RIP Net Neutrality

Generally I stay away from topics like this online but as a technologist today is a sad day.

Led by Chairman Ajit Pai, the Federal Communications Commission is expected to follow through on a promise to repeal the government's 2015 net neutrality rules, which sought to force Internet providers to treat all online services, large and small, equally. The agency is also expected to go a step further, rejecting much of its own authority over broadband in a bid to stymie future FCC officials who might seek to regulate providers.

This is not just step back from "Obama Era" regulation but all the way back to Bush administration, the FCC outlined a series of guiding principles that would eventually lead to the 2015 net neutrality rules. Then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell, in a 2004 speech, said Internet users should enjoy four fundamental freedoms:

• The freedom to access any Web content of their choice, so long as it was legal;
• The freedom to use any online application;
• The freedom to use their home broadband connections on any device;
• The freedom to get subscription information from their own providers.

These freedoms are now at fundamental risk.

What this means is that the ISPs (Like TWC, COX, Comcast, Verizon, Frontier, also include Mobile Providers ) which we all love so much will have the power to choose what content we have access too.

I remember the days of "Walled Garden" internet both desktop and mobile. For those of you too young to remember, or were not on the "Internet Super Highway" back then, when you logged on to AOL or Earthlink in the early days they promoted their content heavily and it was not easy (or impossible) to get to the content you were interested in. In the early days of mobile phone you could not venture out side approved sites... is that what we want to go back to?

Today even under the current regulation there has been a shift. Example T-Mobile with it's deals with Direct TV sound Awesome... unless the content you want is NOT on Direct TV.. then you may be delivered that content slower or it may go against a cap which you have to pay when you exceed.

This all may seem melodramatic and theoretical ... but today the internet is the world's basis for communication ... both good and bad ... so whether you are left... or right... I suspect freedom of choice is a pretty important matter to all of us.

This is not a free market issue... it is a freedom of ideas, thinking and expression issue.

SO IN SHORT......

Small independent Sites like IMTBTrails could be at risk (yeah seriously, less traffic, less ads to keep this site afloat ) ... Sites like MTBR or E-BIKES-R-US that can PAY for access or have sponsorship could be free to access and sites like this could be not available or count against cap.

What can you do? Not a lot today... keep your eyes open and let your voice be heard when the next round comes around.

RIP Net Neutrality...God's Speed

 

Elections have consequences.

 

Three words more powerful than I believe most people will understand.

 

NN has bipartisan support everywhere in America...


...except Washington DC. The swamp was drain, and turned into a cesspool.

 

Yep...

 

A topic I wish people would have paid more attention to. If ISPs had the infrastructure that the mobile phone market has gutting NN wouldn't be that big of a deal due to a competitive market place. Unfortunately that isn't the case.

 

OHNO, all those poor poor cam girls. I'm going to start a shelter for displaced porn stars.

 

Maybe there is some silver lining? Like a crappy internet will peel people away from their screens a bit more. Just trying to stay positive in such a negative place we are in today. The internet has helped our lives in many ways but as time goes on the destruction is catching up quickly. Even people who helped create things like Facebook are now regretting their part in the creation of the “instant gratification” plague we have today.

 

HELLO, didn't you hear I'm bringing the brothel business back. No more stroking yourself off for free, but you can actually get touched by a real human.

 

Looks like it has officially been overturned. F' Asshat Pai.
https://gizmodo.com/fcc-votes-to-ki...rce=lifehacker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

A HUGE can of worms! Apple, (picture a bite out of it) is the new 666! Ooopps!

 

At least we have our bikes. I like the way @Cornholio is thinking here, he is correct. We need to break away from the dependency. Its the modern day addiction. We were all doing just fine before the Internet was everywhere.

 

You might need to pay extra for strava access. The internets are everywhere!

 

It's funny how two years ago everyone wanted the government involved in internet access. It's a good thing, they said. Wonder how they feel about that now?

Funny thing is, before the government got involved, I don't remember not having access to Netflix, or any other high-demand service that I wanted to consume. In fact, my ISP just kept increasing speed to make access to streaming easier. So why would any of that change now?

 

They won't (probably) limit what's going through the pipes to your house, but they can make the pipes coming from Hulu larger than those from coming from Netflix for example. That would be because Hulu in this example (soon to be owned by Disney BTW!) pays Comcast/Frontier/Dish Network for that prominence, or oftentimes is straight out owned by the ISP so they give it prominence. As the end user, if you have to keep waiting for Netflix to buffer, but not Hulu, you're going to spend more time and $$$ on Hulu.

