Net Neutrality
Moderators: Shirley, Sabo, brian, rass, DaveInSeattle
Net Neutrality
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. - God
Re: Net Neutrality
Me being the 5 year old of course.
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. - God
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23991
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: Net Neutrality
Internet providers can now prioritize content that might be more beneficial to their bottom line and restrict/limit access to things that may not be as beneficial to them.
And they can gouge content providers for money to open up the throttle, and those costs will get passed on to customers.
And they can gouge content providers for money to open up the throttle, and those costs will get passed on to customers.
My gall is sufficiently mitigated. Thank you for your concern.
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 11604
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: Net Neutrality
Don't know if I can cover the whole thing, but, in a nutshell:
The FCC ruled in 2015 that internet service providers should be designated as telecomms. This allowed the FCC to regulate the ISPs more directly, and under this rule they adopted regulations that made sure that AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc. were not allowed to slow down or block any website or application for any reason. So, say, AT&T owns Yahoo, they aren't allowed to slow down or block Google. The amount of scenarios like this are almost endless.
The telecomms argue that the regulations aren't necessary and that there is no incentive to block companies or apps and all the Net Neutrality rules do is provide a disincentive for them to enhance the infrastructure to expand/enhance broadband. (I don't fully buy this argument, as you would think providing access to more people would increase their bottom line, but I'm no economist.)
The FCC ruled in 2015 that internet service providers should be designated as telecomms. This allowed the FCC to regulate the ISPs more directly, and under this rule they adopted regulations that made sure that AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc. were not allowed to slow down or block any website or application for any reason. So, say, AT&T owns Yahoo, they aren't allowed to slow down or block Google. The amount of scenarios like this are almost endless.
The telecomms argue that the regulations aren't necessary and that there is no incentive to block companies or apps and all the Net Neutrality rules do is provide a disincentive for them to enhance the infrastructure to expand/enhance broadband. (I don't fully buy this argument, as you would think providing access to more people would increase their bottom line, but I'm no economist.)
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Re: Net Neutrality
Isn't there also a direct-to-consumer fee apsect here too? Where Fios could charge a base fee then a social media fee then a sports site fee etc etc?
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23991
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: Net Neutrality
mister d wrote:Isn't there also a direct-to-consumer fee apsect here too? Where Fios could charge a base fee then a social media fee then a sports site fee etc etc?
Yep, that's true, too.
My gall is sufficiently mitigated. Thank you for your concern.
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 11604
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: Net Neutrality
They absolutely can do that now.
I think the first place they are going to focus is on the Netflix, Hulu, Amazon sites.
Interesting what they do with porn.
I think the first place they are going to focus is on the Netflix, Hulu, Amazon sites.
Interesting what they do with porn.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Re: Net Neutrality
The impact of this very well could result in new entrants into the market. These companies are already getting worried about cord cutters going full on wireless as technology improves (i.e. no line to the house internet and Spint/T Mobile/etc). You may also see googles of the world use this to expand their google fiber options..or one provider differentiate itself by being the provider with the most friendly behavior.
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23991
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: Net Neutrality
Google recently went backwards on their fiber rollout.
My gall is sufficiently mitigated. Thank you for your concern.
- Steve of phpBB
- The Dude
- Posts: 8962
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:44 am
- Location: Feeling gravity's pull
Re: Net Neutrality
wlu_lax6 wrote:The impact of this very well could result in new entrants into the market.
How has net neutrality been hindering these entrants?
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
Re: Net Neutrality
This can't affect service contracts already in place, right? I imagine ISP's would have to give an out prior to changing any fee structure.
Re: Net Neutrality
P.D.X. wrote:This can't affect service contracts already in place, right? I imagine ISP's would have to give an out prior to changing any fee structure.
Yeah, that's likely. Also, there's a lot that has to happen before it can actually be implemented. For starters, at least 19 state attorneys general have said they're going to sue the FCC, so an injunction is almost certain. Assuming the feds/FCC win, Congress could still act at that point (or even before it's decided in court).
(BTW, this is going to become a 2018 midterms issue. Smart candidates will say if they're elected/reelected they'll pass legislation ensuring net neutrality. The likely injunction that is coming will exacerbate that.)
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Re: Net Neutrality
Also, companies aren't dumb enough to implement mass increases at the start. They'll just say "the calculation of you bill has changed but your payment remains the same / DECREASED" and then slowly tick upward.
- Steve of phpBB
- The Dude
- Posts: 8962
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:44 am
- Location: Feeling gravity's pull
Re: Net Neutrality
brian wrote:P.D.X. wrote:This can't affect service contracts already in place, right? I imagine ISP's would have to give an out prior to changing any fee structure.
