Besides the obvious, nefarious, counter-productive attack on access to information and on freedom of speech, repealing Net neutrality is dealing another blow to poorer people, and as such, dealing another blow to minorities: women, non-white people, non-heterosexual people, and several other minorities...
The infamous proposed bathroom bill in Texas, among others, goes in the same direction.
I'm a white cisgender Christian male, and even though that automatically gets me labeled as a racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, Nazi, fascist, bigot, I don't think that the Texas bathroom bill (or the North Carolina bill, for that matter) is the best way to go about the bathroom issue. I think that there should just be several gender-neutral, handicap accessible, single stall bathrooms, instead of two bathrooms where multiple people go in at the same time. I don't need to congregate with others while I'm doing my business.
We agree on that
Gender-neutral, handicap-accessible bathrooms is what a small number of tech conferences which attempt to cater to the needs of LGBTQIA+ persons do, so I would imagine that it seems a valid solution to the matter, too.
I've read that the Internet - the mostly uncensored one we know in most Western countries, at least - is an important tool for LGBTQIA+ persons to know that they're not alone on earth experiencing suchlike feelings and emotions, and that they're not abnormal / cursed / whatever. Makes sense to me. And Net Neutrality is an important safeguard to ensure access to information about other ways to feel and live as human beings who deserve respect.
Net Neutrality has little or nothing to do with political viewpoints on the internet, and everything to do with server prioritization? That is kind of how I took it. I realize you just discussed Title II, but you made it sound like that was all Net Neutrality was. Stuff like this bothers me. People against NN don't discuss Title II, but people for it only discuss Title II. I would like to see someone be fair about the issue. I think Title II, based on this article, is worth keeping, but the rest of the bill could probably go.
It technically shouldn't have anything todo with governmental politics. Correct.
As far as server prioritization goes, that's correct. ISP A wants to launch a Netflix competitor. Under their Title II classification they are required to treat traffic from their VOD service and Netflix equally. Without Title II, ISP A can deliver their VOD service faster (on "fast lanes") than Netflix AND encourage Netflix to pay out so they can get the same treatment. Ultimately forcing Netflix to raise rates to compensate, maybe to $18/month (compared to their current $12/month).
It can also affect start up companies. Imagine if Netflix, Hulu, Vudu and, any other big VOD service today can afford to pay these fees to get access to the "fast lanes." A new service comes along that offers a better experience. Theoretically they have the same deals as Netflix so they have the same content. We'll call this company "NeighborFlix." This company offers a social setting where you can watch movies with friends and others. You can join a "room" with a group of friends and watch a movie. You can talk to each other and overall have a very social interaction. Yes, software like this exists today but let's believe this software finally became a proper business and entered the commercial scene.
But they can't get subscribers. Their service may be $10 a month but services like Netflix have the advantage because they can offer content lightning fast PLUS that content doesn't count towards the viewers monthly bandwidth. They may have 1M subscribers compared to Netflix's 200 Million.
I realize I left this out of the original post but Title II classified companies as a "Common Carrier." They would basically be classified as a Public Utility. We now lumped internet into that mix. Net Neutrality is just a term coined onto Title II because that's what it will enforce with ISPs; the same rules as Water, Electric and, Gas companies follow now apply to them too.
But this is about politics. If it wasn't about politics then the new FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, wouldn't be reversing this decision. It would accept the fact it passed, listen to the citizens of the United States of America and carry on. I view this similar to Joe Bidens' stance on abortion. He opposed it because of his his religion but he did not impose that on the American people. He understood that followers of other religions (and those without) viewed the beginning of life differently and thus shouldn't prohibit abortion on a national level (Source). I don't care if Ajit Pai opposes Net Neutrality but I do care if he opposes that view on others. He needs to do his job for the American people not for his own agenda. He's got the power now and he's abusing it.
Without Net Neutrality, the current open Internet is going to become (even) more expensive - and therefore more of a luxury for marginalized people, all the more the GOP is hell bent on attacking healthcare access - and/or the cheap Internet will become restricted. Restricted, as in effectively censored, preferably in the way of political / religious / moral / technical content that the rulers don't like, as always occurs when there's a technical ability to censor. Experiences such as Facebook's awful zero-rating tiny subset of Internet in India were especially eye-opening...
