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

[grannyfranny100]

I agree that the lack of transparency about the 300 pages may imply nasty hidden stuff. We need to be vigilant about what they have "up their sleeves."

[betoobig]

Snoweagle i see you know some stuff and i like to ask you something...
WIll the outernet change anything??? Thanks in advance
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/so...nternet186.htm

[rgray222]

The government has shown time after time that it is ineffective at managing much of anything. There is a bright line between private industry and government regulated business. Think of any industry with major to severe problems:

• Public schools
• Health care
• Higher education
• Student loans
• Housing
• Banking
• Physical infrastructure (including that ever so efficient power grid)
• Immigration
• Space program
• The military
• The police
• The post office
• The worst of the bunch Public Utilities
• Now the internet

What do all these industries and/or organizations have in common? They are all heavily regulated or controlled by the government. On the other hand we see that where deregulation has occurred, innovation has bloomed. Do you think we’d all be walking around with smartphones today if the government still ran the phone system?

Some seem to think that the government is full of people on a mission to make our lives better and protect the little guy. Since when did the government become a benevolent parent with it's children's best interest at heart. Lets call the government for what it truly is, the largest monopoly in the world, a dangerous tyrant that is influenced by large corporate interests seeking to control almost every aspect of your life. Even though the government 'may' (I don't use that word lightly) have the best of intentions, those intentions have never ever been realized. Governments cannot move fast enough to effectively regulate technology companies because by the time they move, the technology has changed and the debate is irrelevant. Also governments always move in favor of big business, regardless of the political party in power. This is not idle speculation this is just a proven fact.

I have a horrible disdain for how much power the telcoms have. Make no mistake they don't have this power because they lack government regulation they have this power because of government regulation. The companies that can play the government game with lobbyist and influence will always win. Our politicians and government bureaucrats bend, change and corrupt the system through this influence. People that supported net neutrality are demanding the same corporate/government corruption be put into the internet.

Found in the New York Times

Today, it was revealed by FCC commissioner Ajit Pai that the proposed Net Neutrality plan the FCC is considering is 332 pages long. It will not be released to the public until after the FCC has voted. Pai claims this regulation will give “the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.”

Anyone who thinks it is fear mongering to rail against such government behavior should have a rethink on what they want from their government. Anyone who thinks that governments encourage young start up companies and entrepreneurial behavior has gotten it wrong. Government always favors big business, always has and always will. Also it makes absolutely no difference if net neutrality was passed by 5 un-elected FCC regulators or Congress the effect is the same. It becomes law.

Allowing the government to pass massive secret regulations before anyone has a chance to understand or examine those regulation is behavior that no one should accept even for one minute. Anyone thinking that this may be a non event only needs to look at the history of utilities. They are slow, non adapting, backward thinking monopolies protected and controlled by the government.

The government is about to implement a one size fits all policy on a dynamic changing technology. I hope you like cheese pizza because that is the only thing on the menu and that is the only thing that will ever be on the menu. I think that old saying is very appropriate here. Be careful what you wish for.......................

[Maunagarjana]

Posted by grannyfranny100 (here)
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.

Sorry, but Net Neutrality *is* true capitalism, which is a level playing field. Enforcing this is one of the few legitimate roles of government, imho. I'm amazed by you folks who think government is the devil incarnate and the source of all woe, but you seemingly give these greedy pathological corporations a full pass no matter how egregious their trespasses. Maybe if like myself you have had corporations severely negatively impact your personal life in irreparable ways, you wouldn't be so quick to give them free reign.

Also, bear in mind that big government and big business in many cases work together in partnership to screw over the public. Say what you want about government, but at least the jerks in it can be replaced by voting people out of office. The same can't be said for corporations. If you have evil rapacious scoundrels sitting on a board of directors or as major shareholders and stakeholders, you cannot replace them by voting them out.

[TargeT]

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. .

that's exactly how tip-toe-totalitarianism works you never see it comming...

Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a non-elected federal government agency, voted three-to-two to reclassify broadband Internet as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act. This means that – without the vote of Congress, the peoples’ branch of government – a federal agency now claims the power to regulate the Internet. I am surprised that even among civil liberties groups, some claim the federal government increasing regulation of the Internet somehow increases our freedom and liberty.

