Overclock.net banner

[EFF] FCC Announces Plan to Abandon Net Neutrality and ISP Privacy

10K views 163 replies 68 participants last post by  iamjanco 
#1 ·
Quote:
Today, the chairman of the FCC announced his desire to abandon the agency's net neutrality protections - which protect online competition, free speech, and privacy from interference by Internet service providers like Comcast and AT&T - by undermining the legal authority behind those protections.

Rolling back the FCC's Open Internet Order would mean losing the only rules that meaningfully prevent ISPs from taking advantage of their control over your Internet connection to shape your Internet experience and the market for services and devices that rely on that Internet connection. Since most Americans have only one option for broadband service, ISPs would have unchecked power to extract tolls from you and from businesses that wish to reach you. While the big incumbents like Facebook and Netflix might be able to pay those tolls, the next Facebook or Netflix would have a very hard time competing. Investors hesitate to fund startups that can be held for ransom by someone like an ISP. And the situation is even more dire for nonprofits like schools, libraries, educational sites, and political groups.

Chairman Pai suggests these fears are unfounded, but we've seen ISPs use every method at their disposal to favor their own content over competitors, going up to and even over the lines drawn by the previous FCC. This is particularly concerning given that at least one major ISP, Verizon, ran a news service that banned content regarding mass surveillance and net neutrality itself as contrary to the company's interests. In Canada, an ISP blocked access to a site being used by a labor union to organize against it. A decade of misguided FCC policymaking unfortunately helped create the dysfunctional ISP market; the Open Internet Order is our best hope for preventing ISPs from abusing their power to become private gatekeepers on speech.

Today's announcement cleverly pretends that the current "bright-line rules," which clearly prohibit blocking and throttling, might survive. The law says otherwise. If Chairman Pai follows through on his intention to "reclassify" broadband service, it would be legally impossible for the FCC to enforce any such rules. How do we know this? Because the DC Circuit said so.

The same is true for privacy. Pai suggested that the Federal Trade Commission could enforce privacy requirements, but this is an empty promise for two reasons. First, the FTC can only intervene if an ISP breaks a privacy promise, and ISP lawyers are very good at avoiding enforceable promises. Second, a federal appeals court has held that a company can't be the subject of FTC action if any part of its offerings is a "common carrier," like telephone service. So if your ISP also offers telephone service, the FTC can't touch it. That's the law right now on the west coast and it's a regime that telecoms doubtless will continue to promote elsewhere.

In short, Pai's proposal leaves Internet users and small businesses completely at the mercy of ISPs. No one in the government would be able to step in to prevent abusive blocking and throttling of Internet content, pay-to-play fast lanes, or privacy violations by ISPs.

That in turn will be devastating for competition, innovation, and free speech. The harms of ISP discrimination and market failure were well-documented in the months-long rulemaking and millions of comments that urged the FCC to protect net neutrality in 2015. The new FCC seems determined to ignore the evidence and the wishes of the vast majority of the public, in order to advance the desires of some powerful ISPs.

The Internet has won this fight before, and we can win it again. The best way you can help now is to tell Congress to stop the FCC from throwing Internet users and innovators to the wolves. If you have a startup, you can also join a letter from over 800 small businesses from all fifty states in supporting net neutrality.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/fcc-announces-plan-abandon-net-neutrality-and-isp-privacyEFF.org
 
#4 ·
Good riddance. The Net Neutrality regs did nothing for the consumer. Your internet did not become faster, it did not become cheaper, it didn't help build up infrastructure. It was a political hockey puck that did nothing for consumer rights or individual privacy.

Those regs are why your wireless provider can't provide unmetered access to youtube, netflix or what ever other service they would wish to provide to lure in customers. The only winner was megacorporate interests....
Quote:
Rolling back the FCC's Open Internet Order would mean losing the only rules that meaningfully prevent ISPs from taking advantage of their control over your Internet connection to shape your Internet experience and the market for services and devices that rely on that Internet connection.
That's BS. The regs clearly laid out the power for ISPs to control traffic, to decide what traffic is detrimental, harmful or unwanted and allows them to police content as well. Shame on the political hacks trying to shape this to point fingers at people.
 
#5 ·
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but without Net Neutrality does that mean that ISPs can basically turn the internet into something like Cable TV?

