Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
And thus the republic falls to applause: net neutrality ends
#1
Protesters gather as U.S. regulators meet to end net neutrality

Quote:By David Shepardson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Communications Commission is expected on Thursday to rescind rules aimed at ensuring a free and open internet, as protesters gathered to oppose the change.

Commission Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal marks a victory for internet service providers like AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc that opposed the regulations, popularly known as net neutrality rules, and hands them power over what web content consumers can access.

Democrats, Hollywood and companies like Google parent Alphabet Inc and Facebook Inc had urged Pai, a Republican appointed by U.S. President Donald Trump, not to rescind the Obama-era rules barring service providers from blocking, slowing access to or charging more for certain content.

Consumers are unlikely to see any immediate changes resulting from the rule change, but smaller startups worry the lack of restrictions could drive up costs or lead to their content being blocked.

Internet service providers say they will not block or throttle legal content but that they may engage in paid prioritization. They say consumers will see no change and argue that the largely unregulated internet worked fine in the two decades before the 2015 order was adopted.

Democrats point to polls showing the proposal is deeply unpopular and say they will ultimately prevail in protecting the rules, either in the courts or in U.S. Congress.


FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, said in a written dissent released on Thursday that the decision grants internet providers "extraordinary new power" from the FCC.


"They have the technical ability and business incentive to discriminate and manipulate your internet traffic. And now this agency gives them the legal green light to go ahead," she said.


Several state attorneys general have said they will work to oppose the ruling, citing problems with comments made to the FCC during the public comment period. Other critics have said they will consider challenging what they consider to be weaker enforcement.


Net neutrality supporters rallied in front of the FCC building in Washington before the vote, and some Congress members were expected to join.


Amid chants of "Hey hey, ho ho, Chairman Pai has got to go!", several dozen people stood in the cold to hear activists speak out against the change.


Online protesters included celebrities like "Star Wars" actor Mark Hamill.


The 2015 rules were intended to give consumers equal access to web content and prevent broadband providers from favoring their own content. Pai proposes allowing those practices as long as they are disclosed.


Michael Powell, a former FCC chairman who heads a trade group representing major cable companies and broadcasters, told reporters earlier this week that internet providers would not block content because it would not make economic sense.

"They make a lot of money on an open internet," Powell said, adding it is "much more profitable" than a closed system. "This is not a pledge of good-heartedness, it's a pledge in the shareholders' interest."

A University of Maryland poll released this week found that more than 80 percent of respondents opposed the proposal. The survey of 1,077 registered voters was conducted online by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland from

Dec. 6-8.
Democrats have said the absence of rules would be unacceptable and that they would work to overturn the proposal if it is approved. Advocates of the net neutrality rules plan a legal challenge.

Pai's proposal is "like letting the bullies develop their own playground rules," said Democratic Senator Ed Markey.

Many Republicans back Pai's proposal but want Congress to write net neutrality rules. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the FCC would "return the internet to a consumer-driven marketplace free of innovation-stifling regulations."

A group of nearly 20 state attorneys general asked the FCC to delay the vote until the issue of fake comments is addressed.
(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Meredith Mazzilli)
#2
Time to form an internet company

I think you might see several state laws passed her soon protecting it..

Expect a free for all after the lawsuits
#3
#4
U.S. Commentary: 7 Surprising Things About the End of Net Neutrality

Quote:On Thursday, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will almost certainly repeal the American net neutrality rules that went into effect in 2015.


Net neutrality is somewhat of a misnomer—a better descriptor is “content agnostic.” What net neutrality implies is that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the U.S.—cable companies and telcos like Comcast CMCSA and Verizon VZ —must treat all content equally, regardless of what it is or who owns it. For example, AT&T is not currently allowed to provide its subscribers faster access to DirecTV, which it owns, and slower access to Netflix NFLX , which it does not own. The end of net neutrality would, in theory, allow ISPs to charge more/less for, or slow down/speed up, different types of content.

Removing net neutrality has generated a huge amount of media coverage in the U.S., mostly casting the debate in terms of an epic story of victims and villains.

The victims are American consumers and businesses. As certain content is priced out of reach, the story goes, the Internet will become less rich, small enterprises will suffer, public schools and universities will see their Internet connections slow to a crawl, the best minds will leave the country in frustration, and everyone will pay more for Spotify and Netflix.

The villains are the ISPs, long reviled for high prices, poor service, and aggressive retention tactics. The ISPs lobbied the government hard for this change, and stand to benefit the most at the expense of long-suffering subscribers. Networking and infrastructure companies are also likely to gain, as the rule change will require upgrades to networking hardware and software.

