The FCC and Internet Neutrality

"Federal Communications Chairman Ajit Pai has started to roll back Obama-era net neutrality regulation, setting up a showdown between tech companies and broadband providers. In a speech in Washington on Wednesday, Pai outlined his plan for eliminating the utility style regulatory framework the FCC adopted in 2015, while still keeping principles to prevent broadband and wireless providers from favoring their own services over competitors'. When the FCC rammed through the Title II Order two years ago ... I voiced my confidence that the Title II Order's days were already numbered," he said during his speech. Pai said this is the first step in making that prediction a reality. "Make no mistake about it: this is a fight that we intend to wage and it is a fight that we are going to win." Pai began circulating the proposal among the FCC commissioners today and will release it to the public on Thursday. The FCC will vote to formally open the proposal for public comment at the May 18 meeting. Pai expects the FCC to vote on a new set of rules that will return broadband to its "light touch" regulatory framework by the end of the year."

Via #battleforthenet:
"Cable companies are famous for high prices and poor service. Several rank as the most hated companies in America. Now, they're lobbying the FCC and Congress to end net neutrality. Why? It's simple: if they win the power to slow sites down, they can bully any site into paying millions to escape the "slow lane." This would amount to a tax on every sector of the American economy. Every site would cost more, since they'd all have to pay big cable. Worse, it would extinguish the startups and independent voices who can't afford to pay. If we lose net neutrality, the Internet will never be the same."

Reminder that Shillery was going to do this exact same thing and was receiving massive amounts of funding from Comcast for this.

This was inevitable, regardless of who won the election

>>155371
This is pretty weak.
You should feel shame.

>>155371
Yes, and?

>>155366
Not the government's job. The internet is like an apartment building. The ISPs are the landlords, we're just tenants. We're renting the internet, we don't own it.

>>155371
>Reminder that Shillery was going to do this exact same thing

What's your point? There are more than two parties running in elections. Stop being a partisan troll.

>>155474

>1 Rupee has been deposited into your shareblue account

>>155565
>here are more than two parties running in elections

That's cute anon

>>155530
ISP do not own the internet.
They just provide the tubes to access it.
You pay them for connection to the internet, not for the internet itself.

People seriously need to chill the fuck out about net neutrality and FCC privacy regulations. These laws and rules weren't even a twinkle in most people's eyes a year or two ago, but everybody is still going crazy throwing a fucking fit like they've always been here and they're now going away. Net neutrality is only an issue because of draconic pole attach and infrastructure rules/legislature. Net neutrality is politely asking the wolf in the henhouse (the FCC) to not do anything naughty, all while benefiting technology super-corporations. Google, Facebook, and Netflix don't give a shit about playing fair or you have affordable internet, they just want their bottom line.

>>155565
Third parties haven't been viable since Ross Perot. If you want to vote with your conscience instead of your brain, go right ahead, but both of your actual options were going to do this.

>>155583
There is no distinction between access to the internet and the internet. The connection itself is the internet. If you're not familiar with how the internet works on a basic level, you might want to sit this one out.

>>155592
I'm not sure I follow your logic. Librarians control acccess to books. Would you argue that librarians ARE books?

Historically, phone companies like ATT and Comcast have been the greatest barriers to the creation of the internet. The internet was only created because the government stepped in and made them allow people to use modems. Likewise, they were also the biggest barriers to the creation of smartphones. Remember when every phone had the same shit operating system? The iPhone isn't the first smartphone because it had better technology, it was because ATT was going bankrupt, so they were willing to make a deal with Steve Jobs to let them use Apple's own OS.

The ISP represents one aspect of the technology that makes the internet possible. You also would not have any internet if there were no servers etc. However, in their role, they have a monolithic control over most of the internet. They can lower the quality of their product (access to the internet) without having competitors come in.

An ISP is not responsible for generating any of the content on the internet, which is the thing that has intrinsic value. Yet, they still want to benefit directly (on a share-basis) from the profit of content creators.

One analogy is a highway. Usually, you pay a fixed fee for the service of the highway, which is traveling on it. What ISPs want to do, is change it so that any trucks driving on the road have to pay the ISP a percentage of the profit they get from transporting their goods.

In my opinion, I think ISPs are trying to profit from value they didn't help create.

>>155371

Source?

>>155599
Without librarians, there would still be books. Without ISPs, there would be no internet as you currently understand it. I wouldn't argue that librarians are books, but I would argue that ISPs are the internet. If you don't understand the technical reasons for this being the case, it's a little on the long side to explain in a string of posts.

The internet as you understand it is a conglomerate of technologies developed by CERN and DARPA. Phone carriers had as much ability to disallow modem usage as they did to disallow fax. Spoiler: they couldn't. Again, I think your perception on how the internet works is very different from reality.