The truth is very different. The adoption of these FCC rules on the Internet represents the largest regulatory power grab in recent history. The FCC’s newly adopted rule takes the most dynamic means of communication and imposes the regulatory structure designed for public utilities. Federal regulation could also open the door to de facto censorship of ideas perceived as threatening to the political class – ideas like the troops should be brought home, the PATRIOT Act should be repealed, military spending and corporate welfare should be cut, and the Federal Reserve should be audited and ended.

The one bright spot in this otherwise disastrous move is that federal regulations making it more difficult to use the Internet will cause more Americans to join our movement for liberty, peace, and prosperity. The federal government should keep its hands off of the Internet!

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch.../internet-rip/

in fact, as I read the "headlines" it sure seems that the "HYPE" is all about how the internet was saved (or will be) via net neutrality.

I think the oppisite.

[Maunagarjana]

Posted by TargeT (here)

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. .

that's exactly how tip-toe-totalitarianism works you never see it comming...

The way it works is for the government and corporations and wall street to take turns screwing the people over. Or haven't you right wing ideologues figured that out yet?

Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a non-elected federal government agency, voted three-to-two to reclassify broadband Internet as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act. This means that – without the vote of Congress, the peoples’ branch of government – a federal agency now claims the power to regulate the Internet. I am surprised that even among civil liberties groups, some claim the federal government increasing regulation of the Internet somehow increases our freedom and liberty.

The truth is very different. The adoption of these FCC rules on the Internet represents the largest regulatory power grab in recent history. The FCC’s newly adopted rule takes the most dynamic means of communication and imposes the regulatory structure designed for public utilities. Federal regulation could also open the door to de facto censorship of ideas perceived as threatening to the political class – ideas like the troops should be brought home, the PATRIOT Act should be repealed, military spending and corporate welfare should be cut, and the Federal Reserve should be audited and ended.

The one bright spot in this otherwise disastrous move is that federal regulations making it more difficult to use the Internet will cause more Americans to join our movement for liberty, peace, and prosperity. The federal government should keep its hands off of the Internet!

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch.../internet-rip/

in fact, as I read the "headlines" it sure seems that the "HYPE" is all about how the internet was saved (or will be) via net neutrality.

I think the oppisite.

I was referring to the hype of *both* sides. As was addressed by Paul in his earlier post.

[TargeT]

Posted by Maunagarjana (here)
The way it works is for the government and corporations and wall street to take turns screwing the people over. Or haven't you right wing ideologues figured that out yet?

not sure if they have or not, but yes... this is the well established pattern (except I'd say Corporations and Banksters, "wall street" is more of a tool used by them, and so it seems is the government)

Posted by Maunagarjana (here)
I was referring to the hype of *both* sides. As was addressed by Paul in his earlier post.

anything with this much media attention has more going on than is on the surface, I was just delineating where I stood (because I guess I thought everyone was dying to know... haha)

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by TargeT (here)
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch.../internet-rip/

in fact, as I read the "headlines" it sure seems that the "HYPE" is all about how the internet was saved (or will be) via net neutrality.

I think the oppisite.

As do I - think the opposite.

As I quoted the Electronic Freedom Foundation above in this post, and as I elaborated in more (perhaps too much) detail in my post of the many battles, above, while one battle with the big Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the US (Comcast, AT&T, ...) was supposedly decided in the favor of the people, a more important battle over control of the content of the Internet was decided in favor of central control of the Internet.

In short - yesterday's ruling by the FCC essentially said:

We, the FCC, an agency of the US government, hereby mandate

1. that Internet customers will not be abused by the ISPs de facto monopoly power, and
2. that we, the FCC, now have, by our own reinterpretation of existing law, the right to control the content of the Internet (aka the "General Conduct" on the Internet.)

All the publicity was focused on the first item above, with even the objections from Rascally Republicans and Right Wing Nut Jobs like Rush Limbaugh (or that's how they appear to my more liberal, Democrat, oriented friends and family), being presented to the public as objections to the first item above - whether or not the ISP's could abuse their de facto monopoly.

The second item above is the more important, and it was hidden by the smoke screen of the battle over the first item.

