Net Neutrality is Not Neutral and it Will Radically Change The Internet

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Paul (here)
We need to stay alert and calm, not jumping at shadows (granted some menacing and well known shadows.)

Please help us focus our energies, which are substantial, to figuring out what is really going on here.

The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) might have an idea what the more serious, more covert, problem is with this anticipated regulatory change (anticipated in about 24 hours from now).

In their article Dear FCC: Rethink The Vague "General Conduct" Rule posted yesterday, they wrote:

==========

For many months, EFF has been working with a broad coalition of advocates to persuade the Federal Communications Commission to adopt new Open Internet rules that would survive legal scrutiny and actually help protect the Open Internet. Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, but its role must be firmly bounded.

Two weeks ago, we learned that we had likely managed the first goal—the FCC is going to do the right thing and reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, giving it the ability to make new, meaningful Open Internet rules. But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”

According to the FCC's own "Fact Sheet," the proposed rule will allow the FCC to review (and presumably punish) non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers. Late last week, as the window for public comment was closing, EFF filed a letter with the FCC urging it to clarify and sharply limit the scope of any “general conduct” provision:

[T]he Commission should use its Title II authority to engage in light-touch regulation, taking great care to adhere to clear, targeted, and transparent rules. A “general conduct rule,” applied on a case-by- case basis with the only touchstone being whether a given practice “harms” consumers or edge providers, may lead to years of expensive litigation to determine the meaning of “harm” (for those who can afford to engage in it). What is worse, it could be abused by a future Commission to target legitimate practices that offer significant benefits to the public . . .

Accordingly, if the Commission intends to adopt a “general conduct rule” it should spell out, in advance, the contours and limits of that rule, and clarify that the rule shall be applied only in specific circumstances.

Unfortunately, if a recent report from Reuters is correct, the general conduct rule will be anything but clear. The FCC will evaluate “harm” based on consideration of seven factors: impact on competition; impact on innovation; impact on free expression; impact on broadband deployment and investments; whether the actions in question are specific to some applications and not others; whether they comply with industry best standards and practices; and whether they take place without the awareness of the end-user, the Internet subscriber.

There are several problems with this approach. First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet. Second, we worry that this rule will be extremely expensive in practice, because anyone wanting to bring a complaint will be hard-pressed to predict whether they will succeed. For example, how will the Commission determine “industry best standards and practices”? As a practical matter, it is likely that only companies that can afford years of litigation to answer these questions will be able to rely on the rule at all. Third, a multi-factor test gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.

We are days away from a final vote, and it appears that many of the proposed rules will make sense for the Internet. Based on what we know so far, however, the general conduct proposal may not. The FCC should rethink this one.

==========

[LivioRazlo]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...y-by-fcc-board

Tis is bad day for America...

[EWO]

Ive heard about this recently but haven't fully understood the impact of it.
Could you post a few summarizing PROS and CONS so I can get a better picture of what this means for the world?

Thanks

[ThePythonicCow]

From: Net neutrality becomes the law of the land (ZDNet.com):

==========

Summary: With Congress washing its hands of the matter, the FCC voted to regulate Internet Service Providers as utilities.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted today to accept FCC chairman Tom Wheeler's proposal that the Commission "use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open Internet protections." Or, to put it in plain English, your ISP must provide equal broadband access to you or any site -- Amazon, Netflix, etc. -- without slowing down or speeding up sites for additional fees.

As expected, the vote to treat ISPs as common carriers passed by a party line vote of three Democrats over the two Republicans. Under this regulation, broadband Internet services will be governed by Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Mobile broadband vendors, such as 4G providers AT&T, Sprint and Verizon Wireless will also be regulated as common carriers based on Title III of the Communications Act. It should also be noted that since Wheeler made his proposal, the FCC has redefined broadband as delivering at least 25-Megabits per second (Mbps).

The Republicans claimed that the FCC was over-reaching its authority by putting in a secret Obama plan for net neutrality. Wheeler dismissed this as nonsense in his final speech. He summed up, "This is the FCC using all the tools in our toolbox to protect innovators and consumers; to ban paid prioritization, the so called fast lane. [This] will not divide the Internet into haves and have-nots."

