The Swamp

Yup.

Now can someone explain it to me like a 5 year old?

Me being the 5 year old of course.

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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.

Also, it's all Obama's fault.

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.

Google recently went backwards on their fiber rollout.

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?

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

So...everything's cool now?

https://gizmodo.com/senate-votes-to-sav ... 1826054197

A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:10 pm So...everything's cool now?

https://gizmodo.com/senate-votes-to-sav ... 1826054197

Well, no. Did you read the last paragraph? Only hope would be flipping the House and bringing the final vote then.

brian wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:31 pm

A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:10 pm So...everything's cool now?

https://gizmodo.com/senate-votes-to-sav ... 1826054197

Well, no. Did you read the last paragraph? Only hope would be flipping the House and bringing the final vote then.

I guess I was thinking if this many Senators flipped then there would likely be a similar flip in the house.

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."

A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:34 pm

brian wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:31 pm

A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:10 pm So...everything's cool now?

https://gizmodo.com/senate-votes-to-sav ... 1826054197

Well, no. Did you read the last paragraph? Only hope would be flipping the House and bringing the final vote then.

I guess I was thinking if this many Senators flipped then there would likely be a similar flip in the house.

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.

To me this would be an issue to go 100% with the public on when faced with reelection.

A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:39 pm To me this would be an issue to go 100% with the public on when faced with reelection.

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.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:52 pm

A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:39 pm To me this would be an issue to go 100% with the public on when faced with reelection.

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.

But...86% of people already think it's bad. 82% of Republicans, too.

A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:54 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:52 pm

A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:39 pm To me this would be an issue to go 100% with the public on when faced with reelection.

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.

But...86% of people already think it's bad. 82% of Republicans, too.

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.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 9:06 pm

A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:54 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:52 pm

A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 3:39 pm To me this would be an issue to go 100% with the public on when faced with reelection.

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.

But...86% of people already think it's bad. 82% of Republicans, too.

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.

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).