​

UPDATE: It's been voted for repeal. The FCC took Net Neutrality to a vote, and it was 3-2, in favor of repeal. This doesn't mean overnight upheaval, but things will certainly change, for better or worse, in due time.

​

If you've been on the internet at all the past week, there's a high chance that you've heard of something called "Net Neutrality", and you've also likely heard that there might be huge changes to your usage of the internet entirely. This post serves as a quick information briefing on what Net Neutrality is, what could happen if it's repealed, and the current events going on regarding it, and just general visibility to let the community in general be informed.

What is this Net Neutrality thing?

The basic definition of network neutrality is simple: all internet traffic is considered and treated equally. It was established just a bit under three years ago, in February 2015. It prevented companies like Comcast Xfinity and AT&T U-verse from speeding up, or slowing down certain sites based upon content. If you remember, back in July 2017, mobile provider Verizon admitted to targeting Netflix traffic, and specifically throttling it, negatively affecting customers' use of Netflix. Going back to 2014, there were also issues with Comcast customers, and, that's right, Netflix users, as connections to Netflix were notoriously slow. Netflix then entered a legal deal with Comcast, in order to have Netflix connections be faster than they previously were. The 2014 incident was pre-net neutrality, and shows that before the law was enacted, certain sites like Netflix were indeed slowed, and had to specifically bargain with large telecommunication monopolies like Comcast to get fair speeds out to their customers.

In April 2017, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Ajit Pai, revealed that he had plans to repeal net neutrality. It's worth noting that Pai was once the Associate General Counsel of Verizon Communications, an incredibly high up position with an ISP, who we've stated before as having throttled websites in the past.

Pai's statements on the matter included saying such things as "[the government] would be able to stop micromanaging the internet" and that the FCC and internet service providers would simply have to be "transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy a service plan that's best for them". Shortly after, Comcast began vocally supporting these statements, claiming that government regulation of the internet has been harming innovation and investments of Comcast. David Cohen, the company's Chief Diversity Officer, said that "customers would be clearly informed on our practices [...] Comcast maintains that it does and will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content".

Within the movement for repealing net neutrality, also comes with power being given to the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC would then have the ability to legally charge internet service providers that were not made clear to customers.

You may notice, that within any of the claims made by Pai or Comcast, that equal traffic was never made the focus, instead putting emphasis on making sure these monopolies must be clear and transparent about what they do, but never laying down any solid rules about what they need to be transparent about or why. And, of course, if the FTC were to go after AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, or other assorted companies for not being transparent, these legal cases would find themselves taking years to make their way to court, allowing for them to have their way with their customers until a definitive legal ruling. Therein lies the first batch of unease and controversy with the repeal.

In short, net neutrality is a fairly new regulation, which allows for equal traffic between all sites while using the internet. The chairman of the FCC and former higher-up of Verizon wants to repeal it, however. This would allow less government interference with ISPs, but would also allow those ISPs to do what they wish, so long as they're "transparent".

Does repealing Net Neutrality have any benefits?

Spoiler alert: not really

From the inception of the internet, and up until 2015, Americans have gone without net neutrality. Ajit Pai claims that should we not have net neutrality anymore, more rural areas would be able to have more companies and providers, and it would allow for more competition and choice for the consumer. However, these smaller companies would also have to fight it out with established services, with years of experience and infrastructure refinements.

As a side note, I've spent thirty minutes researching a potential "pro" argument. I've not found many that seem reasonable. I've listed in the spoiler tag below arguments from other websites and blogs.

Spoiler: Supporting a repeal?

Green Garage Blog: While net neutrality allows for freedom of speech, the downside is that almost anything can be posted to the internet. This means that the cruelest or insensitive information imaginable can end up on the internet, and as a result, it can cause a lot of problems from people that otherwise wouldn’t be prone to being under the microscope of criticism. This means that people can post cruel, intimidating, or other harassing messages and often get away with it thanks to free speech legislation. So it can be a very toxic environment for a lot of people to put up with.

