OT: net neutrality vote today.

Submitted by Dayday on
I haven't seen this thread anywhere; so my apologies if this has already been discussed. I hear a lot of people freaking out about today's vote and to be honest I haven't read enough to fully understand the ramifications or benefits. Those who really knew what's going on; I would like to know you think about it? Is it good? Is it bad? Should we celebrate or should we run for the hills?
MGoBoard
Other

Chalky White

December 14th, 2017 at 6:59 PM ^

My laptop and the cellphone were both on my home network at the time. I have an Apple airport extender in my kitchen connected to cat6 in the wall. The laptop was plugged into the extender. The phone was connected to the Wi-Fi through the extender. I had Comcast come out to investigate. He plugged his laptop into my wall and got 90 mbps through Ethernet. While he ran that test, I checked to see what speed I could get through my phone. I was shocked it was that fast. After he left, I called the help desk to ask if I should be losing 70 mbps just because of the VPN. They said it has something to do with comcast.

Joined: 03/16/2014

MGoPoints: 19161

WeimyWoodson

December 14th, 2017 at 9:54 AM ^

After saying, "Basically, I'm highly skeptical of the firebreathing Net Neutrality advocates who insist the world will end if Net Neutrality ends". 

Have you read 1984?  What is your thoughts on living in a world like that?  Because while this doesn't turn us directly into that, but it get us some large leaps closer. 

Joined: 08/25/2015

MGoPoints: 14737

reshp1

December 14th, 2017 at 9:57 AM ^

You've already perpetuated this several times, so again... It was assumed NN was the way internet was supposed to work from the beginning. As soon as ISPs stepped away from that they got sued, all the way back to the mid 2000s. The FCC also tried to enforce it until the courts told them they didn't have jurisdiction based on how ISPs were classified. The 2015 date you keep referring to is just when the FCC reclassified ISPs so they did have jurisdiction to enforce NN officially. We have had de facto NN since the beginning due to those efforts. The official repeal is drastically different from the situation prior to 2015.

Joined: 10/31/2011

MGoPoints: 34177

reshp1

December 14th, 2017 at 7:52 AM ^

There's pretty much no benefit to repealing net neutrality for the consumer. It favors ISPs and large internet businesses. NN forces ISPs to treat all data equally, a byte is a byte whether it comes from Google or some tiny startup. Without NN, ISPs can charge consumers more for data from some certain sites, or not service certain ones at all. In places like Portugal with no net neutrality, ISPs are already bundling sites like cable packages, where you have to choose an internet plan based on where you want to go online. Also, ISPs can choose to trottle or block content. Say, Comcast would rather you use their news service or search engine, they can prioritize that data stream and make sites like CNN or Google run like crap. Even more nefariously, they can prevent you from seeing articles critical of them, or of news (like this NN vote today) that could cause them grief from customers. On the business side. Large companies can simply pay ISPs to destroy their competitors. The next Amazon or Twitter would not make it out of infancy since they won't have the money to compete for bandwidth against the established giants. Maybe a more relevant example is SB Nation could pay an ISP to show you their site where Mgoblog wouldn't have the resources so it loads slowly or not at all. It's just a bad deal for nearly everyone. If you want to do something about it, www.gofccyourself.com to leave a comment with the FCC. http://act.freepress.net/call/internet_nn_call_congress/?source=slider will autodial your representative and senators for you and give you a short script to follow. It takes 5 minutes, tops.

Joined: 10/31/2011

MGoPoints: 34177

reshp1

December 14th, 2017 at 8:12 AM ^

That's misleading. NN has been contested in the courts for over a decade, with the ISPs finally winning in 2014 and the courts ruling the way the FCC classified ISPs did not give them jurisdiction to enforce NN. The FCC quickly reclassified them in 2015 so they did have jurisdiction, the date you're referring to. So yes, official NN protections were in place only since 2015, but definitive non-NN was never the situation either. This would be uncharted territory, if repealed.

Joined: 10/31/2011

MGoPoints: 34177

reshp1

December 14th, 2017 at 8:41 AM ^

Technically true, but de facto false. Every time they didn't abide NN the ISPs got sued. The FCC also tried to stop them until the courts said they couldn't. So, while it wasn't iron clad before 2015, we enjoyed NN as consumers well before that based on those efforts. This repeal will be open season on NN like we've never had before.

Joined: 10/31/2011

MGoPoints: 34177

1VaBlue1

December 14th, 2017 at 7:38 AM ^

This is a rather simplified take.  Sort of like a hot take...  The public utility thing is only a small part of it.  What the FCC has done is remove every consumer protection available to us, in favor of 'free market' policing itself.

I'm all for deregulation where it makes sense.  This, however, is not where it makes sense.  Well, at least if you're not a billionaire owner of large services...

Joined: 01/31/2016

MGoPoints: 127358

ats

December 14th, 2017 at 8:46 AM ^

Actually they were in place.  Verizon sued and the court ruled that the FCC didn't have the authority under Title I but did have the authority under Title II and that they could reclassify ISPs to Title II.  Hence how we got the 2015 order. And even prior to that, the majority of consumers had a myriad of ISP options via DSL which was not just under Title II but also had line sharing requirements. 