As in, you have various packages for various amounts:

OnlyChoice Internet!
Basic - $50/mo: OnlyChoice email, OnlyChoice news, OnlyChoice social media site
Social add on - $40/mo: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
Video Package - $80/mo: Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime
News add on - $90/mo: BBC News, Al Jezera, MSNBC, CNN
Gaming add on - $30/mo: Steam, P2P gaming
Extreme gaming add on - $40/mo: Allows CoD multiplayer!
And so on.

Incidentally, at the same time they can charge those service providers (Facebook / Steam / CNN etc.) to allow you to use their sites.

This sounds like every network executive's wet dream.

Edit: Found the picture that describes what I mean:
abc1f9a3c4219426be358dca4519941c.jpg
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by GingerJohn View Post

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but without Net Neutrality does that mean that ISPs can basically turn the internet into something like Cable TV?

As in, you have various packages for various amounts:

OnlyChoice Internet!
Basic - $50/mo: OnlyChoice email, OnlyChoice news, OnlyChoice social media site
Social add on - $40/mo: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
Video Package - $80/mo: Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime
News add on - $90/mo: BBC News, Al Jezera, MSNBC, CNN
Gaming add on - $30/mo: Steam, P2P gaming
Extreme gaming add on - $40/mo: Allows CoD multiplayer!
And so on.

Incidentally, at the same time they can charge those service providers (Facebook / Steam / CNN etc.) to allow you to use their sites.

This sounds like every network executive's wet dream.
Yes.
 
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by GingerJohn View Post

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but without Net Neutrality does that mean that ISPs can basically turn the internet into something like Cable TV?

As in, you have various packages for various amounts:

OnlyChoice Internet!
Basic - $50/mo: OnlyChoice email, OnlyChoice news, OnlyChoice social media site
Social add on - $40/mo: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
Video Package - $80/mo: Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime
News add on - $90/mo: BBC News, Al Jezera, MSNBC, CNN
Gaming add on - $30/mo: Steam, P2P gaming
Extreme gaming add on - $40/mo: Allows CoD multiplayer!
And so on.

Incidentally, at the same time they can charge those service providers (Facebook / Steam / CNN etc.) to allow you to use their sites.

This sounds like every network executive's wet dream.

Edit: Found the picture that describes what I mean:
abc1f9a3c4219426be358dca4519941c.jpg
This has been in the works for roughly 10 years now
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by PostalTwinkie View Post

Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doritos93 View Post

This has been in the works for roughly 10 years now
Sounds lovely.

Also, without Net Neutrality the ISPs may, should they so wish, block any news articles or sites that are critical of them. Or information about a competitor's service, so you are unaware of any alternative ISPs. Or block access to any service that doesn't pay them their bribe service fee.

Sounds like Net Neutrality is a pretty good thing really.
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenophobe View Post

Good riddance. The Net Neutrality regs did nothing for the consumer. Your internet did not become faster, it did not become cheaper, it didn't help build up infrastructure. It was a political hockey puck that did nothing for consumer rights or individual privacy.

That's BS. The regs clearly laid out the power for ISPs to control traffic, to decide what traffic is detrimental, harmful or unwanted and allows them to police content as well. Shame on the political hacks trying to shape this to point fingers at people.
Its human nature to pin the blame on individuals and get emotional (see previous threads here on Net Neutrality) rather than look at how useless the regulations actually were. Thankfully, its now a dead topic.
 
#10 ·
Fear mongering.

Internet is a utility now. PG&E can't charge you more because you want to run halogen lights instead of LEDs or because you're using a microwave that is more than 1000w or because you want leave your porch light on.

The internet existed for decades without any real change before this corporate war started. Net Neutrality used to be an individual right's movement, not a corporate policy ploy.

If you hadn't noticed, wireless providers are back moving towards the unlimited access thing again.
 
#13 ·
As an end user, what Net Neutrality really meant was that if Verizon wanted to give you 5 gigs of data + unlimited Youtube streaming or AT&T wanted to give you 10 gigs of data and unlimited NetFlix streaming means Verizon could give you 5 gigs of data or AT&T could give you 10 and neither of them could give you a streaming deal.

As an end user, whatever an ISP wanted to charge another mega corporation to give "fast lanes" of access became illegal because Bob's streaming service wouldn't have the same benefit. At least that was part of the argument.

Having done a full line by line Day 0 analysis of the Net regs when they were published, as an end user, basically nothing changed for you. Not for the better or for the worse.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenophobe View Post

As an end user, what Net Neutrality really meant was that if Verizon wanted to give you 5 gigs of data + unlimited Youtube streaming or AT&T wanted to give you 10 gigs of data and unlimited NetFlix streaming means Verizon could give you 5 gigs of data or AT&T could give you 10 and neither of them could give you a streaming deal.

