Net Neutrality Is Being Stolen From Us In A Fucked Up, Undemocratic Heist By Monopolists

54 views
Skip to first unread message

Lobo

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 10:49:44 PM12/14/17
to Political Euwetopia
In essence, "Net Neutrality" is a kind of antitrust law, and huge telecom corporations don't like antitrust laws.

We're repealing the rest of the 20th century, from the New Deal and a strong middle class onward, in our restoration of the Gilded Robber Baron Age. I guess it's no surprise that Republicans want to bring back trusts and monopolies on a large scale too.


Yes, Net Neutrality Is Being Stolen From Us in a Fucked Up, Undemocratic Heist

This is a looting by telecom monopolists and an FCC commissioner who has shown no interest in engaging with the American people.

Jason Koebler

Jason Koebler

Dec 13 2017, 2:28pm

Image: Michael Reynolds

These are the facts: Millions of Americans have asked the Federal Communications Commission to keep its current net neutrality regulations, which protect the free and open internet. These regulations were enacted as a result of decades of hearings, meetings, and legal battles. They have broad bipartisan public support. The current regulations have been upheld in court. They have not decreased investment in broadband, according to broadband companies themselves. And they are about to be dismantled.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has called those fighting to protect the open internet “hyperbolic” and “desperate.” He reads “mean tweets” to create viral hate clicksfor conservative publications, jokes about being an industry shill at the “Telecom Prom,” and says Hollywood celebrities are the reason everyone is so riled up. His public pitch for repealing the regulations—to the extent that there is one at all—often boils down to suggesting that people who want the regulations to remain in place are hysterical or are overblowing the situation.

But you’re not hysterical: This is an undemocratic looting by telecom monopolists and an FCC commissioner who has shown no interest in engaging with the people of this country, let alone serving their best interests.

A poll released this week by the Program for Public Consultation and Voice of the People at the University of Maryland found that 83 percent of Americans—and 75 percent of Republicans—favor the current system (the group that conducted the poll clearly explained the current regulations as well as the proposed ones). Pai, meanwhile, has said that “volume and vitriol are not substitutes for actual arguments” and has stated that “desperate” people are raising “hyperbolic fears” about net neutrality violations that “never materialized before 2015.”

The “actual argument” for net neutrality that has been made, time and time again, is that without regulations that require ISPs to treat internet infrastructure as a data- and content-neutral pipe, they will be empowered to pick which types of websites and web services get preferential treatments on their networks. There are many examples of this already happening: AT&T blocking FaceTime and Comcast blocking BitTorrent are among the most famous.

But one need not understand net neutrality or telecom policy in order to realize that what the FCC is doing is both highly unusual and extremely fucked up:

  • The FCC has declined to participate in a New York State attorney general probe into irregularities in the agency’s commenting process. There is public evidence that shows approximately a million stolen identities—including those of dead people—were used to support the FCC’s proposed net neutrality rollback.
  • The FCC is being sued for not responding to Freedom of Information Act requests about net neutrality.
  • Pai has said that there is no evidence that telecom companies violated net neutrality prior to the 2015 regulations. In addition to the Comcast and AT&T examples I listed above, here is a long list of telecom companies violating net neutrality prior to 2015. Comcast, meanwhile, has quietly removed a promise to honor net neutrality principles on its website.
  • Pai’s FCC has also failed to enforce the current regulations as telecom companies use zero rating to favor video and music streaming services that they own or partner with. More than 50,000 consumer reports of net neutrality violations since 2015 have been ignored in the public comment process.
  • Pai, the FCC, and telecom companies have falsely stated that net neutrality protections prevent telecom companies from using dedicated bandwidth for telemedicine that could help people who are sick and disabled. There is, in fact, a massive carveout in the current regulations that exempt companies from the rules for telemedicine services.
  • Pai, the FCC, and think tanks funded by telecom companies have stated that net neutrality regulations have hurt broadband investment; telecom companies have told their investors that investment is increasing.
  • Pai and the FCC have claimed that net neutrality regulations have hurt small ISPs, but have presented no data to back up this claim, and data that is availablesuggests the opposite is true.
  • Technologists involved in the creation of the internet and its protocols said that Pai’s net neutrality repeal is “based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of internet technology.”

