blocking access to Netflix and throttling YouTube so I'll buy UVerse instead. Except they're not, ever, because they know I'd drop their service in a heartbeat for Comcast or a less limited cellular data plan. Face it, competition is better at keeping the players honest, not FCC regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither Michael Orielly or Ajit Pai are "Obama appointed chairman".
https://www.fcc.gov/about/lead... [fcc.gov]
Michael Oâ(TM)Rielly was nominated for a seat on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama on August 1, 2013 and was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on October 29, 2013. He was sworn into office on November 4, 2013. On January 29, 2015, he was sworn into office for a new term, following his re-nomination by the President and confirmation by the United States Senate.
But but... That was changed! They are lying! Ok. Let's try :
https://techcrunch.com/2014/12... [techcrunch.com]
Want something to wash down that crow there buddy ? ^_^
Re: (Score:2)
fuck internet growth. Whatever happened to happy customers, and human rights?
Internet growth is human rights and happy customers. It is about building infrastructure in more rural areas and providing service to more people that currently cannot have access in a meaningful manner. Without growth, new people cannot be connected as infrastructure simply doesn't span the entire globe, in every region or connect every human yet.
We can say "enough growth" when every human on the planet has access to the Internet in some fashion.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and so i announce my plan to prioritize traffic (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's cute that you think your ISP will still allow VPNs after Net Neutrality is gone.
Making America great again (Score:3)
All is on course to screw the little guy and give the big companies more power, more money and less incentive to promote a healthy open internet.
It was fun while it lasted. Let the GREATNESS of ISP's dictating what we can access and how fast. Enjoy. Hope you guys got what you wanted.
How long before the ISP's in America start turning the screws and cutting off access to all but their approved sites list? Sigh. Is there any incentives for ISP's to keep things open? Sure is a lot of incentive now to closed the doors and tighten the screws and start nickle and diming us to death.
Meh (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
What "next democratic administration"?
Websites run by critics of the current administration will simply fail to load. From now on the Republican Party is the only party.
Re: (Score:2)
What "next democratic administration"?
Websites run by critics of the current administration will simply fail to load. From now on the Republican Party is the only party.
The Government just *ELIMINATED* government oversight of the Internet. And you believe that to mean they have taken control of it ?
The Mental Gymnastics are reaching beyond Olympic levels here.
Re: (Score:2)
What "next democratic administration"?
Websites run by critics of the current administration will simply fail to load. From now on the Republican Party is the only party.
The Government just *ELIMINATED* government oversight of the Internet. And you believe that to mean they have taken control of it ?
The Mental Gymnastics are reaching beyond Olympic levels here.
Where did he say anything about government taking control of it? The telecoms already have control of it - without oversight, they'll be free to privilege whatever content suits them. And given that one party thinks this is a good idea and the other doesn't, it should be pretty clear whose content will be privileged.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you rather government control, or corporate control? Because I don't see any 'no control' option.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ISPs know this, so I doubt they'll invest too much in paid prioritization in the near future.
Broken logic. Once ISP's start implementing tiered internet and all the trimmings, it will be that much harder to reverse, and they'll fight tooth and nail to prevent reversal, especially after they do their deeds.
NN isn't the issue, competition is (Score:2)
NN is only an issue because there is no competition. And there is no competition mostly because only the big ISPs are allowed to do last mile service. A small mom and pop ISP could offer last mile internet to a LIMITED number of people. Just as a mom and pop sandwich shop can offer less coverage than McDonalds.
Fiber is cheap. The backbone providers are happy to connect ANYONE to the backbone that gets to them.
So why can't we run fiber? Because the big ISPs have exclusive franchise licenses that preclude any
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Equality sounds nice unless you understand how Soviet and grim "equality" can get. I don't want equality. I want choices and excellence.
The US education system has failed you and the rest of your compatriots. Choices and excellence do not spring up by magic in any type of market. Regulation is needed for that, we can debate to what extent but not the if. Without regulation all you get is freedom to get fucked in the ass by the corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
True Comrade, choices and excellence in Soviet Union were all the product of excellent regulation by the glorious Communist Party. /s
My man, choices are what everyone was born with... Excellence is what happens when competition demands it.
