[Hank]

FCCs , ehm, official marketing manifesto (Fact Sheet)
http://transition.fc...OC-347927A1.pdf

Page 150
We find the no-blocking and no-throttling rules are unnecessary to prevent the harms that they were intended to thwart.
We find that the transparency rule we adopt today—coupled with our enforcement authority and with FTC enforcement of ISP commitments, antitrust law, consumer expectations, and ISP incentives—will be sufficient to prevent these harms, particularly given the consensus against blocking practices, as reflected in the scarcity of actual cases of such blocking.

Just throwing it in, to support my previous post.

Page 175
Maintaining Title II Classification of Broadband Internet Access Service. We have found that the Title II Order decreased investment and is likely to continue to decrease investment by ISPs.

Liars
https://www.ibisworl...-providers.html
Over the past several years, the internet has rapidly developed a universal presence, which has significantly benefited the Internet Service Providers industry in the United States.

ISPs grew 5% per year.

Looks like, the fight will start in earnest on Friday, see you FCC fuckers in court.

[Forge]

Hank, on 13 December 2017 - 04:14 PM, said:

We find the no-blocking and no-throttling rules are unnecessary to prevent the harms that they were intended to thwart.
We find that the transparency rule we adopt today—coupled with our enforcement authority and with FTC enforcement of ISP commitments, antitrust law, consumer expectations, and ISP incentives—will be sufficient to prevent these harms, particularly given the consensus against blocking practices, as reflected in the scarcity of actual cases of such blocking.

that's nice. as a side note, there was a court case in california recently that set the precedence that the FTC enforcement of ISP commitments, anti-trust laws, and incentives is non-existant. The FTC has no authority, the ISPs will regulate themselves.

also note that in 2013, prior to the FCC finalizing the privacy rules, AT&T charged customers an extra $29 a month for service unless they chose to opt-in and allow their information to be sold to third parties.


Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Like C-jane said - they are only presenting two options, and they both suck. I'd happier with the way things are, rather than being extorted for privacy and open un-throttled access to the internet outside of an isp provided email server.

[Hank]

Forge, on 13 December 2017 - 05:01 PM, said:

I'd happier with the way things are, rather than being extorted for privacy and open un-throttled access to the internet outside of an isp provided email server.

^ Should win: Quote of the Year award!

[Forge]

can I compete with myself?


I'd be pissed if the phone company was recording and selling my calls, and then they suddenly decided I was no longer allowed to call the next city over.

[Mark]

It took quite a while but I have finally come down off the fence. After listening to a local talk show host talk one last time about NN I am not worried about it's loss. It seems a lot of the cons are "they might", "they could", "its possible" and very little of "I am 100 percent sure X,Y and Z will happen." I believe in slippery slopes for some policies but nothing I heard really alarms me here. Yet. And if the Dems are united for it, I become suspicious.

P.S. Part of my decision was based on hearing that the FTC will still be able to police for abuses. And that big companies that are constantly running ads for fast connect speeds won't drive their customers into the hands of a competitor because of their purposeful slowdowns of content for popular sites and services. Millions of people have a choice now. They won't hesitate much to leave for the competitor. Especially since the competitor will buy out your previous contract in many cases. Nothing is perfect, there will be shenanigans but again, I'm not fretting it.

[Forge]

the FTC has no authority to regulate common carriers. The FCC classified ISPs as common carriers and installed Net Neutrality as the privacy and service regulation.
The FCC is removing net neutrality, but is not re-classifying ISPs.
The FTC will have zero authority.

http://www.insidesou...rcement-vacuum/

ISPs will regulate themselves based on the "honor system".
One less government bureaucracy regulating mah private sector. Monopolies rule.

[Rellik]

This shouldn't be a partisan issue, it's a purely corporate move. A large percentage of congress are being quiet or anti net-nutrality because of the large sums of money they receive from isps and other corporate interests.