“Procedural irregularity is really easy to spot,” Cory Doctorow, co-founder of BoingBoing and an activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation who has been involved in the net neutrality fight for years told me. “When people act in ways that discredit the democratic process—when they throw away millions of comments—one after another after another of garbage people tactics—it’s easy for people to take the rule of thumb that shenanigans are usually there to mess me over, and say, ‘OK, this is definitely something that’s messing me over.’”

So no, you’re not wrong: This is a heist that is in line with a party and administration that has found itself in the temporary and tenuous position of being able to gift wrap tremendously unpopular legislation and regulatory rollbacks to corporate donors before a wave of progressive backlash gains the electoral clout necessary to turn off the faucet.

It is governance that rewards an industry that has spent a decade setting up an apparatus propped up by astroturf advocacy groups, think tanks they have funded, politicians they have bought, and a persistence that is only possible with an army of lawyers and unfathomably deep pockets.

There is little time to stop Thursday’s vote, but the millions of people who have fought to protect net neutrality should know that they were not wrong to speak up. They should remember the style of governance that allowed this to happen and vow to remove it from power as soon as possible.

Mighty Mark

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 10:52:48 PM12/14/17
to Political Euwetopia
The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

Lobo

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 11:28:22 PM12/14/17
to Political Euwetopia
<<The sky is falling. The sky is falling.>>

Not the sky. Just the internet as we've always known it, along with innovation and free, swift access for consumers, small businesses, and non-"establishment" politics.

What do you think net neutrality is, and why do you oppose it?

mitchscove

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 9:25:58 AM12/15/17
to Political Euwetopia
Correction:  The hamstrung internet we've known for 2 years 9.5 months.

Irie

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 9:32:23 AM12/15/17
to Political Euwetopia
No shit, NN wasn't even introduced until what, 2015.....amazing how it worked from inception without the heavy hand of the federal govt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mighty Mark

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 9:32:40 AM12/15/17
to Political Euwetopia
Loco loco loco. We don't need the government involved in the internet. Period. It worked just fine for 15 yrs before the half black dictator tried his power grab.

Pittalum

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 9:45:18 AM12/15/17
to Political Euwetopia
I sure would like to know what good you cons think is going to come from removing the restrictions on the ability to control internet traffic...

Mighty Mark

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 10:23:53 AM12/15/17
to Political Euwetopia
And once again let me point out the obvious for you brain dead alt lefties. The internet worked just fine for 15 years before yobama decided it needed his heavy hand. 15 years. That's 15 years with no problems. 15 years.

KCM7Alpha

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 10:25:49 AM12/15/17
to Political Euwetopia
Define "just fine."

Mighty Mark

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 10:27:49 AM12/15/17
to Political Euwetopia
15 yrs.

KCM7Alpha

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 10:31:40 AM12/15/17
to Political Euwetopia
LOL!  Not much of a "definition."

mitchscove

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 11:28:45 AM12/15/17
to Political Euwetopia
Now, I have 2 choices, bad and worse.  Many people have no choices.  I cut my cable, installed a digital antenna, subscribed to KlowdTV, my partner subscribed to Netflix and we are happy.  I have bad internet service through AT&T, but I could get worse service through Spectrum should I choose to change.  I'm probably not different from most ,,, anything will be an improvement over where we are today.

I don't remember being this disgusted with my ISP before Net Neutrality came to my rescue. In fact, I had cable TV, Internet and VOIP and was happy with the service.

Pittalum

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 12:24:57 PM12/15/17
to Political Euwetopia
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say with that little tap dance, but I think it might be...

There's going to be an increase my choices for ISP provider - that is, and increase in the competition for my ISP business?

KCM7Alpha

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 12:40:18 PM12/15/17
to Political Euwetopia

saint.bezark

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 1:35:29 PM12/15/17
to Political Euwetopia
So many big-shot (or big-shot posing) conservatives have that self-satisfied smirk.

mitchscove

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 1:45:33 PM12/15/17
to Political Euwetopia
Try this --- not the same issue, but tell us why we shouldn't be allowed to save money because competition at its core is not fair according to the formerly fascist FCC and their Net Neutrality rules:

FCC slams AT&T and Verizon over zero-rating offers

Officials say AT&T's DirecTV Now, which lets you stream video without it counting as data, violates net neutrality. They're eyeing a Verizon offer too.

    by Marguerite Reardon
he Federal Communications Commission is not cool with AT&T's offer that lets customers stream the carrier's DirecTV service without it counting against their data plans. The commission has also launched an investigation into a similar offer from Verizon.

