Everyone gets caught up in whatever skirt lifting or tweet happened today, but some very big news on the internet, cable, and telecommunications have been happening.
The FTC and FCC have decided to drop all of the Obama internet regulations. The Obama appointees decided to regulate the internet using 1930s utility laws passed by Congress. The Obama appointees made this decision after their previous attempts to make up the law as they went along were slapped down by the courts. This was a pretty stupid decision since the 1930s laws are very heavy handed. As a result, a lot of investment in broadband went away.
The Trump appointees have decided to scrap this entire regime including the "net neutrality" provisions. One side of the argument says that "everything on the internet should be equal" while the other says that "making everything equal forever will hamper investment." Clearly the investment went way down. At this time, nobody is moving towards blocking anything, but the plans are that certain bandwith hogs such as youtube, Netflix and other video sites may cut deals to keep things going faster. And now with driverless cars that may pay to get priority.
I think this will be a positive for the US economy in the medium run. I really think the Obama attempt to force massive regulations on the internet were a mistake. If Congress decides something less stringent would work they could pass actual laws - oops sorry, the parties hate each other too much to cooperate ::).
But in a totally unexpected move, the Justice department has moved to block the merger of Time-Warner and ATT stating that too much power over internet content and delivery systems. This very rarely happens with a vertical integration move (as opposed to horizontal integration) and Time & ATT are planning to litigate this.
One of my concerns about Hillary was continuing the stupid Obama regulatory decisions. One of my concerns about Trump was not using anti-trust. So far at least, the Trump appointees on regulations are doing what I think is best for the economy and society - a pleasant surprise.
I read that earlier today. I still think it's a dangerous/unsound move, but we'll see.
Quote from: airboy on November 21, 2017, 11:43:22 AM
Clearly the investment went way down.
It did? Anything to support that assertion?
The problem is that ISPs are not merely providing internet access. Almost all of them (certainly all the major providers) are also content providers. Without Net Neutrality regulations, they can prioritize their own content over other content providers. It is inherently anti-competitive.
ISPs should be doing one thing, providing the best possible internet service for the lowest possible cost. They should not be able to dictate how content is accessed, priced or prioritized.
Re Net Neutrality supposedly suppressing broadband investment:
http://www.businessinsider.com/broadband-investment-up-after-new-net-neutrality-rules-2017-5 (http://www.businessinsider.com/broadband-investment-up-after-new-net-neutrality-rules-2017-5)
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/in-anti-net-neutrality-push-fcc-downplays-data-that-contradicts-narrative/ (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/in-anti-net-neutrality-push-fcc-downplays-data-that-contradicts-narrative/)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/12/10/verizon-actually-strong-net-neutrality-rules-wont-affect-our-network-investment/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/12/10/verizon-actually-strong-net-neutrality-rules-wont-affect-our-network-investment/)
https://consumerist.com/2016/02/09/did-net-neutrality-kill-broadband-investment-like-comcast-att-verizon-said-it-would/ (https://consumerist.com/2016/02/09/did-net-neutrality-kill-broadband-investment-like-comcast-att-verizon-said-it-would/)
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171005/09400638350/anybody-claiming-net-neutrality-rules-killed-broadband-investment-is-lying-to-you.shtml
http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutrality-portugal-how-american-internet-could-look-fcc-2017-11
Quote from: airboy on November 21, 2017, 11:43:22 AMBut in a totally unexpected move, the Justice department has moved to block the merger of Time-Warner and ATT stating that too much power over internet content and delivery systems. This very rarely happens with a vertical integration move (as opposed to horizontal integration) and Time & ATT are planning to litigate this.
Yeah, and this has nothing to do with Time-Warner owning CNN, who has been criticizing the President non-stop for a year.... ::)
It was totally unexpected only if you hadn't been listening to Trump's political apparatchiks tell Time-Warner and AT&T in public that unless CNN toned down he rhetoric it could cost them their merger.
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
Here's the actual bandwidth-speed comparison from someone who tracked what Comcast did to Netflix
http://mattvukas.com/2014/02/10/comcast-definitely-throttling-netflix-infuriating/
So no, there's not a single damned 'positive' anywhere in the scrapping of net neutrality rules, unless you own an ISP and are salivating at the chance to jack up prices on customers who have become accustomed to access to certain sites / services and are now going to be forced fork out (as much as) double or more just to surf Facebook and watch Netflix.
But hey, P/E ratios will be up, which'll boost the stock market (short-term gains over long-term investment to make quarterly earnings calls look good) and the Trumpkopfs will continue to crow about how "the economy is booming" even though they don't see one fucking dime from it.