The iPhone was hardly the first smartphone. Symbian, QNX, and various abortions of a mobile NT kernel existed for years before the iPhone. Phones had nothing even remotely close to a unified operating system; each one was developed and distributed by the manufacturer of the phone. The lack of features was because of the hardware limitations of the time, and the iPhone was no exception. The thing was actually dog shit and had next to none of the features you would expect of a "smart" phone.

The internet *would* exist without servers. It's really starting to show that you're out of your element, and like I've previously said, this is too much to explain in a string of posts.

The highway analogy is a gross oversimplification of what an ISP does, and it also doesn't map to site specific throttling (that actually hasn't happened yet).

If you'd like to speak one on one about this for a couple hours, I would be glad to explain some of the dry details as to how your reasoning falls short, but as of this moment, I'll just say that your understanding of what the internet is misleading you here.

>>155668
Not him but without even getting into your technical bs, the internet has become a vital communication avenue for all of humanity not just any one nation. Allowing private companies to control what kind of access you have and what quality that access will be is a major detriment to humanity as a whole.

They've already been caught trying to fuck other technologies and competing services in very illegal ways which is something only possible because they have free control over the service they provide.

The Supreme Court once ruled that Kleenex lost the right to stop others from using their name because it had become synonymous with the object itself. ISPs are no different here. In my opinion, they've lost the right to self govern the service they provide because of how essential it is to the next step of humanity and I am positive that time will agree with me but courts and lawmakers are often slow to react and often make mistakes along the way because of partisan bullshit.

>>155576
>shareblue account
hello nu/pol

>>155668
>The internet *would* exist without servers
I don't know what to say to this.

>>155815
>They've already been caught trying to fuck other technologies and competing services in very illegal ways which is something only possible because they have free control over the service they provide.
A link would be nice.

>>155668
Without library there would still be books but they would be very hard to acquire

Without ISP there would still be networks but they would be very hard to reach


Go shill somewhere else. You're shilling to destroy jobs and entrepreneurship in USA. You're an enemy to America like Pajeet Pai who is only there for his own personal wallet.

>>155867
>You're shilling to destroy jobs and entrepreneurship in USA.

If this didn't have the potential to hurt everybody I would be on his side.

>>155864
your ignorance and lack of motivation to fucking do your own research yourself raises many redflags of polfaggotry.

well your loss, i don't think you will be able to afford paying up to even have access to this site.

>>155893
>redflags of polfaggotry.
no need to be rude
it's a bit hard to get decent search results from the limited details provided
tbh was hoping to have something to show /pol/ because now trump runs the show they think net neutrality is a jewish plot and my warnings fall on deaf ears

>>155815
Ahh, the "technical bullshit." Fuck the reality of the situation, right? Fuck those little details that get in the way.

What technologies have ISPs tried to stop? Give me an RFC that an ISP interfered with. I would love to see one.

You can't just use the name Kleenex.. Copyright law doesn't go out the window just because everybody uses them. Go ahead and start a tissue company that sells "Kleenex" and you will get nailed with a lawsuit so fucking fast you wouldn't believe it.

You're not seeing with your eyes, you're seeing with your mind.

>>155856
Go ahead and elaborate on what is wrong with that statement.

Offlining every server connected to the internet wouldn't suddenly make all traffic unroutable. Even ICMP and servers related to routing protocols aren't entirely necessary, even if they're convenient.

>>155867
>they would be very hard to acquire
Are you listening to yourself? I have multiple hundreds of books in my house. Getting books is trivial. Fuck, buying a book is easier for me than going to the library to find it.

You're admitting that without the network (colloquially known as "the internet") provided by an ISP, it would be exceedingly difficult for an average user to connect two remote networks, implying that the ISP is effectively the internet as most people understand it.

>>155893
You want to know what's just as bad as /pol/?
Retards that constantly bitch about /pol/. You complain about /pol/ the same way they complain about Jews, and make up these insane plots in your head about how they're behind everything you don't like.

You can't make these wild, unfounded accusations and then bitch at people because they couldn't find sources that don't exist. Again, the burden of proof in a claim lies upon the person making that claim. I don't believe you're stupid, but I do know you're saying some stupid shit right now.

>>155929
I'm not that guy and I agree with you on the point that people on this board are way too quick to blame /pol/ for everything, but I don't know what you're doing trying to defend ISPs. In the US, they've shown that if you give them an inch, they'll take the whole road. For being the country that spawned the Internet and supposedly part of the developed world, we here in the US have some of the worst Internet you can get in a First World Western country, second only to Australia. Laughably low quality service at a premium price, and with the death of net neutrality it will only get worse.

>>155933
This is a two piece question:

1.) Internet service in the US will never be as good as the rest of the world. Texas is bigger the France. The Midwest is a big stretch of fuck all that you need to go through but can't profit from. It's easy to cross country when your country is a fraction of the size of the US.

