Net Neutrality

One very very important part about this roll back in policy that isn't being talked about.

What protected the customer before the internet was deemed a utility? It's the same thing that protected non internet based commerce.
Once deemed a utility the customer protection was handed over to the FCC. Which had little to no protections in place. They were writing the protections with lobbyist from the utilities. Tons of hidden loop holes I'd rather not list off, specially since they are not important after the roll back.

With this roll back, if I am not mistaken, the consumer protections will fall back under the Federal Trade Commission and not the FCC.

The FTC has a lot of protections against many of the fears in this thread. FCC did not. So before we fall into the traps of social media. Check out how the FTC protects against all these things because the FCC was selling us to the highest bidder.

 

Really? The man is a genius and has already altered the course of human history. Hell, he developed a brand new type of high speed mass transit and gave it to the world for free.

But sure, ignore all the accomplishments and bag on him for some difficulties with a production line.

 

I don't really know what to think about the net neutrality rules changes. But one thing is certain. Comcast doesn't need net neutrality rule changes to be concerning to their customers. They do that just fine now. They've been billing me incorrectly for months now, admit the mistake each time, fix it, then do it again the following month. Rinse and repeat. Its mind boggling. The issue of net neutrality would be of less concern if cable monopolies were ended and there was more competition amongst legitimate internet service providers.

 

I think it will be just fine. What to worry about is if government backs certain companies instead of staying out of the way. Corporatism is not capitalism or free markets. Propping up a business with tax payer dollars interferes with the free market and competition. Thats what I would be worried about.

 

Oh, I tend to bag on him for far more than just that. 8^D

Both the FCC and FTC have sued and worked on behalf of consumers against the ISPs for decades. They both target different aspects of the internet business. Typically, the FTC has focused on false advertisement and ensuring fair competition between ISPs (based on their previous lawsuits and rulings) while the FCC has focused more on content distribution and ensuring fair competition between clients of ISPs (based on previous lawsuits and rulings). To simplify that the FCC just grabbed all consumer protection ignores the fact that the FCC has been fighting for people's broadband internet access since at least the early 2000's (earliest lawsuit that was directly tied to the FCC and its enforcement authority for broadband internet when doing a quick search was 2005 while the FTC was 2002, but I could do a more in depth search if anyone actually cares). Internet has ALWAYS been under both agencies much like how there is FBI for some crimes, DEA for some crimes, and ATF for other crimes. One of the problems that NN was trying to resolve was the overlap of both agencies. The ISPs would cleverly play off the lawsuits of both by saying that one or the other couldn't enforce certain policies because it fell under the other's jurisdiction or wasn't classified correctly for this agency to enforce (hence the importance of Title 2). This was very successful and is one of the main reasons why the FCC got fed up and told congress create laws or we'll pass NN. Sadly, this didn't resolve anything and even while NN was active, AT&T was still playing them against each other, just using NN to justify it not being sued by FTC. NN did not do away with the FTC's enforcement or powers, it just clarified what the FCC was able to enforce and gave it legal standing that repeated judicial verdicts said it needed to have. One of the reasons I've mentioned a few time it was a stop gap and not a proper set up. It was rushed because the FCC was tired of losing lawsuits that should have helped consumers.

The focus of both companies in their own words:
FCC:
The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation and technological innovation. In its work facing economic opportunities and challenges associated with rapidly evolving advances in global communications, the agency capitalizes on its competencies in:

• Promoting competition, innovation and investment in broadband services and facilities
• Supporting the nation's economy by ensuring an appropriate competitive framework for the unfolding of the communications revolution
• Encouraging the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally
• Revising media regulations so that new technologies flourish alongside diversity and localism
• Providing leadership in strengthening the defense of the nation's communications infrastructure

FTC:
OUR MISSION
Working to protect consumers by preventing anticompetitive, deceptive, and unfair business practices, enhancing informed consumer choice and public understanding of the competitive process, and accomplishing this without unduly burdening legitimate business activity.

OUR VISION
A vibrant economy characterized by vigorous competition and consumer access to accurate information.

