Tech companies to 'nerf' online services on July 12th in a bid to keep net neutrality

[catzambia]

5 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Um Republic with a federalist system work? lol. 

 

Republican state governments, federalist union between states.

[themctipers]

something something blame trump something something fucking comcast something something

[ivan134]

[Mooshi]

CenturyLink didn't magically not be shit when NN was in full swing. Laws don't mean anything when they are ignored anyway.

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

My argument was sound and the source material I linked too I wont rehash that thanks.

Except your understanding of what net neutrality is was fundamentally flawed so the source material you linked was completely irrelevant.

Here is the thread for those of you who are interested.

 

Edit:

People who are against net neutrality don't have any idea what they are talking about most of the time.

Saying that we should not have net neutrality because it didn't help is like saying we should make murder legal because "the law clearly doesn't help since people are still being murdered". Having broadband classified under title II is the first step in making things better. In fact, when the FTC tried to make things better without Title II classifications they were sued by Verizon, and Verizon won.

 

A lot of people are annoyed at ISPs for things that Net Neutrality won't address, so people go "well they are still shit so it didn't matter", when it might have done something. Let me tell you, as someone who briefly worked as a first line support at the second largest ISPs in Sweden, 90% of people who call in and complain to their ISP are wrong, and yes I am sure a large portion of people here (maybe even in this thread) are wrong about their ISPs. Just because your Internet connection is slow does not mean you are being throttled. There is certainly throttling going on in some situations, but I honestly would not be surprised if 50% of people on this forum who complain about throttling are actually not being throttled.

 

Net Neutrality laws won't solve data caps, congestion, poor infrastructure or anything of that. But those are separate issues compared to traffic prioritization at ISPs. Throwing out net neutrality because it doesn't solve the aforementioned things is a bad idea because it will only make things worse, without solving any of the issues.

 

Anyway, I am not in the US so if you want to ruin your terrible Internet situation even further then go ahead.

But before you start arguing for making everything worse, maybe you should consider why you want to get rid of Net Neutrality and how it would make things better?

And I don't mean "net neutrality didn't do anything so we should get rid of it". The question I want people to think about is "if Title II classification was removed, how would things get better". If you can't think of a good reason why things would be better without Title II classification, then you need to think about why you are against it in the first place.

[Taf the Ghost]

Not to be a party pooper, but it strikes me that services taking such actions open themselves up to legal risks from people paying for services.

 

As for "Net Neutrality", a number of years ago it was about the structure of regulation around the Internet. Now it's about Google's propaganda campaign to support an illegal power-grab by the FCC. One's thoughts on the higher-level concepts are pretty inconsequential, now. The Status Quo Ante is the preferable state and there's no pathway forward beyond that because of the very massive Google vs Comcast information war.

[Trustadz]

10 hours ago, Drak3 said:

That would only work were the myth that ISPs own monopolies is believed. Basically, just where Comcast operates. Otherwise, ISPs will actively try to undercut each other by either offering more or charging less, often both. And even then, it'd only work with less knowledgeable people and only for a limited amount of time. It's opening a door for competition to kick out any major ISP's legs out from under them, and why net neutrality has not been seen as necessary until recently. It's only been seen as necessary because of hose sensationalized it has become.

 

The reality is, nothing has changed or will change.

That would be the capitalistic dream. However that philosophy has failed again and again. Just because something can be cheaper doesn't mean it will be. There is a simple calculation to be made: how many people would switch if we didn't charge for packages like our competitors do and how much profit would we gain from that vs how much profit do we have now. The reality is: not everyone will switch and the profit margin will drop dramatically if they stopped with the packages.

The only ones that actually have power to change that are very large individual companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon, who all have their own agenda's. Make Google work faster then Bing would be a reason to let the companies do their thing and charge consumers for a even faster Google.

 

Free market won't solve the problems, it'll enhance it.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

an illegal power-grab by the FCC

I keep hearing this but I have never seen anyone give an accurate explanation of why it is illegal.

Where did you hear it was illegal?

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I keep hearing this but I have never seen anyone give an accurate explanation of why it is illegal.

Where did you hear it was illegal?

The FCC was arguing they had the authority to regulate ISPs & Internet infrastructure under the New Deal era rules around Utilities. The FCC was almost always going to lose that case in court, so the rules that were rescinded back in January just left things as they are. However, just because the FCC was eventually going to lose that case, doesn't mean it's a good thing for anyone to have it drag out in court for years.