As an end user, whatever an ISP wanted to charge another mega corporation to give "fast lanes" of access became illegal because Bob's streaming service wouldn't have the same benefit. At least that was part of the argument.

Having done a full line by line Day 0 analysis of the Net regs when they were published, as an end user, basically nothing changed for you. Not for the better or for the worse.
It's refreshing to see a counter argument to those that love Net Neutrality. Sometimes, I think the best way to compare the idea is to the cellular providers we have. T-Mobile did the go for unlimited data again after they said Netflix streaming didn't impact data limits, which got everyone else on board. But the harder argument to counter is that not everyone has access to multiple ISPs as choices, like we do when it comes to cellular providers, which is true.

I'm pretty neutral here, just gonna see how it plays out.
 
#16 ·
Well it looks like I2P will be growing rapidly now.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucdan View Post

It's refreshing to see a counter argument to those that love Net Neutrality. Sometimes, I think the best way to compare the idea is to the cellular providers we have. T-Mobile did the go for unlimited data again after they said Netflix streaming didn't impact data limits, which got everyone else on board. But the harder argument to counter is that not everyone has access to multiple ISPs as choices, like we do when it comes to cellular providers, which is true.

I'm pretty neutral here, just gonna see how it plays out.
I'm a skeptic. I also remember the "internet" back in the late 70's getting my first shell account when I was like 11 or 12. A lot has changed, and so did the "Net Neutrality" argument. It was originally a consumer movement aimed for rights for individual users... "every bit is equal'. Corporate interests hijacked this and the end result of what we got was "every bit was sort of equal... except for when the ISP decides that traffic is either unwarranted, harmful or illegal".

The net neutrality regs could have been used to ban torrents and even VPN traffic. It also allowed the ISPs to determine what "harmful or illegal" traffic looked like and gave them the authority to either block or throttle without any recourse except to petition the FCC. So, every bit isn't actually equal.

Of course, my own "fear mongering" after implementation of the regs never happened as far as I know, but the only real loss is individual privacy because ISPs are allowed to determine whatever they consider harmful to their network or illegal without exactly spelling out how they were allowed to do this without monitoring sites you're visiting or specific packet data you're receiving.

Oh, by the way, I wasn't really for or against the regs because net effect to the end user was pretty much nothing except for a further loss of privacy. The winners and losers were megacorps. The ISPs lost almost everything in favor of the content providers, however ISPs did get their network management allowances, so it was basically win-sorta win with the individual end user losing some privacy protection rights.
 
#18 ·
I think a better title for the thread would be: "Fed decides it doesn't want to regulate the internet, plans to return it's freedom. Internet will be like it was in 2015"
But I got that from the unfiltered announcement: https://www.c-span.org/video/?427558-1/fcc-chair-unveils-net-neutrality-rewrite-calls-light-touch-approach which is clearly biased.
Like xenophobe, I didn't see all sorts of horrible things from an omnipotent censuring agency that I expected, but I haven't seen any good come out of this new FCC authority either.

To me net neutrality is just a power grab justified by unsubstantiated fear mongering, and I am delighted that there are gov workers that put people's freedom and prosperity above their own agency's greed for power.

Better to trust those who participated in making the internet what it is than a gov that chronically makes a mess of things.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenophobe View Post

Of course, my own "fear mongering" after implementation of the regs never happened as far as I know, but the only real loss is individual privacy because ISPs are allowed to determine whatever they consider harmful to their network or illegal without exactly spelling out how they were allowed to do this without monitoring sites you're visiting or specific packet data you're receiving.
ISPs have more freedom to do that without these regulations, not less. There's a lot more to this, but it'll have more to do with the post after yours so I'll drop it all down in the quote-replies to that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