Quote from: mirth on November 21, 2017, 03:10:57 PM
Quote from: airboy on November 21, 2017, 11:43:22 AM
Clearly the investment went way down.
It did? Anything to support that assertion?
The problem is that ISPs are not merely providing internet access. Almost all of them (certainly all the major providers) are also content providers. Without Net Neutrality regulations, they can prioritize their own content over other content providers. It is inherently anti-competitive.
ISPs should be doing one thing, providing the best possible internet service for the lowest possible cost. They should not be able to dictate how content is accessed, priced or prioritized.
WSJ analysis of investment the 12 months before the Obama rule and the 12 months after the rule.
Your quotes on what a corporation may or may not do in the future is irrelevant.
For an accurate analysis, you have to look at total investment by an industry and not what specific firms do.
From the FCC proposal:
QuoteIndividual consumers, not the government, decide what Internet access service best meets their individualized needs.
I don't know where Mr. Pai lives, but where I live we have crappy Frontier DSL and Comcast, so if you want high speed internet, you have to have Comcast. That isn't much of a choice for us.
Comcast can basically do as they please under this proposal.
Quote from: RedArgo on November 22, 2017, 03:56:22 PM
From the FCC proposal:
QuoteIndividual consumers, not the government, decide what Internet access service best meets their individualized needs.
I don't know where Mr. Pai lives, but where I live we have crappy Frontier DSL and Comcast, so if you want high speed internet, you have to have Comcast. That isn't much of a choice for us.
Comcast can basically do as they please under this proposal.
Including cutting off your access to web sites that it or it's partners and investors do not like. Get ready for only Happy Comcast News.
Not saying it can't happen, but no internet provider has cut off access to sites that I know of (other than illegal stuff).
Cable companies fight with content providers all the time and cut them off, but that is not internet access.
Quote from: airboy on November 23, 2017, 10:11:18 AM
Not saying it can't happen, but no internet provider has cut off access to sites that I know of (other than illegal stuff).
What's wrong with regulation that doesn't allow ISPs to do things like that? How does that stifle growth or investment?
Quote from: airboy on November 21, 2017, 05:26:12 PM
For an accurate analysis, you have to look at total investment by an industry and not what specific firms do.
Yep and infrastructure investment by the entire industry is up substantially since the NN regulations were implemented. I guess you could claim it would be up more without the regs, but there really is no data to support such a claim.
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23754970_10111041590081885_349403226937808844_n.jpg?oh=65a1439ff697fd5bb7c9f16a4baf51e1&oe=5A9541E3)
Don't you guys know businesses are self-regulating and only have the consumers best interests at heart?
:DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD
Seriously, though.... If the ISP biz was truly competitive we may not need to worry about NN but how many of us really have a choice of ISPs? I certainly don't. I can't shop for ISPs like I do for milk.
No one LIKES regulations but, like laws, we have to deal with what to do about the folks who don't want to play nice. I don't like taking my shoes off at the airport because ONE bozo tried a shoe bomb but I'll put up with it for the sake of the safety of the community.
As I said at the start, the Obama Admin used 1930s utility regs on the internet and it was not good.
Congress has not acted on rational regulation law.
So we are at a crossroads. Really stupid 1930s regulation, Congress passes something rational, or minimal regulation.
Quote from: airboy on November 23, 2017, 02:11:28 PMReally stupid 1930s regulation, Congress passes something rational, or minimal regulation.
Well, we've seen that minimal regulation screws the customer, and the current Congress is likely to pass whatever sucks up to big corporate interests (i.e., screws the customer) or we leave the 1930s regs in place for now.
Given the current Congress, I'll take the 1930s regs.
Or even 1830s regs.
hahahahahahaha
https://twitter.com/comcast/status/933394263689351175?lang=en
And we'll continue to lie to your faces
Quote from: airboy on November 23, 2017, 02:11:28 PM
As I said at the start, the Obama Admin used 1930s utility regs on the internet and it was not good.
