30 replies to this topic

[digital O-Q]

The Federal Communications Commission has just destroyed net neutrality . . .

Yea !
way to go . . .

Edited by digital O-Q, 14 December 2017 - 11:31 AM.

[ScrapIron Prime]

And now we wait and see if anyone has to pay an extra monthly fee to connect to online game servers... or any other pass-through service they feel like billing separately for.

[kf envy]

ScrapIron Prime, on 14 December 2017 - 11:35 AM, said:

And now we wait and see if anyone has to pay an extra monthly fee to connect to online game servers... or any other pass-through service they feel like billing separately for.

well I'm sure my bill is going to go back up $20 an get slower speed.

[Kargush]

The fight isn't over. The won round 1, but this still has a bit to go. Don't give up the fight yet.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

No one I know has read up on this.

https://www.ftc.gov/...-net-neutrality

The FTC is just taking over again from the FCC. Practically nothing really will change for the worse. The FTC is more strict on companies than the FCC and has looked into things such as data prioritizing and other scummy practices.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Well the hot button issue is with cable companies seeking to apply a cable-tv price scheme to the internet in general. You pay for cable, you pay extra to have HBO and the Science Channel. Net Neutrality was slapped into place to prevent them from doing that to Netflix and Youtube (among others). If Net Neutrality does go down for the count, then there will be a plethora of extra fees in the US for accessing stuff on the internet (a streaming video charge, a VPN charge, an XBox Live charge, etc) and you might simply not be able to get content from a competitor at all. More than just profiteering, this is a barrier to commerce and innovation.

But most people reading this are already aware of all that. The lawsuit phase comes next, and that's ugly.

[Mystere]

Lawsuits are probably not going to be enough because those could take a while.

The big tech firms threatening to move out of the US of A -- and announcing massive immediate layoffs just before Christmas -- would not go unnoticed.

Edited by Mystere, 14 December 2017 - 02:48 PM.

[Lightfoot]

Well Comcast and Fox, etc are reeling from cheaper options from the internet than cable TV. Now that internet can stream movies and sports they are set to pounce and jack up rates, reduce services, make you buy channels you don't want. Pay for free games too? You bet. If they can. Basically 22 million people and companies wrote in to tell the FCC not to do this and the vote split along party lines with Republican appointees voting to end Net Neutrality.

@Dakota1000, No companies are now allowed to prioritize data and charge more for those services.

However, the FCC will be challenged in court over this decision, so it isn't over. Just the end of round one.

Edited by Lightfoot, 14 December 2017 - 02:53 PM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Lightfoot, on 14 December 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

@Dakota1000, No companies are now allowed to prioritize data and charge more for those services.

However, the FCC will be challenged in court over this decision, so it isn't over. Just the end of round one.

That's some boogeyman talk there. What are your sources? The FTC has already looked into data prioritization and wants to remind the policy makers of the potential negative aspects of it rather than just the company making more money. They also want to increase competition between companies.

Here's their report. https://www.ftc.gov/...-net-neutrality

Page 85 is where talk on data prioritization begins.

When the FCC passed its reclassification in the net neutrality bill in 2015 they ended up taking internet service providers out of the FTC's jurisdiction.

https://www.ftc.gov/...-net-neutrality


Please read into it.

Edited by Dakota1000, 14 December 2017 - 03:16 PM.

[Kin3ticX]

The same people that said Trump would implode the internet also said he would implode the economy and also said Hillary had a 100% chance to win....

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Kin3ticX, on 14 December 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:

The same people that said Trump would implode the internet also said he would implode the economy and also said Hillary had a 100% chance to win....

Its an ever repeating pattern of never reading into anything and just letting the mob mentality take over.

[Kargush]

Dakota1000, on 14 December 2017 - 02:30 PM, said:

The FTC is just taking over again from the FCC. Practically nothing really will change for the worse. The FTC is more strict on companies than the FCC and has looked into things such as data prioritizing and other scummy practices.

Funny you should mention that.

