• Light/Dark

Net neutrality is all but dead. Here's what happens now.

Nokterian

Nokterian

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,528
Euroland
RIP Free and Open Internet in America, you can thank that fucking cunt Ajit Pai.

Everyone take a moment of silence please — the free and open internet is all but dead.

In December 2017 the FCC, under chairman Ajit Pai, voted to repeal net neutrality, signaling the end of the open internet as we know it.

The decision was controversial at the time, with everyone from Alyssa Milano to Reddit calling out the FCC in the lead-up to the vote, but the the vote was just the first step toward repeal. To enact the change, the FCC would have to officially list the ruling and provide a timeline for it.

That listing came in February and, now we're even closer to net neutrality's funeral. The listing notes the repeal's effective date as April 23, but there's a big asterisk next to it. The effective date isn't actually the effective date for the most impactful parts of the repeal. We have to wait for an administrative step — a review by the Office of Management and Budget — and then there will be another published notice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

https://mashable.com/2018/04/23/net-neutrality-dead-explained/#m0mzfpU72iqy

More at link..

America your internet will never be the same again..
 

capitalCORN

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
10,436
Absolutely incredible. The greatest tool for communication ever conceived. And now completely under the hands of profit motive. You fucked up America.
 
Kirblar

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Krejlooc said:
Any other really dumb talking points you want to bring from the kremlin? We had defacto net neutrality.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And providers are going to be unwilling to make major changes in the short-medium term when they're very aware that a Dem administration could about-face on this in two years.
 
Border

Border

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,859
I'm still not really sure what it is that people expect to be the real-world effects of this.
 
BWoog

BWoog

Member
Oct 27, 2017
38,689
Border said:
I'm still not really sure what it is that people expect to be the real-world effects of this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

net_neturality1-e1509289851528.png
 

Deleted member 12790

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
24,537
Kirblar said:
And providers are going to be unwilling to make major changes in the short-medium term when they're very aware that a Dem administration could about-face on this in two years.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Every notice isps have put out post net neutrality reassuring the public that they wont fist us includes the term "legal content." As in they promise to never throttle "legal content." This has two meanings to me, firstly, that right out of the gate they are going to censor and block anything they consider "illegal," and secondly, after seeing years of abuse of the dmca by big players, that what is considered "illegal" is nebulous and not necessarily up to actual law.

Fuck all of this.
 

Deleted member 12790

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
24,537
whitehawk said:
Realistically, how does this affect other countries?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Its one internet. This affects the entire web, because we live in a web 2.0 world, where sites are applications to serve people who provide content. Limited access means limited content. Plus, small out of America sites can suddenly lose access to a billion people in their audience.

Not to mention foreign businesses probably dont like access to their business which might just so happen to conflict with that of the isp conglomerate being restricted. This hurts both sites and site owners, world wide.
 

Deleted member 12790

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
24,537
Border said:
That always kinda struck me as pie-in-the-sky fearmongering. You really think Comcast is going to put a bunch of random $5-10 surcharges on your bill to access particular websites?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes? Have you seen the sort of bullshit surcharges comcast has? The other day my dad ordered cable internet from them, because they are the only isp in his area. He had to argue for an hour to get them to understand that he had his own modem and didnt need to rent a new modem at $14 a month. So, in the end, they charged him a one-time, $50 "self installation fee" because he was installing his own modem.
 
MazeHaze

MazeHaze

Member
Nov 1, 2017
8,647
Border said:
That always kinda struck me as pie-in-the-sky fearmongering. You really think Comcast is going to put a bunch of random $5-10 surcharges on your bill to access particular websites?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Maybe not, but I guarantee there will be throttling of bandwith to websites that don't have deals in place with the ISP.
 
OP
OP
Nokterian

Nokterian

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,528
Euroland
Krejlooc said:
Its one internet. This affects the entire web, because we live in a web 2.0 world, where sites are applications to serve people who provide content. Limited access means limited content. Plus, small out of America sites can suddenly lose access to a billion people in their audience.

Not to mention foreign businesses probably dont like access to their business which might just so happen to conflict with that of the isp conglomerate being restricted. This hurts both sites and site owners, world wide.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It doesn't affect the EU since we have net neutrality but it will trouble for EU company's wanting to do something in the US and without it yes then it will be hard.
 
ahoyhoy

ahoyhoy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,323
Border said:
That always kinda struck me as pie-in-the-sky fearmongering. You really think Comcast is going to put a bunch of random $5-10 surcharges on your bill to access particular websites?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Are you really trying to put anything past Comcast.

They're the most despised company in America for a reason.
 
