The FCC has unveiled its plan to repeal its net neutrality rules
20The FCC is reported to propose allowing internet service providers the opinion of controlling which websites users can access.
Federal regulators unveiled a plan Tuesday that would give Internet providers broad powers to determine what websites and online services their customers can see and use.
The move sets the stage for a crucial vote next month at the Federal Communications Commission that could reshape the entire digital ecosystem. The agency’s Republican chairman, Ajit Pai, has made undoing the government’s net neutrality rules one of his top priorities, and Tuesday’s move hands a win to broadband companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.
Pai is taking aim at regulations that were approved just two years ago under a Democratic presidency and that sought to make sure all Internet content, whether from big or small companies, would be treated equally by Internet providers.
The decision will be put to a vote at the agency’s Dec. 14 meeting in Washington. It is expected to pass, with the GOP controlling three of the commission’s five seats.
In a release, Pai said his proposal would prevent the government from “micromanaging the Internet.” In place of the existing rules, he added, the FCC would “simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices.”
Numerous reports, this one is from WaPo
- 21 comments, 59 replies
- Comment
All the gifs on meh will be deemed a bandwidth hog and it’ll be banned!
/giphy bandwidth hog
@medz
/giphy banned
@medz just add on the giphy pack (9.99/mo) the imgur pack (7.99/mo) and the facebook emdeded add on (facebook tier 19.99/mo + embed fee 9.99/mo). ez pz.
Apart from the other obvious potentially quite manipulative, obnoxious, censoring, and increased information controlling and politization potential:
This provision would seem, to me, to increase ISP liability risk; and encourage migration to and use of the dark web.
@f00l I suspect service providers will begin to charge premiums for access to online streaming services. Netflix, Prime Video, Sling, etc will be blocked unless you pay an additional $X per site, or $XX for unlimited streaming services.
@ruouttaurmind This is their idea to either pushing us back to cable or have either the consumer or the video streaming companies pay for the lost revenue. It’s easier to change regulations than to honestly compete in the market.
I keep asking the same question and never get an answer “Do these people voting on this nonsense even use the internet?”
I understand lobbyists are paying for their mansions and yachts, but don’t their family and friends care? If I knew any one of these assholes personally, I would tear them a new one.
@looseneck They already know the public and every company that’s not a telecom are against this proposal, which is why they’re unveiling during a holiday week when they hope fewer people will notice. Ajit Pai doesn’t work for us.
@walarney
His allegiance might be to the Koch and Mercer families and similar, and to hedge funds, and to other big shareholders of communications companies.
@f00l I figured as much, but those same rules will be applied to him and everyone he knows. Is nobody as addicted to the internet as I am?
/image internet addiction
@looseneck I doubt he personally interfaces with anything on the internet. He’s got people to tell him how much money he has, without having to touch anything mundane.
@walarney no he is very tech savy, he is one of verizons lawyers, erm… was one… it’s so muddy.
@thismyusername I don’t doubt that he’s savvy. I just can’t picture him binge watching a show on Netflix.
@looseneck A friend is a nephew of our long, long, long time senator. He’s not a big fan of uncle senator. Apparently he’s as superficial and insincere at family gatherings as he is in Washington.
@thismyusername “IS” may be more accurate, lawyers are very good at hiding things…
This follows the example set by Public Law 115-22
disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services”.
The law basically repealed 81 Fed. Reg. 87274, an Obama order signed on December 2, 2016. In summary, the order restricted ISP’s from actively collecting your internet usage data, and mandated opt-out options for direct marketing.
The Bill to repeal was introduced by Jeff Flake (R-AZ) on March 7th, and sailed through the law making process, autographed into law by Trump on April 3rd.
@ruouttaurmind to be fair they killed that off before it went into effect.
I do wonder if anyone explained to them that the data in this situation is only beholden to the highest bidder… and all of their information will also be up for sale?
@thismyusername I suspect it was really about the pomp and bragging rights in nullifying even the most useful and sensible things put in play by Obama.
I do not support much of the legacy left behind by the prior administration, but this in particular was such a sensible thing protecting the interests of the average citizen, I cannot possibly understand the motivation behind Flake’s bill. I contacted his office in a press capacity and requested a position paper explaining Flake’s motivation. What I received was a song and dance double talk marketing piece about acting in the interest of his constituency.
@thismyusername Who seems to have all the money?
@cranky1950 anyone who wants to unseat them from their current seats?