In 2016, a court case between the FTC and AT&T Mobile gave a ruling that may well scupper your idea. In short, the 9th circuit court ruling prohibits the FTC from regulating any firm that offers common carrier services under Section 5. In short, if a company provides common carrier services, the FTC can't touch them. They're excempt from FTC oversight. Guess what Verizon and Comcast provide in addition to internet services?

Now, this ruling can be overturned (by the 9th circuit, or the Supreme Court), or the Section 5 excemption can be amended in various ways through legislation (as I understand it, it can be done by a simple act of Congress, please correct me if I'm wrong), but until then, the companies in question can point to this ruling.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Kargush, on 14 December 2017 - 04:32 PM, said:

Funny you should mention that.

In 2016, a court case between the FTC and AT&T Mobile gave a ruling that may well scupper your idea. In short, the 9th circuit court ruling prohibits the FTC from regulating any firm that offers common carrier services under Section 5. In short, if a company provides common carrier services, the FTC can't touch them. They're excempt from FTC oversight. Guess what Verizon and Comcast provide in addition to internet services?

Now, this ruling can be overturned (by the 9th circuit, or the Supreme Court), or the Section 5 excemption can be amended in various ways through legislation (as I understand it, it can be done by a simple act of Congress, please correct me if I'm wrong), but until then, the companies in question can point to this ruling.

That ruling that helped out AT&T is exactly why the Verizon CEO, one of AT&T's biggest competitors wanted to put the FTC back in charge instead of the FCC. They see it as favorable to make the FTC crackdown on AT&T (and other companies) to improve their standings.

As my sources were saying, ISPs were placed under a Title II common carrier service designation instead of a Title I information service designation, by repealing the flawed net neutrality they change the ISPs back to Title I services, making the AT&T case's ruling irrelevant and giving the FTC the ability to finally come down on them.

Basically what you just said is in agreement with what I'm saying and helps prove it.

[Kargush]

Dakota1000, on 14 December 2017 - 05:43 PM, said:

That ruling that helped out AT&T is exactly why the Verizon CEO, one of AT&T's biggest competitors wanted to put the FTC back in charge instead of the FCC. They see it as favorable to make the FTC crackdown on AT&T (and other companies) to improve their standings.

As my sources were saying, ISPs were placed under a Title II common carrier service designation instead of a Title I information service designation, by repealing the flawed net neutrality they change the ISPs back to Title I services, making the AT&T case's ruling irrelevant and giving the FTC the ability to finally come down on them.

Basically what you just said is in agreement with what I'm saying and helps prove it.

That's just it. The court ruling takes a status-based approach, not an activity-based approach. As long as that ruling stands, any ISP that is also a common carrier provider falls under the Section 5 excemption. The FTC can't touch them.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Kargush, on 14 December 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:

That's just it. The court ruling takes a status-based approach, not an activity-based approach. As long as that ruling stands, any ISP that is also a common carrier provider falls under the Section 5 excemption. The FTC can't touch them.

Wait, if the FTC can't touch them, how did the FTC do this?
https://www.ftc.gov/...nds/att-refunds

Could I get a link to whatever sources you have? I'd like to read them myself.

[Kargush]

Dakota1000, on 14 December 2017 - 09:16 PM, said:

Wait, if the FTC can't touch them, how did the FTC do this?
https://www.ftc.gov/...nds/att-refunds

Could I get a link to whatever sources you have? I'd like to read them myself.

That case is older than the 9th circuit ruling. Indeed, according to the FTC website, it's due to a 2014 settlement. The website has a link to the relevant settlement.

As for my sources, I relied primarily on two (and their sources as indicated on the two sites). This one and this one. You'll note that the latter (which is newer) largely agrees with you, but still points out the potential for problems due to the 9th circuit ruling (and indeed even states outright that the ruling needs to be overturned or the exception changed). Both agree that Congress should amend the exception to close the regulatory gap and clear up who deals with what issue.

Hell, I'd have a lot fewer complaints if it weren't for that ruling (and similar BS).

