Net neutrality non-neutrality
-
@mikehurley said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
When I hear "curated internet" I think AOL. Anything that leads towards anything resembling AOL or Prodigy type networks is bad. Especially when you think about what that could mean these days. AppleNet...shudder.
Yes, it could end up being bad like that.
However, Title II doesn't actually stop that.
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@mikehurley said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
When I hear "curated internet" I think AOL. Anything that leads towards anything resembling AOL or Prodigy type networks is bad. Especially when you think about what that could mean these days. AppleNet...shudder.
Yes, it could end up being bad like that.
However, Title II doesn't actually stop that.
Fair enough about Title II (I assume you know what you're talking about). I guess my point was more general.
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
For example, if you were to go to a restaurant, do you want to pay for every item they have on the menu, even if you don't eat it?
That's a terrible analogy that doesn't make any sense.
-
Why Google and Amazon Are Hypocrites - Slashdot
Amazon earlier this month responded to Google's decision to remove YouTube from all Fire TV products and the Echo Show. Google says it's taking this extreme step because of Amazon's recent delisting of new Nest products (like Nest Secure and the E Thermostat) and the company's long-running refusal...
Filed under: Why Title II didn’t fix anything
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
For example, if you were to go to a restaurant, do you want to pay for every item they have on the menu, even if you don't eat it?
That's a terrible analogy that doesn't make any sense.
Agreed. A better thing to compare to is probably TV service. I don't really want 1000 sports channels but they're included in the bundle that has the channel I do want. At least I assume it's still like that since I haven't had TV service for 7 years.
-
@mikehurley That's another stupid analogy. with an ISP I pay for bandwidth, and only things I access consume my bandwidth.
-
@izzion Top comment:
We as end customers need to figure out who is speaking on our behalf when it comes to the rules of the Internet.
Nobody.
Next question?
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I'm referring to the post you linked to, which was written by some random blogger and not by the DC Court of Appeals, as being written by "some random blogger." (And if you look at the actual DC Court of Appeals opinion, rather than just reading the article they wrote about it, it becomes very apparent very quickly that the things this random blogger is saying about what the DC Court of Appeals said are taken severely out of context. Which is not surprising; most anti-NN material that isn't blatant, outright lies is cherry-picked stuff taken badly out of context.
Yes, I'm sure you have to believe that to keep it up.
Uhh are you guys talking about the same link? I think @masonwheeler is talking about https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/ which is some blog post, but it really sounds like you're talking about something else.
-
@erufael said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I'm referring to the post you linked to, which was written by some random blogger and not by the DC Court of Appeals, as being written by "some random blogger." (And if you look at the actual DC Court of Appeals opinion, rather than just reading the article they wrote about it, it becomes very apparent very quickly that the things this random blogger is saying about what the DC Court of Appeals said are taken severely out of context. Which is not surprising; most anti-NN material that isn't blatant, outright lies is cherry-picked stuff taken badly out of context.
Yes, I'm sure you have to believe that to keep it up.
Uhh are you guys talking about the same link? I think @masonwheeler is talking about https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/ which is some blog post, but it really sounds like you're talking about something else.
Yes, that's the post that @xaade linked. Careful readers will note that the post links to the previously mentioned court case (among a bunch of other stuff).
-
@boomzilla Ah. Yes. So you guys are talking about two different things.
-
@erufael said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla Ah. Yes. So you guys are talking about two different things.
Yeah, he keeps coming back to excoriating me for making him discuss "some random blog" instead of figuring out that it has some links to stuff.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
the capacity I've been fraudulently selling to customers without being able to deliver
It's been mentioned before, but they do differentiate between peak and sustained usage. If the customers don't understand the difference, that's not the fault of the ISPs.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Shorter:
FREE STUFF! FREE STUFF! FREE STUFF! WE WANT MORE FREE STUFF!