This is a gripping narrative, but how much of it is actually true? Will the end of net neutrality really make a big difference to the average Internet user? We think not.

First, it is worth pointing out that net neutrality rules are quite new—the law was only enacted in mid-2015—although the concept has been around since the 1990s. Prior to 2015, there was no net neutrality and, well, the Internet worked just fine for most people. Occasionally, an ISP was caught slowing down (throttling) certain sites, but public pressure or legal action tended to keep the ISP honest. There is little reason to believe that a future with no net neutrality regulation will be very different from the past.


Second, the issue with net neutrality is multi-speed Internet service, not web censorship. An ISP might be frustrated that Netflix consumes 35% of its bandwidth at peak hours, but it cannot legally block it, with or without net neutrality. Even with no net neutrality, the most that an ISP could do would be to slow down access to Netflix, and charge people for higher speeds. In reality, this is not likely to happen—the public backlash would be too severe. More likely, the ISPs would discriminate by offering their own preferred content faster and cheaper. Ironically, this is already happening under net neutrality regulation: AT&T, for example, offers DirecTV access as a “zero rating” product, i.e. it does not count toward data caps.


Third, the end of net neutrality rules will lead to a closer link between cost and consumption. While net neutrality may be conceptually appealing, it is not equitable. Is it fair that a few super-users are allowed to clog up networks by downloading movies, playing data-hungry online games, and not paying more for it? Why shouldn’t ISPs be allowed to price data according to volume, type, or speed?

Fourth, ISPs could use any extra revenue generated from high-bandwidth users to subsidize the cost to regular users or improve network infrastructure. If they start to charge more for content, then there will be a lot of pressure from subscribers and regulators to improve service levels in return.

Fifth, the practical difference for most subscribers will be minimal. Most ISPs already charge higher prices for higher speeds, or bundle less attractive services (like TV channels you never watch) with more attractive ones (faster Internet access). The only difference without net neutrality would be that slow speeds could affect some sites more than other sites.

Sixth, net neutrality, however intuitively appealing, is a form of government control. History has taught us that government control and intervention often inhibits progress and innovation. If ISPs are less regulated, one might imagine companies springing up that would provide better, faster, and cheaper service, thus promoting innovation.

Finally, ISPs are unlikely to make any quick moves to change the status quo. Legal challenges to the removal of net neutrality are likely, mid-term elections are coming in 2018, and public opinion of ISPs is already low. Most large ISPs have also pledged not to make any dramatic moves in the event that net neutrality is repealed.

Net neutrality is an attractive concept, and its removal might instinctively rub you the wrong way, but that doesn’t mean it should be kept in its current form. Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, has stated that net neutrality is “not our primary battle at this point.” If he is not worried, why should the rest of us be?

Michael Wade is director of the Global Center for Digital Business Transformation at IMD. Heidi Gautschi is a research associate at Global Center for Digital Business Transformation at IMD.
#5
New York attorney general announces a multi-state lawsuit challenging the net neutrality vote

Quote:Taylor Hatmaker,TechCrunch 43 minutes ago 
  • Reactions
     

  • Like
     

  • Reblog on Tumblr
     

  • Share
     

  • Tweet
     

  • [email=?subject=New%20York%20attorney%20general%20announces%20a%20multi-state%20lawsuit%20challenging%20the%20net%20neutrality%20vote&body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fyork-attorney-general-announces-multi-193033668.html%3F.tsrc%3Dfauxdal&.tsrc=fauxdal]Email[/email]
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a leading voice in the fight against the FCC's net neutrality rules repeal, has stepped forward with one of the first legal challenges to the commission’s controversial vote.

Citing his investigation into the FCC's public comments process preceding the vote, Schneiderman declared his office's intention to sue to "stop the FCC’s illegal rollback of net neutrality" — a forthcoming legal challenge that's sure to be in good company. In response to questions from TechCrunch, Schneiderman's office noted that he will spearhead a multi-state lawsuit and that we can expect it "in the coming days."

"We will be filing a claim to preserve protections for New Yorkers and all Americans. And we'll be working aggressively to stop the FCC's leadership from doing any further damage to the internet and to our economy," Schneiderman said in a press release.

"Today’s new rule would enable ISPs to charge consumers more to access sites like Facebook and Twitter and give them the leverage to degrade high quality of video streaming until and unless somebody pays them more money. Even worse, today’s vote would enable ISPs to favor certain viewpoints over others."

