The Net Neutrality Sellout: Still Bad, But What's Next?

[Mr. Omega]

To sincerely believe that the US government will make a stand for the sake democracy is a sad joke, your prescribed efforts are really tantamount to a fart in the wind. Our political system is a vacuous malleable twink capitulating for whoever has the biggest wad. Instead of pleading with some feeble flapping head to put on their lame song and dance to your tune, invoke your only real power. Vote with your dollar, it's the only way to effect any real meaningful change. If every person and business in this country canceled their internet and cable subscriptions for just one month it would send a message infinitely more powerful than any amount of yodeling the DC mouth-breathers could ever munster.

But we won't and that's how we got here. We did this to ourselves, we deserve this.

Let this be your wakeup call, we need to take responsibility as consumers. The government signs the laws but the dollar runs this country.

You elect your representatives with your purchases.

This post sums up the Libertarian ideology perfectly. "Yup. Goverment is corrupt, corporations run your lives and money is the only thing that matters in the world. Just give up, accept it and try and buy your way to happiness from now on."

This shit is why I identify as progressive. Because I'd rather try and limit this sort of shit as much as possible, instead of just accepting an oligarchy. Make votes actually mean something instead of dollars. Sadly, any attempt to try and limit the effects of money in politics is demonized and declared "SOCIALISM!!1!!" by just about any other political ideology, especially the libertarian fuckwits.

But hey. Maybe if Net Neutrality does die, and "the market" gets to fuck with the internet, all those idiots who identify as Libertarian can get to see just how much their "utopia" fucking blows. In the mean time, I'm going to do what little I can.

 

[uchytjes]

The more I learn about this stuff the more I want to believe that maybe we're blowing this way too far out of proportion. For instance, while a "fast lane" is an absolutely terrible idea and should never be allowed it still stands that the FCC can't really prevent it from happening as it is now with companies being classified as things other than utilites so instead of doing that they decide to pass a ruling saying "we'll allow this" because they want to regulate it and ensure it isn't unfair. I absolutely don't trust that this will actually go down like that and will still lead to horrible things in the future if they allow fast lanes to exist, but at least they're doing something to help prevent absolute shit from happening.

Still, this would all be fixed by reclassifying ISPs as utilites. Makes me wonder if something is actually preventing them from doing so.

 

[Kajin]

And what of us who don't agree with the idea of net neutrality in the first place?

If you don't mind me asking, why don't you agree with it?

Long story. Suffice it to say it's telling that this article seems to think to speak for the 'internet' as a whole without taking into account that it doesn't exist.

The internet doesn't exist? You're going to have to elaborate on that, lest I begin to believe that we're actually communicating via telepathy.

 

[Veylon]

It's likely FCC Chairman Wheeler will obstinately continue trying to kill the Internet. But it's far from too late to do something about it.

I posted this http://www.broadbandforamerica.com/sites/default/files/CEOLettertoFCC-5.13.14.pdf in a topic a few days back, in it the ISPs are threatening some pretty severe action if they aren't allowed to do as they please. The short of it is, they are threatening to stop maintaining and investing in their networks. Eventually this would cause all Internet accessibility to stop.

It's a bluff. This is the equivalent of holding your breath if you don't get your way. Sure, let them shoot themselves in the foot, if they want. Not that they will, because the shareholders would boot any CEO dumb enough to try.

All it means is that they're threatening to leave a hole open for some new companies - or multinationals - to pop up and take their place. There's a whole host of telecoms in Europe that have been living under Net Neutrality for years. Do these CEO's really think that nobody would hop the pond to eat their lunches if they petulantly refuse to eat them? Do they really think their rivals in the content sector won't help them? This is a study in blind arrogance.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

It's a bluff.

Pretty much is.

You know who didn't sign? Google. You know who's stock won't drop? Google. You know who's rolling out a fiber optic network that can maintain consistent speeds almost 10 times the current signatories speeds? Google.

Still, it shows just how much they think of the system.

 

[evilnancyreagan]

It's a bluff.

Pretty much is.

You know who didn't sign? Google. You know who's stock won't drop? Google. You know who's rolling out a fiber optic network that can maintain consistent speeds almost 10 times the current signatories speeds? Google.

Still, it shows just how much they think of the system.

also

the solar powered wifi drones [http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27029443]

 

[Daaaah Whoosh]

Oh my God, I just got the greatest idea ever:

Red Dead Redemption + Tron. Instead of the end of the Old West, it's the end of Net Neutrality. At the end, you (spoilers) get killed by a FCC firing squad.

 

[RoonMian]

The USA will simply fall behind in terms of innovation. Broadband speeds will, in terms of average use, actively drop because of this. It's inevitable. But markets like Europe will still be saddled with the massive American made monopolies but without the crushing hammer to have to use them. These services will stagnate and there will be a web enviroment in the EU and other parts of the world that evolves separately to that of the pretty crippled US.