TDEMSYR. No one is asking for "free stuff" here. No one has ever been asking for "free stuff" in the context of net neutrality. What they are asking for is an end to the fraud: they are entitled to what they paid for, and the telcos are doing everything they can to not have to give it to them.
"What they paid for" is service that consists of (say) 10 Mbps download peak,
4 Mbps download sustained,1 Mbps upload (or whatever the numbers might be). These numbers are listed on every advertisement and service contract I've seen. It's the fault of neither the ISPs nor the content providers if the consumers don't understand or misunderstand what those mean.@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade No, we need to nationalize the infrastructure if we want to bring true competition. You think that's more politically feasible than net neutrality?
This is literally the definition of either communism or fascism, depending on whether you think the government should own the infrastructure or just control it.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade "Nationalize" is probably not exactly the right word, as it would most likely be owned locally, much like any other public utilities. But it carries the right basic understanding.
I take it you mean subsidies, then. That's socialism. But if you're restricting competition and pricing to the local level (county or smaller), then are you admitting that it would be appropriate for someone in Nowhere, OK to pay $45/mo. for the same level of service as someone in NYC who pays $15/mo.?
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Oil companies will run their own fiber to their remote
devicessites. Netflix could do the same, but chooses not to.Are you actually hearing what you are saying?!? Netflix does
nothave "its own remotedevicessites." It haspeople like you and meservers connected to the public internet.FTFY both.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Netflix was taking up too much of the infrastructure, and ISPs down the line couldn't get the money from Netflix's ISP to improve, so they asked Netflix directly.
Netflix said no.
They couldn't get someone else to pay them for doing what they should have been doing anyway as part of the ordinary course of doing business, so they tried to get a different someone else to pay them for it instead. They, unsurprisingly, also said no, because it is not their job.
The local ISPs were already being paid for that bandwidth, and the infrastructure that supports it, by their own customers. Period. If they weren't allocating that revenue to improving their infrastructure to meet increased demand, this is not the fault of the increased demand, it is the ISPs' fault. Period.
Netflix's ISP or their customers' ISPs? Or the intermediate "backbone" ISPs?
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
They had promised enough capacity to deal with Netflix to their customers.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Netflix wasn't paying their fair share, and the ISPs failed to cooperate to charge Netflix for it.
Don't be absurd. Netflix was paying its fair share to Netflix's ISP, which is the only obligation they had. Comcast was already being paid by Comcast's customers, and they had an obligation to use that money to make available the bandwidth that they were being paid for.
So everyone was fulfilling their contracts? Where's the problem?
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
curated internet packages
This is the part I don't understand.
How are curated internet packages legal if they're not supposed to be packet sniffing?
The contents of the packets, sure. But the "wrappers" that indicate the "to" and "from" addresses? Those can't be hidden.
@antiquarian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@izzion Top comment:
We as end customers need to figure out who is speaking on our behalf when it comes to the rules of the Internet.
NobodyYour pocketbooks.Next question?
FTFThem
-
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
"What they paid for" is service that consists of (say) 10 Mbps download peak, 4 Mbps download sustained, 1 Mbps upload (or whatever the numbers might be). These numbers are listed on every advertisement and service contract I've seen. It's the fault of neither the ISPs nor the content providers if the consumers don't understand or misunderstand what those mean.
Really? Every ISP advertisement I always see just lists it as "XXX Mbps download, YYY Mbps upload" with XXX and YYY being the peaks only. If you're lucky, you get an "Up to" in there before the downstream number. Nowhere in any advertisement I have ever seen have I seen a separate callout for "sustained" bandwidth.
-
@e4tmyl33t Ah, you're probably right. It's been a while since I looked closely at one. They point out that what they advertise is the maximum that customers can expect, which was my main point.
-
@djls45 I don't see even that. All the adverts I see are "This plan is 100/10. Perfect for downloading a full HD movie in 10 minutes!" Nothing about maximums, all the adverts make it seem like the maximum is the expected.
