Net neutrality demise

[RS Wood]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html

//-- clip
F.C.C. Plans Net Neutrality Repeal in Victory for Telecoms

The Federal Communications Commission announced on Tuesday that it
planned to dismantle landmark regulations that ensure equal access to
the internet, clearing the way for companies to charge more and block
access to some websites.

The proposal, put forward by the F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai, is a
sweeping repeal of rules put in place by the Obama administration. The
rules prohibited high-speed internet service providers from blocking or
slowing down the delivery of websites, or charging extra fees for the
best quality of streaming and other internet services for their
subscribers. Those limits are central to the concept called net
neutrality.

The action immediately reignited a loud and furious fight over free
speech and the control of the internet, pitting telecom giants like
AT&T against internet giants like Google and Amazon, who warn against
powerful telecom gatekeepers. Both sides are expected to lobby hard in
Washington to push their agendas, as they did when the existing rules
were adopted.

“Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the
internet,” Mr. Pai said in a statement. “Instead, the F.C.C. would
simply require internet service providers to be transparent about their
practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for
them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the
technical information they need to innovate.”

The proposal from Mr. Pai, a Republican, is widely expected to be
approved during a Dec. 14 meeting in a 3-to-2 party line vote from the
agency’s five commissioners. But some companies will probably put up a
legal fight, or actions by lawmakers, to prevent it from taking hold.

//-- clip

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/21/the-fcc-has-unveiled-its-plan-to-rollback-its-net-neutrality-rules/?utm_term=.d398fd2ac98d

//-- clip

FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites
customers see and use

Federal officials took aim at a signature Obama-era regulation Tuesday,
unveiling a plan that would give Internet providers broad powers to
determine what websites and online services their customers see and use.

Under the proposal by the Federal Communications Commission, companies
that provide high-speed Internet services, such as Comcast, Verizon or
AT&T, would be able to block web content they do not like and auction
off speedier delivery of content to the highest bidder.

//-- clip

[RS Wood]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:29:49 -0500

Post by RS Wood
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html
//-- clip
F.C.C. Plans Net Neutrality Repeal in Victory for Telecoms
The Federal Communications Commission announced on Tuesday that it
planned to dismantle landmark regulations that ensure equal access to
the internet, clearing the way for companies to charge more and block
access to some websites.

Some good commentary at Ycombinator, of course:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15749150

[Rich]

?Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging
the internet,? Mr. Pai said in a statement. ?Instead, the F.C.C.
would simply require internet service providers to be transparent
about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan
that?s best for them ...

If I had, as I did back in the DSL days, 25+ different ISPs/providers
that I could pick and choose from, then I'd agree with Mr. Pai for the
most part. Require they (ISPs/providers) be upfront and transparent
and let me pick.

But, sadly, the days of real competition for my "last mile" link died
when the 1996 telecom bill removed the "fair access" component from
cable/fiber installs that had generated the 25+ providers competing for
DSL connections over copper phone lines.

So now I've got two I can "pick and choose" between. Comcrap and
Verizon.

And guess what, it does not help me much to know that *both* Comcrap and
Verizon are planning to regulate my speeds based upon how much a target
website/target 'destination' (read as Netflix, etc.) is willing to pay
to buy a 'fast lane'. Because when they *both* do the same thing, I've
only really got one, not so great, choice, disconnect from them both,
and the internet at large.

[The Real Bev]

Post by Rich

?Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging
the internet,? Mr. Pai said in a statement. ?Instead, the F.C.C.
would simply require internet service providers to be transparent
about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan
that?s best for them ...

If I had, as I did back in the DSL days, 25+ different ISPs/providers
that I could pick and choose from, then I'd agree with Mr. Pai for the
most part. Require they (ISPs/providers) be upfront and transparent
and let me pick.
But, sadly, the days of real competition for my "last mile" link died
when the 1996 telecom bill removed the "fair access" component from
cable/fiber installs that had generated the 25+ providers competing for
DSL connections over copper phone lines.

There was NEVER a choice in Pasadena. The City granted exclusive
permission to whatever Charter called itself to lay cable all over the
city. The only viable competition is AT&T, and once you wrench the
numbers out of them, they're no better. If we want an actual usable
(phones/tablets are NOT usable) internet connection, that's it. Period.
$65/month for ~60Mbs down and 5Mbs up, internet only. The nominal
speed has increased (along with the price) over the years, but the
effective speed (driven by websites' upload speeds) is no better.

Apparently prices are better in areas with actual competition.

And now the bastards will be able to throttle sites (what about usenet?)
that don't pay. Charter doesn't innovate, they just deliver. They ARE
just a utility and should be regulated (or not) just like the others.