I think a better title for the thread would be: "Fed decides it doesn't want to regulate the internet, plans to return it's freedom. Internet will be like it was in 2015"
The "Fed" wasn't regulating the internet. The FCC was trying to regulate providers, like it's supposed to. Government/intelligence/law enforcement agencies pulling content, which is what's actually happening sometimes, also has nothing to do with the FCC, and everything to do with shutting down operations that THEY deem illegal or a national security threat or whatever. What good is a regulatory agency that's doing everything to denounce and crap all over the regulations that it's supposed to implement and enforce? The whole point of these regulations is to stop ISPs from ripping people off and engaging in usage restriction tactics designed SOLELY to pad their bottom lines, though the worst of those tactics were never addressed by the last 2 years of Wheeler's leadership. All of this is going to lead to the state of internet service going back to 2007, not 2015. Remember that? Remember Comcast capping people and not telling anyone what the cap was, then cutting their service off for going over it even once? Remember their Sandvine torrent protocol throttling? Remember phone companies NOT being required to disclose what all of their surcharges and fees actually are? If you want to go back to all that, by all means, keep cheering on Pai. You'll be in the minority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

To me net neutrality is just a power grab justified by unsubstantiated fear mongering,
Funny, stripping these regulations is almost exactly that, a power grab by the ISPs justified by unsubstantiated fearmongering. Net neutrality and Title II did NOTHING to hinder investment and innovation like the ISPs' lobbyists were all crying about in 2015, and that was their only excuse for wanting nothing done. Instead, investment and innovation have since IMPROVED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

and I am delighted that there are gov workers that put people's freedom and prosperity above their own agency's greed for power.
In what way do the regulations that Pai intends to undo limit our freedom and prosperity? I want an answer in the form of legitimate examples, not any ideological nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

Better to trust those who participated in making the internet what it is than a gov that chronically makes a mess of things.
You mean trusting the companies that are buying each other out all the time under the pretense of improving services and prices when buyouts were never a prerequisite to doing that, then not even improving their services beyond what they would have anyway and RAISING prices? The companies that would make FAR better use of the tens of billions' worth of buyout dollars by actually putting it into their services, but instead screw their customers over and act as though that's what's supposed to happen? The companies that voluntarily go out of their way to sell out your browsing habits for profits, AND take handouts (especially the phone companies) from both federal and state governments, then turn around and split that money between shareholders' dividends and lobbying/buying out portions of or even entire legislatures, instead of using that money to improve their networks? Companies like AT&T and Verizon that have gone out of their way to break promises and pretend they never promised anything, and that their half-assed commitments to their products justify their behavior?

Hell no. FCC oversight, net neutrality, and Title II re-classification wouldn't have been necessary if these companies had demonstrated trustworthy and non-mono/duopolistic behavior in the first place. I'm all for the free market, but broadband internet is becoming a necessity in this world, and I will never tolerate the ongoing rampant and blatant abuse of the public's trust that the ISPs want us to believe is in our best interest. Free market principles should never apply to what are nearly unanimously agreed to be essential services in the first place. By the same token, municipalities building out their own fiber rings/cable networks wouldn't need to happen if the people living in those areas were already satisfied with their cable/DSL services, and if the providers actually fixed their mediocre networks. But of course, because for SOME reason people wanting government out of their business means ALL legislators at ALL levels of government should sit around and do nothing about these problems, they continuously elect scumbags that are paid off by ISPs to tell constituents that bills restricting/prohibiting municipal network development is in their best interest because it's somehow government messing with their lives and the free market, when in reality it's the local government that wants to compete/partner with the private sector rather than push it out completely.

Does this all make better sense now?
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

I think a better title for the thread would be: "Fed decides it doesn't want to regulate the internet, plans to return it's freedom. Internet will be like it was in 2015"
Lack of Net Neutrality regulations doesn't remotely imply freedom.

US telecoms are a collection of highly anti-competitive subsidies kept this way by federal laws that have been in force long before 2015 and the current FCC leadership's idea of "free-market" is the "freedom" of ISPs to abuse monopoly facilities they likely wouldn't even have if it were not for regulation that favored them.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

I think a better title for the thread would be: "Fed decides it doesn't want to regulate the internet, plans to return it's freedom. Internet will be like it was in 2015"
But I got that from the unfiltered announcement: https://www.c-span.org/video/?427558-1/fcc-chair-unveils-net-neutrality-rewrite-calls-light-touch-approach which is clearly biased.
Like xenophobe, I didn't see all sorts of horrible things from an omnipotent censuring agency that I expected, but I haven't seen any good come out of this new FCC authority either.

To me net neutrality is just a power grab justified by unsubstantiated fear mongering, and I am delighted that there are gov workers that put people's freedom and prosperity above their own agency's greed for power.

Better to trust those who participated in making the internet what it is than a gov that chronically makes a mess of things.
We've had, what, two years of those kinds of fear mongering threads? It was fun the first time, but the rhetoric hasn't changed. At all.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top