Proofs based on 3 ISPs near my area:
My current ISP:
Comcast:
Verizon:
Nowhere in the advertising does it say anything about peaks, variances, etc. Only Comcast's even uses the "Up to" verbiage. All of them seem to imply that whatever speed you're signing up for you should be able to take advantage of at any time without incident apart from Comcast's "Actual speeds may vary" verbiage in their pricing paragraph way at the bottom of their signup site. You'd have to dig into a full Terms and Conditions legalese document before you'd find anything like that.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
All of them seem to imply that whatever speed you're signing up for you should be able to take advantage of at any time without incident apart from Comcast's "Actual speeds may vary" verbiage in their pricing paragraph way at the bottom of their signup site
All 3 of your screenshots have that "Actual speeds may vary" verbiage.
#1, "Current ISP":
#3, Verizon:
-
This whole thing strikes me as odd. While I don't want AOL-alikes, and like that my internet is cheaper than it can be, I don't think I have any specific right for it to be that way, just because it has been so far. And, I mean, it's not like AOL managed to keep people long-term: people moved to better things.
I actually find the idea of a curated internet interesting, because it makes it harder for any one company to dominate to the extent that Google or Facebook has.
It'd be way different than what we have now. I don't have any idea if it would be better or worse. There are parts that would of course be far worse, but... I don't see why we have the right to stop that with legislation. I feel like the market is better suited for it.
-
@chaostheeternal Right, but that's not part of the "advertising", that's part of the legalese that gets tacked onto the bottom. The ISPs (and anyone else who runs advertisements) knows that nobody looks at that unless they're a lawyer or incredibly suspicious of everything and anything. Typical users won't bother reading the legalese sections, they'll just see "100 Mbps".
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Yeah, he keeps coming back to excoriating me for making him discuss "some random blog" instead of figuring out that it has some links to stuff.
No. I read the "links to stuff." The stuff does not actually say what the random blog post tries to insinuate that it says. Hence my remarks about them taking it badly out of context.
-
@magus said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I actually find the idea of a curated internet interesting, because it makes it harder for any one company to dominate to the extent that Google or Facebook has.
What about the company doing the curating? (Facebook actually tried to get in on that in India, but they thankfully got shot down.)
-
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Yeah, he keeps coming back to excoriating me for making him discuss "some random blog" instead of figuring out that it has some links to stuff.
No. I read the "links to stuff." The stuff does not actually say what the random blog post tries to insinuate that it says. Hence my remarks about them taking it badly out of context.
I know. It disagrees with you so it's all wrong.
-
@magus said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I feel like the market is better suited for it.
But there is no market, it's monopolies all the way down.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@magus said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I feel like the market is better suited for it.
But there is no market, it's monopolies all the way down.
Demonstrably false, once you include wireless, which is becoming a much bigger consumer piece of the internet consumption pie.
-
For those who can read faster than they watch a video, here's a synopsis of it, with my comments and a few relevant links added. My own comments are between [square brackets].
Three pillars of the anti-NN lie (which "lie" was put forth by Ajit Pai in op-ed for WSJ (Pai was recommended to chair the FCC by the owner of the WSJ)):
- There was no internet regulation or Net Neutrality before 2015.
"In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the government [(President Clinton and Congress)] called for an internet 'unfettered by Federal or State regulation.'" - Everything was tooootally fine before 2015. ISPs were not abusing their power.
"The result of that fateful decision was the greatest free-market success story in history." - Net Neutrality was a solution in search of a problem, created by Obama and the libtards.
Obama "urged the [FCC] to impose upon [ISPs] a creaky regulatory framework called 'Title II', which was designed in the 1930s to tame the Ma Bell telephone monopoly."
Pai also said:
In the next few weeks, anti-market ideologues are going to try to scare the American people. They'll argue that government control is the only way to assure a free and open internet. They'll assert that repealing utility-style regulation will destroy the internet as we know it and harm innovation. They'll allege that free speech online is at risk.