[Forge]

Generalization:
It's a partisan issue because back during the obama era when the FCC was formulating the net neutrality regulations - part of the deal to get it passed was to include a package to get wifi coverage spread everywhere - so even the poor folks could get some network access - kinda like still being able to dial 911 emergency services on a phone with no data/credit or minutes left.

The republicans were okay with it at *1.75 billion (?), but the Dems wanted *2.2 billion (?) - that was too much for the Republicans - but the Dems held the majority and won.
Now it's just some petty push-back by Pai and anti-anything obama by the orange idiot.

*i'm not sure the exact numbers

[Fox]

Mark., on 14 December 2017 - 10:12 AM, said:

It seems a lot of the cons are "they might", "they could", "its possible" and very little of "I am 100 percent sure X,Y and Z will happen." I believe in slippery slopes for some policies but nothing I heard really alarms me here. Yet.

Slippery slopes are a funny thing when it comes to technology...

[Forge]

Fox, on 14 December 2017 - 11:40 AM, said:

Slippery slopes are a funny thing when it comes to technology...

Not to mention the, "they already have once before", along with, "they are already doing it right now"

Forge, on 13 December 2017 - 05:01 PM, said:

also note that in 2013, prior to the FCC finalizing the privacy rules, AT&T charged customers an extra $29 a month for service unless they chose to opt-in and allow their information to be sold to third parties.

and

"The Federal Trade Commission lost its case in court this week to fine AT&T for throttling consumers’ data downloads"


But we can trust these companies to be honest and treat their customers fairly, right?

[Mark]

Did the FTC lose strictly because the judge ruled they have no authority like you claim? Or was it some other factors. If throttling has been going on under NN whats different when it's gone?

This is one of the few times where I have to adopt the "we'll just have to wait and see" opinion. Usually things are more black and white.

[MajorTom 2417]

The FCC's website is getting cyber-attacked....hopefully with detailed drawings of dongs and multiple F-bombs.

[Hank]

Mark., on 14 December 2017 - 12:35 PM, said:

Did the FTC lose strictly because the judge ruled they have no authority like you claim? Or was it some other factors. If throttling has been going on under NN whats different when it's gone?

This is one of the few times where I have to adopt the "we'll just have to wait and see" opinion. Usually things are more black and white.

Yes, but too lazy to search for the actual documents, since that case could go to the Supreme Court.
Yes, it is not black and white.

But for tonight, it's time to relax, congratulate Pai on a well executed stunt, and plan to settle this issue once and for all.

p.s.
since you enjoy Talk Radio - food for thought about the history of radio, and what happens if corporation have free roam.
https://daily.jstor....dio-regulation/

[Forge]

Mark., on 14 December 2017 - 12:35 PM, said:

Did the FTC lose strictly because the judge ruled they have no authority like you claim? Or was it some other factors. If throttling has been going on under NN whats different when it's gone?

This is one of the few times where I have to adopt the "we'll just have to wait and see" opinion. Usually things are more black and white.

I gave you a link to an article that generalizes it - and you can look further into the case yourself for the nuances. That way I'm not making any exaggerations or misleading claims.

^As for that case - The wrong agency went after AT&T for the wrong reasons. It's on the FCC to police those companies and uphold the NN regulations. AT&T is still open to a $100 mil fine from the FCC for failing to be transparent about their throttling practices - If they chose to pursue it.

Doesn't matter now anyway. As predicted, Net Neutrality has been removed.

If the FCC removes the common carrier exemption for these broadband companies - then the FTC will have authority to police them.


I have 60 days to see what the fallout will be. I can barely afford the service I have now, and the options in my area are extremely limited.

[Mark]

Hank, I didn't click your link yet but what I have heard and read is the wasteland AM radio became after enacting the Fairness Doctrine which also promoted fairness and equality. BAH!!! it ended up stifling opposition til Rush Limbaugh brought out conservatism out of the wilderness after it was repealed. Now conservative talk radio is booming.

[Hank]

Hey Mark.
It's about when radio started in the 20s and who won, within the time span of the current internet. Bottom line, shall we let history repeat itself? NBC and CBC control rose from 6% to 30% and 70% of air time.

To parrot one of those moronic sales pitches from Pai himself, here is one asinine from Hank.
There are only a few murderers (0.1%) around, in the entire populations. I think the laws against murder should be abolished, since it the majority of people will never be killed, and we all have guns to revenge a victim when a rare murder took place.

This fight against Pai and his corporate masters ain't over, in fact, it has just begun.

[MusicallyInspired]

At least bow everyone will witness what horrors may become from this if indeed any take place. It's better I think than wondering what if taking everyone's word for it. Now we'll find out what the real danger will be.

[Forge]

Depends on where you are.
If there's plenty of competition in your area, you'll get good deals.
If you're stuck in the rural areas with few options - you're screwed. We're likely the one's who are going to make up the $ difference for the city folk who get the good deals.

Or absolutely nothing will happen (at least nothing you will know about, or notice)

[Rellik]

Lawsuits are being filed right now, so I doubt the ISPs will do anything until the coast is clear.

Also, one thing is for sure, it won't be an over night thing either, they will slowly introduce things that sound "pro-consumer" and then start slowly jacking up rates like they always do. You know, frog in a pot and all that.

[Forge]

Lawsuits against the FCC for repealing regulations that they implemented - only 2 years ago?

That's just another level of frivolous and stupid.
The FCC has no legal obligation to maintain bureaucratic control over ISPs.

The government can deregulate what ever it wants. Doesn't mean they should, but they can.

[PokeThePower]

Forge, on 14 December 2017 - 10:25 PM, said:

...regulations that they implemented - only 2 years ago?

That's what's most amazing to me. The attention span has been blunted so severely people forget that none of this existed before 2 years ago. The internet they love was built WITHOUT this... and the full brunt of the consequences of 2015 never had a chance to fully manifest.

The "corporate overlords" are on both sides of the aisle. One side is demanding to NOT have to compete equally on the market for the consequences of their products and their policies... the other side is "evil" because it will make it more viable for competitors to come in and offer alternative packages if they go too far. The censorship and flagrant abuse of the network accelerated like crazy over the last 2 years *because* these organizations were expecting to be able to hide behind a veil pretending they were for one thing, when in practice they were clearly for another long term goal.

Look at the companies that are for it (heavy censors, heavy sellers of your data, heavy narrative controllers). The hollyweird people that are melting down over it. The politicians that are for it. They are lying to you about their goals with it that were not allowed to fully manifest but were showing their true colors, especially the past year. But muh cheap netflix and OMG my LGBTQ website might be blocked by my ISP (not a chance... not unless you sign up for a Christian ISP maybe probably not though cause Churchianity is cucked).

https://www.reddit.c...eakdown_of_the/



Again, both options have issues, but one is *flagrantly* worse, especially over the long term. Yes rural areas will have a harder challenge attracting competition. Just like they do for EVERY OTHER SERVICE/PRODUCT. It's part of being rural, you don't have equal access to theaters, popcorn shops, clothing stores, etc. But you also don't have nearly as high crime rates, have actual plants and animals, can collect your own rainwater without going to jail, and can avoid the zombie army of soy boys more easily.

[Mark]

I wish I could give more than one upvote for the above post.

[Forge]

SeeJaneWun, on 15 December 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

Yes rural areas will have a harder challenge attracting competition. Just like they do for EVERY OTHER SERVICE/PRODUCT. It's part of being rural, you don't have equal access to theaters, popcorn shops, clothing stores, etc.

Walmart delivers.
You want grass and animals? Go to the zoo.

I'm not denying the end-game of the bureaucracy, the paid-off government representatives, or any other "evil" game piece. I agreed with you about this.
My gripe is that the FCC put their dick-beaters on it in the first place, fucked it all up, then walked away, leaving it in a state far worse than before they decided to meddle.
Instead of fixing the situation, they left the wolves in charge of the sheep.

Mah inturnet ran fine before this & for ta majority of its existence.
Yep. But that was during the dial-up era & high-speed infancy. Also before the government fucked everything up, lit it on fire, & ran away. It's not going back to the "before times".



There's the possibility that absolutely nothing will happen (at least on the veneer). There's also the possibility that comcast took down their customer faq page stating that they won't throttle service, block access to web sites, or have paid priorities.

[PokeThePower]

Forge, on 15 December 2017 - 08:39 AM, said:

Walmart delivers.

Sure, but I can buy from Walmart cheaper than you can by going directly into the store. No delivery costs, and even if you decide to drive, I have cheaper fuel costs. And if say... I'm looking for lightbulbs... I have a half a dozen alternative options you don't have just as far away as my local Walmart all with varying specialties that have lightbulbs as one of their main product offerings that Walmart isn't even trying to compete with.

That's the fundamental difference between rural and urban. You get your benefits, I get mine. You can't attract the degree of specialty lightbulb business that a metro area can. I often envy your benefits, but that's cause I haven't been forced to live without mine in a long time, heh.

Forge, on 15 December 2017 - 08:39 AM, said:

You want grass and animals? Go to the zoo.

My parents are moving off of their ranch this weekend. I know the difference between a zoo and a personal connection with the land and everything living on it even those things that don't obey your fences.

Forge, on 15 December 2017 - 08:39 AM, said:

Instead of fixing the situation, they left the wolves in charge of the sheep.

We'll see. There are options on the table again for someone to find a way to be able to make it profitable for them to run pipe out your way... *and* there are options on the table that amusingly... *leftist* leaning folks have proposed without realizing they are embracing the entire point behind jettisoning the previous setup. It's like they suddenly discovered capitalism but can't quite connect the dots yet.

[Hank]

[butting in]
Maybe I'm wrong here, yet, I can't help getting the impression that some people here some are missing the so the called big picture:
Can we trust, AT&T, Verizon etc. and Netflix, Bing etc. to assure the First Amendment, without coherent laws enforcing it?

Before you say Yes, I ask: Unlike fucking News Paper, Radio, TV & Cable, the young Internet is interactive, it's not just a one way media avenue for entertainment, it is a communication tool, first and foremost.
[butting out]

[PokeThePower]

Hank, on 16 December 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

I can't help getting the impression that some people here some are missing the so the called big picture:...

We probably all feel that way.

Hank, on 16 December 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

Can we trust...

NO!

Hank, on 16 December 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

...to assure the First Amendment

You don't have a First Amendment.

You may think I'm just being sarcastic but I'm not. The *product* FAANG offers is heavily influenced by its need to satisfy US customers who do have a First Amendment. This influences the planet even in regions that don't. However, FAANG has recently been able to flaunt this and... again... it has consequences for the planet. If FAANG suddenly had to worry about people paying extra for internet packages that block advertisements, or accepting cheaper packages that didn't offer FAANG... suddenly they have a *real* product quality problem on their hand. The consequences again... ripple out and grant a shadow of First Amendment to the planet.

Hank, on 16 December 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

...without coherent laws enforcing it?

It was during the two years of Net Neutrality being active that massive censorship finally started to take off. And it's not because the tech ability wasn't there prior to 2015. It's because these couple of companies thought they had the market locked down where people weren't having to make meaningful cost/benefit decisions about using their services and products, so they endured far more than they normally would if the use of these high consumption services *also* carried specific personal costs.

Hank, on 16 December 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

...the young Internet is interactive, it's not just a one way media avenue for entertainment, it is a communication tool, first and foremost.

Yes, which is why people should be given the ability to compete against the mega-telecoms again by offering a service that may be higher priced initially, but as word spreads costs can drop while those using the major telecoms can realize they aren't getting what they really want with their investment. However without the ability to enter a high price market to prove the viability, there is ZERO capacity for anyone but the major telecoms to offer services that customers actually want.