I find it impressive that a non-American resident is more willing to read up and form an opinion on Net Neutrality than many Americans that I know. Kudos to you.
On that note, there is evidence that ISPs have acted against an open internet before. This probably isn't the best example since some of these are not really on the ISPs part. Sure, AT&T and Verizon are ISPs but some of these articles relate to their cell phone business which, as far as I know, weren't part of the Title II classification. But I like these examples because it shows precedent. Just because they've done it to one side of their business doesn't mean they'll do it to their other side.
2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they *wouldn't* do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. They were fined $1.25million over this.
Ok, I understand it better now. I understand that Trump thinks there is too many business regulations, and maybe there is, but some regulations are good, because it prevents unethical activity that wouldn't otherwise be restricted under law. Net neutrality is something that is probably worth keeping.
Kind of a necropost, but I think it's worth posting. Congress is going to vote whether to keep or kill net neutrality in 7 days, yes, only 1 week to stop the internet from deteriorating from how we know it today! Don't feel like this is hopeless! Your letters, donations, especially calls, and protest do matter! Several congress members who originally supported removing Net Neutrality have now expressed their concerns about killing it! It's still not enough though, now is not the time to relax and program! Uncle Sam wants you to prevent the destruction of the internet!
I know there are hundreds of people who visit Cemetech who will never bother to read this post. That is why I call on the Admins to add a "Save Net Neutrality" banner at the top of Cemetech! If you admins sit back and don't help, that's just as bad as supporting the end of the free internet.
I don't mean to be rude, but it's only one week to save the free internet. It's long past time to act now!
You can help save the internet here!
So is there a robot at the other end of the 'Call Congress' button? Before I call, I'm just curious to know if it's a 'press numbers in the dial-pad" type deal or not.
Edit:
Nevermind - I called anyways. I suggest everyone else do this too!
I also suggest you attend a protest, if you have some spare time. You can use this link to find a protest near you:
http://verizonprotests.com
I have one very close by to me, but will not be attending due to my job as well as finals coming up this week.
A part of me wants to hope that the people will do the right thing and not pass this.
HOWEVER
The other part of me, the part of me that knows the world, knows that this will pass.
It may not be now, it may not be in a month or a year, but it will eventually pass.
The people who are pushing this are just to powerful and have too many supporters. The constant calls and all other forms of petition may slow the movement but the people pushing this stand to gain by passing this.
Last edited by Alex on 11 Dec 2017 09:33:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
The REAL LAX18 wrote:
A part of me wants to hope that the people will do the right thing and not pass this.
There's only 5 people who vote on this: The four FCC Commissioners and the FCC Chair. By law, the FCC has to be bipartisan, meaning they can't all be from one party. This usually means that it's 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans, or in this case, 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats. We know how four of them are going to vote, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai will vote to repeal, as well as his two other Republican Commissioners. The two Democrats will vote against it. Commissioner Mignon Clyborn has a pretty strong post on the FCC Blog for Net Neutrality.
This has definitely been an issue straight down the party line. Recently, the Senate and the House of Reps voted to allow ISPs to sell your browsing habits. While, advertisers like Google are able to do this to a degree, they can't track everything. This opens the door to allow advertisers to buy information on demographics straight for the source.
You can block Google from tracking you but you can't really block your ISP. There are VPNs and stuff but for most of internet users, their traffic goes through their ISP. So, how did they vote? Well, The Verge put together a really good article in March about this. They have a table so that you can see the Name of the politician, the state they're from, the party affiliations, and how much it cost to buy their vote.
Take a look. Do you see any Democrats on that list? Every politician who voted to sell your internet privacy is a Republican. One of whom was paid just $1,000 for their vote. So, using this information gives us a pretty good idea of how the FCC Commissioners will vote to repeal Net Neutrality. It'll be a 2-2 split with Ajit Pai breaking the tie, setting the repeal Net Neutrality in motion.
We can hope that in 2018, when a lot of states hold their Midterm elections that Democrats take a majority of the seats. They may likely introduce legislation into the house that reverses NN again. So, get interested in your local elections. They matter a heck of a lot more than the Presidential election (and we know how important it is to vote in the Presidential election...). Get involved, vote for your district members in your state, your city representatives, to the federal House of Representatives and the Senate.