In a letter sent to AT&T on Thursday, the agency said it's reached a preliminary conclusion that the carrier is violating net neutrality rules, which prohibit internet service providers from favoring their own content over a competitor's service.


Since September, AT&T has let its wireless customers stream its DirecTV video service over the AT&T wireless network without counting that data against their monthly data caps. This week AT&T made the $35 a month streaming service available to all wireless customers. The FCC also sent a letter to Verizon asking it questions about a similar offer where Verizon lets customers stream its Go90 video service and doesn't charge for data usage.


Both AT&T and Verizon say their programs, which charge video providers instead of customers the cost of streaming the data, are open to any video company willing to pay the cost of customer data. But the FCC says it's concerned AT&T and Verizon still have a cost advantage over rivals, since they provide the streaming service and own the networks.


In its letter to AT&T, the FCC said its preliminary conclusion is that the carrier's practices "inhibit competition, harm consumers, and interfere with the 'virtuous cycle' needed to assure the continuing benefits of the Open Internet."


It asked AT&T to provide additional information prior to December 15 before it makes a final determination. The agency is still gathering information about Verizon's service.

AT&T reiterated that the service is a benefit to consumers.


"These are incredibly popular free services available to millions of customers," the company said in a statement. "Once again, we will provide the FCC with additional information on why the government should not take away a service that saves consumers money."


https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-att-verizon-zero-rating-directv-now-go90-net-neutrality/

ImStillMags Mags

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 1:47:24 PM12/15/17
to Political Euwetopia

I would pay good money to see all those people complaining about Obama’s FCC chairman voting to repeal #NetNeutalityactually explain it in detail. I’d also bet most hadn’t heard of it before this week. #outrage

In addition to misspelling neutrality, Trump Jr. was mistaken in referring to Chairman Ajit Pai as "Obama's FCC chairman." Although Pai was appointed to the commission by former president Barack Obama, it was President Trump who made him chairman during his first days in the White House. 

Trump Jr. was referring to the protests by net neutrality proponents who were outraged by the repeal of a two-year-old set of rules passed during the Obama administration to protect consumers against bad behavior from their Internet service providers. The issue has been a topic of debate for years — to the point where in 2015 when the new rules were approved, more than 4 million people filed public comments with the FCC on the issue. 

More: Net neutrality rules are dead. Will my Internet bills go up?

Related: Net neutrality: The FCC voted to end it. What that means for you

Those who noticed the errors responded on Twitter with the kind of graciousness and magnanimity people have come to expect from the social media platform. 

I would pay good money to see all those people complaining about Obama’s FCC chairman voting to repeal #NetNeutalityactually explain it in detail. I’d also bet most hadn’t heard of it before this week. #outrage

Your dad tipped the balance on the FCC commission when he nominated Carr and made Pai the chair. Obama only nominated Pai because 2/5 seats must be given to the minority party (which is why your dad nominated Rosenworcel). You should be embarrassed that you don't know this.

I would pay good money to see all those people complaining about Obama’s FCC chairman voting to repeal #NetNeutalityactually explain it in detail. I’d also bet most hadn’t heard of it before this week. #outrage

And you even spelled it wrong. You really are the gift that keeps on giving.

I would pay good money to see all those people complaining about Obama’s FCC chairman voting to repeal #NetNeutalityactually explain it in detail. I’d also bet most hadn’t heard of it before this week. #outrage

He's your dad's FCC chair, not Obama's. I seriously wonder how you manage to dress and feed yourself every day.

I would pay good money to see all those people complaining about Obama’s FCC chairman voting to repeal #NetNeutalityactually explain it in detail. I’d also bet most hadn’t heard of it before this week. #outrage

I see the problem. You don’t think people understand net neutality. I thought at first you meant net neutrality.