While the magician dazzles you with his slight of hand, assisted by his lovely assistant, and even throwing in some apparent mistakes ... his other assistant wanders through the crowd, picking pockets, or, in this case, enacting a critical step in converting the Internet into yet another reliable media of mass control, joining books, radio and television in that re-purposing.

'Tis a sad day in Webville.

Hey - You - FCC - You have no proper authority to govern the "General Conduct" on the Internet.

[ThePythonicCow]

It is entirely fitting and proper that the FCC govern the "General Conduct" of whatever happens on their own FCC website.

It is entirely fitting that Bill Ryan, the owner of ProjectAvalon.net govern the "General Conduct" on ProjectAvalon.net.

Similarly Richard, Malcolm, Charles and anyone else who sets up a website ... on their own website.

Nor is it particularly surprising that those will vast power over the nations laws, courts, regulations, and mass media would assume tyrannical power over all Internet activity ... that's what power does ... it corrupts.

But such tyranny must not stand!

[Maunagarjana]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by TargeT (here)
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch.../internet-rip/

in fact, as I read the "headlines" it sure seems that the "HYPE" is all about how the internet was saved (or will be) via net neutrality.

I think the oppisite.

As do I - think the opposite.

As I quoted the Electronic Freedom Foundation above in this post, and as I elaborated in more (perhaps too much) detail in my post of the many battles, above, while one battle with the big Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the US (Comcast, AT&T, ...) was supposedly decided in the favor of the people, a more important battle over control of the content of the Internet was decided in favor of central control of the Internet.

In short - yesterday's ruling by the FCC essentially said:

We, the FCC, an agency of the US government, hereby mandate

1. that Internet customers will not be abused by the ISPs de facto monopoly power, and
2. that we, the FCC, now have, by our own reinterpretation of existing law, the right to control the content of the Internet (aka the "General Conduct" on the Internet.)

All the publicity was focused on the first item above, with even the objections from Rascally Republicans and Right Wing Nut Jobs like Rush Limbaugh (or that's how they appear to my more liberal, Democrat, oriented friends and family), being presented to the public as objections to the first item above - whether or not the ISP's could abuse their de facto monopoly.

The second item above is the more important, and it was hidden by the smoke screen of the battle over the first item.

While the magician dazzles you with his slight of hand, assisted by his lovely assistant, and even throwing in some apparent mistakes ... his other assistant wanders through the crowd, picking pockets, or, in this case, enacting a critical step in converting the Internet into yet another reliable media of mass control, joining books, radio and television in that re-purposing.

'Tis a sad day in Webville.

Hey - You - FCC - You have no proper authority to govern the "General Conduct" on the Internet.

Regulations can be changed and fine tuned with pressure put on by the public, you know. This isn't a constitutional amendment or something. People are having nightmare visions of the FCC interpreting that as broadly as possible, when everything they've said so far indicates that they have no interest in micromanaging the internet. Also, after all the legal challenges to this regulatory change is finished, and as soon as a Republican administration comes in, they may try to undo what has been done here. And then people can celebrate that liberty has prevailed and they get the tiered system they didn't know they hated.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Maunagarjana (here)
Regulations can be changed and fine tuned with pressure put on by the public, you know. This isn't a constitutional amendment or something. People are having nightmare visions of the FCC interpreting that as broadly as possible, when everything they've said so far indicates that they have no interest in micromanaging the internet. Also, after all the legal challenges to this regulatory change is finished, and as soon as a Republican administration comes in, they may try to undo what has been done here. And then people can celebrate that liberty has prevailed and they get the tiered system they didn't know they hated.

They will interpret their laws, regulations and our Constitution as broadly and tyrannically as they can get away with ... Democrat or Republic, makes little difference.

The ultimate antidote to tyranny is an aware and informed public.

[rgray222]

Posted by Maunagarjana (here)
This isn't a constitutional amendment or something. People are having nightmare visions of the FCC interpreting that as broadly as possible, when everything they've said so far indicates that they have no interest in micromanaging the internet.

Well yes, the government says a lot of things. Some of us don't believe many of the things that the government puts forward. The most recent blatant lie that I can remember is..........if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Believe or not I am not against health care but I am against government lying to get it passed. Read on

Today, it was revealed by FCC commissioner Ajit Pai that the proposed Net Neutrality plan the FCC is considering is 332 pages long. It will not be released to the public until after the FCC has voted. Pai claims this regulation will give “the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.”