Specifically, the FCC will use this new authority to define a new "Open Internet." This consists of three fundamental building blocks.

No Blocking: Broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

No Throttling: Broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

No Paid Prioritization: Broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration -- in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

This last provision serves notice to Comcast, Verzion, and other last-mile ISPs that they can no longer charge Netflix, or other content providers, for Internet access. It's a safe bet that these contracts are now on their way to the courts. In addition, even as Internet technologies evolve, ISPs are forbidden to harm consumers or edge providers.

The FCC is also claiming for the first time to have authority to hear complaints and take appropriate enforcement action if it determines the interconnection activities of ISPs are not just and reasonable. This will enable the FCC to address conflicts over traffic between mass-market broadband providers and edge providers.

In the commercial Internet's first days in 1992, the ISPs of the day formed the Commercial Internet Exchange (CIX). One of its guiding principles was net neutrality -- that no sites would be blocked and no traffic would be metered or slowed.

This has ceased to be the case. In 2014, Verizon won a case against the FCC. In it, they showed that the FCC did not have the right to regulate Internet traffic. This was a kick in the teeth for net neutrality at the time. The Tier 1 backbone ISP Level 3 has shown that last-mile ISPs with a monopoly in some areas have deliberately slowing down Internet traffic.

So, what will this mean for you? Wheeler declared that this new stance "will ensure the Internet remains open, now and in the future, for all Americans." We'll see. As Mark Cuban, serial entrepreneur, said on CNBC, "Let the lawsuits begin."

==========

[LivioRazlo]

What the PTB would have you believe is that big companies such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T would be regulated under the FCC so they can't throttle the content you view or how you use it.

My theory, which will resonate with some here is that the U.S. government will hide under the Net Neutrality guise and do the exact opposite that they propose to do.

[EWO]

That article paints this as a great thing and ISPs as evil corporations.
This video shows the other side of the argument.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvi...EW_NEUTRALITY/

I have to agree, when governments get involved the bureaucracy and paper work always tends to slow things down and make them complicated.
Even if some ISPs start doing weird things in some cases, this can be resolved case by case basis, or simply switch ISPs.

My internet price went UP 3 times this year, i was pissed, but when I found out my speed also went up 2.5 times, it made me feel better.

[T Smith]

Posted by LivioRazlo (here)
What the PTB would have you believe is that big companies such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T would be regulated under the FCC so they can't throttle the content you view or how you use it.

My theory, which will resonate with some here is that the U.S. government will hide under the Net Neutrality guise and do the exact opposite that they propose to do.

I refer you here to the concepts, "doublethink" and "doublespeak", e.g. WAR is PEACE, SLAVERY is FREEDOM, etc.

If there is ever such a thing as the Nobel Peace Prize for Non-Fiction, George Orwell will surely be the first recipient of such an award posthumously.

[jagman]

I'm seriously considering leaving the net...

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by LivioRazlo (here)
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...y-by-fcc-board

Tis is bad day for America...

I merged this "FCC Net Neutrality Vote" thread in with the existing thread that was discussing the same topic.

[ThePythonicCow]

In my view, this hot debate of the week over net neutrality and what the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will rule (now has just ruled) is yet another hyped up controversy.

Perhaps the ones orchestrating this controversy of the week were publicity experts hired away from World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) <grin>:

• In this corner we have the challenger "Pro Net Neutrality", who promises to keep the Internet unblocked, unthrottled, and not selling favored access to evil NetFlix or Yahoo.
  
• In this corner we have the reigning champion "Pro Net Freedom", who promises to keep the never to be trusted US Federal Government from seizing tyrannical control over the Internet, our last bastion of freedom.

I honestly don't know what's really going on here, or elsewhere on this planet this week, that I should really be worried about. But for dang sure, it's not either of the above two hyped up, fear mongered, positions.

There might however be something or someone hiding below the above fear mongering and hype that I should really be concerned with ... perhaps.

[lucidity]

The news isn't good.

http://rt.com/usa/235823-fcc-votes-net-neutrality/

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by lucidity (here)
The news isn't good.

http://rt.com/usa/235823-fcc-votes-net-neutrality/

The news is that the FCC adopted net neutrality rules, as further described in my Post #24, above.