I would pay good money to see all those people complaining about Obama’s FCC chairman voting to repeal #NetNeutalityactually explain it in detail. I’d also bet most hadn’t heard of it before this week. #outrage

.@DonaldJTrumpJr Your Dad appointed the FCC chairman, son. Perhaps you should read the paper

I would pay good money to see all those people complaining about Obama’s FCC chairman voting to repeal #NetNeutalityactually explain it in detail. I’d also bet most hadn’t heard of it before this week. #outrage

First of all it’s neutrality. Clearly spelling isn’t your strong suit. Considering your FATHER appointed Ajit Pai and not Obama, I guess intelligence isn’t your strong suit either. #dotard

I would pay good money to see all those people complaining about Obama’s FCC chairman voting to repeal #NetNeutalityactually explain it in detail. I’d also bet most hadn’t heard of it before this week. #outrage

First, You misspelled #NetNeutrality, you genetically altered butternut squash. Second, you don't know the value of a dollar, you silver-spoon snickerdoodle. Third, sunshine, Reaganomics is like DeLorean. It was sexy in the 80s, but I didn't work then and much less now.

I would pay good money to see all those people complaining about Obama’s FCC chairman voting to repeal #NetNeutalityactually explain it in detail. I’d also bet most hadn’t heard of it before this week. #outrage

Prior to the proliferation of high speed Internet there wasn't much need to enforce neutrality, and once it became prevalent in the early '00s the FCC assumed ISPs would largely avoid discriminating among traffic. Well, that wasn't the case but the methods of doing so were

I would pay good money to see all those people complaining about Obama’s FCC chairman voting to repeal #NetNeutalityactually explain it in detail. I’d also bet most hadn’t heard of it before this week. #outrage

You’d be wrong, Jun. And why are you referring to Pai as “Obama’s” when it was your Daddy who elevated him to his current role? Also, you must be limiting yourself to very selective information if you’re unaware that WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR MONTHS. #ShutYourPAIHole

I would pay good money to see all those people complaining about Obama’s FCC chairman voting to repeal #NetNeutalityactually explain it in detail. I’d also bet most hadn’t heard of it before this week. #outrage

So, um, yeah, while Google is free you should use it to see who appointed him.

A look at Donald Trump Jr.
Trump Jr. discusses the expansion of Trump hotels on
Trump Jr. discusses the expansion of Trump hotels on June 5, 2017, in New York. Kathy Willens, AP

mitchscove

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 1:51:01 PM12/15/17
to Political Euwetopia
Ya know, Amazon has a cost advantage as well.  Should they be forced to charge more because it's unfair that they have a cost advantage?

I would only agree that, if Amazon was dumping ,,, losing money with the intent of putting the competition out of business so they could raise prices, I would have a problem.  But if they simply have a better business model that earns them money, I would say keep it coming?


On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 12:24:57 PM UTC-5, Pittalum wrote:

Lobo

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 6:36:10 PM12/15/17
to political...@googlegroups.com
<<No shit, NN wasn't even introduced until what, 2015.....amazing how it worked from inception without the heavy hand of the federal govt.>>

Just because it wasn't codified before then doesn't mean that we didn't have open access to sites on the internet -- "net neutrality" -- before then. What changed was the big ISPs deciding that they could make more money by restricting the "information superhighway" for big players with a lot of money, and slowing it down for small businesses, non-wealthy website owners, even disfavored political sites.

The best analogy, in fact, is to an expressway. Under NN you could get off at any exit to drive to any store you liked. Without it, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Kroger and a few other very big corporations can change the exits so that they go straight to their parking lots. If you want to go anywhere else, you have to get off onto a one-lane, pothole-filled dirt road that has stop signs and very traffic lights every 10 yards or so.

This explains it better than I can:

Net Neutrality: What You Need to Know Now

When you go online you have certain expectations. You expect to be connected to whatever website you want. You expect that your cable or phone company isn’t messing with the data and is connecting you to all websites, applications and content you choose. You expect to be in control of your internet experience.

When you use the internet you expect Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is the basic principle that prohibits internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from speeding up, slowing down or blocking any content, applications or websites you want to use. Net Neutrality is the way that the internet has always worked.

In 2015, millions of activists pressured the Federal Communications Commission to adopt historic Net Neutrality rules that keep the internet free and open — allowing people to share and access information of their choosing without interference.

But right now the internet is in peril. On Dec. 14, 2017, the FCC’s Republican majority approved Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to gut the Net Neutrality protections.

