Net Neutrality Protests Move Online, Yet Big Tech Is Quiet (nytimes.com) 71
The New York Times: Protests to preserve net neutrality, or rules that ensure equal access to the internet, migrated online on Tuesday, with numerous online companies posting calls on their sites for action to stop a vote later this week. Reddit, Etsy and Kickstarter were among the sites warning that the proposal at the Federal Communications Commission to roll back so-called net neutrality rules would fundamentally change the way the internet is experienced. Kickstarter, the crowdfunding site, cleared its entire home screen for a sparse white screen reading "Defend Net Neutrality" in large letters. Reddit, the popular online message board, pushed in multiple ways on its site for keeping the rules, including a pop-up box on its home screen. But the online protests also highlighted how the biggest tech companies, such as Facebook and Google, have taken a back seat in the debate about protecting net neutrality (Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; syndicated source), rules that prohibit internet service providers like AT&T and Comcast from blocking or slowing sites or for charging people or companies for faster speeds of particular sites. For the most part, the large tech companies did not engage in the protest on Tuesday. In the past, the companies have played a leading role in supporting the rules.
The megacorps don't stand to lose much (Score:5, Insightful)
The megacorps won't be very negatively affected by a tiered Internet, they could even benefit. They'll get shaken down by ISPs, but in return they'll receive massive barriers to entry, protecting their empires from any scrappy new startups forever.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Y...yeah, because ... Afghanistan was hellbent on removing internet access from the US...
That ... makes a lot of sense.
Re: (Score:2)
And that can be solved by bombing a country and making the people living there come to you?
Re: (Score:1)
That's likely because they already benefits before, the fact that they were for this abomination of NN in the US should make people very wary of supporting it at all. There were likely regulations in it that gave them more benefits and less consumer protections.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... can I still prefer the beast I know over the beast I don't even want to know? Because so far the internet is still quite usable.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... can I still prefer the beast I know over the beast I don't even want to know? Because so far the internet is still quite usable.
Sure. Just remember if you want actual NN rules though you're still going to have to go through the process of nuking that abomination anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we nuke Comcast first?
I mean, even Churchill allied with Stalin to get rid of Hitler, even though he knew that "both pigs should be slaughtered".
Re: (Score:2)
Can we nuke Comcast first?
By all means. Just remember you also need to break the current stranglehold that those companies hold on media while you're at it. Gotta do the same up here in Canada, and it's a damn slow process. For comparison 4 companies(Rogers, Bell, Corus(aka shaw), Telus) own 95% of all media up here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Forget losing, they gain (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You are right...Except all of the anchor's they've now created...
Checking schedules for soccer/kids sports ...
Facebook isn't my website?
If only gmail would get rid of spam....
Where else would I store my pictures?
This isn't the internet?
--
These are the day's of my life
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The megacorps won't be very negatively affected by a tiered Internet, they could even benefit. They'll get shaken down by ISPs, but in return they'll receive massive barriers to entry, protecting their empires from any scrappy new startups forever.
Any additional costs that megacorps encounter will be passed down to consumers. Business as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, they care, because they don't own the last mile.
Google wants Comcast users to watch YouTube. And they don't want Comcast to use their status as an ISP against them.
Re: (Score:1)
If that was the case, google wouldn't have filed as a "friend" of Rogers and Bell in Canada before the CRTC in opposing last-mile regulations requiring the owners to lease the last mile to TPIA's(third party ISP's). Google does what is in googles best interest, they don't care about the last mile.
Re: (Score:2)
Being kept on the fast lane in that last mile IS in their best interest. The very last thing they need is Comcast to create a competing service that offers a better experience because they can cripple the competition. How long do you think YouTube will remain relevant if loading one of their videos feels like using a 33.6kbit line while the new ComCastTube delivers them at full speed?
And how long until Vevo and other "we have all your favorite teeny idol" content providers move over to the provider-internal
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Youtube is already doing a fine job of driving content creators to other platforms. Most people don't even make money off of the stuff they publish since the collapse of ad revenue on YT, and in general online publishing. You don't seem to be up to date or understand exactly how rudderless YT is currently. Comcast on their own has shown that they really don't care about the quality of "last mile" unless it impacts large numbers of people.
Watch [youtu.be] MundaneMatt's [youtu.be] or Phil Defranco's stuff on it if you really w
Maybe tree-fiddy? (Score:2)
Perhaps they have been negotiating with the ISPs for great deals if they keep quiet? Or perhaps they are considering going into the ISP business themselves?
I don't think anyone here would be surprised to see Google or FB switch sides if they could earn more money by doing so.
"Do no evil" hasn't been on the charter for a long long time after all.
That's An Easy One! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Big Tech" loves the demise of net neutrality (Score:1)
They can afford to bribe ISPs for preferential treatment, and shut smaller competitors out of the market.