FCC 2005 Fair Internet Policy Statement:
(ISPs are not Title II providers, but government has right to regulate them.)
The Communications Act [from the 1930s] charges the Commission with "regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio." The Communications Act regulates telecommunications carriers, as common carriers, under Title II. Information service providers, "by contrast, are not subject to mandatory common-carrier regulation under Title II." The Commission, however, “has jurisdiction to impose additional regulatory obligations under its Title I ancillary jurisdiction to regulate interstate and foreign communications." As a result, the Commission has jurisdiction necessary to ensure that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet Protocol-enabled (IP-enabled) services are operated in a neutral manner. Moreover, to ensure that broadband networks are widely deployed, open, affordable, and accessible to all consumers, the Commission adopts the following principles:
To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled
- to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
- to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
- to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
- to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
These are the same as the net neutrality principles.
[...........? There's nothing about throttling or prioritization in there.]2007 Comcast lied about throttling P2P connections. [I don't know the facts of the case, so I can't comment about the claim of deceit.]
throttling = censoring [wat? There's several reasons for throttling a network or parts of it. Many of them are even good reasons.]
Comcast claimed network congestion as reason for throttling [<--- like this] (and not restricting access to alternate video sources).
[But why should we care if they did? Anti-trust laws already exist to prevent that sort of thing from becoming a problem.]Comcast was "reading" users' "mail" to prioritize packets.
[wat? That doesn't require reading the contents; just look up the address in the DNS (which they have to do anyways to deliver it).]FCC already had powers ["]granted["] to it by Net Neutrality.
[Yeah, by claiming to have the right to regulate Title I services by using Title II rules.]The FCC chairman, in relation to the Comcast case, said:
"Consumers deserve to know that the commitment is backed up by legal enforcement."2010 courts said Comcast was right; FCC doesn't have right to regulate under Title II, since ISPs aren't Title II.
FCC wrote the 2010 Open Internet Order with three basic rules (pg. 2/194):
i. Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services;
ii. No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and
iii. No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.These are the same as Net Neutrality.
[...........? The only thing that could be construed to address throttling is the line about discrimination, and that only applies to unreasonable discrimination. Throttling an extremely high bandwidth service so that other content can actually have a chance to get through seems to be entirely reasonable. Making deals with certain providers to have faster/cheaper access also seems to be entirely reasonable for a free marketplace, as long as other content is not actually blocked. This fuels competition. Trying to enforce "competition" by reducing options by government fiat is not the solution. More about this later.]Verizon sued, claiming that FCC didn't have the right to enforce regulations in the Order.
2014 courts ruled in favor of ISPs, again because they are Title I carriers and therefore not subject to Title II regulations.
2015 FCC passed the Net Neutrality Order with three rules (pgs. 7-8/400):
- Clear, Bright Line Rules
- Because the record overwhelmingly supports adopting rules and demonstrates that three specific practices invariably harm the open Internet—Blocking, Throttling, and Paid Prioritization—this Order bans each of them, applying the same rules to both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access service.
- No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service must get what they have paid for - access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and well-accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark decision in Carterfone, which protected a customer's right to connect a telephone to the monopoly telephone network. This this Order adopts a straightforward ban:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable netowrk management. - No Throttling. The 2010 open Internet rule against blocking contained an ancillary prohibition against the degradation of lawful content, applications, services, and devices, on the ground that such degradation would be tantamount to blocking. This Order creates a separate rule to guard against degradation targeted at specific uses of a customer's broadband connection:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. - The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the no-blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content. It also specifically prohibits conduct that singles out content competing with a broadband provider's business model.
- No Paid Prioritization. Paid prioritization occurs when a broadband provider accepts payment (monetary or otherwise) to manage its network in a way that benefits particular content, applications, services, or devices. To protect against “fast lanes,” this Order adopts a rule that establishes that:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.
“Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity.
...
- No Unreasonable Interference or Unreasonable Disadvantage to Consumers or Edge Providers
...