A former Verizon lawyer and a Trump appointee, Pai ignored the widespread outcry against his plan from millions of people, lawmakers, companies andco public-interest groups.

We can’t let Pai have the last word on this — which is why we’re calling on Congress to use a “resolution of disapproval” to overturn the FCC’s vote to dismantle the Net Neutrality rules.

Urge lawmakers to reverse the FCC vote today.

What is Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality is the internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online. Net Neutrality means an internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that ISPs should provide us with open networks — and shouldn’t block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn’t decide who you call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn’t interfere with the content you view or post online.

The internet without Net Neutrality isn’t really the internet.

What will happen to the internet now?

Without the Net Neutrality rules, companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon will be able to call all the shots and decide which websites, content and applications succeed.

These companies can now slow down their competitors’ content or block political opinions they disagree with. They can charge extra fees to the few content companies that can afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service.

The consequences will be particularly devastating for marginalized communities media outlets have misrepresented or failed to serve. People of color, the LGBTQ community, indigenous peoples and religious minorities in the United States rely on the open internet to organize, access economic and educational opportunities, and fight back against systemic discrimination.

Without Net Neutrality, how will activists be able to fight oppression? What will happen to social movements like the Movement for Black Lives? How will the next disruptive technology, business or company emerge if internet service providers let only incumbents succeed?

Tell me about the Title II rules we just lost. Why is Title II so important?

After a decade-long battle over the future of the internet, in 2015 the FCC adopted strong Net Neutrality rules based on Title II of the Communications Act, giving internet users the strongest protections possible.

Courts rejected two earlier FCC attempts to craft Net Neutrality rules and told the agency that if it wanted to adopt such protections it needed to use the proper legal foundation: Title II. In February 2015, the FCC did just that when it reclassified broadband providers as common carriers under Title II.

Title II gave the FCC the authority it needed to ensure that companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon can’t block, throttle or otherwise interfere with web traffic. Title II preserved the internet’s level playing field, allowing people to share and access information of their choosing. These rules ushered in a historic era of online innovation and investment.

The Title II rules also withstood two challenges from industry. Free Press helped argue the case defending the FCC — and on June 14, 2016, a federal appeals court upheld the open-internet protections in all respects.

We’re now preparing to sue the FCC to restore the Title II rules.


Ragnar

unread,
Dec 16, 2017, 1:37:08 AM12/16/17
to Political Euwetopia
The FCC skank snotty patootie is number one on the smirk list ....likely banging steve munchkin's wife Cruella 

Ragnar

unread,
Dec 16, 2017, 1:39:55 AM12/16/17
to Political Euwetopia
Leave it to rump diarrhea brain not able to spell.............putin and others toy with this vermin like the twit he is. 

mitchscove

unread,
Dec 16, 2017, 7:11:24 AM12/16/17
to Political Euwetopia
So after how many attempts across how many Congresses from 2005 to 2012 did Net Neutrality fail to gain traction with the peoples' representatives?

How did Net Neutrality come about when the FCC was not for it and the courts rejected it?

If you were to tell the truth that one fascist dictator told the FCC to classify the Internet as something it isn't so they could regulate ISPs as thought they were 'common carriers' in the 1934 sense of the term, you would conclude that the free market was stolen from us by a fascist almost 3 years ago.

Net Neutrality couldn't be stolen from you because you don't own a unilateral mandate. It could be stolen only if the peoples' representatives voted for it and the President signed it into law. That's not what happened.

Anyway, should I choose to take my wireless business to AT&T, why would you be opposed to them giving me unlimited data on my Internet service? Is zero rating UNFAIR? How about Amazon? Is their lack of brick & mortar UNFAIR to local retailers? Should they be stopped?

Mighty Mark

unread,
Dec 16, 2017, 9:21:39 AM12/16/17
to Political Euwetopia
So after 15 yrs of working just fine, the half black dictator decided the internet just couldn't function without his expert advice. So glad we have people putting sanity back into the government.