Whether this is good or not ... or whether it even matters ... I don't know. This might just be another show being put on to distract us, while whatever does matter proceeds, behind the scene. I don't know.

I like the color blue more than the color red, and I like the claimed public positions of the "Pro Net Neutrality" side in this contest (the side that just won.) But those are both superficial preferences, which might or might not have deeper relevance.

[T Smith]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
The word "regulation" deserves its own topic. Freedom-seeking people, Libertarians, Anarchists...all have promoted the idea that ALL regulation is bad, all freedom is good. The problem as I see it is a matter of semantics and scope, and if the freedom-seeking people, Libertarians, and Anarchists would simply modify their call for the least top-down regulation possible for individual PEOPLE, acknowledging that CORPORATIONS need to be regulated, then I'd agree.

In a fascist society, calling for corporate regulation is the same as asking the fox to guard and regulate the hen house. Of course I want to check the giant corporations... in that sense I'm pro regulation. But can we honestly be comfortable empowering the FCC with that role? The very idea gives me agita.

Until we know exactly what is in this 330 page secret regulation I don't feel qualified to comment on this development with any authority, but I do know with almost 100% certainty that there is (or most certainly will be) a revolving door between the FCC and the Comcast's, Netflix's, and Verizon FIOS's of the world, such that the information cartel--the so-called "bad guys" here, will abuse its "governmental" powers to its own advantage.

Call me a cynic, but I can't see any world where this is good thing for a free Internet and the consumer of free information...

[Maunagarjana]

I'm glad at least Paul is not buying the hype. I think it's a pretty straightforward logical move, and not that big of a deal. And yet, we should remain vigilant. Is there possibility for shady loopholes? Sure. But the sky is not falling, Chicken Littles. There is what this is in actuality, and what people imagine it is. Folks are so used to everything being a Trojan horse for tyranny, and that's something I certainly can relate to, but I don't think this is it. And the alternative would have been far worse.

[grannyfranny100]

In our so called capitalist economic society, why not have the big boys compete in each area for customers? If they had won, the big boys would just worry about profit and not about quality of service. Already there is talk about pressuring the Republicans to introduce bills since the big corporations didn't get what they wanted.

Those of us who have cared, have been writing the FCC for almost a year. That did get their attention. Now we must pay attention to the lawsuits and possible bills in Congress. In fact we need to decide if we even want agencies. So many hot topics seem to be pushed into agencies rather than Congress. Think about who decides so many things that matter to us: GMOs, water quality, big Pharma med approvals, et al.

We have to be vigilant every day, not just the day the decision comes in. The heck with sports stats, we need to pay attention to what will impact us, our children and our world.

[grannyfranny100]

The NY Times has published some clear cut, easy to understand articles. Of course over 300 pages were not released to the public...... Could be that they hope we will lose interest whle lawsuits begin and Congress debates the situation.

The Push for Net Neutrality Arose From Lack of Choice
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/te...pgtype=article

Why the U.S. Has Fallen Behind in Internet Speed and Affordability
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/up...abt=0002&abg=1

F.C.C. Approves Net Neutrality Rules, Classifying Broadband Internet Service as a Utility
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/te...pgtype=article

I don't know if these links will work. If not go to http://www.nytimes.com and search for the articles by title.

[ponda]

Posted by T Smith (here)

In a fascist society, calling for corporate regulation is the same as asking the fox to guard and regulate the hen house. Of course I want to check the giant corporations... in that sense I'm pro regulation. But can we honestly be comfortable empowering the FCC with that role? The very idea gives me agita.

Until we know exactly what is in this 330 page secret regulation I don't feel qualified to comment on this development with any authority, but I do know with almost 100% certainty that there is (or most certainly will be) a revolving door between the FCC and the Comcast's, Netflix's, and Verizon FIOS's of the world, such that the information cartel--the so-called "bad guys" here, will abuse its "governmental" powers to its own advantage.

Call me a cynic, but I can't see any world where this is good thing for a free Internet and the consumer of free information...