What you seem to be missing is AT&T is thinking it can outcompete Comcast in their regions of influence and vice versa. That's why they want this stuff rolled back, because right now it makes zero sense to try. I would also like it to finally be viable for Google to find a way to do their fiber rollout in a profitable way without constantly being blunted by the current market structure.

You want things to be where AT&T or Google can look at a city in the US (or Canada) and go "I think it would be worth investing in lobbying that regional government to allow us to lay some new infrastructure and we'll be able to steal all of Comcast's customers". The threat alone is part of what will help keep prices in check.

[Forge]

SeeJaneWun, on 16 December 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

... *and* there are options on the table that amusingly... *leftist* leaning folks have proposed without realizing they are embracing the entire point behind jettisoning the previous setup. It's like they suddenly discovered capitalism but can't quite connect the dots yet.

a mesh net, or other derivative of it? I already mentioned that socialist idiocy.
- They worry about privacy now? Wait until everyone can access their computer and information.
- It still has to hook into the backbone through an ISP somewhere if it wants to communicate with commercial, government, email, & overseas sites. Otherwise it's just a big chatbox with outdated, archived websites.


Letting the ISPs regulate themselves is like letting the FBI internally review themselves.
Nothing to see here.

[PokeThePower]

Forge, on 16 December 2017 - 04:59 PM, said:

a mesh net, or other derivative of it? I already mentioned that socialist idiocy.

You miss the point, they should be able to choose their mesh and we should encourage them to embrace the idea of product choice.

Forge, on 16 December 2017 - 04:59 PM, said:

Letting the ISPs regulate themselves is like letting the FBI to internally review themselves.

The ISPs aren't regulating themselves. They are under a different set of regulations with different opportunities and consequences. Go back and start over...

Note: I added some extra to the First Amendment comment in my reply to Hank.

[Forge]

SeeJaneWun, on 16 December 2017 - 05:01 PM, said:

The ISPs aren't regulating themselves. They are under a different set of regulations with different opportunities and consequences. Go back and start over...

Posting someone's reddit spooge isn't reality.

The only thing ISPs have to do is disclose what they're doing with your service. Which they can bury 10 feet deep under a log in the middle of the woods, along with your what's in the opt-out private information sold to third parties list.


https://www.ftc.gov/...umer-protection

Nice that they got the FCC out of the internet business, but now the ISPs have unfettered free reign to do as they please - as long as they fine-print it on some obscure document.
That's why I mentioned quite a bit earlier that people better completely read their contracts and privacy statements from now on.

Back to what I said before. If you're in an area with a lot of options, you're going to be fine. If you're rural and under a monopoly, you're screwed, and subject to extortion.

[PokeThePower]

Forge, on 16 December 2017 - 05:18 PM, said:

Posting someone's reddit spooge isn't reality.

It's a handy launching point. I don't expect you to land there.

Forge, on 16 December 2017 - 05:18 PM, said:

The only thing ISPs have to do is disclose what they're doing with your service. Which they can bury 10 feet deep under a log in the middle of the woods, along with your what's in the opt-out private information sold to third parties list.

Like every other business. I mean if we're gonna start getting uppity about this sort of thing, the medical industry is operating on a completely different plane of existence that renders these sort of things motes not even worth notes.

Forge, on 16 December 2017 - 05:18 PM, said:

That's why I mentioned quite a bit earlier that people better completely read their contracts and privacy statements from now on.

Did you read your cell phone contract? What about your credit card contract? How about what a child's Birth Certificate contract actually means?

It's genuinely interesting to me the easily drummed up outrage over this, when there are *far* more flagrant abuses along these lines (medical, debt, legal standing) that don't even register on the radar.

These companies are going to want your money and going to do the same thing that extended warranty on your car you just bought are doing. Yes it's up to you to read what you're getting into. But there is the ability for there to be a market *option* again. Your data is already being sold... your online history is easily gotten by nearly any agency that can get a judge to ask for it, etc.