 

But this is an outright Propaganda campaign and has been for a while. The current Status Quo is simply something all of the parties, business side, don't much like. For the consumer in the USA? Probably the best scenario. This, at this point, is a Google vs Comcast war. For reasons far less to do with ideological alignment than regional alignment, the Dems are on Google's side in this situation and the GOP is on Comcast's. (Silicon Valley has mostly taken over the Dems, anyway, but most of the major Telecoms are based in Texas or New York.) 

 

The real core isn't some high-level idealism: it's simply a matter of "who pays for what?". Google wants all of it shifted away from them. ISPs and backhaulers would like to charge in a QoS manner.  Neither side is happy, thus the long-running campaign from multiple sides.

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

The FCC was arguing they had the authority to regulate ISPs & Internet infrastructure under the New Deal era rules around Utilities. The FCC was almost always going to lose that case in court, so the rules that were rescinded back in January just left things as they are. However, just because the FCC was eventually going to lose that case, doesn't mean it's a good thing for anyone to have it drag out in court for years.

 

But this is an outright Propaganda campaign and has been for a while. The current Status Quo is simply something all of the parties, business side, don't much like. For the consumer in the USA? Probably the best scenario. This, at this point, is a Google vs Comcast war. For reasons far less to do with ideological alignment than regional alignment, the Dems are on Google's side in this situation and the GOP is on Comcast's. (Silicon Valley has mostly taken over the Dems, anyway, but most of the major Telecoms are based in Texas or New York.) 

 

The real core isn't some high-level idealism: it's simply a matter of "who pays for what?". Google wants all of it shifted away from them. ISPs and backhaulers would like to charge in a QoS manner.  Neither side is happy, thus the long-running campaign from multiple sides.

You did not answer any of my questions. Can you please answer them before we continue with this conversation?

I really couldn't care less about which political party supports which side of the argument and I really don't see how that is relevant.

 

Also, what do you mean with "who pays for what"? The QoS "solution" is clearly very bad for consumers, so why would anyone other than ISPs want that? Also, disabling the QoS would not cost ISPs anything. It will actually cost them MORE to implement it and start throttling things. QoS is not free. They are doing it because it will allow them to charge more for their service and thus increase profits.

[Taf the Ghost]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I keep hearing this but I have never seen anyone give an accurate explanation of why it is illegal.

Where did you hear it was illegal?

http://business.time.com/2013/09/09/landmark-verizon-net-neutrality-case-tests-open-internet-rules/

 

That's from the previous round. After that, we got new rule making by the FCC, which would have likely met the same fate. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014)

 

There's links to the relevant laws under which the FCC operates in the wikipedia link. 

 

As to QoS (quality of service) issues, ISPs already do that and have for a long time. The big aspect that the cases really are about is the Payment for access to the main backbone networks. For as much as this is Comcast vs Google, a lot of this is driven, currently, by Netflix and streaming services. Those eat up a huge amount of the end-user data usage. (Networks weren't really setup for the huge spikes in traffic the happen late in the evenings because of streaming, but that's just a new wrinkle to this. They've been arguing about this for easily a decade or more.)

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I keep hearing this but I have never seen anyone give an accurate explanation of why it is illegal.

Where did you hear it was illegal?

Spoiler

Quote

CLEC, dial-up, and DSL deregulation (2004–2005)[edit]

In 2004, the court case USTA v. FCC voided the FCC's authority to enforce rules requiring telephone operators to unbundle certain parts of their networks at regulated prices. This caused the economic collapse of many competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC).[26]

 

In the United States, broadband services were historically regulated differently according to the technology by which they were carried. While cable Internet has always been classified by the FCC as an information service free of most regulation, DSL was regulated as a telecommunications service. In 2005, the FCC reclassified Internet access across the phone network, including DSL, as "information service" relaxing the common carrier regulations and unbundling requirement.