Yeah, that's likely. Also, there's a lot that has to happen before it can actually be implemented. For starters, at least 19 state attorneys general have said they're going to sue the FCC, so an injunction is almost certain. Assuming the feds/FCC win, Congress could still act at that point (or even before it's decided in court).
(BTW, this is going to become a 2018 midterms issue. Smart candidates will say if they're elected/reelected they'll pass legislation ensuring net neutrality. The likely injunction that is coming will exacerbate that.)
I'm curious what basis the state AG's could have to challenge a federal rule by a federal agency charged with regulating interstate commerce.
But I'm very interested in the NY AG's investigation into the fake comments that supposedly were submitted to the FCC to support the new rule. Someone went to a lot of trouble to do that, and presumably they left a trace. And I'd assume the NY AG's office would have the chops to do a good investigation.
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 11604
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: Net Neutrality
Comments, of a random variety:
* I hate to keep doing this, but... brian is right... this is a long way from being implemented. The courts will intervene, that's a lock. And I totally agree it will be mid-term issue. This is opposed by over 80 percent(!) of the American people. Finding something less popular than Trump and this tax bill is remarkable.
* In terms of the basis for law suits, one potential angle is that smaller businesses that rely on net neutrality (think video conferencing, or smaller video streaming-based companies) are almost certainly going to get screwed. If you are Netflix or Amazon, you are going to be able to pony up the dollars needed to boost your pipeline (or whatever tiers the ISPs create) that won't be feasible for those with less deep pockets. I could see some making a case that eliminating NN is some kind of potential legal issue. (not a lawyer, too lazy to figure out the wording here.)
* To piggyback on Steve's comments, the AG said that many of the fake email comments came from Russian-based accounts. Something that is this unpopular with Americans being put into place sure seems like a really good place for Putin to continue to fuck with American minds.
* I hate to keep doing this, but... brian is right... this is a long way from being implemented. The courts will intervene, that's a lock. And I totally agree it will be mid-term issue. This is opposed by over 80 percent(!) of the American people. Finding something less popular than Trump and this tax bill is remarkable.
* In terms of the basis for law suits, one potential angle is that smaller businesses that rely on net neutrality (think video conferencing, or smaller video streaming-based companies) are almost certainly going to get screwed. If you are Netflix or Amazon, you are going to be able to pony up the dollars needed to boost your pipeline (or whatever tiers the ISPs create) that won't be feasible for those with less deep pockets. I could see some making a case that eliminating NN is some kind of potential legal issue. (not a lawyer, too lazy to figure out the wording here.)
* To piggyback on Steve's comments, the AG said that many of the fake email comments came from Russian-based accounts. Something that is this unpopular with Americans being put into place sure seems like a really good place for Putin to continue to fuck with American minds.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23991
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: Net Neutrality
Nonlinear FC wrote:Comments, of a random variety:
* I hate to keep doing this, but... brian is right... this is a long way from being implemented. The courts will intervene, that's a lock. And I totally agree it will be mid-term issue. This is opposed by over 80 percent(!) of the American people. Finding something less popular than Trump and this tax bill is remarkable.
* In terms of the basis for law suits, one potential angle is that smaller businesses that rely on net neutrality (think video conferencing, or smaller video streaming-based companies) are almost certainly going to get screwed. If you are Netflix or Amazon, you are going to be able to pony up the dollars needed to boost your pipeline (or whatever tiers the ISPs create) that won't be feasible for those with less deep pockets. I could see some making a case that eliminating NN is some kind of potential legal issue. (not a lawyer, too lazy to figure out the wording here.)
* To piggyback on Steve's comments, the AG said that many of the fake email comments came from Russian-based accounts. Something that is this unpopular with Americans being put into place sure seems like a really good place for Putin to continue to fuck with American minds.
Well that's not how it's going to work at all.
My gall is sufficiently mitigated. Thank you for your concern.
- The Sybian
- The Dude
- Posts: 19556
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
- Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey
Re: Net Neutrality
My fear is this could lead to ISPs gaining enormous power. The enormous conglomerates in the media industry already worries me, and I can't keep up with who owns what outlets and services anymore. Comcast owns NBCUniversal, so they can now limit access to competitors. Can they fuck with SEO, so I only see results from MSNBC and not FoxNews when I search for shit? What if they buy Bing, can they make Google work like shit, so I have to use Bing? TimeWarner owns a stake in Hulu, so are they going to fuck with Netflix access?