The Idea that NN regulations didn't exist until 2015 is simply false.  In fact, ISPs have been fighting NN or NN like regulations dating back to the 90s.

Joined: 09/20/2009

MGoPoints: 781

reshp1

December 14th, 2017 at 7:43 AM ^

That's pretty misleading. NN has been fought in courts since the mid 2000s with the ISPs getting sued when they didn't abide by it. They finally won a court case saying NN didn't apply to them based on how they were classified in 2013 IIRC, which prompted the FCC to simply reclassify them as Title 2 utility in 2015, officially making NN protected. It wouldn't revert back to how internet was, because this ruling would definitely allow ISPs to abandon NN where before it was legally contested.

Joined: 10/31/2011

MGoPoints: 34177

lawlright

December 14th, 2017 at 7:42 AM ^

What you don't understand and are falsy advocating is equivalent to saying "their weren't drunk driving laws (in year before cars were made) so why do you need them now??!! In 2012 ISPs started controlling services and some out right denying them. People sued, then the ISPs countersued the FCC and as such these rules came about. Your assumption is false and spreading a false sense of reality.

Joined: 11/08/2013

MGoPoints: 728

TIMMMAAY

December 14th, 2017 at 3:15 PM ^

I really wish people who don't understand an issue, would not try to influence discussion about said issue. As has been posted here numerous times already, in 2014, we had NN by default, even if it wasn't codified into law. It was written into law for a reason, because telecoms were abusing their position (predictably). This is not hard to understand. Not that complicated. 

Joined: 09/08/2008

MGoPoints: 56289

1VaBlue1

December 14th, 2017 at 7:34 AM ^

Bad...

What this is, is a commandeering of government for personal gain.  It's almost impossible to stay non-political with this, but I'll try.  The current administration placed people on the cmomission that support the administration's goals - which is, frankly, what every administration does.  The travesty, however, is that the newly appointed commission has changed what it doesn't like (virtually everything) while completely closing off public discussion about it.  And it's going to act by commissioner fiat - the director of the commission is gonig to approve it, and the commission will not oppose the changes because its now dominated by Republicans.

The changes will be market friendly - meaning that the market can do whatever it wants.  It also removes the previous agreement that ISP's would be treated as public utilities.  This means that they can charge whatever they want, for whatever service runs across thier bandwidth, without public opinion, regardless of whether you already have to pay for that service anyway.  (Ex: You pay for Netflix, and now Comcast can charge you for access to Netflix.)

Considering that what passes as competition for cable these days (forever, actually) is usually two providers dividing up a city is already bad, this policy will make things worse.

Joined: 01/31/2016

MGoPoints: 127358

goblueram

December 14th, 2017 at 10:53 AM ^

Look we don't need to get into too much detail here...but in THEORY

A limited government, as opposed to anarchy, that controls the use of force in order protect individual rights implies that rule of law exists.  All of this allows for an unregulated free market for voluntary exchange of goods and services between individuals.

Joined: 08/18/2009

MGoPoints: 11701

goblueram

December 14th, 2017 at 2:08 PM ^

Are you saying that theft and human trafficking have a place in a free market?  That's disgusting.  The very foundation of a free market is that individuals VOLUNTARILY exchange goods and services.  Hence the need for a limited government that protects individual rights, which again is not anarchy.  We've come back to the original point.

Joined: 08/18/2009

MGoPoints: 11701

Reader71

December 14th, 2017 at 11:37 PM ^

A truly free market would not have regulations against human trafficking. Theft would be a no-no, because the transaction would not be voluntary. But human trafficking would be voluntary vis a vis the trading parties. The trafficked human might not be happy, but nobody asks the chicken or the television set if it wants to be sold. Do you know why we don't allow theft and human trafficking? It has nothing to do with the market. It has to do with government regulations -- the criminal code. You think you understand things, but you don't.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

Reader71

December 15th, 2017 at 9:19 AM ^

It was meant as an insult. This is the free market of ideas at work. I am free to ridicule your product. Not only am I free to do so, but I’m trying to exert my market force, showing you how little the demand is for your product. This should, in theory, cause you to lower your supply. But my human trafficking example isn’t a theoretical — a market with no regulations against human trafficking did exist, and the result was slavery.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

pescadero

December 15th, 2017 at 9:47 AM ^

Markets don't exist free of regulations - markets are DEFINED by regulation.

 

As Robert Reich said -

One of the most deceptive ideas continuously sounded... is that the “free market” is natural and inevitable, existing outside and beyond government.

In reality, the “free market” is a bunch of rules about
(1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?);
(2) on what terms (equal access to the internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections? );
(3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?)
(4) what’s private and what’s public (police? roads? clean air and clean water? healthcare? good schools? parks and playgrounds?);
(5) how to pay for what (taxes, user fees, individual pricing?).

And so on. 

These rules don’t exist in nature; they are human creations. Governments don’t “intrude” on free markets; governments organize and maintain them. Markets aren’t “free” of rules; the rules define them.

Joined: 03/28/2013

MGoPoints: 12126

Catchafire

December 14th, 2017 at 7:39 AM ^

I dont think anyone wants this, but Ajit Pai is pushing this in the face of everyone and no one is talking about it.

 

If this gets passed it will be a damn shame.

Joined: 09/30/2009

MGoPoints: 27960