Net Neutrality Issue Explodes on the Internet

[ClaytonB]

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9kqpav/fcc-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-thanksgiving-weekend

( '_' ) <-- This is me. I am deeply outraged and furious at the thought of there being no NN rules on the Internet. It affects my daily life a lot. If there were no NN rules, my life would be basically unlivable. I feel deeply motivated to post my opinion all over the Internet and to coordinate with others who feel as outraged as me. I am America. I am everyone. I am definitely not astroturf, definitely not a bot and have definitely never worked with a political "soft power" protest organization in the past, such as Otpor! or anything of that nature. I just woke up this morning, saw that the FCC chairman has the audacity to think about changing the NN rules, and blew a cork. I knew, immediately, I had to do something, anything, or all will be lost. In fact, I'm going to go take a dump on my neighbor's lawn right now because I'm pretty sure he's a capitalist pig and opposes NN and that is a way more personal and profound way of making my voice heard than spewing verbal diarrhea about things I don't even really care about on reddit or Twitter.

 

[timosman]

Onion?

 

[ClaytonB]

Onion?

Kind of like The Onion but with a little fresh chopped garlic...

 

[angelatc]

 

[timosman]

 

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

…what America would be like if it ditched net neutrality, just look at Portugal

The Federal Communications Commission is planning to ditch net neutrality, which requires internet providers to treat all data online equally.
A Portuguese internet provider shows what the American internet could look like if net neutrality is scrapped.
One company charges people more for additional data based on the kind of app they want to use, such as those for messaging or for video.


On Tuesday, the US Federal Communications Commission announced that it planned to vote on an order to roll back Obama-era rules governing net neutrality.

Simply put, net neutrality means that all data on the internet is treated equally. An internet service provider can't prioritize certain companies or types of data, charge users more to access certain websites and apps, or charge businesses for preferential access.

Advocates of net neutrality argue that it ensures a level playing field for everyone on the internet. Telecoms firms, however, are largely against it because of the additional restrictions it places on them.

But with the Republican-majority FCC likely to vote on December 14 in favor of rolling back the order, what might the American internet look like without net neutrality? Just look at Portugal.

The country's wireless carrier Meo offers a package that's very different from those available in the US. Users pay for traditional "data" — and on top of that, they pay for additional packages based on the kind of data and apps they want to use.

Really into messaging? Then pay €4.99 ($5.86 or £4.43) a month and get more data for apps like WhatsApp, Skype, and FaceTime. Prefer social networks like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Messenger, and so on? That'll be another €4.99 a month.

Video apps like Netflix and YouTube are available as another add-on, while music (Spotify, SoundCloud, Google Play Music, etc.) is another, as is email and cloud (Gmail, Yahoo Mail, iCloud, etc.).

Net-neutrality advocates argue that this kind of model is dangerous because it risks creating a two-tier system that harms competition — people will just use the big-name apps included in the bundles they pay for, while upstart challengers will be left out in the cold.

For example: If you love watching videos, and Netflix is included in the video bundle but Hulu isn't, you're likely to try to save money by using only Netflix, making it harder for its competitors.

And without net neutrality, big-name apps could theoretically even pay telecoms firms for preferential access, offering them money — and smaller companies just couldn't compete with that. (It's not clear whether any of the companies named above have paid for preferential access.) An ISP could even refuse to grant access to an app at all unless they paid up.

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California originally shared the Meo example on Twitter in October.

"In Portugal, with no net neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages," he wrote. "A huge advantage for entrenched companies, but it totally ices out startups trying to get in front of people which stifles innovation. This is what's at stake, and that's why we have to save net neutrality."

Technically, Portugal is bound by the European Union's net-neutrality rules, but loopholes allow certain kinds of pricing schemes like the one outlined above.

Yonatan Zunger, a former Google employee, recently retweeted Khanna's tweet, adding: "This isn't even the worst part of ending net neutrality. The worst part happens when ISPs say 'we don't like this site's politics,' or 'this site competes with us,' and block or throttle it."

 

[specsaregood]

Yonatan Zunger, a former Google employee, recently retweeted Khanna's tweet, adding: "This isn't even the worst part of ending net neutrality. The worst part happens when ISPs say 'we don't like this site's politics,' or 'this site competes with us,' and block or throttle it."

I don't fear ISPS saying that, because really the telecoms don't give one shit about what content I am viewing, they care about bandwidth and providing service.

The fearmongering other bits about alacarte all sounds like a good thing to me. It give customers a choice. If I don't use facebook or listen to streaming music, why should I have to pay or really subsidize the costs of others using those services?