[Lily from animove]

Lightfoot, on 14 December 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

Well Comcast and Fox, etc are reeling from cheaper options from the internet than cable TV. Now that internet can stream movies and sports they are set to pounce and jack up rates, reduce services, make you buy channels you don't want. Pay for free games too? You bet. If they can. Basically 22 million people and companies wrote in to tell the FCC not to do this and the vote split along party lines with Republican appointees voting to end Net Neutrality.

@Dakota1000, No companies are now allowed to prioritize data and charge more for those services.

However, the FCC will be challenged in court over this decision, so it isn't over. Just the end of round one.

there is net neutrality, but only if you guys stop being addicted to the net. No one forces you to use these paid sites, in fact you could entirely QUIT your connection for protest and then they lose HUGE money. But like you bad local drug dealer, mots of you will complain and keep consuming. So if they succeed with this then it's only because you can't get off the drug and they know that.
Atm, people stop accepting any company implementing this business behavior by quitting with their wallet, no company would apply such a buisness model because they know they lose customers.
But people are stupid sheeps as a mass they will get used to it and accept it to happen. But no one forces you to have internet and use these services.

Edited by Lily from animove, 18 December 2017 - 04:37 AM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Kargush, on 15 December 2017 - 01:42 AM, said:

That case is older than the 9th circuit ruling. Indeed, according to the FTC website, it's due to a 2014 settlement. The website has a link to the relevant settlement.

As for my sources, I relied primarily on two (and their sources as indicated on the two sites). This one and this one. You'll note that the latter (which is newer) largely agrees with you, but still points out the potential for problems due to the 9th circuit ruling (and indeed even states outright that the ruling needs to be overturned or the exception changed). Both agree that Congress should amend the exception to close the regulatory gap and clear up who deals with what issue.

Hell, I'd have a lot fewer complaints if it weren't for that ruling (and similar BS).

Well, if Congress got net neutrality repealed even with all of the potentially unfounded social uproar then it shouldn't be too hard for the ruling to be overturned or a loophole found due to the classification being changed.

Really, it makes a lot of sense as to why there would be so much social anger at the repeal. Many powerful companies did not want NN repealed, so they've run propaganda campaigns against people and rallied entire sites against it. Note the popular site "Tumblr" had been largely polarized against the repeal and its users asked to send letters to their congressmen. Once an idea takes hold, even if its entirely incorrect, it can easily sweep through the masses, especially if the truth of the situation is in legal and government terms that are over the heads of many of the people arguing either way. It is akin to when the flat earth theory was the most popular when scientists would be shunned for their knowledge.

To be fair, I wouldn't have known much about it either way if I hadn't read information from a user from another forum that had read through the bill and had legal experience and wished to help fight the large misinformation campaign. After that I had decided to look into it myself and spread information.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Lily from animove, on 15 December 2017 - 04:36 AM, said:

there is net neutrality, but only if you guys stop being addicted to the net. No one forces you to use these paid sites, in fact oyu could entirely QUIT your connection for protest and then they lose HUGE money. But like you bad local drug dealer, mots of you will complain and keep consuming. So if they succeed with this then it's only because you can't get off the drug and they know that.
Atm, people stop accepting any company implementing this business behavior by quitting with their wallte, no company would apply such a buisness model because they know they lose customers.
But people are stupid sheeps as a mass they will get used to it and accept it to happen. But no oen forces you to have internet and use these services.

Well there are those who believe that communication and information are central to the ideals of a democracy. One must judge carefully the effect of restricting access to the ability to give and receive opinions and news, which is a big part of the open internet. Not that the US internet would instantly become like Iran's internet, but it can be argued that there is a slippery slope there.

[Hodor72]

ScrapIron Prime, on 16 December 2017 - 03:45 PM, said:

Well there are those who believe that communication and information are central to the ideals of a democracy. One must judge carefully the effect of restricting access to the ability to give and receive opinions and news, which is a big part of the open internet. Not that the US internet would instantly become like Iran's internet, but it can be argued that there is a slippery slope there.

We are a Republic. You do realized that internet has been around for a long time with out net neutrality. You do realize why other contrives internet are censored and not like ours. Because the government controls it.