 

During the FCC's hearing, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association urged the FCC to adopt the four criteria laid out in its 2005 Internet Policy Statement as the requisite openness. This made up a voluntary set of four net neutrality principles.[27] Implementation of the principles was not mandatory; that would require an FCC rule or federal law.[28] The modified principles were as follows:[29][30]

1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

In 2006, representatives from several major U.S. corporations and the federal government publicly addressed U.S. Internet services in terms of the nature of free market forces, the public interest, the physical and software infrastructure of the Internet, and new high-bandwidth technologies.[citation needed] In December 2006, the AT&T/Bell South merger agreement defined net neutrality as an agreement on the part of the broadband provider: "not to provide or to sell to Internet content, application or service providers ... any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any (data) packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth's wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination."[31]

Spoiler

Quote

FCC's authority narrowed (2014)[edit]

On January 14, 2014, the DC Circuit Court determined in the case of Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission[55] that the FCC has no authority to enforce Network Neutrality rules, since service providers are not identified as "common carriers".[56] The court agreed that FCC can regulate broadband and may craft more specific rules that stop short of identifying service providers as common carriers.[57]

Section 706 vs. Title II[edit]

As a response to the DC Circuit Court's decision, a dispute developed as to whether net neutrality could be guaranteed under existing law, or if reclassification of ISPs was needed to ensure net neutrality.[58] Wheeler stated that the FCC had the authority under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to regulate ISPs, while others, including President Obama,[59]supported reclassifying ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Critics of Section 706 point out that the section has no clear mandate to guarantee equal access to content provided over the internet, while subsection 202(a) of the Communications Act states that common carriers cannot "make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services." Advocates of net neutrality have generally supported reclassifying ISPs under Title II, while FCC leadership and ISPs have generally opposed such reclassification. The FCC stated that if they reclassified ISPs as common carriers, the commission would selectively enforce Title II, so that only sections relating to broadband would apply to ISPs.[58]

 

From everything I've read and heard the FCC has the authority and has exercised that authority in the past to classify ISP services, that hasn't changed. Not everything has to go to congress or the senate to get voted on or get approval, that simply isn't how enforcement of regulation happens. New regulations that need to be passed in to law yes.

 

Anyway it's no coincidence that the US has historically used cable internet services, unlike most countries who use DSL, since it was mostly regulation free. After the reclassification of DSL suddenly the usage of DSL in the US went up.

 

http://www.pewinternet.org/2006/05/28/part-1-broadband-adoption-in-the-united-states/

 

Wonder when ISPs started lobbying for that change? 

[LAwLz]

12 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

http://business.time.com/2013/09/09/landmark-verizon-net-neutrality-case-tests-open-internet-rules/

 

That's from the previous round. After that, we got new rule making by the FCC, which would have likely met the same fate. 

Yes, that is the case that the FCC lost and the court said that in order to enforce the rules the FCC had to reclassify broadband under Title II, which they did (and the current FCC is trying to reclassify it again).

 

That is by no means a source which states the FCC are not allowed to reclassify broadband to Title I or Title II.

 

16 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014)

 

There's links to the relevant laws under which the FCC operates in the wikipedia link. 

Again, that does not state that the FCC are not allowed to reclassify broadband as a common carrier. It just says that they were not allowed to enforce net neutrality rules as long as broadband was under Title I.

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

As to QoS (quality of service) issues, ISPs already do that and have for a long time. The big aspect that the cases really are about is the Payment for access to the main backbone networks. For as much as this is Comcast vs Google, a lot of this is driven, currently, by Netflix and streaming services. Those eat up a huge amount of the end-user data usage. (Networks weren't really setup for the huge spikes in traffic the happen late in the evenings because of streaming, but that's just a new wrinkle to this. They've been arguing about this for easily a decade or more.)

What you're talking about is peering.

That is only a small part of what net neutrality is (some would say it is not a part of it at all). But even if you are against regulations regarding peering, it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to abolish all net neutrality (which is very important) because of it.

 

Also, I think you and a lot of other people don't understand why some argued that what the FCC was doing was illegal. This is what happened.

 

1) The FCC tried to impose net neutrality regulations.

2) Verizon sued them and won. It was ruled that the FCC could not impose these rules because they had previously classified broadband under Title I. The court said that in order to impose these new rules broadband would need to be reclassified.

3) Broadband was reclassified under Title II.

4) The FCC now wants to reclassify it again.

 

A lot of people seem to think that number 3 was the illegal thing (hence why people say the reclassification was an illegal power grab), but it wasn't. The FCC was forced to do a lawful "power grab" by reclassifying broadband because it would be illegal to enforce their rules without reclassifying it (see point 2).

 

If reclassification was illegal then reclassifying it under Title I (which is what they are planning on doing) would be illegal too.