The sky is falling!!!!!! (Score:1)
Oh No
It was never about us to them (Score:5, Informative)
The big tech companies all voiced support for Net Neutrality because it was good PR or aligned with their interests. At this point, however, the cause is lost, and, frankly, they’re accepting that while it’s not an ideal situation, it will actually work out okay for them.
For instance, if ISPs decide to “tax” companies like Netflix, they’ll have to do so in a consistent manner lest they run into other regulatory issues, but those sorts of fees would basically establish a higher bar for entry that would prevent new competitors from entering the field against Netflix. Sure, Netflix will have to raise its prices, but so would anyone else who’s just trying to get started, so in the end it works out okay for them.
If there was something to be gained by voicing opposition to these changes, they’d be doing it, but there’s nothing to be done now and nothing to be gained for them by remaining in opposition, so they’ve tapped out.
Gee I wonder why? (Score:5, Informative)
Score:-5, Pwned (Score:1)
Witness BitZtream getting pwned! [slashdot.org]... twice [slashdot.org].....three times..... [slashdot.org] four times! [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
It's bitztream the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating, Qualcomm-hating, Firefox tabs-hating, Slashdot editors-hating Slashdot troll!
So (Score:3)
Legislation (Score:1)
1. The way the FCC imposed net neutrality rules is dumb. When broadband first rolled out, the FCC tried to regulate it by pretending it was the same as cable TV. That didn't work out, so now they are regulating it by pretending that it's the same as the telephone system. That's also stupid. The internet isn't a phone, or cable, or satellite TV, it's the internet.
2. Getting rid of "net neutrality" in it's current form, simply means the FTC will be regulating it instead of the FCC. That's good or bad, depend
Re: (Score:2)
But that's the $64000 question: will congress step up to (re)enact net neutrality proper? Or sit on their laurels? As someone who typically votes republican, I have to admit it will probably be democrats who step up first, though I'd like to see a bipartisan bill.
I do however, except someone to step up in congress, because the sponsor of that bill has "hero" written all over him to the people. What congress critter would want to pass up that kind of fame and PR?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I could be wrong but I believe VOIP traffic is already prioritized, if you're using an actual VOIP box supplied by your service provider. The likes of Skype and others probably aren't though.
IIRC the FTC is more of a reactionary body - one that only investigates complaints brought to it's attention from outside, not one that proactively estab
Re: (Score:3)
The "basic" QoS traffic shaping you refer to you be used by Verizon and Comcast to prioritize their own streaming services only, not streaming services in general.
Then that's not basic QoS. That's why I said service and connection agnostic rules. VOIP gets priority over streaming video. Streaming video gets priority over web sites. Web sites get priority over downloads. That's all that should be allowed.
The fact that the internet can get "slowed down" during a major event (like Xmas day) is the direct result of a complete separate problem compared to NN. The lack of available bandwidth is caused by the big ISPs having little to no incentive to build out their network infrastructure because of the monopolistic contracts they hold in most areas. They suck up endless profits while investing only the bare minimum back into their equipment.
You don't build out your infrastructure assuming everyone is going to be using the maximum amount of what you are providing. The water system isn't designed for every household to take a shower, run their dishwasher and washing machine all at the same time. Roads aren
The long slow death of the open internet (Score:1)
Hmm... getting warm in here. I wonder if someone is trying to boil this here frog.
Sure, the first few months won't see much change. But the change (and restrictions) will slowly ramp up, as people get used to them. Then one day we'll wake up with a completely balkanized internet, and wonder how we got there.
Big tech is one of the targets (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's because they know it's pointless. (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC aren't going to listen, you don't have any actual consumer-oriented governance or lawmakers.
You have a corrupt, pro-corporate setup. Foxes running the henhouse. All that. Pai has even been joking about it. Laughing at the peasants.
This is a done deal. Just another glorious benefit of the orange manchild making you 'great again'.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:It's because they know it's pointless. (Score:4, Informative)
Obama appointed Pai to the FCC. Trump appointed Pai as FCC chair, and was then confirmed by Congress. Pai just happened to be the closest Big-Telecom Stooge. If not him, it'd be another Verizon lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Political Pressures Forcing Them on Defensive (Score:2)
Harold Feld, a senior vice president at Public Knowledge, a nonprofit group that supports net neutrality, said the biggest tech companies were less vocal because they were facing more regulatory battles than in past years. Social media sites have been criticized for allowing foreign actors to interfere in the presidential election of 2016. The biggest tech companies also face complaints from some lawmakers that they have become too large and powerful.
“First, the major tech companies are very aware that Washington has turned hostile,” Mr. Feld said. “In this environment, the big tech companies try to keep a low profile and play defense rather than take positions that draw attention.
“So with the dangers of standing up in D.C. greater, their existential concerns about net neutrality reduced because of their own massive size and a desire not to spook investors, it is unsurprising that Silicon Valley giants have melted into the background and have preferred to work through their trade associations,” he said.