Vittana: Reduced income from internet uses limits infrastructure improvements.
There are certain businesses and high-use individuals who consume large amounts of bandwidth every month. If net neutrality was removed, these high-level consumers would be asked to pay more for what they consume. This added income could then be used to upgrade the infrastructure of each internet service provider, making it possible for advanced fiber networks to be installed in many communities.

AEI: But in many instances, fast lanes, zero-rating, and the like benefit customers. In separate research, both former FCC Chief Economist Michael Katz (with Ben Hermalin) and I (with Janice Hauge) showed that fast lanes benefit small content providers in their attempts to compete with established industry leaders. AEI scholar Roslyn Layton has shown that elderly and low-income consumers benefit from zero-rating services.

Basically, the only benefit would be if America's current economy wasn't dominated by monopolistic ISPs. Below is an interview with Ajit Pai, showing his perspective.

Scrapping these rules, Pai told Reason's Nick Gillespie, won't harm consumers or the public interest because there was no reason for them in the first place. The rationales were mere "phantoms that were conjured up by people who wanted the FCC for political reasons to overregulate the internet," Pai told Gillespie. "We were not living in a digital dystopia in the years leading up to 2015."

If left in place, however, the Title II rules could harm the commercial internet, which Pai described as "one of the most incredible free market innovations in history."

"Companies like Google and Facebook and Netflix became household names precisely because we didn't have the government micromanaging how the internet would operate," said Pai, who noted that the Clinton-era decision not to regulate the Internet like a phone utility or a broadcast network was one of the most important factors in the rise of our new economy.

Pai also pushed back against claims that he's a right-wing radical who's "fucking things up."

"[I ascribe to] the very radical, right-wing position that the Clinton administration basically got it right when it came to digital infrastructure."

What happens if/when this gets repealed, and what does this mean for you?

The worst part of this, is that there's no definitive answer of what WILL happen, only what CAN happen. What has people concerned, though, is the potential things that larger ISPs can do with this new power, should net neutrality be repealed. Internet service providers could slow access to specific sites, and speed up others, in theory, others specifically being sites who pay ISPs for faster access, and those partnered or in contracts with ISPs. Websites like Google, Amazon, Reddit, Etsy, Netflix, and many more have all broadcast their support of net neutrality, stating that without these rules in place thanks to net neutrality, internet providers would become gatekeepers to the internet, restricting what customers can see. Without definitive government restrictions, these companies could be free to split access to the internet into packages, like cable TV, indeed making true on the intention of lowering the cost of internet access, but also making it more difficult and expensive to see all of the internet, as you can right now.

Likely, what will happen, though everything is up in the air, is that certain ISPs will utilize what's called "fast lanes" and "zero rating". Fast lanes are sort of like what we talked about at the start, with Netflix and Comcast. Currently, these fast lanes and zero rating are used with mobile phone data. AT&T customers can watch DirecTV (owned by AT&T) via their mobile data, without it counting towards their monthly cap. These rules could be applied to home internet as well; if you're a Comcast user, and you want to watch Hulu (owned by NBC-Universal-Comcast), maybe your connection to Hulu will be lightning fast, thanks to these theoretical fast lanes, and they won't go towards your Comcast monthly 1 Terabyte home cap. But what if you want to watch Netflix? Either Netflix will have much lower picture quality, or take a longer time to connect to. And if Netflix pays a fee, or gets into a contract once again with Comcast, then that potentially means that Netflix's increased costs move down to the consumer, who also now has to pay more for a service as well.

What can we do?

The only thing left to do is let your voice be heard. Social media has exploded without people decrying the impending repeal of net neutrality, and the negatives that it would entail, to the point of where the majority of Reddit has been plastered with net neutrality posts.

​

The FCC will take the repeal to a vote on December 14, 2017. It is highly predicted that the repeal will pass, and net neutrality will come to an end. Millions have taken to the site "battleforthenet" and "callmycongress" to contact their local representatives and congressmen in order to show that American citizens don't want net neutrality destroyed.

You can learn more at the links below. Hopefully this is helpful in describing what net neutrality is, and why it shouldn't be taken away.

