Net Neutrality

Didn't see one of these threads, but if there is one, feel free to lock this.

Basically the FCC ruled against net neutrality. The article provided does a better job of describing this than I could, though it doesn't mention much the fact that a good portion of the internet is going to wind up slowed down to give more bandwich to larger websites.

Here's a petition you can sign to overturn the decision that includes a letter from Alan Grayson, and also some guy from the FCC.

I can't help but feel this won't end well.

edited 11th Sep '14 6:43:32 AM by GameSpazzer

I went looking for existing topics on net neutrality but was unable to find any specific ones that weren't very old. All of them died after a very small number of posts, because there really doesn't seem to be a lot to say on the topic. It's been discussed in various other places instead, like in the privacy thread or the computer thread.

I'll open this for discussion, although I'll retitle it to be more broad.

One concern I haven't seen much of is one of implementation. Although it may not look it, my understanding is that the modern internet is still very much a jury-rigged thing, with data commonly routed through various odd servers at will depending on traffic needs and such.

Depending on how they choose to throttle the slow land versus the fast lane, they could cut off far more than their "elite" paying customers. The worst case scenario would be a global choke on the internet, which would crash economies faster than you could post a Nyan Cat video. And considering that no one has ever tried a fast lane before, something going wrong with the initial version is a strong possibility.

Not that the whole concept isn't ethically and economically flawed, but there's more at stake here.

The first link doesnt work for me: "You Have Reached a 404 Page"

I think it's helpful to provide some background: The basic underlying problem is the ISP providers (ie, companies like WOW and Comcast) want to charge content providers (everybody from Google to individual private webpages) money based on the amount of traffic they receive. In exchange, the would provide the high traffic sites with faster bandwidth, resulting in "fast lanes" and "slow lanes". This is widely viewed as a really bad idea by nearly everyone other than ISP providers. The opposite perspective, that of legally mandating that all content providers (and their users) be treated the same, is usually termed "Net Neutrality."

Over the course of the last few years, and most recently in May of 2014, the FCC, while claiming to be trying to protect net neutrality, has proposed new rules that are widely viewed as threatening it. Hence the claims that "Net Neutrality is Dead" and the protests against these new rules.

This isnt over yet, these are merely proposed rules. There are diverse groups and interested parties who are attempting to stop these new rules from coming into effect, including members of Congress. See here.

Not everyone agrees that the new proposed rules are that extreme: Netflix and Other Big Websites Protest Proposed Net Neutrality Rules: "...Nothing in the F.C.C.’s proposed rulemaking on “Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet” authorizes a division of Internet traffic between fast and slow lanes. The proposal would prohibit blocking of legal Internet content or devices and subject other network management practices by Internet service providers to a “commercially reasonable” standard."

here is a copy of the proposed new rules. It's very dense and legalistic. They are still soliciting public input in the subject. Here is what the FCC itself says about it.

For background, in 2010 the FCC issued a set of new rules that it claimed would protect net neutrality, but they were widely seen as so ambiguous about what it allowed and what it didnt that it could potentially greatly weaken neutrality while claiming to protect it. Recently, the Federal Courts partially overturned these rules, so the FCC is currently in the process of creating a new set. The protests are a result of the fact that almost no one trusts the FCC statements regarding their stated intent to protect the benefits of NN.

For example, Here is how one pro NN group (the "New America Foundation") responded to the new rules: "...Indeed, the “commercial reasonableness” standard that the Commission proposes to identify prohibited conduct would be an unworkable standard for edge companies, non-profit content creators, and consumers. The complicated, multi-part commercial reasonableness test the Commission has proposed is legally risky and would result in years of costly litigation rather than clearly defining at the onset what behavior would or would not be permissible."

"ISP Provider" is "Internet Service Provider Provider". Bad.

For my part, I submitted a comment to the FCC on their Net Neutrality rules arguing that ISPs need to be reclassified as common carriers. That would allow the FCC to regulate the rates they are allowed to charge, both for end user service and for content.