Post by Rich
So now I've got two I can "pick and choose" between. Comcrap and
Verizon.
And guess what, it does not help me much to know that *both* Comcrap and
Verizon are planning to regulate my speeds based upon how much a target
website/target 'destination' (read as Netflix, etc.) is willing to pay
to buy a 'fast lane'. Because when they *both* do the same thing, I've
only really got one, not so great, choice, disconnect from them both,
and the internet at large.

[Rich]

Post by The Real Bev

Post by Rich

?Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging
the internet,? Mr. Pai said in a statement. ?Instead, the F.C.C.
would simply require internet service providers to be transparent
about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan
that?s best for them ...

If I had, as I did back in the DSL days, 25+ different ISPs/providers
that I could pick and choose from, then I'd agree with Mr. Pai for the
most part. Require they (ISPs/providers) be upfront and transparent
and let me pick.
But, sadly, the days of real competition for my "last mile" link died
when the 1996 telecom bill removed the "fair access" component from
cable/fiber installs that had generated the 25+ providers competing for
DSL connections over copper phone lines.

There was NEVER a choice in Pasadena. The City granted exclusive
permission to whatever Charter called itself to lay cable all over the
city. The only viable competition is AT&T, and once you wrench the
numbers out of them, they're no better. If we want an actual usable
(phones/tablets are NOT usable) internet connection, that's it. Period.
$65/month for ~60Mbs down and 5Mbs up, internet only. The nominal
speed has increased (along with the price) over the years, but the
effective speed (driven by websites' upload speeds) is no better.
Apparently prices are better in areas with actual competition.

Back in the day of DSL competition (because the local baby bell was
required to offer access to the copper loop to anyone on fair terms) I
saw the price of DSL internet drop down to as low as somewhere around
10-20/month for a reasonable speed (at the time, ranged from about
768kbit up to about 2.5Mbit) DSL link. Yes, it was asymmetrical and so
upload was a fraction of download. This was circa 1998-2002 or 2003.
$20 in 1998 would be about $29/month today. This was down from where
DSL began (well over $100/month ($145 today vs. 1998)) and these prices
dropped *very* quickly overall.

So, yes, with actual, real, competition among a large enough pool of
players, prices can become good.

Two options (assuming one even has two options) is only competition
from a textbook/dictionary definition of competition. With only two
players, they can both easily collude without running afoul of the law
by simply each not trying too hard to compete much. Which is where we
get what we have now, one saw their bit-rates increase, but the dollars
per month figure remained unchanged.

Post by The Real Bev
And now the bastards will be able to throttle sites (what about usenet?)
that don't pay.

Usenet, being text only (I'm ignoring the alt.binaries heirarchy here)
is very unlikely to be impacted. The speed to which they would have to
throttle to make Usenet unusable would result in *every* modern website
being completely unusable to the point that folks would be calling up
their provider thinking their links were down. And that support call
flood would convince them they had throttled too far.

[RS Wood]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 21:59:59 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Rich
Usenet, being text only (I'm ignoring the alt.binaries heirarchy here)
is very unlikely to be impacted. The speed to which they would have to
throttle to make Usenet unusable would result in *every* modern website
being completely unusable to the point that folks would be calling up
their provider thinking their links were down. And that support call
flood would convince them they had throttled too far.

Au contraire. It will be considered niche/specialty and made
unavailable in traditional packages. If you want anything other than
port 80 you'll have to upgrade to the 'curmudgeon edition' which offers
NNTP and gopher and FTP, but costs quite a bit more.

If you want access to any non USA/EU sites, that will cost more as
well, actually. Hell, they'll segregate these markets down to the very
last domain, and charge accordingly. Scumbags.

[Rich]

Post by RS Wood
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 21:59:59 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Rich
Usenet, being text only (I'm ignoring the alt.binaries heirarchy here)
is very unlikely to be impacted. The speed to which they would have to
throttle to make Usenet unusable would result in *every* modern website
being completely unusable to the point that folks would be calling up
their provider thinking their links were down. And that support call
flood would convince them they had throttled too far.

Au contraire. It will be considered niche/specialty and made
unavailable in traditional packages. If you want anything other than
port 80 you'll have to upgrade to the 'curmudgeon edition' which offers
NNTP and gopher and FTP, but costs quite a bit more.

Well, here in the USA, Usenet has already been made "niche/specialty".
None of the ISP's left provide any form of Usenet access, even for a
fee.

If one wants Usenet anymore, one either pays for access through one of
the paid providers of "just Usenet" or one uses Eternal September/Aioe
for access.

Post by RS Wood
If you want access to any non USA/EU sites, that will cost more as
well, actually. Hell, they'll segregate these markets down to the
very last domain, and charge accordingly. Scumbags.