How people don't understand this is beyond me.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If reclassification was illegal then reclassifying it under Title I (which is what they are planning on doing) would be illegal too.

How people don't understand this is beyond me.

Which was already done back in 2005 anyway for DSL services, so that was illegal too?

[Noctus]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Which was already done back in 2005 anyway for DSL services, so that was illegal too?

Evidently, going by peoples idiotic logic.

[FratStar]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

-snip-

It's because morons people in the US are more concerned about their political party affiliation and which media outlet, website, etc. plays for their team rather than facts.

[SansVarnic]

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Except your understanding of what net neutrality is was fundamentally flawed so the source material you linked was completely irrelevant.

I well understand what net neutrality was meant to be but my argument had nothing to do with net neutrality itself but the method in which it was "passed".

 

The premise of net neutrality for what it is suppose to stand for I support.

 

The manner of which making the ruling to re-classify the internet or isp's under title 1 (a utility) was a method to give the FCC the authority over ISP's which they did not have prior or the manner of which to enforce. In order to expand the FCC's power to grant this authority the FCC was to seek permission from Congress to do so as congress is the oversight. This step was not taken and hence the ruling that was made was made without Congressional consent or can be seen as illegal under constitutional law (which it technically is). 

[LAwLz]

5 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

I well understand what net neutrality was meant to be but my argument had nothing to do with net neutrality itself but the method in which it was "passed".

 

The premise of net neutrality for what it is suppose to stand for I support.

 

The manner of which making the ruling to re-classify the internet or isp's under title 1 (a utility) was a method to give the FCC the authority over ISP's which they did not have prior or the manner of which to enforce. In order to expand the FCC's power to grant this authority the FCC was to seek permission from Congress to do so as congress is the oversight. This step was not taken and hence the ruling that was made was made without Congressional consent or can be seen as illegal under constitutional law (which it technically is). 

I have no idea what you are talking about, and I suspect that you don't either.

 

Congress did not, and does not need to approve the reclassification between Title I and Title II.

By the way, broadband was reclassified under Title II, not under Title II which your post says.

The reclassification was not illegal. I can not find anything that supports that. I know you posted some links in the previous thread but they had absolutely nothing to do with reclassification. They were about making new laws which this is not. Reclassification != new law being passed.

[SansVarnic]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I have no idea what you are talking about, and I suspect that you don't either.

 

Congress did not, and does not need to approve the reclassification between Title I and Title II.

By the way, broadband was reclassified under Title II, not under Title II which your post says.

The reclassification was not illegal. I can not find anything that supports that. I know you posted some links in the previous thread but they had absolutely nothing to do with reclassification. They were about making new laws which this is not. Reclassification != new law being passed.

I didn't say congress had to reclassify anything...

 

one more time.

11 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

In order to expand the FCC's power to grant this authority the FCC was to seek permission from Congress to do so as congress is the oversight.

The FCC cannot just deem something under its control that was not already under its control. Its an expansion of power or authority and that expansion must be sought from congress.

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

I didn't say congress had to reclassify anything...

And I never said you did...

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Congress did not, and does not need to approve the reclassification between Title I and Title II.

Again, just to make sure you understand this. Congress has no saying in what the FCC classifies broadband as. Congress does not control whether or not broadband gets classified under Title I or Title II. That is up to the FCC to decide, which they did and are currently planning on doing again.

 

8 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

The FCC cannot just deem something under its control that was not already under its control. Its an expansion of power or authority and that expansion must be sought from congress.

[Citation Needed]

 

By the way, you do realize that broadband was already under FCC's control, right? Even when it was classified under Title I.

 

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding your posts, but it seems to me that you're trying to say that the FCC did not have the authority to reclassify broadband under Title II, because congress needed to be involved. I want a source on that. And no, do not link me to those law schools and universities again, talking about how you need congress approval to pass a new bill. The reclassification was not a new bill being passed.

 

Like I said before, it seems like you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. That's why I want to see the source where you got the idea that the reclassification was done in an illegal manner.

[BuckGup]

20 hours ago, Mooshi said:

CenturyLink didn't magically not be shit when NN was in full swing. Laws don't mean anything when they are ignored anyway.

THANK YOU. I showed them proof and had a very long talk with a higher up and they basically said look in the fine print kid and screw off. Or hey we have access to millions for lawyers, try and sue us

[SansVarnic]

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

[Citation Needed]

 

By the way, you do realize that broadband was already under FCC's control, right? Even when it was classified under Title I.