Techcrunch: These are the arguments against net neutrality and why they're wrong

Extra Credits: What a closed internet means

Phillip DeFranco: The Internet is under attack

Save the internet: What you need to know

Ars Technica: RIP net neutrality

 

[SG854]

@Foxi4 The whole argument against Net Neutrality is, if you give government some power they will eventually crave more.
But this argument doesn't make much sense from how U.S. implemented Title 2. Governmental power was limited.

If people are going to use that argument, then why not use that same argument for Title 1.
First to gain power we will have to create legislation to give government more power, whether we are on title 1 or 2, and i'm sure this will not be supported by the people. So Title 2 will not eventually lead to Title 3. Thats a slippery slope fallacy.

And copy right laws, and p2p sites hosting copy right content. Remember the government stoped ISP's from throttling p2p sites. So it wasn't the government that was throttling sites, it was isp's. And the government stopped that. Isp's owned television networks, and owned movies that were being hosted on torrent sites. Since isp's were loosing money, there was an incentive to throttle those sites. And government put an end to this. There is nothing to gain if the government blocks copy right content. But there is something to gain for ISP's or for other companies. Prior to 2015 isp's didn't have that many deals or ownership of many subscription entertainment services, but nowadays things have changed.

For the case of Canada remember its not the government that wants to censor, its the 4 companies that do. Which are Bell, Cineplex, Rogers and Shaw.
Which is what Net Neutrality is suppose to stop. So net neutrality will not lead to anti net neutrality for the government. Its companies and isp's that want to end it.

 

[Foxi4]

Im not sure how the Net Neutrality laws work in Canada. But this is anti net neutrality.
Something the government or companies shouldn't be allowed to do. The whole point of net neutrality is not to block sites.

The solution is to implement NN how the U.S. implemented Title 2 and restrict government power over ISP's. Because either way, whether its government or isp's this is bad.

You can't argue that the Internet should be protected by legislature intended for telecoms because it's not telecoms - it uses them as means of data transfer, but it's overall a completely different beast. I would argue that ISP's should offer access to whatever they want, what I take great issue with is that they're colluding with eachother for the purposes of creating restrictions. I do understand however that they do so due to compulsion from the government which created copyright laws in the first place, it can and it does block sites either way, so a blanket ban would be a form of limiting liability. I'm not sure how it works in Canada, but in the U.S. under the DMCA the ISP is partially liable for its users accessing illegal content and they're requires to take action against such users, which is why the strikes rules originally were implemented in the first place. This entail financial liability as well, which is asinine - it's as if a toll road owner was financially liable for any traffic accidents that occur on it regardless of who's actually at fault. If the Internet is to be regulated at all, which I don't think it should be since it's a decentralised network, it should be regulated with its own set of rules altogether, but that's not how Net Neutrality was implemented, therefore I'm quite happy that it's going away.

 

[SG854]

You can't argue that the Internet should be protected by legislature intended for telecoms because it's not telecoms - it uses them as means of data transfer, but it's overall a completely different beast. I would argue that ISP's should offer access to whatever they want, what I take great issue with is that they're colluding with eachother for the purposes of creating restrictions. I do understand however that they do so due to compulsion from the government which created copyright laws in the first place, it can and it does block sites either way, so a blanket ban would be a form of limiting liability. I'm not sure how it works in Canada, but in the U.S. under the DMCA the ISP is partially liable for its users accessing illegal content and they're requires to take action against such users, which is why the strikes rules originally were implemented in the first place. This entail financial liability as well, which is asinine - it's as if a toll road owner was financially liable for any traffic accidents that occur on it regardless of who's actually at fault. If the Internet is to be regulated at all, which I don't think it should be since it's a decentralised network, it should be regulated with its own set of rules altogether, but that's not how Net Neutrality was implemented, therefore I'm quite happy that it's going away.

I never said it was created for telecoms. As I said in my above post. The government has no financial gain for throttling or blocking p2p sites. It wasn't the Government that wanted copyright content laws. It was people that did, specifically the owners of the original content. And they pushed their government to created legislation. The government has nothing to gain for enforcing copyright so they are not to blame for this.