This will almost certainly be challenged right away in court. You can’t arbitrarily change regulations that are this comprehensive and complex every new administration. You also cannot just at the last minute insert a clause saying states and municipalities cannot make their own laws without a period of vetting and public comment. This sucks but Pai’s attempt to stop municipal broadband was overturned in court. We have at least a little time to encourage our representatives to deal with this while the courts fight this out.
@Jasonf1984 Except what if it goes up in front of a newly Trump appointed judge?
@Jasonf1984 Hopefully, if the courts don’t step up the states make a stand similar to what happened with the Paris Climate Accords.
It seems to me that it should be common sense to label broadband as common carrier. It is a natural monopoly and it is as essential as electricity, water or phone service. Could you imagine if the phone companies had the power to block calls from competitors or degrade connections to certain businesses that didn’t pay for a business package. In any other case this would be so obviously absurd as to be unimaginable.
@Jasonf1984 Not sure where you live but in my area, I have several internet options to choose from. I can use internet from my local phone company, Cable from my Cable company, Satellite from Hughes, or teather through my cell phone company. That is not a monopoly.
I can also get phone service from my cell phone company, cable company, and local phone company. AT&T is no longer a monopoly. I believe Judge Green broke up that company in 1983.
@cengland0 I have lived in places where there is only one choice because of where in town I lived or because of the town I lived in. I have also lived in towns where there is 1 only satellite choice and only 1 cable choice. Technically a choice unless you live where there isn’t a clear shot of the sky (or in one case unless the landlord would build a 50’ tower to put the dish - many rentals say no dishes or antennas outside). I’d say likely it is still uneven with respect to choices depending on where you live.
@cengland0 I appreciate your perspective but where I live the only choice is Suddenlink. I could get a fixed 4g antenna and rural “broadband” from Verizon and maybe AT&T. The cell service to my home is spotty so I would have to get a fixed antenna set up and even then I doubt it would meet the definition of broadband. I could use satellite but again that barely meets the definition of broadband. I could use a AOL disc. AT&T may not be a national monopoly but it is a regional monopoly in the area it serves fixed wireline service. That is why it is called a natural monopoly and is considered a common carrier. This is like saying the water company is not a national monopoly because I could dig a well or use a rainwater collection system. I could do those things with plenty of investment but even then I probably wouldn’t be able to provide the same quality of safe tap water with fluoride for my children.
@Jasonf1984 Sounds like you do have a choice but you don’t like your choices. That means it’s not a monopoly. Doesn’t your local cable company provide telephone service? That means AT&T is not a telephone monopoly any longer. You also have the ability to use cell phone service and not use a land line.
My water company is clearly a monopoly. In my area, wells are banned for potable water. Can use them for irrigation only. So you must use the local water company and you do not have a choice on which company to use.
Although I agree fluoride is good for dental health, you can get it from other sources other than your local water company. There are people that live on farms far away from any water company and they survive just fine.
@Kidsandliz I don’t consider it a monopoly if your landlord has restrictions that prohibit you from using a competing company. The companies are out there, they are beaming the channels to your location, but it’s the contract between you and your landlord that is preventing you from using that service. That is not the fault of the satellite companies.
So as far as I know, there are at least two satellite companies. Dish and DirecTV. Their geo-stationary satellites are in the same general direction so if you can get one, you can usually get the other too.
The way you’re making it sound would be like me saying that Walmart is a monopoly because my wife wouldn’t let me buy a car so I can drive a couple miles down to Target. Well, that’s not the fault of the company and would be my fault for picking that wife.
@cengland0 I literally only had once choice in a few places I have lived. In some towns only parts of the town had more than one service choice.
@cengland0 I appreciate this being a civil discussion. I like being able to discuss things without it coming down to name calling and other unpleasantness that these things usually turn into. I still disagree just because I have other half assed ways to get things doesn’t mean that I am not in a monopoly that needs to be regulated. I am a libertarian, conservative in most of my opinions but on utilities the free market cannot work without government oversight. I in fact use a cell phone and a voip phone for my home but voip phone service is not adequate to replace a landline for many purposes. 911 does not work as well in voip, there are not equip to service the needs of hearing impaired and do not work with many medical devices that send telemetry over the phone because many of these medical devices require the small amount of power that copper wires deliver that fiber and cell cannot as a few examples. The fcc definition of broadband is 25 down and 4 up. 4g fixed wireless in my area does not reach that definition of broadband, hughs net doesn’t either. Hell, my dsl provider who has a waiting list to even get on doesn’t meet that definition. I have no other choice than Suddenlink to get broadband as defined by the fcc. This makes it a regional monopoly I wish the government would facilitate line sharing like they do for electric companies in Texas then we could have competition instead of monopolies for wireline internet but no Ajit already said that states cannot make laws regarding information services that superseded federal regulations. No one argues that electric companies be allowed to only power partner devices and charge more for other appliances which they could certainly do, or that the post office only deliver amazon products unless Walmart pays a premium connection fee. You could say that well Walmart could just use FedEx but that is beside the point. I could also build a small solar panel system on my land but that doesn’t mean that electricity is no longer a common carrier. Broadband service should be the same unless there is adequate true broadband, by the government definition, options besides the cable company and maybe the phone company.