OUR STRATEGIC GOALS

1. Protect Consumers
2. Maintain Competition
3. Advance Organizational Performance

 

This is all true. Telecommunications vet for 17 years. We're a monopoly. I hear about it almost daily. The only places that give acceptable "choices" are major metro areas like New York. Even then they do what Ristra says. As well as all reasons why my industry should be regulated.
Many industries are regulated in the US and they're profiting just fine. No one is telling them they can't have profits. We're just saying they can't restrict (throttle, remove, redirect, etc) people's access to everything on the internet who have no choice, no power and no say in what's happening.

 

USPS is an interesting example. A first class stamp costs the same no matter where you want to mail a letter to and they deliver to every address in the US. Private companies don't have to service to costly rural areas or when they do they can charge whatever they want. Private companies can also play more tricks to reduce their labor costs by cutting worker benefits like making everyone part time.

I live in a major metropolitan suburb so I could ask "Why should cities subsidize mail to rural areas?" But I don't because I think that everyone in the country should have equal access to the postal network because it's of benefit to everyone to be able to mail anyone.

But I agree the immediate impact of losing net neutrality probably won't be big. Though I'm sure ISP marketing departments won't waste much time coming up with tiered services with extra charges for popular but bandwidth hungry sites like Netflix or Twitch. Or a few years down the line new companies struggling to make it because they can't afford to cut deals with all the major ISP's to make sure they aren't throttled down.

 

Have you folks heard about ISPs like Comcast injecting advertising into (non-HTTPS) sites ? Totally shady!

My friend used to work for Verizon - they are no longer deploying wired infrastructure (FIOS) - since it’s too costly - they plan or are planning on using a sort of cellular bridge that you then connect to your home wiring.

 

It's not just entertainment access we're worried about. It's access to real, multiple organization sourced news, educational materials and information. It's about the fact that your and my voice is equal to that of CNN or Fox on the Internet right now. Someone can just as easily go to my blog as they would to CNN or Fox. Radio, television and papers are already controlled by only a few megacorps. None of us have a channel on the cable line-up. We cannot allow this to happen to the Internet.

 

Not to mention if someone/something/shareholders, etc. decide your sexual orientation or something else is “wrong” and prohibits you access to information or otherwise

 

Yup, that sum's most of it up.

 

Get your pleb packets out of the way, here I come! *WOOOOSH*

 

Btw he is not near genius, just a epic manager, but even not close to Jobs or Bezos in it...
Idea of hyperloop first proposed in 1960-70 years by Us and Soviet engineers independently. Pretty sure that technologies was ready even in 60-70 to make 400km per hour as maximum in hyperloop now. Problem is making it 800 km per hour and cost-effective. Probably would work in middle east but think that zero chance that would work in major player countries for next 20 years.
The main great thing about Musk that he force the world to pay attention to science and engineering, this is really cool.
SpaceX is unbelievable great, Tesla imho would lose the competition to Ford, Toyota,VW.

 

Net neutrality was a power grab under the Obama administration. The same administration that directed the IRS to target Conservative groups. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg87351/pdf/CHRG-113hhrg87351.pdf The Internet exploded in the 1990's directly as a result of private industry and the ability to profit.

The progression of net neutrality in year 2024. I was fined for not watching the government mandated 4 hours minimum of CNN. My rations were cut by 25% for violating the 2022 Safe Zone Law specifically the Remembrance Code by posting on a forum my birth certificate only provided two gender options in the 1960s. The IRS fined me for buying virtual goods from a Korean MMO and not reporting those goods on my taxes. I had to pay a solar fee when the Nest Drones spotted me tanning on my deck in excess of 30 minutes last week.

The future of net neutrality and classifying the internet as a common carrier will result in faceless uninformed and easily influenced (bought) bureaucrats implementing mountains of unnecessary regulation and rules, just as they did in the telephone era. Taxes, slow upgrades, excessive waste and overhead, favoritism, and greed will under government control stifle and destroy the Internet as we know it.

Let the Internet be controlled mostly by the people by providing them choices. We lack ISP provider choices primarily because of government regulations and the cost associated with rural delivery. Should I have to pay extra to provide high speed Internet to someone living on a mountain range in Montana? Whose closest neighbor is 150 miles away. Why should I pay extra for someone who streams Netflix 18 hours a day if I only use 1 GB per month? Because this is also happens under net neutrality if/when the government gains control.

 

I swore I wasn't going to re-engage in this thread, but the amount of hyperbole and vitriol in some comments has convinced me otherwise.