I don't care who you vote for - Republican, Democrat, Green, Independent, Libertarian, etc - but the only way we can get change is if we as citizens put as much importance on local elections as we do on the Presidential election.
I'm sure FCC Votes are public record but I can't seem to locate them at the moment. Instead, here's an NPR article from when the FCC put Net Neutrality in place back in 2015. Where Pai is on record opposing it:
Quote:
Update at 12:01 p.m. ET: A Dissenting Vote
Saying the FCC was seizing power in "a radical departure" from its earlier policies. Commissioner Ajut [sic] Pai, a Republican, spoke against the proposal. He accused the FCC of "turning its back on Internet freedom."
Pai said the commissioners were backing the new measure for only one reason: "because President Obama told us to."
Seeing the new policy as an attempt to intrude on the Internet, Pai predicted higher costs for consumers and less innovation by businesses.
It also seems I mixed up my terms. It's Chairman Pai now, and his commissioners (not Chairs). I'll fix that now.
The FCC has officially repealed net neutrality rules. If you missed the stream, you may view it here:
Notice the like to dislike ratio... almost all of the ratings on the video are dislikes.
Many schools and institutions, to list some examples, are already capable of blocking or otherwise managing online access and traffic. And now, that capability is being given to the internet providers themselves. How outrageous. What will we do now?
Many schools and institutions, to list some examples, are already capable of blocking or otherwise managing online access and traffic. And now, that capability is being given to the internet providers themselves. How outrageous. What will we do now?
a) We will not see any noticeable effects as the general population
b) The key difference is the internet isn't restricted. We can diversify who delivers. Any limits or management must be directly reported by the ISP.
c) It still has to be taken to the courts, this is not done yet.
As Ajit Pai pointed out, before Net Neutrality rules there wasn't really a problem with the internet, so why would there be a problem going back to that? Alex gave a list of infractions on equality of service providing, and though the FCC stepped in on multiple occasions, even without their assistance I think things would have been fine.
The principle behind capitalism is that there will always be multiple choices, that the entire market isn't controlled by one company. That's why vertical integration is illegal in the US. Even though a few companies hold a virtual internet cartel, they will still try to undercut each other and keep customers by providing fair service.
Yes, it's not a big deal right now, and we need to keep it that way. ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon will eventually force you to pay even more for your internet just because they can. Look at the Comcast customer support reviews, some of these ISPs don't care about you and would charge you anything if they could make a buck out of it.
Please fact check this: As I understand it, a form of Net Neutrality has been around since the FCC was founded in 1934. There are two 'titles' that back up what they can do though. Title 1 which enforced their rules on telecommunication services, like the telegraph and telephone, Title 2 (introduced in 2015) expanded those rules to broadband and cable services (ISPs). [/factcheck]
Dankcalculatorbro, although, yes, before Title 2 was around Net Neutrality it wasn't a "dark age for the internet" or anything like that. However it wasn't free of problems. An example of this is a court case back in 2007, Comcast was slowing down BitTorrent traffic. When the FCC told them to stop, Comcast actually took them to court with the excuse of "you don’t regulate us [under title 1]". It was ruled three years later that Comcast was right, and that the FCC didn't have the power to enforce their rules under Title 1. This is why Title 2 was enacted, to give the FCC the ability to enforce their rules.
Also, your statement that "there will always be multiple choices, that the entire market isn't controlled by one company." is true for the entire market, however it is not true for specific areas. Take my own home for example, I have AT&T as my ISP and I hate their unreliable, slow service. I really want to switch to a different ISP unfortunately I cant because they are the only ISP that covers my area! And it's kind of hard to switch to another ISP if none exist in your area.
Mateo, I have to ask what you mean by a) "We will not see any noticeable effects as the general population". I highly doubt that ISPs are going to immediately repeal all Net Neutrality rules, but within a year or so I'll bet we are definitely going to see some changes on how the internet is going to work, and/ or how it is provided.
Also, b) "Any limits or management must be directly reported by the ISP" can be reported in multiple ways. One of many ways is by (e)mailing you, another way is by changing their terms of agreement (which can change whenever they want without informing you).
c) You're correct, this isn't over yet. Lets hope the US court system isn't as skewed as the FCC.
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