Regulation doesn't create excellence or choices. There are many situations where there is lots of regulation and neither excellence or choices.
I'm not disparaging all regulation. These hyperbolic arguments out of you people. Its either total domination by the ISPs or you s
Re: (Score:2)
A small mom and pop ISP could offer last mile internet to a LIMITED number of people. Just as a mom and pop sandwich shop can offer less coverage than McDonalds.
Well, do'h. A small company serves a smaller area than a national one. This is "news for nerds"?
So why can't we run fiber? Because the big ISPs have exclusive franchise licenses that preclude anyone else from competing against them.
Exclusive franchises have been against federal law for almost 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure and you can buy the imperial gardens in Japan for a trillion dollars too... and other things which written on paper but aren't true in fact.
When it comes to franchise agreements they often require that you commit to roll out service in a larger area than you wanted to roll it out. Sometimes the entire city. That means you can't have a local ISP in a city unless you're willing to provide service to the ENTIRE city. This puts the venture beyond the capital reserves of anything but a multi billion dollar
Re: (Score:2)
and other things which written on paper but aren't true in fact.
It's explicit federal law. Municipalities are prohibited, by federal legislation, from creating exclusive franchises. That was done so many years ago that any franchises today are non-exclusive.
When it comes to franchise agreements they often require that you commit to roll out service in a larger area than you wanted to roll it out.
It is a contract between the municipality and the company. If you want to negotiate a limited size, do so.
That means you can't have a local ISP in a city unless you're willing to provide service to the ENTIRE city.
You would have to provide service to the area that you contractually agreed to service. It's a two-party contract.
This puts the venture beyond the capital reserves of anything but a multi billion dollar corporation.
I'm sorry, but most cities don't require that kind of investment to be an ISP. Given that there is
Re: (Score:3)
Because the only alternative to one extreme is another?
Have a little class, license people to do it... I mean I would even be fine if only the stupid government could actually climb the pole and hang the wire if that makes a difference to you. Because the government doesn't screw up as often as anyone else, right?
As it stands, it is the big ISPs or no one.
I am not suggesting we go to some BDSM mad max all leather mowhawk anarchy here.
Imagine if only the local cab company were allowed to drive on your roads.
Re: (Score:2)
Its always a risk... I get burned for this one with some consistency.
We'll see what happens. I'm occasionally surprised by the sensibility of the community.
Impact on the Citizens United decision (Score:5, Insightful)
"With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters."
And now these same corporations have been given the freedom to control what you can see on the Internet.
Oops!
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, hate to rain on Justice Kennedy's parade, but people are assholes. People with money and power are even bigger assholes. Had he a clue about fundamental human nature he would have easily seen how the ISPs were positioning themselves to subsequently screw everyone and own the country. Which party do you think the big ISPs are going to support? What political ads are they going to pepper their data streams with? What are they going to censor and block, or maybe just make it prohibitively expensive to ge
I remember those days (Score:2)
It could potentially be the return of the likes of AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, etc.
Support those fighting for our digital rights.... (Score:2)
https://supporters.eff.org/don... [eff.org]
Political opinions aside, the EFF has been pretty solid in standing up for the People in opposition to corporate greed.
It might not advantage the biggest (Score:2)
Everyone assumes that without neutrality regulations the big guys - chiefly Google and Amazon will get priority. But I would expect Comcast to put search out for bids. Whoever bid the most would be authorized to supply search services, and that might be Bing, or much worse. The loser wouldn't get private peering, and might even be subject to unfortunate drop outs. Google might think that Comcast wouldn't dare throttle their link, but Google would be mistaken. In these restricted choice situations the aut
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's the New York Times... (Score:2)
It's content-free
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality doesn't mean that you are entitled to free content.
It did for most of the last twenty years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My money's on him not understanding what "entitled" means.
My money's on him being part of a generation that thinks that "data wants to be free" (as in beer) and that he was born to help data achieve its goal. He's entitled to free content because ... well, just because. If misusing the phrase "net neutrality" can help him get more access to free content, then he'll do that.