Sorry, but Net Neutrality *is* true capitalism, which is a level playing field. Enforcing this is one of the few legitimate roles of government, imho.

All I can say to that is wow!

[TargeT]

Posted by Maunagarjana (here)

Regulations can be changed and fine tuned with pressure put on by the public, you know. This isn't a constitutional amendment or something. People are having nightmare visions of the FCC interpreting that as broadly as possible, when everything they've said so far indicates that they have no interest in micromanaging the internet. Also, after all the legal challenges to this regulatory change is finished, and as soon as a Republican administration comes in, they may try to undo what has been done here. And then people can celebrate that liberty has prevailed and they get the tiered system they didn't know they hated.

Government control is a one way ratchet that [s]never[/s] rarely "releases" with out bloodshed, coup or economic devastation (aka, bad stuff)..

very rare are the moments in the history of government control (baring the above "with out" conditions) where a government has lessened or removed regulation of something once it is regulated.


that's my main concern, plus who in their right mind thinks they have the authority to control thoughts and ideas; the audacity of that is at issue as well.

[Snoweagle]

Posted by betoobig (here)
Snoweagle i see you know some stuff and i like to ask you something...
WIll the outernet change anything??? Thanks in advance
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/so...nternet186.htm

Yes it will change everything - For the worse!
As it states, they are creating an electromagnetic smog for all the devices to work from a centralised control. The problem they have is Gaia and the Cosmos is a bigger player than them and thwarts their perfect system, this is why they define limits or boundaries for the smog levels but to no avail.

Will post more on this later, but the outernet is not designed for our benefit and as with all these things, the talking heads will appear of retard television and the sheep will bleet their approval, cest le vie

[Anchor]

Posted by Paul (here)
FCC has redefined broadband[/url] as delivering at least 25-Megabits per second (Mbps).

Therefore these constraints:

Posted by Paul (here)
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.

now apply to something most people do not have.

I think the motive for putting those users on Broadband just evaporated, and finally the growth curve in internet speed for most users in America just got retarded even more than it already was.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by grannyfranny100 (here)
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.

Posted by rgray222 (here)
I posted this on a thread I started a while back but i think it is appropriate here as well.

The government has shown time after time that it is ineffective at managing much of anything. There is a bright line between private industry and government regulated business.

Yes, very much the same discussion on both threads ... so I just merged them .

[T Smith]

Posted by Maunagarjana (here)
People are having nightmare visions of the FCC interpreting that as broadly as possible, when everything they've said so far indicates that they have no interest in micromanaging the internet. Also, after all the legal challenges to this regulatory change is finished, and as soon as a Republican administration comes in, they may try to undo what has been done here. And then people can celebrate that liberty has prevailed and they get the tiered system they didn't know they hated.

In sorting out the thought process on this, you need to substitute whatever oligarchy or cartel you envision or whatever party or ideology you dislike, e.g. Republican, Democrat--it doesn't matter--with the FCC. These power centers are all interchangeable with the FCC. You don't like George Bush? Then just envisage George Bush as as the FCC. You don't like Barack Obama? Then Barack Obama might as well be the FCC. You don't like Monsanto, Walmart, Netflix, Comcast... they are all interchangeable with the FCC. The point is, whoever has an agenda can easily usurp and commandeer the FCC. It doesn't matter what the FCC professes to be -- it matters what it is.

That said, what the FCC is not is a body with a higher vision or a noble cause to protect the people.

I shall be very happy to be wrong about this... and if I am, please correct me.

But to assert the FCC (insert whatever controlling interest applies here) has no interest in micromanaging the internet?

Really?

[ThePythonicCow]

The regulations are now public. From 400-page net neutrality order includes 80 pages of Republican dissents (ArsTechnica.com):

==========

The Federal Communications Commission voted on February 26 to reclassify broadband as a common carrier service and enforce net neutrality rules, but the commission's entire ruling didn't become public until this morning.

Now you can read the entire ruling, all 400 pages of it, including the dissents from Republican commissioners. That includes a 64-page dissent from Ajit Pai and 16 pages from Michael O'Reilly. We'll be reading it ourselves for potential followup articles.