To get more sinister, what if Rupert Murdoch buys a major ISP. Can he fuck with access, so only political propaganda comes through? They way the internet algorithms work now, we are already seeing major problems with confirmation bias skewing search results, and fooling us into believing more people agree with us, could an ISP ban certain opinions from being accessed? It isn't to hard to imagine Trump giving enormous preferential treatment to a media conglomerate, then seeing that outlet restrict access to sites Trump deems "fake news."
I don't fully understand how dangerous this is, but it's really clear this only hurts individuals for the sake of corporate profits.
To get more sinister, what if Rupert Murdoch buys a major ISP. Can he fuck with access, so only political propaganda comes through? They way the internet algorithms work now, we are already seeing major problems with confirmation bias skewing search results, and fooling us into believing more people agree with us, could an ISP ban certain opinions from being accessed? It isn't to hard to imagine Trump giving enormous preferential treatment to a media conglomerate, then seeing that outlet restrict access to sites Trump deems "fake news."
I don't fully understand how dangerous this is, but it's really clear this only hurts individuals for the sake of corporate profits.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
-Pruitt
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 11604
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: Net Neutrality
A_B wrote:Nonlinear FC wrote:Comments, of a random variety:
* I hate to keep doing this, but... brian is right... this is a long way from being implemented. The courts will intervene, that's a lock. And I totally agree it will be mid-term issue. This is opposed by over 80 percent(!) of the American people. Finding something less popular than Trump and this tax bill is remarkable.
* In terms of the basis for law suits, one potential angle is that smaller businesses that rely on net neutrality (think video conferencing, or smaller video streaming-based companies) are almost certainly going to get screwed. If you are Netflix or Amazon, you are going to be able to pony up the dollars needed to boost your pipeline (or whatever tiers the ISPs create) that won't be feasible for those with less deep pockets. I could see some making a case that eliminating NN is some kind of potential legal issue. (not a lawyer, too lazy to figure out the wording here.)
* To piggyback on Steve's comments, the AG said that many of the fake email comments came from Russian-based accounts. Something that is this unpopular with Americans being put into place sure seems like a really good place for Putin to continue to fuck with American minds.
Well that's not how it's going to work at all.
Just one of many possible scenarios I've read the last few months. You don't think that's possible? They can't pass ALL of this stuff down to consumers. And there have already been cases where this has happened already... Something with T-mobile exempting music streaming from their data, but smaller streaming services weren't included for like a year... screwed them right and proper.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Re: Net Neutrality
In about 50 percent of the country, Internet access is a monopoly. That right there is reason enough to leave it under the FCC instead of the FTC in my mind. (And while I'm not a lawyer, that could also be a hook to hang some of these state AGs lawsuits).
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Re: Net Neutrality
The Sybian wrote:My fear is this could lead to ISPs gaining enormous power. The enormous conglomerates in the media industry already worries me, and I can't keep up with who owns what outlets and services anymore. Comcast owns NBCUniversal, so they can now limit access to competitors. Can they fuck with SEO, so I only see results from MSNBC and not FoxNews when I search for shit? What if they buy Bing, can they make Google work like shit, so I have to use Bing? TimeWarner owns a stake in Hulu, so are they going to fuck with Netflix access?
To get more sinister, what if Rupert Murdoch buys a major ISP. Can he fuck with access, so only political propaganda comes through? They way the internet algorithms work now, we are already seeing major problems with confirmation bias skewing search results, and fooling us into believing more people agree with us, could an ISP ban certain opinions from being accessed? It isn't to hard to imagine Trump giving enormous preferential treatment to a media conglomerate, then seeing that outlet restrict access to sites Trump deems "fake news."
I don't fully understand how dangerous this is, but it's really clear this only hurts individuals for the sake of corporate profits.
No they can't fuck with SEO. Not Google's, anyway. What they'd do is just throttle or reroute any attempts you make to reach it for a search engine they prefer. That's where you wind up with paid results.
Noli Timere Messorem
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23991
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: Net Neutrality
My gall is sufficiently mitigated. Thank you for your concern.
Re: Net Neutrality
Seems legit.
https://m.imgur.com/ZaHhmAq
Edit:
http://reddit.com/r/technology/comments ... pparently/
Read the thread and it's also super heroes too.
https://m.imgur.com/ZaHhmAq
Edit:
http://reddit.com/r/technology/comments ... pparently/
Read the thread and it's also super heroes too.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23991
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: Net Neutrality
My gall is sufficiently mitigated. Thank you for your concern.