2.) I'm not trying to defend ISPs. I'm trying to say that treating the symptoms of other failed regulations (namely pole attach and infrastructure rules) with net neutrality is not a solution. They take the mile because local governments help them do it. Kneejerk reactions are what got us here, so what is the logic in thinking it will get us out?

>>155933
I'd also like to add that "net neutrality" in the sense of what is being repealed right now was barely alive to being with. The current rules being discussed right now were only put in place in 2015.

>>155937
The net neutrality proposal was intended to treat the symptoms, yes, but that is probably the best we could hope for. I don't see a complete regulatory overhaul that paves the way for an truly free ISP market happening under this administration, ever.

>>155938
Any deregulation is a good thing if you ask me. The less precedent there is for government meddling in internet commerce the better. I remember there was a town that set up their own ISP a few years back because the corporate service they were getting was too expensive and Time Warner, instead of lowering prices and providing a better product to compete, went to the state government to try and get them shut down. That sort of shit is unacceptable.

>>155366
Net Neutrality will win, very soon.

>>156271
How exactly do you look at a clear-cut case of a company bending the government to do its will-
which is exactly what they're doing now by lobbying to repeal net neutrality- and come away with the conclusion that LESS regulation is needed? If the Internet becomes a free-for-all, do you honestly think the little guys are going to outfight the titans controlling the market?

>>156271
What? So your takeaway of 'a government tried to break a monopoly so the monopoly tried to corrupt/shut down government' is 'Man I wish there was less government doing shit'.

FFS

>>158791
Agreed

>>155371
>Hillary won the election so she's still relevant

Fuck right off

>>155371
Reminder that shillery is completely irrelivant to everything that happened after Nov 4 2016

>>158785
Very unfortunately this. Regardless of who's been in power in DC, this shit comes back pretty much every year with a different name and some different dressings. It's likely only a matter of time before it somehow slips past the goal.

>>158807

So your take away of the government being corrupt is "we need more government"

>>158811
>>158848

Blatant CTR shills

They even did it back to back

>>158785
>>158859
Guys...

>>158860
>If I call them shills that means I win, right guys!

>>158994

>I defend Hillary for free

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/20/16005426/netflix-verizon-data-speeds-cap-net-neutrality
http://www.gsmarena.com/verizon_appears_to_be_throttling_its_netflix_data-news-26317.php

>Well, Verizon is seemingly about to be on the other end of upset supporters of Net Neutrality as many users (including myself) are reporting a speed cap of 10 Mbps for Netflix' Data on Verizon (some are even reporting this is happening on YouTube data as well).

So it begins...

>>155592
>People seriously need to chill the fuck out about net neutrality and FCC privacy regulations. These laws and rules weren't even a twinkle in most people's eyes a year or two ago

Yes, but now, because of the internet the citizens are waking up to just how little shits are given about what we think and what we want.
The internet has become a lantern exposing the corruption and letting people know who is screwing them. They don't want that lantern taken away.

>>155366
>Patriot Act wasn't Patriotic
>Affordable Care Act wasn't affordable
>Net Neutrality won't be...

Fill In The Blanks! You Can Do It!

>>158860
Your ilk assumes that the private sector would relieve the pain that larger firms are causing you. Smaller firms would step up, but the regulatory structure as negotiated by larger firms prevents them. Large firms need the government's cooperation to do create this environment.

But if the only reason why a company can hurt you in the first place, is because they got explicit consent from your government to do so. Then they need that consent to be able to hurt you. If they need consent to hurt you, but they have to expend effort to get that consent, then the government is an obstacle in the way of them hurting you equal to the effort needed to acquire consent.

The ability to regulate the private sector is innately exclusionary. If we say that you can't sell products that cause birth defects. And if that's exactly what Nesquik is doing. Then they can't legally sell those products anymore. Only companies which can afford to make products according to this regulation can do business here. If only one company is capable of doing this, you have a monopoly by exclusion of every other participant in this market that couldn't.

Regulations are essentially this: Legal conditions in which a firm may do business. You are given the preferential treatment(to be able to do your business without prejudice of law) if you are able to meet them. Doing business is a privilege granted conditionally. If it were a right, you would have the legal right to sell me food full of deadly parasites. And legal repercussions could only happen after I was killed or harmed from consuming them. Because the act of selling the good to me was not actually illegal.

The only way to avoid the possibility of monopoly by regulatory exclusion is to have a government so weak that it literally can't set these conditions. Business is a right. And without regulatory power, the government loses its ability to exclude businesses from legal practice for creating a monopoly in the first place.

>>155371
I don't buy it. It would be a clean break with Obama policy, it would be tremendously unpopular with her voters and the Dem congress, and the political damage would outweigh any funding benefit she would get from comcast in 2020.

>>155366
Fuck net neutrality! Stop with the biased personal agenda and keep the news on even ground.