It makes sense; Internet access is becoming, if it is not already, a communication service every bit as vital and ubiquitous as telephone and television.

edited 11th Sep '14 8:14:51 AM by Fighteer

The first link is hyphenized, standard workaround applies.

My main issue with this link is that it's from January. Is that really the latest news we have about the FCC Net Neutrality blunder?

The soothing voice of John Bain has something to say. And if you click through to the video, he provided some additional links in the description, which seem to be more up-to-date.

Broadband was that vital and ubiquitous 5 years ago (not quite 10, America's still sadly slow on this). New regulations are well overdue.

I think broadband is regarded as infrastructure, like roads and railways, in some places.

edited 11th Sep '14 2:48:54 PM by Greenmantle

Obama has come out in support of the FCC reclassifying the internet as a utility.

US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has called Net Neutrality the "Obamacare" for the internet.

Well, now that Obama says he supports it there's no way the Senate will let it happen.

So a good idea that doesn't go far enough, and that corporations hate?

Good thing the senate has literally no power over the FCC, even with their new majority, and even if they tried to do something, they'd inevitably come up against the veto wall, and there's plenty of people in DC who want the FCC to take the Title II step. All the anti-net neutrality people can do is nash their teeth if the FCC does indeed reclassify broadband as Title II.

Well, they can sue. Of course. They can always sue.

Or defund the FCC. Hey, the Tea Party would do it.

The Oatmeal had about the best response possible to Ted Cruz.

I don't see any arrow-in-a-square icon in your post.

Thanks.

edited 11th Nov '14 2:48:54 AM by Medinoc

Here.

"To view more search results, you must upgrade your XFINITY internet package. Please call sales at 1-800-XFINITY to gain access to premium Friggle content."

FCC to delay vote on Net Neutrality rules until the beginning of next year.

While Obama is trying to put pressure on Wheeler to reclassify the Internet as a public utility, Wheeler is telling the industry figures he really really wants to "split the baby", deliver network neutrality in some method that pleases the public, but also pleases the monopoly structure in the U.S.

Basically Wheeler is still a former advocate for the cable industry, and is basically friends with most of these guys, and it would be extremely awkward to stab all your friends in the back. That and likely being a former rep of the industry, likely doesn't believe in a utility answer.

Wheeler has put himself in an impossible position. It's clear that the tech companies won't accept anything less than a complete reclassification, and will push Wheeler until he caves in. And his telecom friends are in panic mode, loudly squawking about how Title II will destroy the industry, when it obviously won't, and will be extremely cross with him if he caves.

Of course, Verizion could be stupid enough to actually sue again if new rules that aren't Title II are put in place, forcing Wheeler's hand. The other telecom companies have been trying to tell Verizion to shut the fuck up, because their previous lawsuit got them into this mess in the first place, and could potentially put the industry in a position with less power than before. But whatever is put in place, someone will inevitably sue, so Wheeler might as well go for what's right for the internet. And the previous case's judges explicitly spelled out that only Title II can enable Net Neutrality on legally solid ground. Wheeler is deluding himself if he can continue to use Section 706 and maintain net neutrality.

edited 13th Nov '14 6:33:17 AM by Cronosonic

I suspect the "Extremely cross" is why he's insisting on a 706 answer, Wheeler's basically been with the telecoms for years, and probably, as I stated in the US Pol thread, wants to go back to something similar to his old job.

What a headache.

Except...what's happening outside the US in terms of Net Neutrality? Are there different structures in place?

In the US, the rule of thumb was until Verizon sued and won, "Everyone is treated equal" by the FCC's rules. The only way to do this, post lawsuit, is to turn the internet into a public utility. Basically there used to be different structures in place. There's technically no rules at current, but none of the internet service providers want to do anything funny until the FCC and/or courts decide what can happen.