The Feds by ending net neutrality will now let the ISPs decide what they want to do, rather than treating all content equally and letting the consumer decide.
Bigger picture on how this could impact democracy and the free expression of ideas is what would happen if one ISP slows the traffic going to/from Huffington Post and MSNBC, while boosting that going to/from Breitbart and Fox. That would be a negative thing and sure it's a worst case scenario, but I don't think it's in the realm of Jade Helm and Denver Airport conspiracy. Much more a real-world consequence as the scenarios above.
That's my understanding in a nutshell.

tl;dr Comcast can now give preference to STR over ITMB!

 

On November 11, 2010 a dispute arose between Level 3 and Comcast, when Level 3 announced that they were "selected to serve as a primary content delivery network (CDN) provider for Netflix, Inc. to support the company's streaming functionality."[34] Apparently, as a result of this distribution agreement, Comcast sought to renegotiate the peeringagreement with Level 3 and sought a recurring fee for carrying the increased Level 3 internet traffic to and from Comcast broadband customers. Claims[35] and counter-claims[36]were made as the two companies sought to renegotiate the contract. In December 2010, the New America Foundation submitted information concerning the dispute to the FCC

I had comcast during those periods where they throttled netflix to a crawl. You buffered every so minutes and forget about multiple devices. I believe this was the catalyst for net neutrality which was enacted several years later.

 

One word, Monopolies. ISPs are't an open market like the cell phone industry for example. In most cases if you're unhappy with what your ISP is doing you can't just switch to another provider like with cell phone providers. If the infrastructure was in place much like old telephone land lines then we wouldn't even be having this discussion due to ISPs operating in an open market. Since the ISPs operate in monopolized market we as consumers are tied to them depending on where you live. I.E. Laguna Beach only has Cox as an ISP. I can't just chose FIOS if I don't like what service Cox is providing. Point being by deregulating the monopolized ISP market do you honestly think good things will come of that? Personally I already can't stand Cox as it is and now they have the freedom to screw their costumers how they see fit. Will they do that? Time will tell. The FCC is going to be sued and this is going to drag out for years to come regardless.

Also prior to NN there were instances of ISPs blocking and throttling etc. hence it be instated in the first place. ATT did it, as did comcast. There's plenty of info on those cases' specifics on interwebs.

 

I wouldn’t worry about this. It’ll have little impact for most of us and may be good for some.

 

Hulu was already partially owned by Disney... Now they have a bigger slice. That's a good thing from my perspective.

 

Back to food?

 

Now... If the pepperoni curled at the edges to form little grease pools, it would be authentic. That doesn't look like it would clog a single artery.

 

From what I read, which may or may not be correct, Level 3 announced they were a provider for Netflix after Comcast sought to renegotiate the peering agreement because Level 3 was all of a sudden sending five times more data to Comcast than Comcast was sending to Level 3. It was a simple business disagreement in which one side started throwing around "net neutrality" and false claims of throttling as a negotiating tactic. And it was settled with no involvement from the FCC. Let me stress that: The only alleged instance of throttling was settled with no government involvement.

There are significant downsides to treating all data traffic the same. Do you want to not be able to make a call or send an important e-mail because the guy next to you is streaming porn? ISPs have long treated different traffic with different priority, to our benefit. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-downside-of-net-neutrality/

And to someone else's point, I think it's pretty silly we need government rules to protect us from a government-protected monopoly. And, to another point, if you think "net neutrailty" has anything to do with free speech, it's sadly the opposite; the net neutrality rules open the door for the government to implement a sort of "fairness doctrine" for the internet. Despite what the media is telling you, there really is at least two sides to this argument

 

Not being so versed on this internet thing, when you say “government”, is it safe to assume that each individual government around the world has the ultimate say on what is implemented. Or does the US have most of that control, seems like somebody has to own it.

 

The United States either just did or is just about to let go of oversight of ICANN.

 

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

They lobbied to have these removed. They are going to take advantage.
---
From 2013, when Verizon decided that they should be able to block any sites that didn't pay them directly:

In response to Judge Laurence Silberman’s line of questioning about whether Verizon should be able to block any website or service that doesn’t pay the company’s proposed tolls, Walker said: “I think we should be able to; in the world I'm positing, you would be able to.”

https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2013/09/18/verizons-plan-break-internet

 

That's just it, if you work at a smaller business who can't afford the fees, that porn site will get priority because they pay extra for it.

Think of the ISP's like the gas or electric utilities. You don't get a choice who delivers service, so do you want the gas company to prioritize the rich guys house next to you because he is willing to pay an extra fee? They just turn your knob down to minimum. Now you have to choose between heating and cooking.

Governments have been getting involved in monopolies for a long time, this isn't new.

 

This helped me...

 

Hey don't blame us, we live in California After this election I have officially become an "independent". I don't think that EITHER national party represents my interests.