- Enhanced Transparency
And FCC reclassified ISPs as Title II, so these regs then stood up in court.
FCC had to reclassify because of ISPs' constant lawsuits.
[Did they now? Couldn't they have simply stopped trying to regulate these things under inapplicable rules? And, I dunno, let the FTC handle abuses of the system?][B-b-b-b-but it's not really Title II, because] a lot of potential Title II restrictions and fees aren't being applied.
Comcast created the need for regulations in 2007 by throttling P2P services.
Timeline (of abuses):
- 2004 Verizon disables certain bluetooth functions (requires Verizon products instead)
- 2005 Madison River blobked Vonage (Fcc stopped them)
- 2005 Verizon prevents customers from downloading free ringtones (allowed only ringtones purchased from Verizon)
- 2007 Verizon disables non-Verizon GPS products on their phones
- 2007-09 AT&T makes Apple prevent Skype from working on iPhones when not on wifi
- 2008 COX and RCN throttle P2P
- 2009 AT&T hid Google voice app from app store
- 2009 Verizon had manufactorers disable FM radio chips in Verizon-service phones
- 2010 Windstream routes searches through it's [sic] own engine secretly
- 2011 Metro PCS blocks all streaming video on its 4G network except YouTube (and sued FCC)
- 2011-13 AT&T, Sprint, Verizon all prevented Google wallet from working (in preference to their app, Isis)
- 2011-15 AT&T offered "unlimited" data plans that were throttled at a "soft cap" (FCC fined them $100 million)
- 2012 Verizon blocks free tethering apps (which competed with their tethering fee) (actually asked Google to disable; Google complied) (Verizon won frequencies auction in 2007; violated regs that came with that[?])
- 2012 AT&T charges extra to enable FaceTime on iPhones
- 2012 Comcast hid FCC-mandated package with lower rates from customers (req'd as part of Comcast-NBC merger)
- 2012-14 Verizon and AT&T put "super cookies" on mobile phone browsers
- 2013 Comcast engages in "zero rating" with Xfinity video (certain apps/sites don't count towards data caps, "unfairly" promoting their products)
- 2013 Verizon admits in court to wanting paid fast lanes
(Verizon) Attorney Walker: No, it's pursuant to the "No Blocking" rule. They say it would be tantamount to blocking if you charged edge providers to reach the end users. It is a corollary of the "No Blocking" rule in the Order.
Judge Silberman: Furthermore, if you're allowed to charge, which you're assuming you're allowed to charge because of the anti-common tarriff law. If someone refused to pay, then, just like in the dispute between CBS and and Time Warner, you could refuse to carry.
W: Right. Under these rules, we can't. [crosstalk] In a free market we could.
S: [crosstalk] No, no, but assuming they don't car- [clip cuts off]
...
W (to Judge Rogers): As I was saying to Judge Silberman, what the agency has done here is shut down and prevent the development of a two-sided market with respect to Internet services. There is evidence in the record that edge providers are contracting with broadband providers where actually they demand payment. ESPN has a website that is so popular that ESPN demands and receives payments from broadband in order to allow those subscribers to access the ESPN content. So the markets there are certainly in that regard (and I'm authorized to state by my client today) that, but for these rules, we would be exploring those commercial arrangements.But for these rules [2011 regulations], we would be exploring those commercial arrangements.
- 2013 Verizon prevents Asus Nexus 7 from working on their network until weeks after they launched their own similar product
- 2013 AT&T and Verizon devise payment plans that double-charge customers for the cost of their phone [link asking about this(?) on Verizon forum]
- 2013 Verizon had Samsung block free program that blocks calls from certain contacts (in preference to their own paid program)
- 2014 Verizon disables all FM tuner apps in their phones (as of time of video, still only provider that does so)
- 2014 Verizon prevented SIM cards from working if from 3rd-party vendors
- 2014 Verizon prevented Pay with PayPal from working, but preloaded Isis
- 2015 TMobile throttled speed on unlimited data plans at soft cap
- 2015 Verizon blocks customers from getting SIM cards for new Motorola Nexus 6 phone
- 2015 Verizon website says iPhone customers would have to get new iPhones when switching to Verizon (lying about what devices will work on their network [CDMA (almost everywhere) vs. GSM (most populated areas)?])
