Quote:The Federal Communications Commission took aim at a signature Obama-era regulation Tuesday, unveiling a plan that would give Internet providers broad powers to determine what websites and online services their customers see and use.
Under the agency’s proposal, providers of high-speed Internet services, such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, would be able to block websites they do not like and charge Web companies for speedier delivery of their content.
The FCC’s effort would roll back its net neutrality regulation which was passed by the agency’s Democrats in 2015 and attempted to make sure all Web content, whether from big or small companies, would be treated equally by Internet providers.
The repeal of those rules would be one of the more significant deregulatory efforts by Republicans since President Trump took office. Ajit Pai, who was nominated to head the FCC by Trump in January, has said undoing the net neutrality rules was one of his top priorities, arguing that the regulation stifled innovation and was an example of government overreach.
“Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet,” Pai said in a statement Tuesday. The plan could be approved by the Republican-led FCC as early as its Dec. 14 meeting.
Pai’s remarks were cheered by conservatives as well as cable, broadband and wireless companies, which provide most of the Internet service to American homes, smartphones and other devices.
“It’s a signature accomplishment for Pai’s chairmanship,” said Fred Campbell, director of the conservative think tank Tech Knowledge. “This item represents the starkest policy difference between the Obama FCC … and Chairman Pai.”
In a statement, Verizon cheered Pai’s proposed “light-touch regulatory framework for Internet services.” The sentiments were echoed by Comcast, though the cable giant said it would continue to treat all websites equally.
But Pai’s announcement set off a firestorm of criticism from Internet companies and activists who vowed to hold demonstrations ahead of the FCC's vote.
The Free Press Action Fund and other net neutrality activist groups said they would organize protests outside Verizon stores and accused Pai of doing the company’s bidding. Pai served as an associate general counsel at Verizon for two years beginning in 2001.
Former Democratic FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, who drafted the 2015 net neutrality rules, called Tuesday’s move “tragic,” adding that “if you like your cable company, you’ll love what this does for the Internet.
“The job of the FCC is to represent the consumer,” he said in an interview. “Tragically, this decision is only for the benefit of the largely monopoly services that deliver the Internet to the consumer.”
Technology giants also expressed dismay at the FCC’s plan. “The FCC’s net neutrality rules are working well for consumers, and we’re disappointed in the proposal released today,” Google said in a statement.
Pai’s plan would require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices.
For example, if a provider chose to block or slow certain websites, or gave preferable treatment to content that it owned or had partnerships with, that provider would have to inform consumers of its policy on an easily accessible website.
Violations of the transparency rule could lead to fines by the FCC, said senior agency officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter more freely.
But Matt Wood, policy director for the advocacy group Free Press, likened these proposals to the way that many companies point consumers to privacy policies.
“You need only look to how privacy policies from websites allow essentially any and all bad behavior,” he said, “so long as it is disclosed to users.”
The FCC's proposal also would shift some enforcement responsibility to the Federal Trade Commission, which can sue companies for violating the commitments or statements they have made to the public.
“The FTC stands ready to protect broadband subscribers from anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive acts and practices just as we protect consumers in the rest of the Internet ecosystem,” Maureen Ohlhausen, the acting chairman of the FTC, said Tuesday in a statement after the announcement by her counterpart at the FCC.
Relying more heavily on the public promises of Internet providers is a departure from current net neutrality rules, which lay out clear bans against selectively blocking or slowing websites, as well as speeding up websites that agree to pay the providers a fee.
Repealing those rules would allow Internet providers to experiment with new ways to make money. In recent years, some broadband companies, such as AT&T, have tried offering discounts on Internet service to Americans as long as they agree to let the company monitor their Web browsing history, for example. Other companies, such as Verizon, have tried to drive users to their own apps by exempting them from mobile data limits.
One major beneficiary of the FCC’s rule-change may be AT&T, which is embroiled in a major legal dispute with the Justice Department over an $85 billion purchase of the entertainment conglomerate Time Warner.
Should AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner be allowed to close, a repeal of the FCC’s net neutrality rules would give the telecom giant greater power to promote its new content properties in myriad ways, several analysts said.
The FCC’s proposal also puts additional pressure on Capitol Hill, where some lawmakers have called for federal legislation that would supersede any FCC rules.
On Tuesday, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) praised Pai’s effort but renewed his call for a bipartisan compromise on net neutrality, saying it was the only way to “create long-term certainty for the Internet ecosystem.”
(11-22-2017, 10:11 AM)jason Wrote: There should be a lil more concern and/ or outrage about this.
A LOT of people are concerned and trying to raise a fuss. But there are two problems:
1) Trump and his minions don't care. (It's about helping the big guy who has been forgotten for so, so long in this country. Just like he said in his inauguration speech. )
2) Trump's supporters see "Obama regulation" and their tic kicks in.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(11-22-2017, 10:11 AM)jason Wrote: There should be a lil more concern and/ or outrage about this.
Most people don’t understand it due to intentionally misleading terms. Net neutrality, throttling, etc.
This might be for the best, though. Most people won’t do anything about the epic screwing of the middle class until they are no longer able to watch porn or drink beer. When they come for the pron, it’s gonna be a reckoning.
(11-22-2017, 10:27 AM)Benton Wrote: Most people don’t understand it due to intentionally misleading terms. Net neutrality, throttling, etc.
This might be for the best, though. Most people won’t do anything about the epic screwing of the middle class until they are no longer able to watch porn or drink beer. When they come for the pron, it’s gonna be a reckoning.
I've also seen people who aren't interested in learning about it just take the tried and true stance that all regulation is bad.
(11-22-2017, 10:11 AM)jason Wrote: There should be a lil more concern and/ or outrage about this.
People should be very concerned about this.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue either. Every liberal, conservative, libertarian and 3rd party voter should be in opposition to eliminating net neutrality and placing an insane amount of power and potential censorship authority with providers, as well as the issue of allowing them to use / profit off of your browsing history.
Here's an example of how paying for your internet could potentially be without regulations. They also could control how fast certain websites work over others instead of the way it is now were your speed is the same regardless of where you want to go on the web.
One of my favorite youtubers Philip DeFranco did a good job covering this in his latest vid.
As mentioned above, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. Of course I am sure it will be because there are a few that believe this move would be a good thing because it is removing an Obama era regulation. .
(11-22-2017, 12:19 PM)Millhouse Wrote: One of my favorite youtubers Philip DeFranco did a good job covering this in his latest vid.
As mentioned above, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. Of course I am sure it will be because there are a few that believe this move would be a good thing because it is removing an Obama era regulation. .
Sorry you lost me in your opening sentence.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
If the morons in power decide to get rid of net neutrality because 'the free market ISPs will work itself out' over time, the best case scenario is that little to nothing happens until hopefully the next president comes in and works with congress to make it a permanent law. Seeing how there were little to no fast lanes before Net Neutrality came into place, this would be encouraging. However with how shit companies like Comcast and others have become, they would be allowed to throttle their customers websites if they wanted to, like Netflix or Youtube.
(11-22-2017, 11:46 AM)Bengalholic Wrote: People should be very concerned about this.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue either. Every liberal, conservative, libertarian and 3rd party voter should be in opposition to eliminating net neutrality and placing an insane amount of power and potential censorship authority with providers, as well as the issue of allowing them to use / profit off of your browsing history.
Unfortunately, that's not the case.
Oh, my guess is it will be used by Democrats (since it's pretty well fallen along party lines) to the effect of: "The Republicans in Congress just restricted your porn and forced your Netflix to go up 400%." Republicans will come back with how it saved the internet. And the majority of people still won't understand what side of the fence they fall on, they'll just be really angry about it.
(11-22-2017, 01:05 PM)Benton Wrote: Oh, my guess is it will be used by Democrats (since it's pretty well fallen along party lines) to the effect of: "The Republicans in Congress just restricted your porn and forced your Netflix to go up 400%." Republicans will come back with how it saved the internet. And the majority of people still won't understand what side of the fence they fall on, they'll just be really angry about it.
But the plan has FREEDOM in its name! I LOVE ME SOME FREEDOM.
Neutrality sounds like some man in a dress is going to go into the ladies bathroom! SCREW TARGET!
The same people who tout capitalism as the end all be all do not want competition. We live in a country of undereducated entitled middle aged buffoons. Its going to be hard to reverse the consequences of certain generations anti intellectualism.
The internet worked just fine before any net neutrality rules. There was the occasional anti-competitive play or blocking, which has always been handled by existing regulations.
And how can you miss something or have the internet ruined by legislation that barely ever went into effect?
(11-22-2017, 01:37 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The internet worked just fine before any net neutrality rules. There was the occasional anti-competitive play or blocking, which has always been handled by existing regulations.
And how can you miss something or have the internet ruined by legislation that barely ever went into effect?
(11-22-2017, 01:37 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The internet worked just fine before any net neutrality rules. There was the occasional anti-competitive play or blocking, which has always been handled by existing regulations.
And how can you miss something or have the internet ruined by legislation that barely ever went into effect?
Not true. ISPs wanted to and have controlled how much bandwidth flows based upon population. A family in rural Ohio weren't getting the same speeds as a family in New York despite having the same service and paying the same rate. ISPs also started practicing monitoring customers and sending them warnings just for using torrents and if they tried using a VPN they would disable their account. Torrents themselves aren't bad and are an easier way to share information to people with low bandwidth due to what kind of internet is available to them.
You don't have to wait for it to go into effect to see how it could potentially change the way the internet operates all you have to do is some critical thinking about what the plan is and see the big picture. Have Comcast, Time Warner Spectre and AT&T with their glowing reputations given anybody a reason to trust them? Not that I can find. Comcast owns NBC I don't see how it would be good for the market or consumers if Comcast decided to reduce speeds or cut off access all together to their content to hurt their competitor. Is it 100% sure going to happen? No but that doesn't mean setting up the groundwork for that to happen is a smart move.
Here are some of the rules they want to roll back...
the FCC requires that ISPs publicly disclose all their network management practices, so that users can make informed decisions when purchasing internet service.
We all like to know what we are paying for right? Before this ISPs didn't have to share with you the fact that they could slow your internet down after you hit a set percentage of data usage or that they might move you the back of the bandwidth flow if you lived in rural areas compared to high traffic areas.
No Blocking or Unreasonable Discrimination for Wired Internet
This prevents ISPs from blocking or slowing websites. Why would they want to do this? Maybe because say a company like Comcast might want to discriminate against a competitor like Netflix. Maybe an ISP who happen to be run by people with a political slant and choose which news outlet they want to have a slow connection or a fast one. Considering the first rule I showed would be rolled back we would never know if they were doing that anyways.
What do you find appealing about letting ISPs make the rules they get to play by?
I'm torn on this. Part of me says they are private companies they should be able to allow/block any content they see fit and let the private market sort itself.
But part of me realizes that many cable companies are geographic monopolies and consumers often have no choice.
I have no idea how this could be considered partisan.
(11-22-2017, 02:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm torn on this. Part of me says they are private companies they should be able to allow/block any content they see fit and let the private market sort itself.
But part of me realizes that many cable companies are geographic monopolies and consumers often have no choice.
I have no idea how this could be considered partisan.
Also keep in mind that these private entities have successfully entrenched their monopolies in many states by lobbying for, writing and pushing through legislation that bars municipalities from creating their own, community owned and operated telecom networks.
The individual has no choice as it stands right now.
Additionally, should these rules be pulled back, what would keep the providers from blocking all content related to putting net neutrality back in place?
It is not a partisan issue in that it will negatively impact citizens on both sides of the issue. The blame for kowtowing to private interests on the other hand can be placed squarely on the shoulders of your daddy. The FCC is a part of the executive branch.
(11-22-2017, 02:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm torn on this. Part of me says they are private companies they should be able to allow/block any content they see fit and let the private market sort itself.
But part of me realizes that many cable companies are geographic monopolies and consumers often have no choice.
I have no idea how this could be considered partisan.
Older article, but pretty much the consensus thought I've heard put out there.
Obama and Democrats are for it, so knee jerk reaction is for Republicans to be against. Like GOP-care... it was great when it was "their" idea in the 90s, but the end-all evil when Obama dusted it off.
It doesn't appear to be just the money as bribes by telecomm is pretty well split between the two parties, or ideology as this will pretty well hit small 'Main Street' businesses in the nuts.
Anecdotal, but mine (newspapers) are expecting significant restrictions for our online users. And since 90% of what so many businesses do is internet based (ours included), this is probably going to see rate hikes or production reductions in the future.
)![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: net.neutrality.chart.jpg]](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/10/28/net.neutrality.chart.jpg)
![[Image: header.png]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/net_neutrality/header.png)
![[Image: 1.png]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/net_neutrality/1.png)
![[Image: 2.png]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/net_neutrality/2.png)
![[Image: 3.png]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/net_neutrality/3.png)
![[Image: 4.png]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/net_neutrality/4.png)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
