Net Neutrality is dead

[tRidiot]

How much more of your life would you like .gov to control? The Internet was working just fine without Obama's intervention.

Actually there were myriad abuses by ISPs intended to block certain traffic and limit their customers' access to certain services. It's quite well-documented, and the ISPs in question have already rolled back some of the promises they made at the time of the regulations including transparency, freedom of access and lack of surcharges for certain services.

The ISPs stand to make untold BILLIONS by squeezing their customers and small businesses alike in order to promote their own brand of favoritism as it applies to being able to visit certain websites or utilize certain services. How are you going to feel when your ISP gives you "50 megabit internet speed" only to limit certain streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime unless both the provider of the service AND the internet consumer both pay a premium on top of the regular price package?

Lots of money at stake in this vote, especially for telecommunications companies.

 

[caojyn]

as much teeth gnashing that goes on about "fake news,"

 

[mightymouse]

It's dead. Didn't even know it was ill. RIP NN!

 

[TwoForFlinching]

Time will tell if it will improve services in rural areas like they suggest. Worse case scenario, FCC will reinstate it in 2021 when whoever runs against POTUS Trump defaults a record blowout at the polls.

 

[Riley]

The previous classification of the internet as a title 2 utility was done without congress. The problem, I've read from former advocates of the rules, is the attempt to apply 1930's regulation conceived for telephone service to something as dynamic as the internet. Additionally, Net Neutrality never had any kind of packet neutrality despite how it was sold. It was a huge bundle of complex regulations imposed by executive fiat.

Lets remember the reason Ma Bell had to be broken up in the 80's is that it was a monopoly dictated by the government to begin with. If the WWW is to continue to be as innovative, far reaching, and successful as it has been the last 30 years of so the government has to stay out of it, in my opinion.

Further the rules imposed by the previous administration would have left an avenue to weaponize the web against their political foes as they had done with the IRS, EPA, FBI, DOJ, and countless other federal agencies. Think the IRS abuse was bad? Imagine if they had the only keys to authorize web usage. Does anyone really think they would allow news to be shared via the web besides their "authorized" versions?

It was the repeal, administratively, of the fairness doctrine in 87 along with development and fielding of the WWW that really changed the way news is made available and delivered. There are many who would not have chosen the path on which we find ourselves.

 

[Dave70968]

I still think the problem of interference with the "last mile" could be solved by the municipalities making neutrality a condition of the carriers' (monopoly) franchise agreements (as is done with incumbent telcos with regard to competitive telephony providers), while not affecting the other half of the net neutrality argument--that some services (mostly streaming media providers, which are highly bandwidth-intensive) are taking up an inordinate share of the backbone and peering agreements between big carriers at the upper levels. They really are getting a free/subsidized ride on their transfers that occur long before their stuff ever gets near the end users.

 

[dennishoddy]

Isn't Net Neutrality the reason we have to pay subscriptions to news outlets like WAPO and other news outlets?

 

[Riley]

Actually there were myriad abuses by ISPs intended to block certain traffic and limit their customers' access to certain services. It's quite well-documented, and the ISPs in question have already rolled back some of the promises they made at the time of the regulations including transparency, freedom of access and lack of surcharges for certain services.

All true, and the FCC dealt with them without NN. For instance, a cut and paste from elsewhere....

• 2005, Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it. Link.
• 2005, Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers. Was stopped by FCC from doing so. Link.
• 2007-2009, AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. Pressured by FCC to stop. Link.
• 2011, MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except YouTube. Link.
• 2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their ********. Link. Told by FCC not to do it, but I think they're still doing it.
• 2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. Link. Stopped by FCC.
• 2012, AT&T tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money. Link. Pressured to reconsider by FCC.

Isn't Net Neutrality the reason we have to pay subscriptions to news outlets like WAPO and other news outlets?

In my estimation this is more about media trying to figure out to monterize the web since conventional revenues have been falling. I sometimes wonder if they ever consider the fact of their politicization and it's impact on revenue.

 

[Dave70968]

Isn't Net Neutrality the reason we have to pay subscriptions to news outlets like WAPO and other news outlets?

Absolutely nothing to do with it. See Riley's comment above, which I also quote at the bottom of this post.

All true, and the FCC dealt with them without NN. For instance, a cut and paste from elsewhere....

• 2005, Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it. Link.
• 2005, Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers. Was stopped by FCC from doing so. Link.
• 2007-2009, AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. Pressured by FCC to stop. Link.
• 2011, MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except YouTube. Link.

Read your own link:
While the company says the plans are intended to give customers the choice of levels of service, the plans seem to be in conflict with the FCC's new net neutrality rules. Those controversial rules, passed just before Christmas, prohibit mobile carriers from blocking access to websites or "blocking applications that compete with the provider's voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network management."

The current form of Net Neutrality was implemented in 2015, but that was because the prior form--used in this instance--was struck down by the courts.

• 2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their ********. Link. Told by FCC not to do it, but I think they're still doing it.

• 2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. Link. Stopped by FCC.

You yourself note that there was a specific agreement here as a condition of the spectrum auction. That is a unique circumstance that wouldn't apply in the general case.

• 2012, AT&T tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money. Link. Pressured to reconsider by FCC.

Again, the prior NN rules were in effect at this time. "Pressured to reconsider" should be read as "pressured to reconsider before we bring out the big guns." See also: "nice place you've got here; be a shame if something happened to it," only with the force of legitimate law (well, regulation) instead of criminal extortion.

I don't feel like going through the rest of them, but I linked to and quoted an alternate source above that tells a little more. In any event, you must remember that NN was in place since at least 2011; it was struck down in 2014 on strictly procedural grounds, then reimplemented in 2015 in accordance with the court's guidelines.

In my estimation this is more about media trying to figure out to monterize the web since conventional revenues have been falling. I sometimes wonder if they ever consider the fact of their politicization and it's impact on revenue.

Bingo.

 

[Hobbes]

↑↑↑↑ Correct.

The original NN was called open internet and dates from 2005.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010

Now, those infractions cited by Dave become LEGAL.

Now Cox can legally impair OTT streaming TV like Sling in order to resign their TV customers.
Cox can impair Ooma VOIP phones to get their phone customers back.
Everything will become more expensive.

I fear that cable providers will turn the internet into another cable TV scheme.
"Oh, you want to visit the Breitbart and Fox news sites? You'll need to subsribe to our internet News bundle. It comes bundled with CNN, The WP, and Huffington Post websites too so it's a great value".