The Federal Communication Commission’s decision to scrap net-neutrality rules doesn’t necessarily mean the internet won’t be regulated. Whether the oversight void left by the FCC’s action is a small crevice or a giant canyon depends on what role other agencies play, as well as decisions by courts and policymakers.

Here are some ways it COULD play out:

1) FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican appointed by President Donald Trump, has stated that the Federal Trade Commission can monitor for anti-competitive practices. Critics, including one of the FTC’s own commissioners, Democratic appointee Terrell McSweeny, say those agencies don’t have expertise and act only after abuses occur, rather than setting rules that guide behavior. The FTC’s ability to do so may hinge on its winning a court fight with AT&T Mobility LLC over the carrier’s alleged failure to tell customers who signed up for unlimited data that it would throttle that flow after a predetermined number not readily disclosed to the consumer.

The AT&T broadband unit last year convinced a three-judge panel of a west coast appeals court that the FTC’s oversight power is blocked. The reasoning was that parent company AT&T Inc. still provides conventional landline telephone service, making it a common carrier, something the trade commission is barred from regulating. An 11-judge panel is weighing whether the earlier ruling was a mistake.

2) The U.S. Justice Department’s antitrust division could also step into the regulatory breach, should one or more of the now-deregulated internet service providers engage in conduct it deems harmful to competition. It’s already sued AT&T and Time Warner Inc. to block their $85.4 billion merger on those grounds. However, it has allowed consolidation to levels never seen before, in the Airline Industry.

3) Pai’s plan expressly bars individual states from becoming internet service provider cops on the theory that national providers should be governed by uniform federal regulations, not a patchwork of local requirements. However, the states aren’t completely sidelined and still wield consumer-protection power. Having said that, the line between where federal authority ends and a state’s power to protect its citizens begins may need to be drawn by the courts.

4) State attorneys general from New York, Pennsylvania and Washington threatened lawsuits immediately after the FCC’s vote aimed at undoing the agency’s repeal.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has already stated he’ll mount a challenge based on the Administrative Procedures Act, a law designed to prevent an incoming administration from overturning its predecessor’s acts without showing a need or change in circumstance (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...says-hell-sue-over-fccs-net-neutrality-repeal). New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman also announced plans to sue, as did Free Press, an activist group that helped organized the opposition to the FCC’s party-line vote (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364933-new-york-ag-to-sue-fcc-over-net-neutrality-repeal).

Once again however, the lawsuits face an uphill battle because courts generally defer to the expertise of federal agencies, for better or worse.

5) Finally, do not rule out my old stomping ground, the United States Congress.

Massachusetts Democratic Senator Edward Markey has repeatedly said he would mount a two-pronged attack to preserve the rules (https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/...on-fcc-vote-to-roll-back-net-neutrality-rules) . Besides supporting legal action, he and other lawmakers, said they would introduce a resolution under the Congressional Review Act that allows Congress to overturn some actions of regulatory agencies.

Meaning, Congress could write a law to overrule the FCC’s action, and Republicans and broadband providers have asked it to step in. Democrats have resisted, saying legislation proposed so far would unacceptably weaken the FCC’s power to protect internet users. Also, don't forget that the election of a Democrat as president in 2020 could prompt yet another reversal in this decision

In conclusion, I would simply state this. It is too soon to tell what is going to happen.

As someone who has worked on this issue for almost a decade I can tell you there are merits to both sides of the argument. Telco's spend an inordinate amount of money laying cable, fiber, etc and it is the "last mile" to the consumer that is the hardest and most costly. I live in Washington, DC I have a "wide variety" of choice (Verizon Fios, Xfinity/Comcast, AT&T DISH, DC Broadband, etc.) when it comes to my provider, like most urbanites do in obviously urban MSA's. However, move out to rural parts of the country and that is simply not the case. Why? Because it is simply too expensive to do so, due to the lack of population density in those MSA's. In my opinion, this is fair. A corporation is a for-profit entity, it's entire existence is to provide a service to make money for it's shareholders (If publicly traded). Where I draw the line with net neutrality is the precedent that the rollback sets. Do I think major telco's like Verizon or Xfinity/Comcast will start limited restriction of access to websites. No, but it's the fact that now they potentially could that is disturbing. We will see this being played out in the judicial system for years to come.

