Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
raymoohawk

net neutrality

Recommended Posts

Yes, it's in danger again, predictably.

Share this post


Link to post
raymoohawk said:

should we be worrying? is it likely to disappear?

I hadn't even thought about it with all the other terrible stuff that's been happening, but yes, I imagine so.

Here's what you have to look forward to.

Share this post


Link to post
Eris Falling said:

Forgive my ignorance, but would this affect everyone or is it just a US thing? Do the rest of us also need to be concerned?

Nah this tends to be ah US thing. The EU protects it, and even with brexit, the uk (with the hardest brexit, which is unlikely) would still plan to import the EUs regulations into its own law system. Hell even with a soft brexit, the uk would have to follow it. So yeah this is mostly a US issue.

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

I hadn't even thought about it with all the other terrible stuff that's been happening, but yes, I imagine so.

Here's what you have to look forward to.

https://i.imgur.com/pguqASB.jpg

What the hell? What is this dystopian future? Partial internet access? Oh man please do not let this become a thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Doomkid said:

What the hell? What is this dystopian future? Partial internet access? Oh man please do not let this become a thing...

Yeah, the image in my previous post is the best illustration I've seen of why net neutrality is so important. ISPs are in a position where they could in theory make money off both consumers and website owners, essentially offering something akin to a protection racket where their customers don't get to access your website unless you pay up. We've always taken the neutrality of the Internet for granted (ie. that anyone can connect to anyone else, anyone can access any site) but there's no technical reason why it's a given. Throw into the mix that most major ISPs in the US (Verizon, Comcast, etc.) are essentially regional monopolies, and there's no competitive pressure to keep them in check.

It'll be a gradual process, probably beginning by messing with access speeds to particular websites unless they pay up (some ISPs are already doing this to Netflix). Expect to see this ramped up to full-on schemes like the one in my screenshot. It'll be sold as a win for the consumer (cheaper Internet!) but the long-term result will be a less free Internet where power becomes centralized in the hands of a set of large companies. Facebook are have already faced criticism for pushing something similar with their "free basics" program in India.

Mauzki said:

Nah this tends to be ah US thing.

Expect "what the US does" to set expectations for the rest of the world. Once there's precedent in a country like the US, it's far easier to lobby for existing regulations to be abolished.

Share this post


Link to post

Ajit Pai, the new head of the FCC, is the one who's doing this. You can read about it here: http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/net-neutrality-fcc-exemption/

Anyways, if the internet gets fucked up like this, and goes through what fraggle pointed out, then I'm gonna be pissed off along with many others.

You guys can also sign this petition if you want, even if it seems pointless to some of you guys:
http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/tell-congress-stand-free-and-open-internet-and-protect-net-neutrality/

Share this post


Link to post

^I read the article and am a little lost. It seems like all that these new provisions would require is that businesses with less than 250,000 employees won't have to provide certain specifications to the consumer. I am not grasping how that translates to having to pay for website packages (as Fraggle explained).

Can someone explain this to me?

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

Expect "what the US does" to set expectations for the rest of the world. Once there's precedent in a country like the US, it's far easier to lobby for existing regulations to be abolished.



Even then, in most other countries competition is working. So if one ISP starts doing this you'll always find another one who sees this as a business opportunity and steps in.

Of course the USA will long have sunk into a dictatorship at that point and will probably be a lost cause nobody uses as a guide how to conduct business anymore

Share this post


Link to post

If only another stable country leads the EU economically. Maybe your country or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Mauzki said:

Nah this tends to be ah US thing. The EU protects it, and even with brexit, the uk (with the hardest brexit, which is unlikely) would still plan to import the EUs regulations into its own law system. Hell even with a soft brexit, the uk would have to follow it. So yeah this is mostly a US issue.

This is not just a US thing. Here in Sweden one of the internet providers are right now fighting a suit from a collection of media companies, trying to force them to regulate the internet from sites they (the media companies) don't deem legal.

If this suit would go in the way of the media companies. That could have dire results for a free internet. Since that would set a precedence. Where internet providers would be forced to regulate the internet based on the whim of special interests.

Share this post


Link to post
TraceOfSpades said:

^I read the article and am a little lost. It seems like all that these new provisions would require is that businesses with less than 250,000 employees won't have to provide certain specifications to the consumer. I am not grasping how that translates to having to pay for website packages (as Fraggle explained).

Can someone explain this to me?

Not employees, subscribers. There's an exemption to the rules so that it's easy to set up new ISPs, since when you're launching a start-up you don't want to be burdened by red tape. Opponents of net neutrality are using it as a beachhead to pick apart the rules by expanding the definition of "small" to include much larger ISPs than before. The eventual goal is to abolish neutrality entirely.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't find the idea of compromised net neutrality as scary anymore as the realisation my browsing habits have gradually changed to the point I'm not sure I'd notice much of a difference.

It's easy to rebel against a law, harder to fight against corporations insidiously making you change, one step at a time. Google, Amazon and Facebook all have more revenue than most countries, are accountable to nobody, and are not shy about meddling in international affairs. But their real power lies in their ability to control what the world population is exposed to. It's not quite the stereotypical cyberpunk dystopia, but it's not so far from it anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
NiTROACTiVE said:

Ajit Pai, the new head of the FCC, is the one who's doing this. You can read about it here: http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/net-neutrality-fcc-exemption/

Anyways, if the internet gets fucked up like this, and goes through what fraggle pointed out, then I'm gonna be pissed off along with many others.

You guys can also sign this petition if you want, even if it seems pointless to some of you guys:
http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/tell-congress-stand-free-and-open-internet-and-protect-net-neutrality/


Petitions rarely, if ever, work.

Share this post


Link to post

Is it a little much to ask for people to be clear about what is actually happening?

I often find it difficult to find a reputable news source as I often have difficulty distinguishing actual events from speculation and often the news being reported leaves these humongous holes that are open to interpretation. Considering how often ridiculous freak outs that have happened in the past, its important to not waste too much time overreacting to what can happen and rather doing what's necessary to stop what's actually happening.

So far what ive read that has been confirmed is that Ajit Pai has been appointed head of the FCC by Donald Trump, and Ajit Pai has been known to be pretty biased against net neutrality. That's it.

Can we please identify the difference between fact and what is considered to be possibility based purely on these few rather small things we know to be true?

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

I hadn't even thought about it with all the other terrible stuff that's been happening, but yes, I imagine so.

Here's what you have to look forward to.

https://i.imgur.com/pguqASB.jpg

I made a small modification that should rile people up more :)

Share this post


Link to post
Master O said:

Petitions rarely, if ever, work.


actually, when a petition reaches a certain number of signatures, the government is required to consider it

Share this post


Link to post
roadworx said:

actually, when a petition reaches a certain number of signatures, the government is required to consider it


Try telling that to those who signed a petition to have Trump's tax returns released with well over 300,000 signatures over the span of a couple of days, only for that to fall on deaf ears.

In any case, it looks like the official White House petition site looks to be taken down at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

The eventual goal is to abolish neutrality entirely.


Are there any articles that explicitly state this or is that just speculation at this point?

Share this post


Link to post

Of course it's all idle speculation, based on the persons involved.

Man of Doom said:

Try telling that to those who signed a petition to have Trump's tax returns released with well over 300,000 signatures over the span of a couple of days, only for that to fall on deaf ears.



Trump's tax records are not the government's business, so this hardly counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Graf Zahl said:

Of course it's all idle speculation, based on the persons involved.


That's what I figured. Let's just hope that their suspicions don't actually come to be.

Also, as far as the petition comment goes...forcing someone to consider something doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they will do what it says. You can get a million signatures on a petition that says all members of congress must submit to public spankings whenever a Tuesday falls on the 5th of any month...but you can shit in one hand and hope for approval of that petition in the other and tell me which one fills up quicker.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×