While we don't yet know which states will be joining New York in the legal action, it's safe to assume that we'll see overlap with those that joined a letter calling for a delay of the vote due to revelations around faked comments during the public feedback process. The letter included 18 attorneys general from the states of Virginia, Delaware, Hawaii, California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, Mississippi, Oregon, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Washington, Vermont and the District of Columbia.

Schneiderman's office told TechCrunch that it expects to see more statements from other state attorneys general about their intentions to join the claim very soon. We'll be following this story and other reverberations from today's net neutrality vote as they develop.
[Image: 6e9d5f16028aceb42ae535921729d0ad]

#6
What is going on, on the net right now

Youtube adpocalypse
demonitization

Fake news claims

Comicsgates

Gamergate is bubbling

The Fox Disney deal


Looking at this, here is my thought

Fox sold to disney
Deal signed before vote or at the finish line

It means that their opinion is that it will be an unmaintainable posistion..
Legal advice would have been to advise to sell because they tested??? legal outcomes..

Means the lawsuits will lose


The question is this???

Watch the flow of money.. Does anyone know who the lobbyist for Verizon, comcast, cox, ATT are?
#7
#8
#9
Big Grin 
There is of course the most powerful industry in the world that has not spoken

You might be feeling them weigh in
Because if they boycott any congressman who supports the new rules expect election changes

6 People You've Never Heard Of (Who Secretly Rule The World)

Quote:#6. Almost All Of The Porn On The Internet (Even The Illegally Downloaded Porn) Is Controlled By One Company

Despite a website that paints them as the blandest, most inoffensive corporation since Staples (they bill themselves as "a leader in web design, IT, web development, and SEO"), the nigh-invisible Internet conglomerate MindGeek runs all of the porn on the Internet. Even the pirated stuff. Considering that roughly 35 percent of all downloads are deposits into the stroke bank, it can be truly said that MindGeek holds the keys to the online kingdom.
[Image: 481794_v1.jpg]

There's a very good reason their offices are all white.
Since 2007, MindGeek (then called Manwin) has established an absolute foothold in the pirated porn business, allowing any anonymous dick to upload any anonymous dick they want to any website in the MindGeek dugout. And they own a LOT of them. Have you ever fired a few potential heirs into a sock while watching YouPorn, PornHub, Xtube, Redtube, Extremetube, or SpankWire? You just made MindGeek even richer, because they own all those sites, plus about a hundred more.
[Image: 481792_v1.jpg]

All of which are tabbed on your computer, right now.
So how is it that MindGeek has avoided the fates of Napster and Pirate Bay, despite basing a huge part of their fortune on the distribution of copyrighted material? Well, the answer is pretty simple -- MindGeek also owns the movies people are pirating. See, in addition to a nine-figure loan they got from some shadowy Wall Street investor, the company grew so rich hosting ill-gotten porn that they went out and purchased every actual porn studio they could get their hands on. Brazzers, Digital Playground, Mofos, MyDirtyHobby, Twistys, Reality Kings -- all of those brands that you're pretending not to recognize are directly owned by MindGeek. They even had a working relationship with Playboy, back when that actually mattered. So they profit off the movies being filmed, and then profit off the films being pirated. It's a double penetration of profit.

Unfortunately, this arrangement isn't so great for the people actually making the porn, since their videos are all owned by the same company pirating their content (and thus getting around that pesky little problem of having to pay them anything). But they can't say a goddamn thing about it, because to do so would risk angering their bosses and lose them any chance of making any money for their videos. So any actors and actresses under the MindGeek umbrella basically have two choices -- keep their mouths shut and hope that Vivid Video signs them, or go back to serving mozzarella sticks at T.G.I. Friday's for less money than it costs to drive to work.
[Image: 481796_v1.jpg]

T.G.I. Friday's: where even the buildings look like they're ready to screw you.
So, why aren't any officials speaking out about what sounds suspiciously like a monopoly? Presumably because ... it's porn. Nobody wants to touch it. No presidential candidate is going to start yelling about how the hardcore porn industry needs more regulation, although there is no denying it would be a pretty bold platform.
#10
To be honest, I was thinking, internet service would become more expensive.
Simply because, in most older areas there are only one or two internet companies that support that area, like where we live.

But I could be wrong.
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
#11
(12-15-2017, 06:14 AM)guohua Wrote: To be honest, I was thinking, internet service would become more expensive.
Simply because, in most older areas there are only one or two internet companies that support that area, like where we live.

But I could be wrong.

The Texas deregulation effect

When they deregulated the electric service providers

Cost went up without a matching increase in service

This is a facet..

You are correct.. 

You are wrong in thinking you may be wrong..

tinylaughing


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)