Re: (Score:2)
My money's on this whole thread being completely off-topic. A first-poster troll, snarking on the NYT and pay-walled sites, sends /. on a tangent over whether an AC is right or wrong or if everything on the net should be free as in beer. This used to be just stupid, but Putin has made me paranoid that the FSB [wikipedia.org] is carefully studying this stuff to see how effectively something ignorant injected into an internet conversation can fuck it all up.
Of course, this may all be rendered moot if your ISP decides /. sh
Re: (Score:2)
My money's on this whole thread being completely off-topic.
The fact it is about the meaning of net neutrality makes it on-topic.
Of course, this may all be rendered moot if your ISP decides /. should no longer be delivered to you over its wires,
In other words, it will never be moot. How many ISPs blocked /. before the 2015 net neutrality policy? That's how many of them would decide to start now. Where's the money in doing that?
You realize, I wonder, that there are ISPs that go into business specifically for the blocking of websites as a service. They are typically aimed at parents who want a child-safe internet for their kids. While the practicality and success of such ventures
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We need to talk about the ECONOMICS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have government rights of way that are not granted to others.
Until someone else comes along and gets a franchise and then they have access to the rights-of-way, too. Or uses a delivery system that doesn't need access to rights-of-way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There hasn't been a new "franchise" granted in 70 years.
This does not change the fact that they are available. I would also question your statement, since 70 years ago was 1947 -- a year before the first CATV systems popped up. I doubt those had "franchises", but perhaps they did. That leaves a huge amount of the country that has managed to grant franchises over the last 69 years, and all of them would be new.
They are using their pre-existing mandates for the phone/cable lines
The "pre-existing mandates" for cable expired and have been recast as non-exclusive franchises. But thankfully, cable is not the only internet game availab
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have government rights of way that are not granted to others.
Then how about passing "government rights of way" neutrality?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever actually read Orwell? (Score:2, Insightful)
The irony is that you are quoting Orwell but apparently have never actually READ Orwell, because his whole thesis is about the dangers of GOVERNMENT. Using Orwell to argue for more government is literally the 180 degree opposite of logic.
Re: Have you ever actually read Orwell? (Score:2)
This. I am actually OK with dismantling Net Neutrality, on the condition that they make it illegal for cities to contract with one cable company or another and offer exclusivity or tax-payer subsidies to those companies to operate as a sudomonopoly. The best antidote for abuse of consumers isnâ(TM)t regulation, its free and open competition.
Re: (Score:2)
You could have both. You don't need to give up on the idea of competition just because the government requires your ISP to serve the whole internet to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Have you ever actually read Orwell? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know why LCD's where so expensive for so long? Because those same companies in 'free' competition agreed to jack the prices up. You CANNOT TRUST companies looking for profits to do anything with the interest of the consumer in mind. The sort of statement you're making is the same one Ajit P has made about the internet. And it's a complete lie.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Have you ever actually read Orwell? (Score:4)
Obviously you haven't read Orwell, because a big part of his thesis is about language and how manipulating it can make people believe absurdities, like attacking rules that keep the Internet open will help to keep the internet open.
He makes another point, that repeating lies loud enough and often enough makes it difficult to discern the truth, such as "his whole thesis is about the dangers of GOVERNMENT."
Let's see, you have a loose social movement backed by powerful corporations dedicated to the theory that attacking internet openness will promote internet openness, vs. a loose social movement backed by a powerful government that until recently was dedicated to the theory that requiring internet openness is the best way to maintaining internet openness. I wonder which faction Orwell would find more disturbing?
Re:Have you ever actually read Orwell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I HAVE read it, and man did you REALLY take away the wrong lesson. His central thesis wasn't that government is bad, so be an anarchist. The dangers he lays out, very clearly, are ignorance, apathy, and cowardice in the face of growing injustice. GP interprets it far more accurately than you do. Ingsoc used doublespeak and paranoia to turn ITS PEOPLE against each other. Buying into this blind "government is bad" and "protecting innovation" is the very definition of being an Orwellian character.
Re: (Score:2)
The libertarian troll position: "Regulation to prevent the control of internet content actually controls internet content".
I don't think your grasp on Orwell is too solid.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't have a discussion with ACs, it's like shouting into the darkness.
Re:More government in your internet = China (Score:5, Insightful)
So, yes, in that regard, most believe it's Government's job to setup protections - since corporations have shown time after time they put profit over safety or human life.