Same argument applies to Jordan Peterson and the whole genders argument. Government isn't secretly saying, "we will control he population by forcing people to use the 50+ genders, that'll show them, muahaha" People are the ones that pushed for legislation not the government. If you don't use someones prefer pronoun but they don't complain to the government, then the government won't know and won't enforce anything. If they do enforce its because someone files a complaint and wants something to be done. It not your government that wants to control, its specific people that do.

I don't know if you paid attention to the other NN debates here, but giving government too much power was a big concern for the Obama administration, which is why they went for a light approach to the application of Title 2. Over 700 of Title 2 rules do not apply to ISP's. Only a few which is no throttling, no paid prioritization, no blocking, and being transparent. Legislation was created against telecoms because they kept abusing their power and broke NN multiple times. They were blocking tethering apps, blocking skype, blocking voice apps, blocking streaming video sites, throttling p2p, doing zero ratings, disabling gps apps, disabling fm radio chips, and so on... People complained and something was done. Legislation was created for the people not for telecoms. This is government doing what its supposed to do, listen to the people and act in the peoples best interests.

 

[Foxi4]

I never said it was created for telecoms. As I said in my above post. The government has no financial gain for throttling or blocking p2p sites. It wasn't the Government that wanted copyright content laws. It was people that did, specifically the owners of the original content. And they pushed their government to created legislation. The government has nothing to gain for enforcing copyright so they are not to blame for this.

Same argument applies to Jordan Peterson and the whole genders argument. Government isn't secretly saying, "we will control he population by forcing people to use the 50+ genders, that'll show them, muahaha" People are the ones that pushed for legislation not the government. If you don't use someones prefer pronoun but they don't complain to the government, then the government won't know and won't enforce anything. If they do enforce its because someone files a complaint and wants something to be done. It not your government that wants to control, its specific people that do.

I don't know if you paid attention to the other NN debates here, but giving government too much power was a big concern for the Obama administration, which is why they went for a light approach to the application of Title 2. Over 700 of Title 2 rules do not apply to the ISP's. Only a few which is no throttling, no paid prioritization, no blocking, and being transparent. Legislation was created against telecoms because they kept abusing their power and broke NN multiple times. They were blocking tethering apps, blocking skype, blocking voice apps, blocking streaming video sites, throttling p2p, doing zero ratings, disabling gps apps, disabling fm radio chips, and so on... People complained and something was done. Legislation was created for the people not for telecoms. This is government doing what its supposed to do, listen to the people and act in the peoples best interests.

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that the government has nothing to gain from seizing control of what is and is not acceptable on the Internet, and that idea is ill-founded and uninformed. The government has plenty to gain from it, perhaps not in a financial sense, but definitely in terms of power.

Peterson's issue with bill C-16 is very simple - it introduces the idea of compelled speech into the legal system. It's not a matter of telling people that some terms, like slurs, are offensive and thus their use can be construed as discrimination, it's a matter of telling people what terms they *must* use under threat of draconian fines, legal issues and, quite possibly, imprisonment, which is the direct consequence of not paying the fine. Moreover, it introduces group responsibility and mandated ostricisation - bill C-16 specifically says that not only is the speaker responsible for their egregious crime of exercising their rights, so is their employer - it creates an environment in which the employer *must* punished their employee for having an opinion. It's totalitarian and disgusting, compelled speech is incompatible with the idea of a free society and it must be eliminated.

ISP's should be entitled to do all of those things because they're the ones who provide the service - if you don't like the level of service provided, you find a different ISP. If there is no other ISP, there are anti-monopoly provisions in the law already and the state of matters is the fault of the government anyways for fostering an environment in which free market competition cannot flourish.

You don't fix bad regulation with more regulation, especially if the regulation is ineffective. The Internet already isn't neutral, nor should it be. The same people who cry foul about ISP's blocking a certain website stay silent when Twitter or Facebook silences people for having an opinion they don't like - I don't buy the smoke and mirrors presented by the NN crowd. The ISP's didn't abuse anything at all, they were following shitty and outdated laws.