PeakPointMatrix

PeakPointMatrix

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,513
Border said:
That always kinda struck me as pie-in-the-sky fearmongering. You really think Comcast is going to put a bunch of random $5-10 surcharges on your bill to access particular websites?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This would be a replacement for the current system, and very likely. I mean just look at the absurd charges we already recieve on top of internet caps and data throttling which are both artificial limiters on an infinite resource from these same internet providers, and you think this is "pie in the sky"?

You pay one fee, you get to access anything you want. Providers would drool at the idea of forcing people into an a-la-carte system where there's a "social media" package, "movie lover's" package, "news" package, etc.
 

Deleted member 12790

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
24,537
Sinneslöschen said:
We had de-facto net neutrality without any laws enforcing it then I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Actually, in the early days of the Internet when the internet was a telephone technology, it was protected under the common carrier act, which is essentially net neutrality for phones. Once, in the mid 2000s, internet technology largely transfered over to broadband, isps started arguing that since it was no longer telephone tech, the common carrier laws didnt apply anymore, so if we, the people, wanted common carrier access, we needed a new, specific application of it to broadband. So a law was made that brought the common carrier provisions from telephone, that the intetnet originally operated on, to broadband and otherwise technologies under the title "net neutrality."

Then a bunch of losers started claiming we never had it, because they don't know what the fuck they are talking about.
 
Sinneslöschen

Sinneslöschen

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,332
Don't give business to Comcast, support municipal high speed internet, use competitors in markets that have them.

I have found most markets do have alternatives to Comcast, it's just that Comcast is by far the fastest one available to people just go with them while complaining about their monopoly. People are concerned with monopolies, but not enough to avoid giving business to them if they offer the fastest service.
 
jph139

jph139

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,514
As more and more states start to pass net neutrality laws (I know it's on the table in MA, at least) I'm hoping the practical impact will be pretty minor.
 

Thebeast!

Banned
Mar 18, 2018
1,487
Im glad i libe in cailfornia the people here are fighting for net neutrality. F*** Republicans disgusting human beings
 
Kappa

Kappa

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
334
Just look down south if you want a taste of what's to come for phone and internet providers
 
ClamBuster

ClamBuster

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,132
Ipswich, England
not really knowing how it will all be enforced or how computery algorithm thingy's work... will this give rise to mass proxy culture? as in, youtube proxy, or amazon proxy?
 
Border

Border

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,859
PeakPointMatrix said:
You pay one fee, you get to access anything you want. Providers would drool at the idea of forcing people into an a-la-carte system where there's a "social media" package, "movie lover's" package, "news" package, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
jph139 said:
As more and more states start to pass net neutrality laws (I know it's on the table in MA, at least) I'm hoping the practical impact will be pretty minor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
ahoyhoy said:
Are you really trying to put anything past Comcast.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I tend to doubt that this would happen not because I think Comcast is some amazing company, but just because such a flagrant moneygrab would be the quickest way to galvanize the public and get net neutrality regulations put back in place (if not at the federal level then at the state level).
 
Kirblar

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Krejlooc said:
Every notice isps have put out post net neutrality reassuring the public that they wont fist us includes the term "legal content." As in they promise to never throttle "legal content." This has two meanings to me, firstly, that right out of the gate they are going to censor and block anything they consider "illegal," and secondly, after seeing years of abuse of the dmca by big players, that what is considered "illegal" is nebulous and not necessarily up to actual law.

Fuck all of this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because obviously they're not going to say "oh yeah your torrents are totally cool bro".
 
GarthLordOfTheSith

GarthLordOfTheSith

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,006
Sinneslöschen said:
Don't give business to Comcast, support municipal high speed internet, use competitors in markets that have them.

I have found most markets do have alternatives to Comcast, it's just that Comcast is by far the fastest one available to people just go with them while complaining about their monopoly. People are concerned with monopolies, but not enough to avoid giving business to them if they offer the fastest service.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I would love to use municipal. Unfortunately Comcast threw an absolute shitfit when Chattanooga got that and now no one else here can have that. Fuck Comcast. Fuck their executives. Fuck their legal team. And fuck any state that signs a contract with Comcast.
 
Sinneslöschen

Sinneslöschen

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,332
Krejlooc said:
Actually, in the early days of the Internet when the internet was a telephone technology, it was protected under the common carrier act, which is essentially net neutrality for phones. Once, in the mid 2000s, internet technology largely transfered over to broadband, isps started arguing that since it was no longer telephone tech, the common carrier laws didnt apply anymore, so if we, the people, wanted common carrier access, we needed a new, specific application of it to broadband. So a law was made that brought the common carrier provisions from telephone, that the intetnet originally operated on, to broadband and otherwise technologies under the title "net neutrality."

Then a bunch of losers started claiming we never had it, because they don't know what the fuck they are talking about.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That only applied to end user dial up connections. All of the fiber / business grade connections / high speed data interconnects that made up the core of the internet were not subject to common carrier regulations.