Not really true though. That's just a talking point from Ajit Pai.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/11/27/what-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-gets-wrong-about-net-neutrality/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/11/27/what-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-gets-wrong-about-net-neutrality/)
QuoteThe Clinton-era FCC initiated its policy for Internet access along these lines in 1998. It classified ISPs as information services, the decision celebrated by Pai to treat them with a "light touch." But Pai omits a crucial fact — the FCC mandated open access to the underlying telephone networks that ISPs used to provide dial-up Internet service. So, yes, ISPs such as AOL were classified as information services. But the era's dial-up Internet depended on telephone lines, which the FCC aggressively regulated through nondiscrimination requirements that protected net neutrality.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-trump-will-turn-americas-open-internet-into-an-ugly-version-of-chinas
For anyone interested in stopping the repeal of the NN regs
https://www.battleforthenet.com/#bftn-action-form
also, from John Oliver's show, a somewhat direct link to post to the FCC
www.gofccyourself.com (http://www.gofccyourself.com)
click on new filing and fill out the form
Yeah, trust Comcast ::)
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-deleted-net-neutrality-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/ (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-deleted-net-neutrality-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/)
^FIOS just came into our area (keep in mind I live in Capitol Hill!). I'm currently considering switching over from Comcast.
Quote from: bbmike on November 30, 2017, 09:18:16 AM
(keep in mind I live in Capitol Hill!)
You live in Capitol Hill? Cool!
Are you a Hobbit or Morlock?
I thought he might be just a Bill.
Quote from: mirth on November 30, 2017, 09:20:03 AM
Quote from: bbmike on November 30, 2017, 09:18:16 AM
(keep in mind I live in Capitol Hill!)
You live in Capitol Hill? Cool!
Are you a Hobbit or Morlock?
Which one of those is trying to escape Capitol Hill? That's the one I am.
So basically what you are saying is that by removing neutrality rules we should see more investment in broadband. So more people will have access to a shitttier product, yay!
Quote from: bbmike on November 30, 2017, 09:18:16 AM
^FIOS just came into our area (keep in mind I live in Capitol Hill!). I'm currently considering switching over from Comcast.
You have Comcast? :-\
I'm sorry.
Amazon and Google are already starting to removed products/content from each others stores/devices.
That was happening before anyone was discussing net neutrality. For instance, you could never use the Google Play Store on Amazon Fire/Kindle devices without side loading the software
What will be really interesting is whether or not Google Fiber starts to throttle back Amazon Prime video, or redirect Amazon shoppers from the Amazon home page to some Google Affiliated shopping site instead. Will Google Fiber lose customers if they do that? Hell yes. But you can't sue them for it if net neutrality goes away.
Yeah. I just bought an Amazon Fire TV thingy a few weeks ago and yesterday I got a pop up from the YouTube app saying as of Jan 1st, it'd no longer function on my Amazon device. Then it spammed me with a web link for all the wonderful Google devices that would allow me to watch YT.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on December 06, 2017, 08:48:40 AM
What will be really interesting is whether or not Google Fiber starts to throttle back Amazon Prime video, or redirect Amazon shoppers from the Amazon home page to some Google Affiliated shopping site instead.
Yep. This is the real issue and the real threat to an open internet.
I remember how choppy Netflix was, when they first started streaming and Comcast was throttling them!!.. Oh they'll charge Netflix for more bandwidth.. guess who Netflix will pass the cost onto.
Frigging monopoly sucks.. Internet is a necessity now, people need it to WFH, for school.. for day to day business. They should split up these media Giants.. .. ISP or Media, choose, can't be the same company!
^Amen brother!
Don't worry, state AG's are lining up to sue and stop this.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vbympa/net-neutrality-fcc-inspector-general-report
(https://i.imgur.com/ZXQARas.png)
Under the Obama rules, phone companies were banned from giving free access to facebook and twitter on their phone plans because it violated "net neutrality."
I doubt if the deregulation will have the consequences that many of you fear. A lot of the comments on the thread are about internet access prices, which are irrelevant to both the Obama regs and the proposed regs. Internet competition in areas that are not highly urbanized will be through broadcast, satellite, or land line phone connections. The first mover advantage when you lay fiber-optic cable is huge.
The WSJ had a front page story this week on how many of the comments to the FTC were faked. This occurred for both pro and con positions. They did a random sample of more than 2,000 comments and found a significant portion were faked. Unfortunately, the comment period for a lot of federal regs that become viral have become unreliable.
Quote from: airboy on December 19, 2017, 08:19:25 PM
I doubt if the deregulation will have the consequences that many of you fear.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
That's some funny shit. You should do stand up!
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/technology/net-neutrality-lawsuit.html
Quote from: mirth on January 08, 2018, 11:07:20 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/technology/net-neutrality-lawsuit.html
Unless the agency failed to follow the procedures to issue the regulations, the lawsuit does not stand a chance. Since the policy change reverts to the policy at the start of the previous administration - there are probably no grounds to overturn it.