US companies will not be able to create new, competitive data-heavy services and people will stop trying to break into he US market. This means that, overall, American companies, and even American content if they try and lock that into it, will become less and less relevant for the rest of the world.

If this comes to pass as it seems it is going to then the USA is done as the defacto leader of the internet age.

Except that the EU is currently dismantling its net neutrality in pretty much the same way.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I'd like to clarify something for my own peace of mind. This is only affecting the USA right? As in these rules specifically allow US ISP's to charge companies for the QoS guarantee and the rest of the world is unaffected.

That said, it still sucks. The bit I don't understand is how this arse in charge of the FCC can claim "Guarantees Net Neutrality" when the entire thing is the exact opposite of that. He claims it will protect the Open Net when the proposed regulation specifically lets different sites get preferential treatment. The ONLY people who benefit from this are the ISPs who will make money from it. That's all there is to it. It's detrimental to corporations who will have to pay for preferential treatment and it's detrimental to consumers whose favourite services will be capped and slow.

Why does the FCC have this burning need to grant ISPs this privilege? Why does it need to change anything at all? How can they outright lie like publicly and not get called on it? Why does Tom Wheeler think this is a good idea that needs to happen? Why does the Federal Communications Commission have any say over a service that's specifically NOT a communication service, but a cable utility? What's to stop consumer's abandoning any ISPs that practice this in favour of those who do not, therefore killing it in the water?

 

[StriderShinryu]

I'd like to clarify something for my own peace of mind. This is only affecting the USA right? As in these rules specifically allow US ISP's to charge companies for the QoS guarantee and the rest of the world is unaffected.

The issue, as I see it, is that in many places the US is still considered the top dog in this sort of thing. If the US goes through with trampling Net Neutrality then other places (like us up in here Canada) are likely to follow suit, or at least see it as a totally viable option.

There's also the fact that if this does go through any US based internet related start ups are going to be crushed. It's easy to say "well, they should just happen in Europe then" but that sort of perspective just doesn't work in reality. Being that the internet is a global entity, those who find their success in/on it should be allowed to come from anywhere and should have the same chance at success regardless of their place of origin as long as what they bring to the table is a good idea.

In short, when dealing with something that impacts a global entity like the internet I see it as rather short sighted to view it purely as "an American thing."

 

[Griffolion]

And what of us who don't agree with the idea of net neutrality in the first place?

Then you'll love these rules. Pray-tell what exactly don't you agree with about net neutrality?

I'd like to clarify something for my own peace of mind. This is only affecting the USA right? As in these rules specifically allow US ISP's to charge companies for the QoS guarantee and the rest of the world is unaffected.

The European Directive (article 22, I believe) states that all internet service providers must adhere to Mere Conduit principles (common carriers, as they are called in the US). Meaning Net Neutrality is preserved by law in the EU. The UK is a little trickier, since we have these censorship measures (or if you want the full propaganda term, "porn filters") in place. That means ISP's are legally obligated to perform stateful packet inspection on all traffic from homes that haven't opted out of the censorship measures, and block any packets that have a blacklisted website in their source header. This essentially destroys Net Neutrality, by not treating every packet on a network as equal.

Interestingly, under EU law, this makes all British ISP's very very vulnerable to court cases. Because they do not uphold net neutrality principles, they are responsible for every packet that goes through their network, because they have lost their Mere Conduit status under European Law, and thus lose certain protections. The main one in question is one that states that Mere Conduit providers are only obligated to provide a "best effort" service in an equal fashion to every packet on their network. If packets are lost, they aren't liable for them. Because British ISP's have lost Mere Conduit status, every single packet lost on their network is a viable court case. If people organised themselves, the likes of BT could literally be sued into oblivion.

To perhaps give a more clear answer to your question, this legislation is a US only thing, but will have repercussions outside it, too. Since America is the birthplace of the internet, and still holds the edge as the most interconnected of any country in the world.

Basically, I predict that the EU's response to this will be to strengthen our own infrastructure within the Economic Zone to avoid going through America as much as possible for our own traffic. Eventually, we will get ahead in web innovation, as the US stagnates due to incumbent players holding all the cards, never letting any new startup play the game fairly. What the US government and the big telecom corporations are doing right now will cripple the US' economy even further, with only those at the top gaining from this.

OT: It's still not too late to act if you're a US citizen. Call the FCC, call your representative.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

I say everyone takes this advice and tries to voice their opinion. Even people outside the US should, since they may use US based services and the fall of net neutrality over here may get corporations in other countries brave enough to fight open internet in their home nation. Despite what media execs want, the internet isn't contained to one country.

And if all this public outcry against an obviously anti-consumer ruling goes ignored, I also say any customer of a company that either publicly opposed net neutrality or throttles their data should boycott that company as much as possible. If they must have internet (who doesn't today?) and their ISP provides cable or has a deal with a satellite company, cancel the TV package (or at least go down to the basic package and NEVER use on demand until this crisis is over) stating on the phone this very reason why your are canceling and would not have if the corporation didn't have more interest in slightly more profits instead of customer satisfaction. If enough people did this it would certainly send the message straight to the people causing this problem, but this is a last resort I'm sure will be organized only if the politicians and their cable buddies choose to plug their ears. It will hit them hard right in the division they thought they needed to protect from the evil internet when they really just needed to improve that service, lower prices or stop raising them every year, and improve their overall customer service. The "cable cutters" left for a reason.

 

[Zontar]

Oh my God, I just got the greatest idea ever:

Red Dead Redemption + Tron. Instead of the end of the Old West, it's the end of Net Neutrality. At the end, you (spoilers) get killed by a FCC firing squad.

This is the single greatest idea I've ever seen. Rockstar, it must be done. Though I'd say a Comcast stand-in for the firing squad would be better, and having the FCC be the police you had been hoping would help you, only for them to stab you in the back because of bribery at the top.

 

[marcooos]

I'm gonna be contrarian at flat out say I don't really care if net neutrality goes away, as it'll either work or completely destroy the current ISP model requiring it to be rebuilt into something better

 

[Atmos Duality]

I'm gonna be contrarian at flat out say I don't really care if net neutrality goes away, as it'll either work or completely destroy the current ISP model requiring it to be rebuilt into something better

And you base this assertion upon...what exactly?

 

[hentropy]

Hmm, I didn't know The Escapist had become a tumblr blog... it seems like the author is a few fiery paragraphs away from suggesting we take up arms and start murdering people. I've been on The Escapist for some time and I haven't seen this guy write anything before.

I do agree insofar that the internet SHOULD be classified as a utility- but I guess I'm the only person on the internet that thinks the rules aren't armageddon and that Tom Wheeler isn't some kind of seven-headed marine dragon. The main fight when it comes to Net Neutrality should be focused around that no other websites should be closed off or purposefully slowed. It seems like Wheeler, a guy the author repeatedly complained was "their guy", is open to this. Speeding up the internet for certain sites willing to pay is not ideal, but it's also not the end of everything nice.

To me, at least, it seems unlikely that telecoms will even want to block or slow down certain sites, it would just frustrate consumers and drive more competition into the market. Even with the anti-competitive practices, there's still different ISPs out there, and being the "open" one will be a consumer draw. For all the scare-mongering that people have done about telecoms, I haven't once heard the open desire to do this. They're adamant about a fast lane because it seems like a win-win for the telecoms, they get more money from big websites that want to go faster and most people's experiences don't change significantly.

 

[Ickabod]

For what it is worth. This Registered (to vote) American wrote letters to the FCC, his US Senator, and Congressional Rep. I doubt it will have much sway, but I did my part. If you're a registered American, you should do the same, every little voice can't hurt.

 

[Something Amyss]

I've been on The Escapist for some time and I haven't seen this guy write anything before.

You can find quite a few of his prior articles on the Escapist. Hardly his fault.

But more to the point:

I do agree insofar that the internet SHOULD be classified as a utility- but I guess I'm the only person on the internet that thinks the rules aren't armageddon and that Tom Wheeler isn't some kind of seven-headed marine dragon. The main fight when it comes to Net Neutrality should be focused around that no other websites should be closed off or purposefully slowed. It seems like Wheeler, a guy the author repeatedly complained was "their guy", is open to this. Speeding up the internet for certain sites willing to pay is not ideal, but it's also not the end of everything nice.

To me, at least, it seems unlikely that telecoms will even want to block or slow down certain sites, it would just frustrate consumers and drive more competition into the market. Even with the anti-competitive practices, there's still different ISPs out there, and being the "open" one will be a consumer draw. For all the scare-mongering that people have done about telecoms, I haven't once heard the open desire to do this. They're adamant about a fast lane because it seems like a win-win for the telecoms, they get more money from big websites that want to go faster and most people's experiences don't change significantly.

Since Net Neutrality was shut down, Comcast has started throttling traffic on streaming sites. I don't know for sure, but based on responses from Comcast users, I suspect they're also throttling gaming bandwidth. There's no hypothetical. It's already happening. Further, Comcast and Time Warner have market dominance in a good chunk of the US, sometimes being the only game in town for any intents and purposes. And let's not forget, Comcast is seeking to purchase Time Warner.

What you propose might be logical if there was a fair and competitive market, but there isn't. And really, Comcast and TWC got here by having the money to consume the competition, so where exactly do you propose the competition is going to come from?

 

[marcooos]

I'm gonna be contrarian at flat out say I don't really care if net neutrality goes away, as it'll either work or completely destroy the current ISP model requiring it to be rebuilt into something better

And you base this assertion upon...what exactly?

I don't I just don't give a fuck if I'm wrong