It this case, Net Neutrality tells ISP's they CAN NOT sell your personal surfing behavior or prioritize one source over another. Without NN your ISP will be able to sell you not only the connection, but also a "bundle" where if you don't pay for the "sports bundle", your ESPN will crawl, or if you don't purchase the "entertainment" bundle, Netflix / Hulu or Amazon Prime will be too slow to stream in HiDef. Remember, you are already paying for the connection (which is the DEFINITION of ISP), and you've likely had data caps put in place over the past year or two. Repealing NN is nothing more than an estimate $8 BILLION hand over to ISP's with ZERO consumer benefit, reduced protections and increased cost.
As far as "choice", most cable companies have used laws to ensure nobody else can compete in their market. I live in Seattle... My "choice" is Comast or DSL with Frontier... Ya, some choice.
This just epitomizes why consumer protections are necessary and proves the our government is actually an oligarchy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Big business IS big government (we need real fr (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Net Neutrality is Actually Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
This will allow ISP's to increase their revenue and use that money to improve and expand their infrastructure.
Haven't we been giving them millions in payments and tax breaks for years to do that very thing? Hasn't happened yet.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Then why aren't there more lawsuits about it and why aren't ISPs losing and being forced to build it out?
Re: (Score:2)
Billions, 200 of them.
Re:Net Neutrality is Actually Bad (Score:5, Informative)
This will allow ISP's to increase their revenue and use that money to improve and expand their infrastructure. I'm actually for reduced latency and increased bandwidth, unlike many here it seems.
Since I don't have any mod points now to downmod you as a troll, I'll take the bait instead. Dude! Do you really think AT&T, Comcast, and their like, really NEED more money in order to "improve and expand"? They're swimming in cash right now, and they still take, and make, every possible opportunity to charge more for less. And what good are "reduced latency and increased bandwidth" if you can only take advantage of them when connecting to the sites and services your provider has climbed into bed with, and when other traffic is artificially throttled just to encourage you to drink their particular brand of Kool-Aid? Fer chrissake, they're turning what should be considered public infrastructure into a series of private toll roads - are you seriously OK with that?
Re: (Score:2)
But think of all the new high paying jobs this will create for people who throttle websites!
(At least until all their jobs are replaced by a block of code that will take someone five minutes to write.)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think AT&T, Comcast, and their like, really NEED more money in order to "improve and expand"? They're swimming in cash right now
That’s how you think people make decisions? "We're swimming in cash, let's do random shit without regard to ROI."
Re: (Score:2)
This will allow ISP's to increase their revenue and use that money to improve and expand their infrastructure. I'm actually for reduced latency and increased bandwidth, unlike many here it seems.
I wonder how many more millions it will take to effectively combat the blind ignorance you've demonstrated here...
Re: (Score:3)
Serious question: Just how much money do you think they need to increase their network capacity and reach new communities?
https://www.divisionofwealth.c... [divisionofwealth.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We've had Net Neutrality for a couple years now and yet the internet is an even worse place than it was several years ago when Net Neutrality wasn't even a thing.
Ah, so carving content up into basic, standard, and premium internet tiers will make that better, right? Because we all love how cable has fucked over content for the last quarter century.
Yes, the internet has gotten increasingly worse, but that's been going on for the last two fucking decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so carving content up into basic, standard, and premium internet tiers will make that better, right? Because we all love how cable has fucked over content for the last quarter century.
You mean the same way Sling has carved it's content up into tiers? Seems like a consistent business model, even for a company that is billing itself as "ala-carte".
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so carving content up into basic, standard, and premium internet tiers will make that better, right? Because we all love how cable has fucked over content for the last quarter century.
You mean the same way Sling has carved it's content up into tiers? Seems like a consistent business model, even for a company that is billing itself as "ala-carte".
I don't give a shit what Sling or any other greedy cable provider calls their services; keep that fucked business model away from the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a shit what Sling or any other greedy cable provider calls their services; keep that fucked business model away from the internet.
You might want to google for "sling TV" or just go to their website. They are not a cable provider. They are on the internet. They are content providers, carving up their content into tiers.
It's too late. That business model is already here. You can't keep it away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fire up those VPNs (Score:2)