Republicans on the commission and in Congress had urged FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to make the rules public before the vote, but the commission adhered to past practice by not releasing them until the final touches were ready. Wheeler explained on the day of the vote that the majority was required to include the minority's dissents and "be responsive to those dissents" in order to make the ruling complete.

The process took longer than the last time the FCC issued net neutrality rules in 2010; there was just a two-day gap in that case. Those rules were largely thrown out in court after a Verizon challenge, forcing the FCC to start over.

There are still some more steps before broadband providers can start filing lawsuits. Opponents can get the court process rolling once the rules are published in the Federal Register. FCC expert Harold Feld, the senior VP of advocacy group Public Knowledge, notes that the FCC cannot control the publication date, but he thinks that will happen in seven to 10 days. He has an extensive breakdown of the process here.

The rules do not actually go into effect until 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. There's one exception to that, as new network management disclosure requirements for Internet providers require an additional approval by the Office of Management and Budget to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

==========

[ThePythonicCow]

Here's the FCC page announcing the release, with the full text in-line: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-rele...internet-order

Here's a PDF of the ruling, from the FCC's website: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/at...CC-15-24A1.pdf

Here's the document on Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/258494173/FCC-15-24A1

Here are the first more detailed comments on the ruling that I've found, taken from These are the FCC's full rules for protecting net neutrality (TheVerge.com):

============

One of the big questions this document answers is which Title II regulations the commission won't be applying to internet service. It turns out to be quite a lot: more than 700 rules aren't going to be applied. "This includes no unbundling of last-mile facilities, no tariffing, no rate regulation, and no cost accounting rules, which results in a carefully tailored application of only those Title II provisions found to directly further the public interest in an open internet and more, better, and open broadband," the order says. The idea that this proposal is a so-called "light touch" approach to regulation has been touted again and again, basically as a way to quell concerns from those who oppose regulation. Of course, it hasn't exactly done that, and we're still seeing plenty of complaints from the internet providers that are now having their services classified under Title II.

The order focuses on three specific rules for internet service: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. "A person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management," the order states, while outlining its rules against throttling. For paid prioritization, the order explains the practice as:

"Paid prioritization" refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity

Notably, the order does not place regulations on interconnect points, which are what Netflix has been arguing with internet providers about for the last year. Instead, the order simply states that the FCC has the authority to hear complaints regarding interconnect, which will seemingly be addressed on an individual basis. "While we have more than a decade’s worth of experience with last-mile practices, we lack a similar depth of background in the internet traffic exchange context," the order says. "Thus, we find that the best approach is to watch, learn, and act as required, but not intervene now, especially not with prescriptive rules."

The commission does still allow internet providers to perform "reasonable network management," which might affect service. However, there are also strict rules as to what is and is not "reasonable." The commission says that reasonable management is something that primarily has a technical justification, not something that has a business purpose. It also specifically calls out Verizon's attempt to throttle the speeds of people on its unlimited data plans — that, seemingly, will not fly under these rules.

============

My personal take, so far, is that the main substance of this FCC decision is quite favorable to our interests for a free (as in speech), fair (as in pricing and service) and open Internet, with my main concern remaining one that I posted about, here, earlier in this thread, regarding the "general conduct rule", as explained by the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF).

[Ilie Pandia]

There is something which I don't understand here.

If I create a company that offers cloud storage and backup services and I need to offer my clients the ability to have a high speed upload/download link so they can access that storage and backups any time they need I will no longer be able to do that, because I cannot pay to have a larger bandwidth?

Would this make it very easy for someone to flood the network because I would have to share my connection and bandwidth with "free" users that may disrupt the service I am trying to offer?

Currently, I don't see a problem with paying for a so called "fast lane" if my business model demands it. How can an ISP guarantee the speed I need if this is now regulated and not allowed? How can an ISP guarantee "up time" or "quality of service"? Now they can always say: well you're sharing the network with everybody else and we are not allowed to prioritize your traffic... so... tough luck.

What am I missing here? As far as I know, here in Romania, we have always had all kinds of "levels" and "throttling" and "guaranteed bandwidth" and it has never been an issue that required regulation...