GarthLordOfTheSith said:
I would love to use municipal. Unfortunately Comcast threw an absolute shitfit when Chattanooga got that and now no one else here can have that. Fuck Comcast. Fuck their executives. Fuck their legal team. And fuck any state that signs a contract with Comcast.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Exactly, they use their power and money to squash municipal internet. Vote for politicians that will defend the rights of individuals and not be bought out by corporations like Comcast.
 
Kage Maru

Kage Maru

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,804
Sinneslöschen said:
Don't give business to Comcast, support municipal high speed internet, use competitors in markets that have them.

I have found most markets do have alternatives to Comcast, it's just that Comcast is by far the fastest one available to people just go with them while complaining about their monopoly. People are concerned with monopolies, but not enough to avoid giving business to them if they offer the fastest service.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's not this simple. There are many areas where you don't have a choice because of monopolies. Even if another provider offers service in your area, exclusive contracts with apartments can limit your options.

For whatever reason you are horribly downplaying the impact of this.
 
luoapp

luoapp

Member
Oct 27, 2017
508
Now Net neutrality is dead, can Sony theoretically pay ISP for higher PSN download speed?
 

Deleted member 12790

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
24,537
Sinneslöschen said:
Don't give business to Comcast, support municipal high speed internet, use competitors in markets that have them.

I have found most markets do have alternatives to Comcast, it's just that Comcast is by far the fastest one available to people just go with them while complaining about their monopoly. People are concerned with monopolies, but not enough to avoid giving business to them if they offer the fastest service.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

again, really, really ignorant comments.

These "competing" ISPs you mention license their lines from big ISPs like comcast. Only one broadband line is laid in any municipality, because it's prohibitively expensive, and 99% of those in the country are owned by large ISPs. In fact, the ONLY reason those "competitions" exist is because of the common carrier act, which mandated "right to use." This is literally the reason common carrier laws, and net neutrality, exist as is in the first place. The original idea was that the controlling entity who owned the telephone line could not pick and choose which areas to cover and service, because then they could restrict what their competition, which leased their lines, could access. I.e. they could restrict their competition from offering long distance service throught their lines, giving them an unfair advantage.

This is why there are "competing" ISPs which license their lines. Now that Net Neutrality is dead, comcast can legally throttle their competitors internet who lease their lines, and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about it.

You're so ignorant, that you suggest a direct by-product of net neutrality as an alternative, and don't know any of the ways the death of net neutrality affects your suggestion. You're super clueless.
 

Deleted member 39374

Banned
Feb 1, 2018
5,083
Border said:
I'm still not really sure what it is that people expect to be the real-world effects of this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It means that access to websites will be bundled up and sold like cable TV packages. It's already happening in some countries.

Social media? $5/month add on.
Sports? We have a contract with ESPN, so for $9/month you can access their app when you're on home wifi.
Financial websites? $5/month add on.
News and blogs? $29.00/month add on, but only the websites we choose because we're owned by (insert media conglomerate here)
Porn? Sorry, this goes against our content policy. You won't be able to connect to adult content websites.
 

Deleted member 12790

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
24,537
Sinneslöschen said:
That only applied to end user dial up connections. All of the fiber / business grade connections / high speed data interconnects that made up the core of the internet were not subject to common carrier regulations.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In the early days of the internet, there outright were no fiber/business grade/high speed data connections. Again, super super ignorant.
 
Sinneslöschen

Sinneslöschen

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,332
Krejlooc said:
again, really, really ignorant comments.

These "competing" ISPs you mention license their lines from big ISPs like comcast. Only one broadband line is laid in any municipality, because it's prohibitively expensive, and 99% of those in the country are owned by large ISPs. In fact, the ONLY reason those "competitions" exist is because of the common carrier act, which mandated "right to use." This is literally the reason common carrier laws, and net neutrality, exist as is in the first place. The original idea was that the controlling entity who owned the telephone line could not pick and choose which areas to cover and service, because then they could restrict what their competition, which leased their lines, could access. I.e. they could restrict their competition from offering long distance service throught their lines, giving them an unfair advantage.

This is why there are "competing" ISPs which license their lines. Now that Net Neutrality is dead, comcast can legally throttle their competitors internet who lease their lines, and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about it.

You're so ignorant, that you suggest a direct by-product of net neutrality as an alternative, and don't know any of the ways the death of net neutrality affects your suggestion. You're super clueless.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Satellite, LTE, AT&T?

Krejlooc said:
In the early days of the internet, there outright were no fiber/business grade/high speed data connections. Again, super super ignorant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In the very early days perhaps, but high speed connections existed for a long time before they were common for residential users.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.