Tom Wheeler the FCC Chairman is an ex-Cable and Wireless lobbyist

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
The word "regulation" deserves its own topic. Freedom-seeking people, Libertarians, Anarchists...all have promoted the idea that ALL regulation is bad, all freedom is good. The problem as I see it is a matter of semantics and scope, and if the freedom-seeking people, Libertarians, and Anarchists would simply modify their call for the least top-down regulation possible for individual PEOPLE, acknowledging that CORPORATIONS need to be regulated, then I'd agree.

In a fascist society, calling for corporate regulation is the same as asking the fox to guard and regulate the hen house. Of course I want to check the giant corporations... in that sense I'm pro regulation. But can we honestly be comfortable empowering the FCC with that role? The very idea gives me agita.

Until we know exactly what is in this 330 page secret regulation I don't feel qualified to comment on this development with any authority, but I do know with almost 100% certainty that there is (or most certainly will be) a revolving door between the FCC and the Comcast's, Netflix's, and Verizon FIOS's of the world, such that the information cartel--the so-called "bad guys" here, will abuse its "governmental" powers to its own advantage.

Call me a cynic, but I can't see any world where this is good thing for a free Internet and the consumer of free information...

I agree..."In a fascist society..." the government is corporate/Elite controlled, and "regulation" really is just a stinky pile of doublespeak. (A good example was GW Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" which actually weakened the Clean Air Act and let polluters get away with more air pollution.)

The rest of my post that you didn't quote fleshes out my agreement with you.

I don't want to live in a fascist society, but I am the only one.* Everyone else likes it, or they are comfortable with it, or they are too frozen in fear to even talk about actually doing something effective to stop fascism/corporatocracy.

*(Of course, I am not the only one - it just feels that way. I have a strong argument with activists that are chanting, protesting, petitioning, and voting within the context that "the monsters in power get to stay in power, but this one issue needs to be fixed." No rule changes, laws, or policy changes that come out of the fascist corporatocracy are going to be anti-fascist and anti-corporatocracy.

The pivotal issue isn't surface changes, but rather deep systemic change to oust the corporatocracy and make it impossible for the minions of the Elite to retain or regain puppet positions for their Elite lords and masters. That next phase - where the government had the same "form" but was staffed with an entirely citizen-based group of representatives with a single term - is the next big area of argument with most activists: Each sees the changes to the "form" of government that they ultimately want, and are deluded into thinking that we could get there in one fell swoop, and so are uninterested in any plan or strategy that does not specifically name their desired new form of governance as the ultimate goal.

So, nothing is accomplished, nor will it be. There will now be a lot of hootin' and hollerin' and backslapping and dancing from the activists that think this FCC ruling was a big "win" for the people. They aren't even aware that they are still completely controlled by fascists, with no chance of escaping fascist tyranny.)

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Maunagarjana (here)
I'm glad at least Paul is not buying the hype. I think it's a pretty straightforward logical move, and not that big of a deal.

I've been doing what I could to not buy into the hype ... however that doesn't mean I have concluded it's not a big deal. Rather I've been looking at this from various angles, trying to figure out what's really going on. When you see this much Sturm and Drang over something in the popular media, you just know that something is up.

Here's my take on this.

There are four "battles", as two pairs, going on here, in both of which, victories for the "little guy" are being used as smoke screens to cover major losses elsewhere. That's Battles A1 and A2, each with their two sides, and Battles B1 and B2, each with their two sides.

The end result will become government controlled content of a Web that is used, as newspapers, radio and television before them, to control the masses.

Battles A1 and A2 center around who controls the data pipes and their content.

Battle A1: The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) is on one side versus their customers on the other side. This is a battle over the quality and pricing of Internet service. This is the main cover story, going under the name of "Net Neutrality". The lead story, except for the "crazy right wing Republican" press, was that the little guy, the customer and the small Internet content providers won. The US FCC has assumed for itself the authority to prevent ISPs from using their de facto monopolies in most broadband markets to gorge the consumer or their content providers. This sounds good, but as is usually the case, any government powerful enough to make our lives (apparently) better in some arena is powerful enough to make it worse in that arena.

Battle A2: The US Federal Government is one side versus American residents, on the other side. This is a battle over the content of what is on the Internet. This is the enormous overreach that could lead to the end of the free Internet in the US. The camel's nose is in the tent with a vague "General Conduct" phrase.