Re: Net Neutrality
Well, no. Did you read the last paragraph? Only hope would be flipping the House and bringing the final vote then.A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:10 pm So...everything's cool now?
https://gizmodo.com/senate-votes-to-sav ... 1826054197
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23991
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: Net Neutrality
I guess I was thinking if this many Senators flipped then there would likely be a similar flip in the house.brian wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:31 pmWell, no. Did you read the last paragraph? Only hope would be flipping the House and bringing the final vote then.A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:10 pm So...everything's cool now?
https://gizmodo.com/senate-votes-to-sav ... 1826054197
Also, I think you missed the final paragraph, which is why I was a bit confused since it kind of supported what I said - this was a short thing after a video which sure looked like the last paragraph.
"Still, we’ve seen Republicans willing to bend to pressure with today’s vote, and it proves that activism is working. As the midterm elections get closer and Representatives get hammered on taking a position that polling shows 86 percent of Americans oppose, we could see things turn around fast."
My gall is sufficiently mitigated. Thank you for your concern.
Re: Net Neutrality
A few GOP House members maybe. I'd be shocked to see 25 break with Trump and the telecom lobby when they're facing re-election in November. Hell, I'd be shocked to see more than four or five.A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:34 pmI guess I was thinking if this many Senators flipped then there would likely be a similar flip in the house.brian wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:31 pmWell, no. Did you read the last paragraph? Only hope would be flipping the House and bringing the final vote then.A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:10 pm So...everything's cool now?
https://gizmodo.com/senate-votes-to-sav ... 1826054197
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23991
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: Net Neutrality
To me this would be an issue to go 100% with the public on when faced with reelection.
My gall is sufficiently mitigated. Thank you for your concern.
- The Sybian
- The Dude
- Posts: 19556
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
- Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey
Re: Net Neutrality
The telecom industry gives bigger campaign contributions to candidates, and if you are a GOP House Member in a red district, it doesn't matter. Call it "Obama's Net Neutrality Law" and say it's government overreach, killing business and say it's a disaster, and you coast to victory. Facts don't matter. It doesn't matter if Net Neutrality is actually good for consumers, it matters if the GOP can make voters feel like it is bad.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
-Pruitt
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23991
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: Net Neutrality
But...86% of people already think it's bad. 82% of Republicans, too.The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:52 pmThe telecom industry gives bigger campaign contributions to candidates, and if you are a GOP House Member in a red district, it doesn't matter. Call it "Obama's Net Neutrality Law" and say it's government overreach, killing business and say it's a disaster, and you coast to victory. Facts don't matter. It doesn't matter if Net Neutrality is actually good for consumers, it matters if the GOP can make voters feel like it is bad.
My gall is sufficiently mitigated. Thank you for your concern.
- The Sybian
- The Dude
- Posts: 19556
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
- Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey
Re: Net Neutrality
And 99% of people think dumping toxic sludge into rivers is a bad idea, yet the GOP praise Trump and Pruitt for stripping regulations prohibiting polluting rivers. There were a lot of GOP Congressmen pushing for ending net neutrality, and there are some still screaming to allow it to end. Doing what is best for The People or even what people are widely in favor of is not a concern for a large part of our Congress. It's all about partisan bullshit and serving their corporate masters.A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:54 pmBut...86% of people already think it's bad. 82% of Republicans, too.The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:52 pmThe telecom industry gives bigger campaign contributions to candidates, and if you are a GOP House Member in a red district, it doesn't matter. Call it "Obama's Net Neutrality Law" and say it's government overreach, killing business and say it's a disaster, and you coast to victory. Facts don't matter. It doesn't matter if Net Neutrality is actually good for consumers, it matters if the GOP can make voters feel like it is bad.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
-Pruitt
Re: Net Neutrality
And, the vast majority of them are in safe districts, so they can do whatever the hell they want (as long as they are against abortion and for guns).The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 9:06 pmAnd 99% of people think dumping toxic sludge into rivers is a bad idea, yet the GOP praise Trump and Pruitt for stripping regulations prohibiting polluting rivers. There were a lot of GOP Congressmen pushing for ending net neutrality, and there are some still screaming to allow it to end. Doing what is best for The People or even what people are widely in favor of is not a concern for a large part of our Congress. It's all about partisan bullshit and serving their corporate masters.A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:54 pmBut...86% of people already think it's bad. 82% of Republicans, too.The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:52 pmThe telecom industry gives bigger campaign contributions to candidates, and if you are a GOP House Member in a red district, it doesn't matter. Call it "Obama's Net Neutrality Law" and say it's government overreach, killing business and say it's a disaster, and you coast to victory. Facts don't matter. It doesn't matter if Net Neutrality is actually good for consumers, it matters if the GOP can make voters feel like it is bad.
"What a bunch of pedantic pricks." - sybian