 

[SG854]

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that the government has nothing to gain from seizing control of what is and is not acceptable on the Internet, and that idea is ill-founded and uninformed. The government has plenty to gain from it, perhaps not in a financial sense, but definitely in terms of power.

Peterson's issue with bill C-16 is very simple - it introduces the idea of compelled speech into the legal system. It's not a matter of telling people that some terms, like slurs, are offensive and thus their use can be construed as discrimination, it's a matter of telling people what terms they *must* use under threat of draconian fines, legal issues and, quite possibly, imprisonment, which is the direct consequence of not paying the fine. Moreover, it introduces group responsibility and mandated ostricisation - bill C-16 specifically says that not only is the speaker responsible for their egregious crime of exercising their rights, so is their employer - it creates an environment in which the employer *must* punished their employee for having an opinion. It's totalitarian and disgusting, compelled speech is incompatible with the idea of a free society and it must be eliminated.

ISP's should be entitled to do all of those things because they're the ones who provide the service - if you don't like the level of service provided, you find a different ISP. If there is no other ISP, there are anti-monopoly provisions in the law already and the state of matters is the fault of the government anyways for fostering an environment in which free market competition cannot flourish.

You don't fix bad regulation with more regulation, especially if the regulation is ineffective. The Internet already isn't neutral, nor should it be. The same people who cry foul about ISP's blocking a certain website stay silent when Twitter or Facebook silences people for having an opinion they don't like - I don't buy the smoke and mirrors presented by the NN crowd. The ISP's didn't abuse anything at all, they were following shitty and outdated laws.

Well i'm against C-16 because I think its stupid. But what power do they gain from this? Why is forcing gender pronouns a big concern for the government?
I want to have power just because? Who was the one that pushed for gender pronouns? Was it the government or gender pronoun crowd that did? Your not giving specific reason as to what benefits the government has for gaining power by enforcing pronouns.

That was exactly the concern for the Obama administration was to implement Title 2 so that it doesn't hurt infrastructure and hurt isp's financially.
Even in Telecoms own findings it shows that title 2 regulation has not hurt infrastructure development.
https://arstechnica.com/information...-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/

Sprint in the 2015 Title 2 document on page 13 even said that the light touch of Title 2 will not hurt investment or long term profitability.
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

Remember isp's are accountable to their investors, not to the government. So they have to be honest with their investors. Which is why you have to pay attention to what they tell their investors and not to what they say to the government or the general population. And they have repeatedly told their investors that title 2 has not hurt their investment.

 

[Sonic Angel Knight]

Since this thread isn't locked, I figured i share this email i got from mozilla. (Though not sure how they got my email) If this isn't useful to anyone, sorry I wasted your time. And yes, i just got it a moment ago.

 

[Foxi4]

>Clap emoticon on an official call to action from a serious company

Now I really hope Congress passes it without delay.

 

[driverdis]

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that the government has nothing to gain from seizing control of what is and is not acceptable on the Internet, and that idea is ill-founded and uninformed. The government has plenty to gain from it, perhaps not in a financial sense, but definitely in terms of power.

Peterson's issue with bill C-16 is very simple - it introduces the idea of compelled speech into the legal system. It's not a matter of telling people that some terms, like slurs, are offensive and thus their use can be construed as discrimination, it's a matter of telling people what terms they *must* use under threat of draconian fines, legal issues and, quite possibly, imprisonment, which is the direct consequence of not paying the fine. Moreover, it introduces group responsibility and mandated ostricisation - bill C-16 specifically says that not only is the speaker responsible for their egregious crime of exercising their rights, so is their employer - it creates an environment in which the employer *must* punished their employee for having an opinion. It's totalitarian and disgusting, compelled speech is incompatible with the idea of a free society and it must be eliminated.

ISP's should be entitled to do all of those things because they're the ones who provide the service - if you don't like the level of service provided, you find a different ISP. If there is no other ISP, there are anti-monopoly provisions in the law already and the state of matters is the fault of the government anyways for fostering an environment in which free market competition cannot flourish.

