Home - , , - Net Neutrality Set to End in 30 Days

Net Neutrality Set to End in 30 Days

net-neutrality-to-end
Sad news for everyone who's been hoping for net neutrality to be brought back. The FCC, earlier today, announced that net neutrality will be ending on June 11th.

There were a number of articles yesterday that talked about a longshot attempt to save the regulation in Congress. Unfortunately, it looks like this attempt won't see the light of day anymore as a new resolution has been passed by the Senate.

The resolution was fast-tracked to be voted on next week. Even though there is a chance the order could be passed, many believe that there is no chance it will get out of the House. Apart from the resolution, 22 states have already sued to block the repeal.

It was in 2015 that the FCC under the Obama administration passed net neutrality with a 3-2 vote. When it was put into place, the order stopped carriers from imposing a charge on content providers so they can access the network faster and use their steams. The resolution also prevented carriers from having a charge on carrying content it didn't agree with or like. With the ruling in place, content providers did not have to worry about their content not reaching their intended market.

Ever since it was put into place, net neutrality has been argued upon by different companies and political representatives. As such, it has since been repealed with companies promising not to discriminate against any legal content.

In his statement on restoring Internet Freedom Order taking effect, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said that he "strongly supports a free and open internet." The chairman also wrote that "The Internet wasn't broken in 2015, when the prior FCC buckled to political pressure and imposed heavy-handed Title Ii rules on the Internet economy."

Come June 11th, Pai promises that "unnecessary and harmful Internet regulations will be repealed and the bipartisan, light-touch approach that served the online world well for nearly 20 years will be restored."

You can read more of Chairman Pai's statement here.



Source: PhoneArena

Tags: , ,

40 comments:

Comment Page :
  1. The proponents of net neutrality are still promoting the lie that your favorite website will disappear behind an ISP paywall once neutrality is ended. Oh well. They get to hysterically cry themselves to sleep each night fearing the bogeyman that they made up in their head. It is quite pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong. We cry ourselves to sleep each night because we are saddened by comments that people like you post to belittle anyone who disagrees with you. And we live in hope that common courtesy and civil discourse will return sooner than later.

      Delete
  2. Net neutrality has only been around for 3 years according to the article. I'm trying to remember how it was before it was implemented. I honestly can't think, remembering back, that it was bad before net

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wasn't specifically backed by law or government policy. The Obama administration and others sought to do so after telecoms dipped their toes into their own policies that ultimately sought to charge consumers more, specifically with 'metered data'. It was only consumer usage of that data for streaming that showed a bigger, uglier truth--so many of the promises of broadband for all weren't being kept. American ISP speeds *STILL* lag behind other developed countries.

      Delete
    2. It's the fear that things could get bad if ISPs informally collude with one another (i.e. they're doing it so I will too) on a set of worst practices for throttling and price gouging as their greed, which will remain largely unchecked by the politicians they lobby, eventually consumes them and destroys any worth their product ever had.

      The repeal of net neutrality is the eqivalent of saying your telephone provider can arbitrarily block you from getting calls originating from, say, your friends, family or utility company on purely ideological grounds at a time when there's a huge profit incentive for doing so and then charging extra for the features and services you already had.

      Personally though, I've always thought the feds have had way too much power and influence over the internet ever since the Napster incident.

      I'm such an e-fogey that I remember the days of dial up back before Johnny Law started tearing up the wild west, and it was actually a really great time to be on the internet.

      There wasn't any BS about hate speech this or obscenity that. It was all voluntary association based on hobbies, interests and common values.

      It turned out that the natural formation of communities and organizations without any sort of heavy handed moral policing genuinely led to a better, more stable social structure than trying to get people to always act against their best interests.

      And because the copyright gestapo weren't yet going around threatening to sue the ever loving shit out of everyone, content, information sharing was allowed to freely propogate without any heavy handed authoritarians (with their threats backed implicitlt by the government, mind you) making certain websites disappear.

      The pre-social media interweb was basically a monument to the wrongness of centralized dictatorial authority and anti-speech moral crusades.

      But then everyone got an iPhone and a facebook and everything went to shit as the web shifted from anonymity to sites holding your registration hostage for all your personally identifiable information, all because the huge influx of users was a boon for aspiring analytics and advertising companies.

      You also had lawyers swarming in to abuse the hell out of the DMCA, their hands all greedily wringing, all hoping to extort and destroy everything in their path like a swarm of rabid locusts.

      And on a related note, the DMCA made auditing and patching up security vulnerabilities on your own subject to an incredibly costly fine, which is part of the reason ALL TECHNOLOGY is now more insecure than it otherwise would be if copyright holders and their army of unscrupulous lawyers weren't strangling it for the past two decades.

      BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! As if the federal government intervening wasn't bad enough, the internet's taken far too many SLAPPs to the face over the years, which only contributed to the chilling effect that continues to creep over the net regardless of net neutrality.

      To top it all off, the Patriot, Freedom and Cybersecurity Information Sharing acts have ensured that the government sees and knows all thanks to an omnipresebt surveillance state, adding such an unhealthy dose of justified paranoia to the net that even the tinfoil hatters never imagined they'd do something so repulsive.

      So I guess the overall point is that the repeal net neutrality is a red herring that only sheeple whine about, while the real problems with the modern internet are all caused by exactly the same kind of heavy handed government presence that nobody ever wanted anywhere near the digital frontier.

      Delete
    3. I don't think the above comment is true. Comcast blocked content from a rival, and ISPs were charing Netflix more to assure fast enough streaming speeds when there was congestion. This offended some people.

      Delete
    4. I've had first hand experience of Comcast blocking VoIP on obihai box about 4-5 years ago in TX. Worked great on another internet service provider and for a while on Comcast IF using a VPN but w/o VPN it was chopped up to the point of uselessness. After a while all of a sudden the VPN did not stop them, deep packet sniffing I suppose but I didn't stick around. I think they settled some litigation re this, admitting to nothing of course, I had moved from the area already.

      Delete
  3. We will ALL be paying more after June 11 and will be seeing all manner of corporate lies to justify it. Pai is bought and paid for and will be returning to Verizon or another greedy internet firm as soon as his appointing master is gone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. None of us will pay more after NN goes away. Prices will continue to go down, and new services will be offered.
      Pai can stay until the end of his term, just like the Obama-appointed commissioners could.

      Delete
    2. Why would prices go down? What new services will be offered?

      Delete
  4. What businesses could do when there's no Net Neutrality?

    A wireless company could offer calling services with Google (Youtube, Gmail...) and Facebook (Whatsapp, Instagram...) included for "Free" (sponsored or because of deals between companies until the competition is out of business, and your privacy for sale as always); then if you want more options, like the rest of the Internet, you'd have to pay extra; Internet with video services? extra! with gaming? extra!

    Any other examples?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deals like that were allowed under NN.

      Without NN, Netflix can pay ISPs to assure that they get the minimum speed they need during congested periods and links. No more buffering. Extra money helps pay for network upgrades.
      Without NN, ISPs have to disclose their data practices in detail, and FTC will intervene if they deviate from those practices.
      Without NN, ISPs have lower business risk (arbitrary FCC enforcement actions of vague NN language; 'we'll know it when we see it"). Lower risk allows more investment in rural areas and new services.

      Delete
    2. To anon 617

      If Netflix pays ISPs to not be affected by congestion, what do you think will happen to other websites that don't pay the ISPs? Buffering perhaps?
      If the FTC intervenes if an ISP deviates from those practices... suddenly you believe in government now?
      What investments? Are they going to invest in rural communities for what? To get more money out of the very few of them? Or out of kindness of their hearts? Wouldn't they prefer spending in acquisitions and buying political influence?
      Some of you use the NN-before-and-after argument, well, why ISPs did so little before NN? and why do you think they'll do more now after NN? I know some of you may have bought shares of those companies or you may have also bought some ideologies, but can't you be honest once in a while?

      Delete
    3. 1. "Extra money helps pay for network upgrades." Somebody has to pay. Heavy users should pay their 'fair share' (whatever that means).
      2. FTC is the legally authorized agency to regulate and oversee data comm services. If people don't like it they should get the law changed.
      3. Competition with Verizon, AT&T and the few ISPs in rural areas is a business opportunity; current prices are too high. The other things you mention are not mutually exclusive expenditures ;-)
      4. As stated several times in this post, investment business risk is lower post-NN.

      Obs: So you think the only honest people here are the ones who agree with you? That's very unlikely, IMO.

      Delete
    4. 1. You speak like these companies are short on cash and that all they want is money to upgrade their network. There could be batter ways to limit the abuse by some heavy users without slowing down certain traffic, for example there could be data limits, or different speed tiers. But ISPs don't want to do that because they want to overcharge everyone and then slowdown some content.
      2. Like people have such power. These days big money, lies, style and propaganda buy elections.
      3. Give one example where this would benefit rural areas? What opportunity, what investment? And why ISPs didn't do that before NN? Maybe prices will continue to be high because it's expensive to deliver data to those areas to those few people, and there's little money to be made there.
      4. NN is very simple: don't discriminate content, no risk there. The risks come from special interests that only want their way.