Limited. 

But forget it I am at work and I am getting worked up. I made it all pretty clear (I am not copping out here) but thing is TL/DR; The FCC did the right thing for the right reasons but the wrong way. All congress needs to do is sign off on it and clarify a few things and all will be well. Simple as that.

Now I am no lawyer and each time I cite something I go to my Constitutional lawyer friend to clarify the particulars an I dont feel like bothering him about this anymore.  I am fairly certain said the above in my first or second comment in the original thread about this. Why we are dragging on about it on technicalities I dont know ... 

 

Sorry but I am stepping down from this debate because I am no longer interested in trying to explain this.

Net Neutrality was a no brainier but people with their head up their hind end do stupid things so this why it still being debated and addressed. (I am referring to the FCC Head-nut)

[LAwLz]

Just now, SansVarnic said:

But forget it I am at work and I am getting worked up. I made it all pretty clear (I am not copping out here) but thing is TL/DR; The FCC did the right thing for the right reasons but the wrong way. All congress needs to do is sign off on it and clarify a few things and all will be well. Simple as that.

[Citation Needed]

You can repeat that all you want, but until you post a source your post does not prove anything. You might as well say you got a pet unicorn. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, I won't believe you until you post some evidence.

 

Just now, SansVarnic said:

Now I am no lawyer and each time I cite something I go to my Constitutional lawyer friend to clarify the particulars.  I am fairly certain said the above in my first or second comment in the original thread about this. Why we are dragging on about it on technicalities I dont know ... 

It's not a technicality if your entire argument is based on it.

 

2 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Sorry but I am stepping down from this debate because I am no longer interested in trying to explain this.

"I don't have any evidence so I will just stop posting".

Yeah, that's what you did the last time I explained why you were wrong and asked for you to back up your claims. You know, like in this thread where you demonstrated that you did not even know the reclassification did not need a new bill to be passed, and where @leadeater a legal analysis of the Verizon lawsuit which did not mention anything about the FCC needing congress approval to reclassify it under Title II.

It is hard to prove a negative so I really need you to post evidence here, because I can't find any (and believe me, I have looked).

 

I would appreciate it if you could stop spreading this harmful misinformation around until you actually have some solid evidence to back your claims up with.

[leadeater]

52 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

The FCC cannot just deem something under its control that was not already under its control. Its an expansion of power or authority and that expansion must be sought from congress.

ISPs have always been under the control of the FCC since the creation of the FCC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934. Later this act was amended by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996.

 

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the agency that is responsible for regulating interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. Under those provisions it is not possible for an ISP to not come under the regulation of the FCC.

[SansVarnic]

39 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

"I don't have any evidence so I will just stop posting".

Hmm nope. I gave my reason and its valid, I am tired of painting this picture of horse for you were you see a cow.

 

But just make one last attempt - my focus had nothing to do with reclassifying anything ......... increased authority by a non-law making entity must be sought after from congress such as the FCC. How more plain can I be? and that is in the source material I cited before worded differently of course. That was my focus the entire argument but yet you ignore that and keep refocusing on the so called bill. I don't care about the bill.... the method of acquired authority is the only real issue here.

Reclassifying was just the method used by the FCC as their workaround to make it look as though they were playing by the rules. Seriously this is to easy to figure out.

 

But I digress, I made my point, many times with cited source. People can read and come to their own conclusion.

Go ahead and make one more "proving me wrong" comment.

 

18 minutes ago, leadeater said:

snip

yes it was limited authority. sorry I dont know why I said it that way. I meant to argue about expanding its authority over isp's, not about including them under their authority. apologies.

I've been working nearly 100 hrs a week for a few weeks now so I am bound to make a mistake. 

 

 

 

 

@LAwLz @leadeater

I am not going to post any more on this subject, not because I have nothing more to say or nothing to cite to hold my side of the argument but just because I obviously made a mistake just now with a previous comment @leadeater pointed out.  I am at work still and I really am tired I dont why I dived back into this again anyhow in the state of mind I am in. Forget everything I typed above that is crossed out, I was getting upset which I just realized I shouldn't be getting upset about and is not normal for me to do so. I nee to step away untill I am rested proper to make proper argument. 

I crossed it all out when replying to leadeater and saw what I doing and realised my mistake.