Net neutrality is relatively recent in the history of the internet, I'm pretty sure I had no problems with internet service prior to net neutrality. It was always a "solution" to a problem that never existed and more about control.

 

[angelatc]

The worst part happens when ISPs say 'we don't like this site's politics,' or 'this site competes with us,' and block or throttle it."

Actually the worst part happens when governments do that.

 

[Lamp]

Yeah bad idea.......

 

[timosman]

I don't fear ISPS saying that, because really the telecoms don't give one shit about what content I am viewing, they care about bandwidth and providing service.

LOL, how about milking government?

 

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.
2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube.
1 reply 46 retweets 95 likes


2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace


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)



2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

 

[angelatc]

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

Interesting since the rules weren't adopted until 2014 - 2015.

All public utilities charge you based on what you consume. There's no good reason for this "one size MUST fit all" silliness.

AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet

Not according to the tech sites:

Recent reports that Verizon is blocking Google Wallet on our devices are false. Verizon does not block applications.

Google Wallet is different from other widely-available m-commerce services. Google Wallet does not simply access the operating system and basic hardware of our phones like thousands of other applications. Instead, in order to work as architected by Google, Google Wallet needs to be integrated into a new, secure and proprietary hardware element in our phones.


We are continuing our commercial discussions with Google on this issue.

Honestly, if you're going to whine about how unfair it is that the government isn't limiting competition, I don't know what to say. Except that we were almost all limited back in the dial up days, but the market fixed that PDQ

 

[timosman]

Except that we were almost all limited back in the dial up days, but the market fixed that PDQ

Woo, hoo! Pricing for the internet service in US of A is among the lowest on this planet.

 

[AZJoe]

The Federal Communications Commission is planning to ditch net neutrality, which requires internet providers to treat all data online equally. ...

Simply put, net neutrality means that all data on the internet is treated equally. ...

Like other oxymoron Orwellian newspeak labelled laws such as the Patriot Act, and Liberty Act, the so called "net neutrality" is anything but "neutral". It is not about access or neutrality, but about CONTROL. We should be wary of any state imposed policing of the internet.

Government and authoritarians fear an unregulated free market flow of information, dissent, truth, voices, ideas, creativity, commerce and ingenuity. They fear the free flow of information. They seek the foot in the door, nose under the tent regulatory opening.

We need a bloated government police state agency controlling "net neutrality" as much as we need government police bureaucracy controlling "food neutrality", "speech neutrality", "shopping neutrality", "restaurant neutrality", "cell phone neutrality", "software neutrality", ...

It is not intended nor does it liberate the free flow of information, but rather to suppress that which they wish suppressed. "Net neutrality" is Obamacare for the internet. FTC's initial 400 pages of new regulations does not make the internet more free. The decree places internet service providers under the thumbs of FCC bureaucrats by making them "common carriers" under the 80-year-old Communications Act. It allows the FCC to subject internet providers to ever expanding FCC control over how they provide service, and regulate their networks and services provided to consumers. It opens the door to control what products can be offered, what bandwidth a consumer or content provider may have or purchase or be offered, terms of service, pricing, and more. It enables the FCC to control how and what information could flow through the Internet.

Info:
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/why-you-will-hate-net-neutrality/
https://reason.com/blog/2017/11/26/why-net-neutrality-was-mistaken-from-the

 

[phill4paul]

The government has such a great record of protecting the people. Just look at the EPA or the FDA. What would we do without them? We'd probably all be dead.

 

[timosman]

Google Starts Blocking YouTube on Amazon’s Fire TV, Echo Show

http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/google-blocks-youtube-fire-tv-echo-show-1202631248/

The conflict between Amazon and Google is escalating: Google once again started to block access to YouTube on Amazon’s Echo Show device Tuesday, and is notifying users of Amazon’s Fire TV that they won’t be able to access YouTube anymore starting January 1st.

In an unusually frank statement, a Google spokesperson squarely blamed Amazon’s unwillingness to strike a business deal with Google for the step:

​“We’ve been trying to reach agreement with Amazon to give consumers access to each other’s products and services. But Amazon doesn’t carry Google products like Chromecast and Google Home, doesn’t make Prime Video available for Google Cast users, and last month stopped selling some of Nest’s latest products. Given this lack of reciprocity, we are no longer supporting YouTube on Echo Show and FireTV. We hope we can reach an agreement to resolve these issues soon.”

Amazon shot back Tuesday afternoon, sending Variety the following statement:

“Echo Show and Fire TV now display a standard web view of YouTube.com and point customers directly to YouTube’s existing website. Google is setting a disappointing precedent by selectively blocking customer access to an open website. We hope to resolve this with Google as soon as possible.”

....