Here's the bottom line and then I will shut up. Although the FCC chair argues that net neutrality has led to lower investment, he is relying on industry consultants, think tanks and trade associations to make this claim, which certainly weakens his position.

While it is possible ISPs may invest in more advanced networks if the rules are repealed, it is difficult to find evidence for this, and the companies have repeatedly statedto investors that they haven't affected investment. The BIGGER question is at what and whose cost will net neutrality be rolled back? Investment in companies dependent on high speed internet is likely to drop if internet providers are free to discriminate between users, and MIT has reported this has already begun (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...low-innovation-but-uncertainty-will-be-worse/).

 

I may not be living in 2024 but my children will and so will my grandchildren. I do not want them to suffer this!

 

Anytime you free up corporations to conduct business that best benefits them with no protection for the consumer you have trouble. No matter how you spin this, no matter how much Ajit dances in front of a camera saying I can keep my internet like always, I don't buy it. It may not be today or tomorrow but something from this decision is gonna bite the Net in a bad way. Ajit Pai strikes me as one of those Old timey bad guys twisting his mustache while he smiles in your face it's the vibe he puts out. He should take his huge mug and his I know better than you attitude and ease on down the road. We live in a time where the will of the people no matter how loudly spoken is drowned out and shuffled under the rug.

 

I’m very intent on keeping politics out of my posting and to reply to much of this I would most likely end up breaking my resolve.

Let me go at it like this. Take a look at the SotA front page and read the list of featuress. Consider those features as the same thing as these mission statements you quoted.

How does SotA’s list compares to what is in game? That’s about how I would reapond to the FCC’s or the FTC’s list. Sounds great on paper but isn’t the same as what is in practice. AKA read the fine print.

 

Completely agree. My statement wasn't trying to be anti what you posted, just expanding the fact that both agencies have been working for us against exploitative practices of ISPs and not just the FTC prior to Net Neutrality. The posting of their statements was trying to reflect how they have different focuses and why I also referenced their previous lawsuits and rulings (didn't want to actually post a crap load of legal paper links as I'm lazy). Much like my example of the law enforcement agencies, all 3 (FBI, DEA, ATF) can go after the same bad guys, they just have different crimes that they focus on. Both FTC and FCC do their best to enforce things that help us as consumers and have for decades (they don't always succeed and the ISP lawyers are crafty at jurisdiction and the allowed enforcement of both agencies as part of their defense).

Like you said, just because they have good intentions and a specific focus doesn't mean they actually accomplish what they want and like any enforcement agency its made up of people, some good and some bad. Politics aside, people are people and some do a great job and some sell out or just are lack luster overall. Judge the FTC and FCC based on the legal actions they have previously taken and take in the future. My stance isn't that either is inherently good, bad, or better than the other; just that they are different.

If I'm not mistaken (which I very well could be, hence the following question) wasn't this during the dialup modem time of the internet when it was classified as a common carrier because it was over the tightly regulated phone lines? I thought that broadband was classified as an information service instead of telecommunication services (a.k.a. common carrier) during one of the lawsuits that happened in 2005 which had to do with preventing Brand X internet from fair access to phone and cable lines.

Otherwise, I really appreciate the same level of exaggeration that those on the other side are using. Made me smile which is a great way to start a long slow dull day of work. Thanks.

Again, I'm in the position of take a deep breath and don't stress over anything currently. Things haven't changed significantly one way or the other. NN wasn't the end of the internet nor is it's loss. Tech is changing so incredibly fast and the government is way too slow to keep up with its current pace. We'll get there eventually and it will be a give and take on all sides, hopefully for the benefit of consumers.

For any anti-corporation people:
Look at all the awesome products 3M & DuPont have created. This is corporate funded R&D at some of its best.

For any anti-government people:
Look at DARPA regulated and NASA inspired inventions. This is government funded R&D at some of its best.

 

What I was trying to point out and I might not have gotten there. Is that the FTC has protections in place for general customers of any format. When the FCC took over we lost those protections and the new fine print the FCC was building became the protections.

I can tell you, the FCC isn’t the people’s friend. The FCC has become outdated and not relevant over the years. Taking dominion over the internet is the attempt to remain relevant. Doing the job of regulating the internet is going to be slap dead in the middle of politics with lobbyists and all that jazz.