Congress actually needs to act on this and a couple of other major national issues that are relatively new ground or where we have substantial changes.
a] Should pot be a federal controlled substance?
b] How should the internet be regulated?
c] What immigration rules should we have?
Reasonable approaches should be possible, if the parties did not consider themselves mortal enemies.
Forget that, I'm living in fantasy land again.
https://act.eff.org/action/save-the-open-internet-order
https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status/950498741366247424
Nebraska has joined four other states in looking to pass their own Net Neutrality laws.
Honest question, because I don't remember, before the FCC passed NN, was there an issue with ISP blocking/throttling sites.
Let's be honest, if you truely want NN and near universal access to the internet at good speeds, then the government (a combo of fed, state, and local) will need to own the lines and lease it out to ISP's with NN rules just as our roads are.
Forgot to add; if the ISP's screwup enough, getting to the above becomes a lot more likely.
Tbere are multiple examples of ISPs blocking/throttling app/sites. I think Brant posted some of them up thread. IIRC one of them was Verizon blocking Facetime unless users purchased a more expensive plan.
Quote from: OJsDad on January 09, 2018, 05:28:07 PM
Honest question, because I don't remember, before the FCC passed NN, was there an issue with ISP blocking/throttling sites.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on November 23, 2017, 11:05:41 AM
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23754970_10111041590081885_349403226937808844_n.jpg?oh=65a1439ff697fd5bb7c9f16a4baf51e1&oe=5A9541E3)
and that's the short list
Thanks. I remember some of the FaceTime issues now.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/370133-montana-becomes-first-state-to-implement-net-neutrality-rules-following-fcc
https://twitter.com/BurgerKing/status/956166686054408192
that's pretty funny :)
https://twitter.com/EFF/status/956258279973314560
http://www.phillymag.com/business/2018/01/26/pennsylvania-net-neutrality-executive-order-philadelphia/#HEcGxQyJp4LaJuCv.99
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/hypocrisy-atts-internet-bill-rights
https://twitter.com/EFF/status/960611109878226944
The French FCC, known as ARCEP, goes one step further and wants to take your smartphone and other devices down the Neutrality road, too.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/france-telecom-regulator-thinks-net-182414313.html
https://twitter.com/EFF/status/970368024925605893
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/03/06/washington-states-net-neutrality-law-is-the-beginning-of-a-big-headache-for-internet-providers/
http://www.zdnet.com/article/comcast-customers-blocked-encrypted-email-service-net-neutrality-repeal/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/attverizon-lobbyists-to-aggressively-sue-states-that-enact-net-neutrality/
Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 28, 2018, 10:44:15 AM
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/attverizon-lobbyists-to-aggressively-sue-states-that-enact-net-neutrality/
Because big ISPs weren't hated enough already.
I am waiting for someone around here to accuse us of being "ISP haters". The ISPs are all good, trustworthy folks. This is all just fake news to discredit them.
BTW, I have a bridge in Brooklyn........
I like how they all say they will adhere to the principles of Net Neutrality, but then fight any real regulation in support of NN.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna863086
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/06/delete-facebook-live-us-still-share-data
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/16/17245010/elizabeth-pierce-fraud-charges-bdac-fcc-ajit-pai
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/att-and-cable-lobby-are-terrified-of-a-california-net-neutrality-bill/
Ajit Pai is deliberately delaying the Net Neutrality repeal
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wj793y/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-repeal-not-official-yet
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/california-net-neutrality-bill-that-att-hates-is-coming-to-new-york-too/
if lobbyists hate it, it must be good.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/9/17333108/net-neutrality-congressional-review-act-cra-resolution-vote-senate
^That's interesting!
Very. I had previously contacted both my Senators about opposing the repeal. Nice to see they are both on board.
There may be enough Republicans worried about votes in the mid-term to pass a CRA resolution.
https://checkyourreps.org/
https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/996840368254615552
Senate votes to block Ajit Pai's repeal (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/senate-votes-to-overturn-ajit-pais-net-neutrality-repeal/) - Jon Brodkin - May 16, 2018 7:47 pm UTC
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Met-With-Ajit-Pai-in-Barcelona-Shortly-After-Cohen-Payment-141844
Quote from: mirth on May 17, 2018, 11:37:11 AM
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Met-With-Ajit-Pai-in-Barcelona-Shortly-After-Cohen-Payment-141844
I don't think you drain a swamp by dumping more muck into it, do you?
You can't solve endemic problems using the people who helped create them.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180605/07420739969/e-mails-show-fcc-made-up-ddos-attack-to-downplay-john-oliver-effect.shtml