Lobo

unread,
Dec 16, 2017, 3:02:48 PM12/16/17
to Political Euwetopia
<<How did Net Neutrality come about when the FCC was not for it and the courts rejected it?>>

Between July 15 and September 15, 2014, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) received 3.7 million comments to change the Internet to a telecommunications service, which would allow the FCC to uphold net neutrality.[91] On 26 February 2015, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission(FCC) ruled in favor of net neutrality by reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service and thus applying Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 as well as section 706 of the Telecommunications act of 1996[92] to Internet service providers.[93][94][95][96][97][98] On 12 March 2015, the FCC released the specific details of its new net neutrality rule.[99][100][101] And on 13 April 2015, the FCC published the final rule on its new regulations.[102][103] The rule took effect on June 12, 2015.[104]


In 2015, the United States Telecom Association (a trade association representing large telecom companies) filed a lawsuit against the FCC challenging the net neutrality rule.[105] The Association argued that "the FCC reclassifying broadband carriers as 'common carriers' is an overreach on the part of the FCC".[106] The challenge sparked "a huge legal battle as cable, telecom and wireless Internet providers sued to overturn regulations that they said went far beyond the FCC's authority and would hurt their businesses".[107] In June 2016, in an 184-page ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld, by a 2–1 vote, the FCC's net neutrality rules and the FCC's determination that broadband access is a public utility, rather than a luxury.


I think you and Mark don't understand what "net neutrality" is. It's not some devious Obama government plot to restrict what you can access. It's the exact opposite: an antitrust-type rule to make sure that you, I, small businesses, differing political viewpoints, and everyone else in the US can have such access, unrestricted by a handful of monopolistic ISPs. It simply codifies the way the internet has operated from its beginning -- a codification made necessary to stop AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from radically changing the system, because they decided they could make bigger profits restricting access to some websites and services while speeding up others. And now longtime Verizon-lobbyist-cum-FCC Chairman has made that radical alteration possible. 


Do you really want the internet to be run by faceless corporate bureaucrats deciding what you can and cannot see, based on how profitable it is to them?


Before now, the internet has always been treated as a public utility, owned by the public much the way the TV and radio airwaves belong to us, not to the TV or radio stations or networks. The previous FCC put that in writing, and the courts agreed. Now that has all changed.


This might explain it better:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[4] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.

The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems.[5][6][7][8]

A widely cited example of a violation of net neutrality principles was the Internet service provider Comcast's secret slowing ("throttling") of uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packets.[9] Comcast did not stop blocking these protocols, like BitTorrent, until the Federal Communications Commission ordered them to stop.[10] In another minor example, The Madison River Communications company was fined US$15,000 by the FCC, in 2004, for restricting their customers' access to Vonage, which was rivaling their own services.[11] AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for AT&T's new shared data plans could access the application.[12] In July 2017, Verizon Wireless was accused of throttling after users noticed that videos played on Netflix and YouTube were slower than usual, though Verizon commented that it was conducting "network testing" and that net neutrality rules permit "reasonable network management practices".[13]

Research suggests that a combination of policy instruments will help realize the range of valued political and economic objectives central to the network neutrality debate.[14] Combined with strong public opinion, this has led some governments to regulate broadband Internet services as a public utility, similar to the way electricity, gas, and the water supply are regulated, along with limiting providers and regulating the options those providers can offer.[15] The United States supported this view from 2015, but on December 14, 2017, the FCCvoted to repeal net neutrality.[16]

Contents

  [show] 

Definition and related principles

Internet neutrality

Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.[17] Internet traffic includes all of the different messages, files and data sent over the Internet, including, for example, emails, digital audiofiles, digital video files, etc. According to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, the best way to explain network neutrality is that a public information network will end up being most useful if all content, websites, and platforms (e.g., mobile devices, video game consoles, etc.) are treated equally.[18]

A more detailed proposed definition of technical and service network neutrality suggests that service network neutrality is the adherence to the paradigm that operation of a service at a certain layer is not influenced by any data other than the data interpreted at that layer, and in accordance with the protocol specification for that layer.[19]

Open Internet

Under an "open Internet" schema, the full resources of the Internet and means to operate on it should be easily accessible to all individuals, companies, and organizations.[20]

Applicable concepts include: net neutrality, open standards, transparency, lack of Internet censorship, and low barriers to entry. The concept of the open Internet is sometimes expressed as an expectation of decentralized technological power, and is seen by some observers as closely related to open-source software, a type of software program whose maker allows users access to the code that runs the program, so that users can improve the software or fix bugs.[21]