      Delete
  5. FCC just issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that discusses ways to put mostly unused Educational Broadband Service (EBS) 2.5 GHz spectrum to use for things like 5G.
    EBS spectrum has been set aside since 1995 and is unused in about half the US, mostly in rural areas. This is the largest, contiguous band of spectrum available below 3GHz and is ideal for 5G networks. In 2014, some of the major players, including the Wireless Communications Association, the National EBS Association and the Catholic Television Network, got together and submitted a proposal on how to license the spectrum. Sprint supports this effort.
    Wheeler failed to act on this when he was FCC Chairman and preoccupied with NN. It is finally moving forward and will provide new opportunities for EBS-eligible entities, rural Tribal Nations and commercial carriers to obtain unused 2.5 GHz spectrum. EG, if Sprint wins auctions, it can expand its 2.5GHz coverage to more rural areas.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ok, so net neutrality has been around for about 3 years. Could somebody please list the thousands or millions of times that ISPs had blocked or charged extra for something prior to net neutrality. I do remember the years prior to net neutrality, and I have noticed no difference in my personal experience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See above re VoIP blocking. Several cable cos., mainly Comcast had to promise to stop after legal action was initiated. Try were trying to frustrate customers into using their voice services.

      Delete
    2. Comcast was accused of blocking VoIP traffic, but never blocked it. I have had Vonage since 2004 on Comcast and never had a problem, either before or after their network QA agreement with Comcast. If obihai wasn't working it was probably operator error or just a saturated network node. There was nothing that required Comcast to give network priority to VoIP services.
      The Comcast VoIP service was facilities-based and did not conflict with other VoIP services for bandwidth. Comcast resolved the FCC complaint and published a clear network management policy. This issue did not cause NN regulations.

      Delete
    3. False.

      Comcast VoIP interfere was a proven reality. They caved and settled, not admitting anything of course & making lots of false excuses & obfuscating statements when tbey saw what was about to run them over in hearings/proceedings.

      Just because you didn't experience it does not mean it didn't happen and in fact it was only clearly shown in 2 markets. They were basically testing to see what they could get away with and they got called out.

      No one claims that this issue "caused" NN regulations. The issue is an example of non neutral, abusive behavior by an ISP.

      Delete
    4. "The issue is an example of non neutral, abusive behavior by an ISP."
      Pure speculation, not supported by facts. You can easily accuse, anonymously, but you don't have any proof or even facts to support this. Settling a complaint is not admission of guilt; it is a way of avoiding the wasted time and cost of continuing to argue.

      Delete
    5. "Comcast VoIP interfere was a proven reality. They caved and settled, not admitting anything.."
      Your memory is faulty (to be generous). Comcast admitted slowing >>peer-to-peer traffic<< (NOT VoIP) as part of their network management practices; a few people were consuming tremendous bandwidth sharing TV, movies and other video. FCC issued a desist order along with other conditions. Two commissioners stated at the time that the FCC did not actually know what Comcast was doing re peer to peer traffic. Comcast appealed to the Federal Appeals Court in DC and won. The judge overturned the FCC's August 2008 ruling forcing Comcast to abandon its network management efforts aimed at users of the BitTorrent P-to-P (peer-to-peer) service and other applications. The FCC lacked "any statutorily mandated responsibility" to enforce network neutrality rules, wrote Judge David Tatel.

      Delete
    6. You are posting side case snippets to obfuscate the VoIP issue. Nice try, all the references are available to those interested in Comcast blocking VoIP packets. I'll let them look up for themselves so they don't feel they are being spoon fed false news. Maybe you work(ed) for them or something? You sure are pitting in a lot of effort writing long responses full of vaugly related "information" showing nothing.

      Delete
    7. Concash was experimenting with "traffic shaping" & other euphemisms that included SIP (not just Vonage in particular) UDP port blocking intercepting. Heck they even tried blocking certain VPN protocols for a bit in order to try to push home office users to a business/professional tier at x2$/mo. Swift outcry from initial victims canned that move fast and it nearly never got out but for some former managers confirmation on network geek boards.

      In re to Vonage, you have to ask yourself why it was necessary for Vonage to strike a network management agreement with Comcast to guarantee that their services are not degraded or blocked. IF Comcast has been on the record as saying that they do nothing to deter their customers' use of VoIP.

      Delete
    8. "all the references are available to those interested in Comcast blocking VoIP packets."
      If you will not cite any facts or proof to back up your claims, it looks like you are conceding that there isn't anything worth mentioning. I.E., a few geeks playing amateur packet detective and posting accusations on the Vonage blog 12 years ago did not prove anything.