You don't fix bad regulation with more regulation, especially if the regulation is ineffective. The Internet already isn't neutral, nor should it be. The same people who cry foul about ISP's blocking a certain website stay silent when Twitter or Facebook silences people for having an opinion they don't like - I don't buy the smoke and mirrors presented by the NN crowd. The ISP's didn't abuse anything at all, they were following shitty and outdated laws.

^This
What annoys me about some of the NN crowd is that they somehow are under the impression that the government will regulate better than companies, ignoring the fact that the government themselves IS a business and may take actions that benefit them.

 

[jt_1258]

^This
What annoys me about some of the NN crowd is that they somehow are under the impression that the government will regulate better than companies, ignoring the fact that the government themselves IS a business and may take actions that benefit them.

at least we more directly vote who is in the government then who is chosen to move up the chain in a business

 

[TotalInsanity4]

the government themselves IS a business and may take actions that benefit them.

If you're saying that and voted Trump I'm going to reach through my monitor and punch you

 

[Foxi4]

at least we more directly vote who is in the government then who is chosen to move up the chain in a business

You directly choose government once every few years, you directly choose which companies are successful everyday by participating in the marketplace, so your comparison is moot.

If you're saying that and voted Trump I'm going to reach through my monitor and punch you

You're right, the government is not a business. A business operates within the constraints of the law with a set goal of profit which it achieves by providing desirable goods and services to customers to whom they are beholden on a competitive field which guarantees consistent improvement of the products. A government operates with no constraints as it sets the laws that govern it, it produces nothing, it has no competition and thus no incentive to improve and it's beholden to nobody because it serves a term and dissolves. So yes, corporations are better - the founding fathers knew that, which is why they heavily restricted what the government could do, but with time those restrictions are diminishing.

 

[jt_1258]

You directly choose government once every few years, you directly choose which companies are successful everyday by participating in the marketplace, so your comparison is moot.
You're right, the government is not a business. A business operates within the constraints of the law with a set goal of profit which it achieves by providing desirable goods and services to customers to whom they are beholden on a competitive field which guarantees consistent improvement of the products. A government operates with no constraints as it sets the laws that govern it, it produces nothing, it has no competition and thus no incentive to improve and it's beholden to nobody because it serves a term and dissolves. So yes, corporations are better - the founding fathers knew that, which is why they heavily restricted what the government could do, but with time those restrictions are diminishing.

either way i feel like businesses are greedier then the gov somehow

 

[cracker]

Funny how AT&T has reversed its stance on Net Neutrality now that there is a push for public broadband...

 

[Foxi4]

either way i feel like businesses are greedier then the gov somehow

You're conditioned to think that, but businesses don't seize a percentage of your yearly income as a penalty for working (provided you're employed and pay income tax). Besides, they bloody well should be greedy - I expect them to be as greedy as possible, the prospect of higher profits is what motivates fierce competition and innovation. If a business operates without a focus on profit, I'm immediately suspicious of it, because I know it's nefarious. If they don't want my money, they're trying to take something that's more valuable than money away from me, and if I don't know what that is, that's even more suspicious. I'd like to point out that capitalism is the only economic system that has managed to lift humanity out of the clutches of poverty - it has succeeded where every other system has failed, so my trust in capitalism is not ill-founded. Before capitalism came along nearly the entirety of the population lived well below what we'd consider the poverty line and property ownership was restricted to aristocracy, so I'm not keen on straying away from the system that is proven to be effective towards a more "public", subsidised, government-controlled system that has failed wherever it was attempted. The father we stray from the free market towards government interventionism the worse we're off, it's nearly universally true, and nobody learns from the mistakes of the past in that regard.

Funny how AT&T has reversed its stance on Net Neutrality now that there is a push for public broadband...

I'm not surprised that they are - public broadband means public funding, of which they're already getting plenty, and no doubt want even more. It's easier to get free money than to compete for the market, I'm surprised that they weren't fiercely defending Net Neutrality from the get-go.