Proponents of net neutrality see this as an important component of an "open Internet", wherein policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those using the Internet to easily communicate, and conduct business and activities without interference from a third party.[22]

In contrast, a "closed Internet" refers to the opposite situation, wherein established persons, corporations, or governments favor certain uses, restrict access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content. Some countries[which?] block certain websites or types of sites, and monitor and/or censor Internet use using Internet police, a specialized type of law enforcement, or secret police.[citation needed]


Ragnar

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 11:11:50 AM12/17/17
to Political Euwetopia
View image on Twitter

Cute video Ajit "Aren't I Precious?" Pai 🤮-but you are profoundly unworthy 2 wield a lightsaber-A Jedi acts selflessly for the common man-NOT lie 2 enrich giant corporations. Btw-did you pay John Williams his royalty? @AjitPaiFCCorpShill #AJediYouAreNOT

mitchscove

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 11:53:51 AM12/17/17
to Political Euwetopia

In late April 2014, the contours of a document leaked that indicated that the FCC under Wheeler would consider announcing rules that would violate net neutrality principles by making it easier for companies to pay ISPs (including cable companies and wireless ISPs) to provide faster "lanes" for delivering their content to Internet users.[

In November 2014, President Obama gave a speech endorsing the classification of ISPs as utilities under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.[23] Wheeler stated in January 2015 that the FCC was "going to propose rules that say no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization" at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.[


One ringy dingy.  There's a difference between liking your job and believing what your fascist boss is shoving down your throat.

I know all I need to know about what Net Neutrality is sold as and what it will turn into.  Already, the FCC had written letters to AT&T and Verizon that they weren't allowed to provide free data to multiple line customers.  Based on some fucked up ideology, they wanted me to have to pay more for my internet service because "it isn't fair" or some such bullshit.  It also isn't fair that Amazon has a cost advantage.  I'm sure you fascists will want to steal that also.

Lobo

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 12:24:44 PM12/17/17
to Political Euwetopia
<<It also isn't fair that Amazon has a cost advantage.  I'm sure you fascists will want to steal that also.>>

Net neutrality/Open Internet -- the system we've had since the internet first came into being, long before it was codified by the Obama/Wheeler FCC -- has nothing whatsoever to do with what online businesses charge customers.

Would you have any problem with "unfairness" if Amazon was allowed to pay to have access to their websites sped up, while access to their competitors was slowed down, perhaps even made inaccessible?

A general question: do you consider antitrust laws (which net neutrality rules are essentially a type of)  a "fascist government takeover of business"?

Ragnar

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 12:35:24 PM12/17/17
to Political Euwetopia
Leave it to snitchy sucking ajit pie's dick that revoking net neutrality will be good for the US consumer 

mitchscove

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 1:06:22 PM12/17/17
to Political Euwetopia
We already have anti-trust laws and agencies that enforce them.  We don't need any more.  Obama's FCC was going after AT&T and Verizon for zero rating.  What does that have to do with access speed?

Lobo

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 2:29:56 PM12/17/17
to Political Euwetopia
<<We already have anti-trust laws and agencies that enforce them.>>

That used to enforce them, anyway. Trump's FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, has also radically changed the rules on media ownership, allowing Rupert Murdoch, and especially the ideologically-based, very right wing Sinclair Group to monopolize entire media markets and create vertical and horizontal trusts, including allowing Sinclair (which requires its stations to produce "conservative news", take conservative editorial stances, insert conservative commentary segments, and even deny advertising to political candidates it doesn't like, as it did with Gore but not with Bush campaign ads in 2000) to buy 75% of all local TV stations, essentially turning local news into a right wing, ideologically-based monopoly.

<<Obama's FCC was going after AT&T and Verizon for zero rating.  What does that have to do with access speed?>>

Obama's FCC didn't ban zero-rating, but it should have in cases where the service in question is owned by an ISP like AT&T or Verizon. It puts services (and consumers) that can't afford to pay-to-play at a severe start-up and access disadvantage, which also discourages innovation.

Without a level playing field -- enforced by a neutral referee; ie, government -- there is no competition, and without competition there is no free enterprise.

Or don't you believe in free enterprise?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages