F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

[FenderTL5]

So some claimed. We'll see what happens now.

You're being dismissive, the lawsuits were real not merely claimed.

 

[Almost there]

Soon it will be: "If you want internet that doesn't throttle websites you visit, just move."

That's kinda silly. Technically, it is always a possibility of course. And if it comes to that, well, maybe it's time to bring out the big ugly beast. But not yet.

Without government regulation, anything is possible. But somehow most stuff works just fine without government involvement. It is only necessary when it is necessary. If it becomes necessary, it should happen. It is not a "free" option with no downside. The downside is immense. It should only be a last resort.

 

[Almost there]

I mean, we know how this will end. With ISPs blocking/throttling and working with big business to create monopolies. It may take a year, or it may take 3. I'm not really fond of the idea of allowing ISPs to be gatekeepers with the power they wield.

We don't know how it will end. We only speculate.

 

[Skavau]

We don't know how it will end. We only speculate.

The only reason to take out NN is so they can do this, so yeah, we kinda do.

 

[Almost there]

You're being dismissive, the lawsuits were real not merely claimed.

The lawsuits were real, but read the actual content of the lawsuits. Companies were arguing the FCC had no authority. And they prevailed.

 

[FenderTL5]

The lawsuits were real, but read the actual content of the lawsuits. Companies were arguing the FCC had no authority. And they prevailed.

Ha!! Let me make sure I understand your positioning:
You are saying that the ISPs, including the telecom and cable giants, spent millions of dollars lobbying, contributing to political campaigns and bringing lawsuits to eliminate the FCCs ability to enforce prohibitions on blocking and packet discrimination on the internet - in order to maintain a protocol of not doing it.

 

[Almost there]

This is an excellent rundown and explains why, though there is at least technically risk of problems, the recently rejected Net Neutrality was not the answer.
Net Neutrality: What the Public Gets Wrong

 

[Almost there]

The only reason to take out NN is so they can do this, so yeah, we kinda do.

Actually, it is not uncommon for businesses to want government out of their lives because they just muck stuff up and make it worse than it is. A good example would be that video just released of the kid shot dead in the hotel hallway.

You involve government at your peril. You had better have a darned good reason for it.

 

[SummerMadness]

It's funny reading this thread watching people pick fights with someone they agree with on a subject simply because they disagree with them on another subject (why am I not surprised that this usually comes from folks with a more conservative framework?).

 

[Almost there]

Ha!! Let me make sure I understand your positioning:
You are saying that the ISPs, including the telecom and cable giants, spent millions of dollars lobbying, contributing to political campaigns and bringing lawsuits to eliminate the FCCs ability to enforce prohibitions on blocking and packet discrimination on the internet - in order to maintain a protocol of not doing it.

Right up until that last line, yes. The last line gives your inferred reason they did it. My inferred reason is they wanted the government off their backs.

It's like frequent travelers on the autobahn, when the government decides to post a speed limit, suing to have the speed limit removed. When the speed really does become a serious problem, fine, put up speed limits and spend all that tax money for signage and police to patrol the roads and, most importantly, seriously throttle the freedom of the people using the autobahn. But only do it then.

Same thing here. Government involvement in industry is seriously expensive and limiting. I've worked in IT in 17 companies, many of my projects related to government regulations. It costs a TON of money just to show the government you are doing everything right.

You get the government involved only as a last resort, kinda like chemotherapy, and for the same reason. You don't do it because you "might" get cancer.

 

[FenderTL5]

Right up until that last line, yes. The last line gives your inferred reason they did it. My inferred reason is they wanted the government off their backs.

It's like frequent travelers on the autobahn, when the government decides to post a speed limit, suing to have the speed limit removed. When the speed really does become a serious problem, fine, put up speed limits and spend all that tax money for signage and police to patrol the roads and, most importantly, seriously throttle the freedom of the people using the autobahn. But only do it then.

Same thing here. Government involvement in industry is seriously expensive and limiting. I've worked in IT in 17 companies, many of my projects related to government regulations. It costs a TON of money just to show the government you are doing everything right.

You get the government involved only as a last resort, kinda like chemotherapy, and for the same reason. You don't do it because you "might" get cancer.

You think the violations of the Open Internet Rules the FCC had previously imposed (prior to reclassification) are only hypothetical and not likely to happen in a competitive marketplace.
The fact is, there are instances, albeit few, of the ISPs being caught red-handed.
AT&T throttling users with "unlimited" data plans at 22G is one example.
So the question then becomes; why get rid of the regulations?
You and I see the answer to that question fundamentally differently.

IMHO, If the ISPs had no intention of ever throttling or imposing packet discrimination (traffic prioritization) then the millions spent on repeal was a massive waste of energy and resources.
When you couple that with the ISPs scrambling to buy content providers (proposed AT&T Time-Warner merger is a recent example), I think it is very clear where this is going. ymmv.

 

[Almost there]

You think the violations of the Open Internet Rules the FCC had previously imposed (prior to reclassification) are only hypothetical and not likely to happen in a competitive marketplace.
The fact is, there are instances, albeit few, of the ISPs being caught red-handed.
AT&T throttling users with "unlimited" data plans at 22G is one example.
So the question then becomes; why get rid of the regulations?
You and I see the answer to that question fundamentally differently.

That's my plan. If they do, I switch companies.

IMHO, If the ISPs had no intention of ever throttling or imposing packet discrimination (traffic prioritization) then the millions spent on repeal was a massive waste of energy and resources.
When you couple that with the ISPs scrambling to buy content providers (proposed AT&T Time-Warner merger is a recent example), I think it is very clear where this is going. ymmv.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, even when companies are utterly compliant, they spend a LOT of money proving it.

Imagine if we not only had traffic laws, but every year you had to submit to the government your efforts to obey all traffic laws and proof that you were never speeding. Would that impact your life at all, assuming you absolotely never, ever went over the speed limit and stopped, "with rollback" at all stop signs?

That is actually the fundamental issue here - getting the government out of your business/life when it is not really necessary.

And yes, there are "some" speeders, but still...

 

[Skavau]

So is this something you think ISPs have to do now? Demonstrate they're not throttling/blocking websites?

 

[Almost there]

So is this something you think ISPs have to do now? Demonstrate they're not throttling/blocking websites?

I'm addressing what happens when the government regulates an industry. You have to prove you are in compliance. It's just a cost of doing business which you pass along to the customer in your prices.

 

[Skavau]

I'm addressing what happens when the government regulates an industry. You have to prove you are in compliance. It's just a cost of doing business which you pass along to the customer in your prices.

Right, but do you know if the government actually required that? Or would it be more likely that foul play would be just dealt with on a case-by-case basis? (ie: customer notices ISP is blocking X website. They report it. Company gets done for it)

Even your speeding analogy makes little sense. There are generally laws against speeding. No-one is required to demonstrate their average speed and where over a period of a year to any governing body.

 

[Almost there]

Right, but do you know if the government actually required that? Or would it be more likely that foul play would be just dealt with on a case-by-case basis? (ie: customer notices ISP is blocking X website. They report it. Company gets done for it)

I'm talking about the general impact of government regulations on business. I've worked at 17 companies including aerospace, health insurance, power, retail, etc. Regulations are killer. Especially in IT. And because it is the "brute and unthinking government force" doing it, some of the logic is just plain stupid. But you have to do it - or else.

Even your speeding analogy makes little sense. There are generally laws against speeding. No-one is required to demonstrate their average speed and where over a period of a year to any governing body.

It doesn't make "perfect" sense, but you get what I'm saying. Imagine having to prove you were in compliance. Every year. And you thought doing your taxes was bad.

 

[Skavau]

I'm talking about the general impact of government regulations on business. I've worked at 17 companies including aerospace, health insurance, power, retail, etc. Regulations are killer. Especially in IT. And because it is the "brute and unthinking government force" doing it, some of the logic is just plain stupid. But you have to do it - or else.

It doesn't make "perfect" sense, but you get what I'm saying. Imagine having to prove you were in compliance. Every year. And you thought doing your taxes was bad.

But we haven't even determined that NN forced companies each year to extensively demonstrate they were in compliance. You're assuming all regulation is equal and has the same impact.

 

[Almost there]

But we haven't even determined that NN forced companies each year to extensively demonstrate they were in compliance. You're assuming all regulation is equal and has the same impact.

Using government to fix a problem is like Chemotherapy. It is a last resort and brings with it certain costs. You certainly don't do it because you think you might get cancer.

 

[Skavau]

Using government to fix a problem is like Chemotherapy. It is a last resort and brings with it certain costs. You certainly don't do it because you think you might get cancer.

There's literally no good reason to not have a safeguard like NN in. There's no good reason for companies to throttle or block websites for profit.

In any case, your original point was that NN was constricting ISPs in massive paperwork. Not even they seem to make that claim.

 

[Almost there]

There's literally no good reason to not have a safeguard like NN in. There's no good reason for companies to throttle or block websites for profit.

In any case, your original point was that NN was constricting ISPs in massive paperwork. Not even they seem to make that claim.

Meh. That was part of my point about why you don't want goverment regulation unless there is a compelling reason to do so. I didn't even get into the government growth issue.

When the IRS was first formed, the federal income tax was ONLY on the rich and it was 2%.

Involve the government at your peril, no matter how harmless it seems.

BTW, regarding your first two comments, from an article I posted earlier:

Problems can be solved without net neutrality protections
In summary, EU law contains basic protections of net neutrality and the impending US repeal will have no effect on the existence or operation of these rules.

And despite what many may claim, there is very little evidence that ISPs are interested in, or already engaging in violations of net neutrality. In fact, such behaviour would make little commercial sense. While there is anecdotal evidence that ISPs occasionally slow certain traffic for reasons other than essential traffic management (for ex-ample, to harm a competing product), all instances of such behaviour have already been efficiently dealt with in the complete absence of net neutrality laws (usually through competition law).

To put it another way, there are currently no problems that net neutrality regulation is capable of solving.

Equally importantly, net neutrality is an incredibly complex idea in terms of technology and policy that is con-stantly presented in black and white terms and hijacked by various political platforms.

Attempting to simplify it leads nowhere, as the highly technical concepts behind it do not lend themselves to simplifications.

Read More: Quantum Computing and why we need to replace the Internet

The concept of net neutrality is no longer useful
Finally, and possibly most importantly, net neutrality does not say anything about whether the Internet is open, generally accessible, censored, or otherwise free.

Having net neutrality laws—any form of net neutrality laws—in no way guarantees Internet freedom. Such free-dom can just as easily be violated by measures completely outside of the scope of such rules.

The impending December repeal, in spite of it being proposed by an otherwise problematic administration, will likely have no effect whatsoever on the Internet as we know it.

Furthermore, if the backbone is taken into consideration, the Internet has never truly been neutral but always a result of complex web of commercial traffic exchange mechanisms that have only become more complex.

In that light, net neutrality is a concept that has outlived its usefulness.