      Delete
    9. AT&T was blocking FaceTime on cellular between 2012-13.

      Delete
  7. "why it was necessary for Vonage to strike a network management agreement with Comcast to guarantee that their services are not degraded or blocked."
    This was not a paid fast lane based on what I read. Comcast offered to set up a direct comm/hot line with Vonage to help assure that network congestion and management did not prevent Vonage service from degrading below what was needed. Vonage techs could directly call the techs at Comcast to troubleshoot and resolve network issues.
    Comcast did not block VoIP so they never admitted to that. They never 'caved' or 'settled.' They were concerned about rebuilding their damaged reputation following the FCC order related to peer to peer throttling (the FCC order that was later thrown out by the Federal Appeals Ct).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Statements of a corp caught & doing damage control so that they hoped to head off having to admit to what they were actually doing. It worked, so you can go around claiming they "did not block VoIP" when they did, they just never had to admit to it in proceedings.

      Delete
    2. Am I the only one that has noticed that the problems being discussed were resolved before Net Neutrality. They were resolved without Net Neutrality. What would NN have done? Double resolve it?

      Delete
    3. "doing damage control so that they hoped to head off having to admit to what they were actually doing."
      No, your hunch is wrong. That is not what actually happened. In fact, when the FCC sent a letter of inquiry in Jan 2009 about how Comcast handled VoIP OTT vs its own facilities-based voice service, Comcast very professionally blasted back with both barrels. After a nice beginning re network management improvements, the fun starts on page 4:
      http://downloads.comcast.net/docs/january-30-2009-comcast-fcc-response.pdf

      Delete
    4. "problems being discussed were resolved before Net Neutrality. They were resolved without Net Neutrality. What would NN have done? Double resolve it?"

      I agree that nobody has explained this. The formal NN regs gave the FCC legal cover to punish and fine carriers when they decided carrier practices 'violated' those ambiguously-worded regs. Nobody knew for sure whether a practice was allowed until after the investment was made, capability fielded and complaints were evaluated by the FCC. So NN stifled some innovation and investment due to the increased business risk.

      It appears that the NN regs were written because the FCC lost at least 4 court cases that challenged their legal authority to regulated data services as "telecommunications service" as defined in the Communications Act of 1934. That law was written to regulate common carrier voice services, public utilities. One of those 4 cases was decided at the Supreme Court, which ruled against FCC.
      FCC changed their rationale for seizing this authority in the current NN regs, and it finally prevailed in the latest court challenge. But your question still remains: If carriers were willing to resolve FCC complaints before the formal NN regulations, why was the threat of punishment and fines really necessary, especially since the increased business risk (due to vague rules) stifled investment and innovation?
      Congress could have clarified all this, and tried several times to pass bills. But politics got in the way each time.
      I still find it hard to understand how data service and networks that are virtually all funded by private investment could be considered a "public utility." The government may have invented the Internet (DARPANET) but they sure didn't pay to build the vast majority of it.

      Delete
    5. No one ever claimed that CONcash was not good at seeing the handwriting on the wall and running for cover. Spinmastery.

      Delete
    6. "Am I the only one that has noticed that the problems....."
      Wrong, one instance of a much larger problem that continues till today is being belabored above here predates NN legislation.

      Delete
    7. While you, anon. May 13, 2018 at 4:32 PM, are posting links to corporate propaganda maybe include the EFF whitepaper that debunks most of that lie for the sham that it is.

      Delete
    8. "propaganda....lies..."
      Name-calling is what some people do when they can't argue their case. It looks like you don't understand the Comcast reply to FCC at all, since you can't specify one thing that is a lie. This explanation for the masses will help translate the letter for you:
      https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/02/comcast-strikes-back-on-fcc-voip-probe/

      Delete
    9. "...predates NN legislation."
      What NN legislation? I never heard of any that passed.
      Don't you know the difference between legislation and regulations?

      And BTW, the FCC had published earlier NN regulations that were in effect at the time of the Comcast proceeding and inquiry. They were not legally valid, as ruled in at least 4 court decisions.

      Delete
  8. Corporate maleficence a daily occurance.

    Corporate admission to the maleficence they committed a very rare occurrence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Corporate malfeasance is actually extremely rare.

      Delete
    2. ......in your alternate universe. They serve themselves at the cost of any individual not directly profiting.

      Delete
    3. You mean a corp being nailed for an instance of the near daily malfeasance is extremely rare.
      Any good done is almost purely a side effect of serving the owner & somtimes the shareholder interest.

      Delete
Comment Page :


Comments must be approved before they will appear.