@Kidsandliz many such cases can be attributed to local government obstruction of free trade. It’s not unheard of for an ISP to provide kickbacks to the town or other such incentives for a town to let them in and/or keep others out. It can take years of negotiation just to get a town to let a service provider bring service into their town. For example for at least 5 years Verizon FiOS service was available in the next town over, right up to the border with my town less than half a mile from my doorstep, but until the proper agreements were made we were stuck with Comcast as our least bad option.
@cengland0 but are they really equal? You can’t watch movies, play games or even keep your computer up to date on satellite. So if I need to do work over the internet do I have a choice? Why are the cable companies not like the phone companies. Remember when we all got choices over long distance providers, each provider wasn’t trenching their own copper to my house, they had to allow other carriers use there lines and equipment.
@jbartus All levels of government obstruction play a part in chrony capitalism unfortunately. The positive thing is that I can go and actually go across the street and talk to my city councilman and vote him out if necessary.
@athena3030 line sharing would solve a lot of the problems I agree.
@Jasonf1984 Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine is that you don’t like VOIP as an option for your phone so you consider the POTS company to be a monopoly. I say it’s not a monopoly because you do have a choice of service providers. You may like one option over another but that doesn’t mean you don’t have a choice.
911 does work okay with reputable VOIP companies. I use VOIP for one of my lines and I have to register my physical address in case I dial 911. If your particular VOIP company doesn’t work with 911 and you think that is a requirement for your needs, then you can use a cell phone company. Those are pretty good at 911 calls and they get a good GPS lock on you even if you have GPS disabled. Mrs. cengland0 disconnected her POTS line about a decade ago and relies solely on cellphone service.
You seem stuck on a definition for broadband. I don’t care what the definition is. As far was I see it, it’s internet. You have many choices for internet but you want fast internet so you selected the company in your area with the fastest speed. Again, that was our choice and you could have used a different company if you could settle for slower speeds. Having a choice does not mean all companies have equal prices and service levels. It means you get to pick between all the options, service levels, and prices and you’re not forced to use any particular company.
You could say using your definition that I don’t have any internet around here because FIOS or any other fiber is not available here. But that’s not how I see it. I have plenty of options. In fact I’m currently on a teaser rate from one company and I plan on canceling after a year and going to another company and keep playing that game to keep the lowest rate possible. Speed is not that important to me as it is for you.
@athena3030 Your choices do not need to be equal to not be a monopoly. Samsung may have the largest screen phone so you could then say that they have a monopoly on their phones but that’s not true because you do have other options with smaller screens and it’s your option to decide if the screen size is that important to you and use that in your decision making on which company to select.
@cengland0 This is not a compelling argument to me- I’m not aware of people who willingly choose satellite or 4g when other options like cable or fiber are available, so while literally it is a “choice”, practically it is not- it’s the option of last resort. Web pages are now designed assuming you have a broadband connection- whenever I slip into a 3g pocket with my phone, I know it because page loads are hugely longer.
@dashcloud Sorry but I still disagree with you. The fact that you have multiple companies providing internet service makes it so your favorite choice is not a monopoly. You may not like the speed of the other choices and that’s fine. Still isn’t a monopoly.
If it takes 10 hours to load a page from one internet company, that makes it so you have an option and therefore not a monopoly – even if you don’t like that it takes that long to load. Nobody has the exclusive right to be the internet service provider and that would be required to be considered a monopoly.
Using your concept, then Tesla is a monopoly because they are the only company that has a production consumer car that can go 0 to 60 in less than 2 seconds. But you know that other people do manufacture cars but they don’t go as fast. Therefore, Tesla is not a monopoly.
@Jasonf1984 But that might possibly interfere with profit margins, so it cannot be allowed.
They don’t care. Sites will go to the highest bidder…“Internet Equality” is what it should be called…Remember it’s a “Consumer Protection”, Not a Regulation as they like to say over and over…
@gfreek um yeah protecting me from being able to access much of the internet perhaps? (yeah I know there is the dark web, but you know what I mean).
If it bothers you, then do something about it. Here’s an easy way to be heard: https://act.eff.org/action/congress-don-t-sell-the-internet-out
@cjester66 Done
@lisaviolet
@cjester66 done
@cjester66 Done. Thanks for saving me the trouble to look up this link!
@simssj Thanks!
I can’t count the number of times people have told me that the reason we face terroristic threats is that “they envy our freedoms”. Freedom to express our ideas and beliefs. Freedom to experience the ideas and beliefs of others. Open and unrestricted intellectual discourse. How ironic that these freedoms are being assailed by our own elected representatives. Whichever side these guys are on, it certainly isn’t ours.
@moondrake
follow the $.
When I was a kid, there was a saying “cheaters never prosper”…damn, those were the good old days.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/361509-ny-ag-probing-massive-scheme-to-influence-fcc-on-net-neutrality-with-fake
I am…https://www.battleforthenet.com/
Please watch this short 30 second commercial before accessing the internet.
@caffeine_dude 30 second LOL - what they have done to youtube interrupting the middle of a section of classical music with ads rather than waiting until the section is over and the next one hasn’t begun yet to spam us with adds in order to try to convince us to pay. Nope.
@Kidsandliz Yeah, I watch tv shows on youtube and it’s clear there’s no iq involved in ad placement. Instead of putting the ads in the spots where the commercial breaks are built into the narrative the ads just break in, often in the middle of a critical dramatic moment. It’s super annoying, especially when there’s a built in ad spot a minute later. Also the ads are double the volume of the material I’m watching, forcing me to stop what I’m doing and hit the “skip ad” button rather than just letting it play through.
Regarding our esteemed (cough!) leaders:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
Upton Sinclair
@blaineg
"On the folly of rewarding for A while hoping for B" Steven Kerr.
Only in this case they need to also redefine B to be in the public interest instead of the current collection of interests those
asshatsesteemed leaders and their best buds.https://www.fcc.gov/general/live
@mflassy Did he just say “druthers”?
@mflassy In recess due to a security concern for now…feed also available on C-Span3.
@therealjrn
Yeah. Starting watching C-Span 3, especially when I realized that it was faster than the link I posted.
Then again, the link I posted had a 2X speed option, so obviously it wasn’t up to speed.
Yay republicans, because private companies always have our best interests at heart.
@Pantheist Corporations are people too!
@therealjrn
Yeah. Some of my best friends …
@therealjrn
My first thought when I heard Scalia died literally was, “Hmm, I wonder which corporations are going to be the pallbearers?”
@mtb002 Yeah, thanks Obama.
Shit.
They did it. They voted for their corporate owners.
@f00l Yup, they shore did. I fall more into the Libertarian camp so I should feel good about this…but when Chairman Pai started spouting off about how there is competition in the broadband marketplace…I had to wonder if he has tried shopping for broadband service lately.
@therealjrn
There exists no effective means for serious consumer choice among providers and their choices on control and throttling.
People can talk theory all they want. We don’t live out here with theory.
And how many large legal agreements can a given individual read and understand and find alternatives to or take arms against (legally, as consumers), when these legal agreements effectively dominate our entire commercial lives and there are few alternatives?
Those who think there is a “choice market” out here should study the history of the robber barons age. And study the history of any location where large a few large corporations completely dominate the econ landscape and courts.
And study what happens in locations where corporations effectively write the laws and where large corporations are the only parties who can effectively afford serious legal representation.
If financial entries get too large, and/or they collude, formally or informally, too much, then an individual has no effective choice.
Ha ha think that ever happened?
Not to mention corporate underpaid or unpaid use and exploitation of every possible public resource along the way.
This is all sounding uncomfortably “An Orison of Sonmi”.
In other news, FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn doesn’t like rocky mountain oysters…shit…well…she is just going to have to regift them, I don’t have time to get her something else.
I wonder who let this piece of news slip by?
Disney to acquire assets of 21st Century Fox in $52.4B megadeal
I know broadcast TV has been in the dumpster for a while now. But I don’t see anything about this deal I like. I do like some of FOX’s programming, while disliking intensely a lot of Disney’s ABC line-up. Things like the incredibly racist “comedies” such as “blackish” and “Fresh Off the Boat” blech.
I wonder how such a big deal got through? I imagine it had to be more than a year in the making, so we can’t put (well some will anyway) all the blame on Mr Trump.
@therealjrn
This has been in the news for quite a while.
There’s just so much other news …
And Disney has the bucks …
@f00l I totally missed it
@therealjrn blame yourself
@ELUNO heh. Indeed
'tis the lot of the GoaT.