- 2016 AT&T investigated for "zero rating" (stopped when Pai took FCC chair)
- 2016 Verizon prevents customers from using Samsung's Whitepages caller ID (in preference to their own caller ID)
- 2016 Verizon zero-rates its video platform Go90
Most of these are mobile providers because they weren't subject to same regulations as landline broadband until 2015.
Pai lied because he worked for Verizon from 2001-03, and for the FCC since 2007.
[What's exactly is the lie? Conflict of interest? He worked for both sides?]Net neutrality doesn't stop social media from censoring users; it stops ISPs from censoring anyone.
Pai is trying to divide NN along partisan lines. [Isn't it already divided along ideological lines, not party lines?]
- There was no internet regulation or Net Neutrality before 2015.
-
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
[What's exactly is the lie? Conflict of interest? He worked for both sides?]
From what I understand, part of this is that Pai still has a financial conflict of interest because he still has profit-sharing in the firm he used to work at that represents the telecom companies.
Note: That's the first link I can find about it that I remember seeing, I don't disclaim to know anything authoritative one way or the other about it.
-
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Three pillars of the anti-NN lie (put forth by Ajit Pai in op-ed for WSJ (Pai was recommended to chair the FCC by the owner of the WSJ)):
- There was no internet regulation or Net Neutrality before 2015.
"In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the government [(President Clinton and Congress)] called for an internet 'unfettered by Federal or State regulation.'" - Everything was tooootally fine before 2015. ISPs were not abusing their power.
"The result of that fateful decision was the greatest free-market success story in history." - Net Neutrality was a solution in search of a problem, created by Obama and the libtards.
Obama "urged the [FCC] to impose upon [ISPs] a creaky regulatory framework called 'Title II', which was designed in the 1930s to tame the Ma Bell telephone monopoly."
Yeah, they've already discredited themselves with this batch of nonsense. Is it even worth reading on?
...
After reading the rest: No, not really.
- There was no internet regulation or Net Neutrality before 2015.
-
Leaked E-mail Shows Even The FCC's Own CTO Thinks Gutting Net Neutrality Harms The Public
So by now we’ve pointed out how 200 engineers, internet legends, nearly 1000 startups, countless internet companies, 30 small ISPs, and millions of American consumers have told the FCC its pl…
-
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Leaked E-mail Shows Even The FCC's Own CTO Thinks Gutting Net Neutrality Harms The Public
So by now we’ve pointed out how 200 engineers, internet legends, nearly 1000 startups, countless internet companies, 30 small ISPs, and millions of American consumers have told the FCC its pl…
What a terrible clickbait headline.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
You'd have to dig into a full Terms and Conditions legalese document before you'd find anything like that.
Which is what matters.
Comon guys, many of us have run a network or been a part of that. There's no reason to suspect any advertised number being a guarantee.
-
The FCC’s Ajit Pai now openly mocking net neutrality protesters with his dumb new video
We’re getting closer and closer to a crisis point on net neutrality, as current FCC chairman Ajit Pai wages a minor internet culture war to convince people to support his plans for a “free internet”—i.e., one in which protections don’t exist to stop service providers from charging different amounts...
-
-
@sockpuppet7 Heh, that's hilarious.
-
@boomzilla found a transcription of the second video here
Ajit Pai jokes with Verizon exec about him being a “puppet” FCC chair
“We want to groom a Verizon puppet to install as FCC chair,” Verizon says in skit.
-
@sockpuppet7 I gotta say, the Trump era has gotten the public totally primed for IRL trolling like this.
-
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Timeline (of abuses):
2004 Verizon disables certain bluetooth functions (requires Verizon products instead)
2005 Madison River blobked Vonage (Fcc stopped them)
2005 Verizon prevents customers from downloading free ringtones (allowed only ringtones purchased from Verizon)
2007 Verizon disables non-Verizon GPS products on their phones
2007-09 AT&T makes Apple prevent Skype from working on iPhones when not on wifi
2008 COX and RCN throttle P2P
2009 AT&T hid Google voice app from app store
2009 Verizon had manufactorers disable FM radio chips in Verizon-service phones
2010 Windstream routes searches through it's [sic] own engine secretly
2011 Metro PCS blocks all streaming video on its 4G network except YouTube (and sued FCC)
2011-13 AT&T, Sprint, Verizon all prevented Google wallet from working (in preference to their app, Isis)
2011-15 AT&T offered "unlimited" data plans that were throttled at a "soft cap" (FCC fined them $100 million)
2012 Verizon blocks free tethering apps (which competed with their tethering fee) (actually asked Google to disable; Google complied) (Verizon won frequencies auction in 2007; violated regs that came with that[?])
2012 AT&T charges extra to enable FaceTime on iPhones
2012 Comcast hid FCC-mandated package with lower rates from customers (req'd as part of Comcast-NBC merger)
2012-14 Verizon and AT&T put "super cookies" on mobile phone browsers
2013 Comcast engages in "zero rating" with Xfinity video (certain apps/sites don't count towards data caps, "unfairly" promoting their products)- 2013 Verizon admits in court to wanting paid fast lanes
(Verizon) Attorney Walker: No, it's pursuant to the "No Blocking" rule. They say it would be tantamount to blocking if you charged edge providers to reach the end users. It is a corollary of the "No Blocking" rule in the Order.
Judge Silberman: Furthermore, if you're allowed to charge, which you're assuming you're allowed to charge because of the anti-common tarriff law. If someone refused to pay, then, just like in the dispute between CBS and and Time Warner, you could refuse to carry.
W: Right. Under these rules, we can't. [crosstalk] In a free market we could.
S: [crosstalk] No, no, but assuming they don't car- [clip cuts off]
...
W (to Judge Rogers): As I was saying to Judge Silberman, what the agency has done here is shut down and prevent the development of a two-sided market with respect to Internet services. There is evidence in the record that edge providers are contracting with broadband providers where actually they demand payment. ESPN has a website that is so popular that ESPN demands and receives payments from broadband in order to allow those subscribers to access the ESPN content. So the markets there are certainly in that regard (and I'm authorized to state by my client today) that, but for these rules, we would be exploring those commercial arrangements.
But for these rules [2011 regulations], we would be exploring those commercial arrangements.
2013 Verizon prevents Asus Nexus 7 from working on their network until weeks after they launched their own similar product
2013 AT&T and Verizon devise payment plans that double-charge customers for the cost of their phone [link asking about this(?) on Verizon forum]
2013 Verizon had Samsung block free program that blocks calls from certain contacts (in preference to their own paid program)
2014 Verizon disables all FM tuner apps in their phones (as of time of video, still only provider that does so)
2014 Verizon prevented SIM cards from working if from 3rd-party vendors
2014 Verizon prevented Pay with PayPal from working, but preloaded Isis
2015 TMobile throttled speed on unlimited data plans at soft cap
2015 Verizon blocks customers from getting SIM cards for new Motorola Nexus 6 phone
2015 Verizon website says iPhone customers would have to get new iPhones when switching to Verizon (lying about what devices will work on their network [CDMA (almost everywhere) vs. GSM (most populated areas)?])
2016 AT&T investigated for "zero rating" (stopped when Pai took FCC chair)
2016 Verizon prevents customers from using Samsung's Whitepages caller ID (in preference to their own caller ID)
2016 Verizon zero-rates its video platform Go90This is a pretty strong argument of why these guys can't go unregulated, IMO
- 2013 Verizon admits in court to wanting paid fast lanes
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
This is a pretty strong argument of why these guys can't go unregulated, IMO
We should write a new law about it, then, not do what the FCC did.
-
@boomzilla this thread is called "Net Neutrality", not title II or whatever it is that the FCC is doing
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla this thread is called "Net Neutrality", not title II or whatever it is that the FCC is doing
As the person who wrote the title, I'd also refer you to the actual OP. In any case, the discussion has been about the repeal of existing regulations.
-
@boomzilla Your NN was flawed anyway, as it allows for zero-rating. Is there any kind of net neutrality you would agree with?
-
@sockpuppet7 Probably.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
What a terrible clickbait headline.
Why? It accurately sums up exactly what the article is about.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
What a terrible clickbait headline.
Why? It accurately sums up exactly what the article is about.
It does not.
-
@boomzilla Headline: "Leaked E-mail Shows Even The FCC's Own CTO Thinks Gutting Net Neutrality Harms The Public"
From the article:
In a leaked e-mail this week, FCC CTO Eric Burger (hired by Ajit Pai last October) warned that once the rules are repealed, there's really nothing in place to stop these entrenched duopolies from throttling or hamstringing services or websites they compete with:
"In an internal email to all of the FCC commissioner offices, CTO Eric Burger, who was appointed by Pai in October, said the No. 1 issue with the repeal is concern that internet service providers will block or throttle specific websites, according to FCC sources who viewed the message."Unfortunately, I realize we do not address that at all," Burger said in the email. "If the ISP is transparent about blocking legal content, there is nothing the [Federal Trade Commission] can do about it unless the FTC determines it was done for anti-competitive reasons. Allowing such blocking is not in the public interest."
So, we have discussion of 1) a leaked email 2) from the FCC's CTO 3) showing that he is concerned that repeal of Net Neutrality rules will bring about ISP behavior that "is not in the public interest" (ie. harms the public).
TLDR: Your
-grade reading comprehension strikes again.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla Headline: "Leaked E-mail Shows Even The FCC's Own CTO Thinks Gutting Net Neutrality Harms The Public"
From the article:
In a leaked e-mail this week, FCC CTO Eric Burger (hired by Ajit Pai last October) warned that once the rules are repealed, there's really nothing in place to stop these entrenched duopolies from throttling or hamstringing services or websites they compete with:
"In an internal email to all of the FCC commissioner offices, CTO Eric Burger, who was appointed by Pai in October, said the No. 1 issue with the repeal is concern that internet service providers will block or throttle specific websites, according to FCC sources who viewed the message."Unfortunately, I realize we do not address that at all," Burger said in the email. "If the ISP is transparent about blocking legal content, there is nothing the [Federal Trade Commission] can do about it unless the FTC determines it was done for anti-competitive reasons. Allowing such blocking is not in the public interest."
So, we have discussion of 1) a leaked email 2) from the FCC's CTO 3) showing that he is concerned that repeal of Net Neutrality rules will bring about ISP behavior that "is not in the public interest" (ie. harms the public).
TLDR: Your
-grade reading comprehension strikes again.Ah, this goes to show there's a first time for everything! I did somehow miss that final sentence.
-
Well, if the Ars Technica headline is correct, the vote is done now so I expect my Twitter timeline to be 100% consumed by this until the end of time.
-
@hungrier said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Well, if the Ars Technica headline is correct, the vote is done now so I expect my Twitter timeline to be 100% consumed by this until the end of time.
Don't worry, your ISP will filter it out for you
-
https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWhite/status/941379898148470784
I live in a nation of idiots?
I wonder where the vote was. The FCC comment page thing?
This seems like a typical NN sentiment from my FB feed:
https://twitter.com/AynRandPaulRyan/status/941379854326317057
Which gets things exactly backwards.
-
@sockpuppet7 Well, not my ISP since I'm in Canada. But all the endless whining I read will be mandated to be at least 30% Canadian content