As ArsTechnica.com describes today's FCC ruling: "There is also a "general conduct" standard designed to judge whether future activity not contemplated by the order harms end users or online content providers.".

The US FCC has assumed for itself the authority to determine what is acceptable "General Conduct" on the Internet.

The big corporations running the data pipes can't use their de facto monopolies to extort excess profits, but the big government can use their overwhelming force to impose their self determined standards of "General Conduct" on the content.

Oops. If the bastards can get away with it, the day may well come when much of what is posted here on Project Avalon is not considered acceptable "General Conduct."

===

Meanwhile ... Battles B1 and B2 center around whether the US government can and does monitor and control the (B1) private and (B2) public uses of the Internet.

Battle B1: Privacy adocates, cryptography experts, and whistleblowers are fighting a pitched battle with the government intelligence agencies over whether or not private individuals can have private conversations, out of reach of prying eyes, on the Internet. Privacy is scoring some important victories here, with an ongoing series of high profile leaks of intelligence agency capabilities, and with increasing awareness of the usefulness of cryptography for keeping communications secret. This sounds at least hopeful, if not outright good, but this long running battle is providing a smoke screen for the other, perhaps more important, battle.

Battle B2: The Internet is being co-opted. It has been, in large part, a shared "Commons", used by thousands, even millions, of small and medium groups of people, coming together for days or decades, to further an amazing variety of efforts. The Bastards in Power are battling this, compelled to co-opt the Internet as were books, newspapers, radio and television before them, into weapons of mass delusion and control. With sufficient monitoring of just the publicly visible web, and with extensive analysis and correlation of that data, the bastards in power can adapt mass surveillance and propaganda for the Internet.

The Internet will become the most effective tool yet developed to control the public activities of humanity.

===

Battles A1 and B1 are the more publicized battles, and the "little guy" seems to score some important victories, such as the victory for "Net Neutrality" (limiting the monopoly powers of the dominant ISPs over the US Internet) a few hours ago.

Notice for example that (see How Google’s Silence Helped Net Neutrality Win (Wired.com)) the big corporations that had earlier come out in support of Net Neutrality, such Google, Facebook, and Microsoft, who stand to gain from not having to pay extra to the ISPs for premium access, did not make a major public stand this time, unlike the last time the FCC considered this question five years ago. This helped frame Battle A1 as big guy (major ISPs, such as Comcast and AT&T) versus little guy (other smaller supporters of "Net Neutrality"). We have a tendency to favor the "little guy" in a contest, we identify with the "little guy."

But Battles A2 and B2 are the more important battles, over the transformation of the Internet into a reliable means of mass propaganda and control. Battle A2, which was lost today with the "General Conduct" mandate assumed by the FCC, gives rise to the critical policing arm of the larger battle B2, the use of the Internet as a means of mass control. If some rascally rebel or popular idea is getting too bothersome, attracting too much attention, on the Internet, then that can be ruled in violation of the "General Conduct" rules, and shut down. One might still be able to whisper such revolutionary thoughts in secret, but it will be shut out of the public commons.

===

The transformation of the Internet as a means of propaganda and control just took a major step forward today.

Damn.

[Snoweagle]

Whilst I consider the NET Neutrality decision as good for the global population it is of grave concern that those 300 pages are not released to the public.

There can only be one reason for this public exclusion - we are not going to like whatever is contained there.

We can debate of course the influence of security and intrusion by authorites as been the network spectacle for the last few years, with countless examples of privacy breeches though I feel we are now way past this.

My intuition tells me those 300 pages are "tools" for legal enforcers to mandate the use of the NET for the mandatory MICROCHIPPING of the population. So yes, you can have super internet but at the cost of zero privacy.

So if anyone can take a sneak peek or reveal the contents of those pages it would be extremely helpful in determining the scope and purpose.

Coincidentally, CERN will be activated at full power soon, it's ultimate test and the One Kilometer Data Array in Orange State, Africa is nearing completion. Both work hand in hand in data transfer and management. One transmits the other recieves. So lets read those 300 pages and see how this model builds around our lives.