Yep, that is definitely a risk. The CATV companies are likely drooling
at the prospect of legally being able to bring CATV style "bundling"
and "pricing" to the internet. You want the "Techie Bundle" -
$10/month more, but Hacker News is special, so that's an extra $5/month
on top....

[Huge]

Post by Rich

Post by RS Wood
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 21:59:59 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Rich
Usenet, being text only (I'm ignoring the alt.binaries heirarchy here)
is very unlikely to be impacted. The speed to which they would have to
throttle to make Usenet unusable would result in *every* modern website
being completely unusable to the point that folks would be calling up
their provider thinking their links were down. And that support call
flood would convince them they had throttled too far.

Au contraire. It will be considered niche/specialty and made
unavailable in traditional packages. If you want anything other than
port 80 you'll have to upgrade to the 'curmudgeon edition' which offers
NNTP and gopher and FTP, but costs quite a bit more.

Well, here in the USA, Usenet has already been made "niche/specialty".
None of the ISP's left provide any form of Usenet access, even for a
fee.

Well, they provide *access*, in that you're welcome to establish a
connection to an NNTP server, they just don't run that server. Presumably
since a small and diminishing proportion of their customers used it,
it was impossible to monetise and running a usenet server is a lot
of work.

Post by Rich
If one wants Usenet anymore, one either pays for access through one of
the paid providers of "just Usenet" or one uses Eternal September/Aioe
for access.

Same in the UK.

Post by Rich

Post by RS Wood
If you want access to any non USA/EU sites, that will cost more as
well, actually. Hell, they'll segregate these markets down to the
very last domain, and charge accordingly. Scumbags.

Yep, that is definitely a risk. The CATV companies are likely drooling
at the prospect of legally being able to bring CATV style "bundling"
and "pricing" to the internet. You want the "Techie Bundle" -
$10/month more, but Hacker News is special, so that's an extra $5/month
on top....

I fear that you are entirely correct.

:o(

[RS Wood]

On 27 Nov 2017 08:34:56 GMT

Post by Huge

Post by Rich
If one wants Usenet anymore, one either pays for access through one of
the paid providers of "just Usenet" or one uses Eternal September/Aioe
for access.

Same in the UK.

Right. Now you'll pay twice. You'll need to subscribe to Eternal Sept
etc (I happen to like Solani, by the way). But you'll also have to pay
your ISP for the extended package in which non-port 80 traffic isn't
filtered ...

The only upside I can think of is that it might possibly open the
market for smaller ISPs who offer varied services. Of course those
smaller ISPs will have to negotiate agreements with the owners of the
fiber/copper lines, who will almost certainly price them into oblivion.

That's what happens when you set up your systems to favor
monopolies ... you get a monopoly.

Good governance. It's nice, if you can get it.

[Marko Rauhamaa]

That's what happens when you set up your systems to favor monopolies
... you get a monopoly.

Monopolies arise automatically without setting anything up.

Good governance. It's nice, if you can get it.

I'm pretty happy with the system in Finland. Not everything is perfect,
of course, but at least there's fierce competition between the political
parties, and that keeps them honest.

Because of the proportional voting system, the 200 seats in the Finnish
Parliament are divided by these parties:

----------------------------- ----------------------------
Government Opposition
----------------------------- ----------------------------
Center Party (49) Social Democratic Party (35)
National Coalition Party (38) Finns Party (17)
Blue Reform (19) Green League (15)
Left Alliance (12)
Swedish People's Party (9)
Christian Democrats (5)
Åland's representative (1)
----------------------------- ----------------------------

Explanation:
Center Party = the social conservatives' party
National Coalition Party = the fiscal conservatives' party
Social Democratic Party = the wage laborers' party
Blue Reform = the angry white men's party
Finns Party = the ultranationalist party
Green League = the do-gooders' party
Left Alliance = the communist party
Swedish People's Party = the coastal Swedish-speakers' party
Christian Democrats = the evangelicals' party
Åland's representative = the autonomous region's quota


Marko

[Huge]

Post by RS Wood
On 27 Nov 2017 08:34:56 GMT

Post by Huge

Post by Rich
If one wants Usenet anymore, one either pays for access through one of
the paid providers of "just Usenet" or one uses Eternal September/Aioe
for access.

Same in the UK.

Right. Now you'll pay twice. You'll need to subscribe to Eternal Sept
etc (I happen to like Solani, by the way). But you'll also have to pay
your ISP for the extended package in which non-port 80 traffic isn't
filtered ...

The net is a very different place outside of the USA. There is a fair
range of ISPs to choose between and "net neutrality" is not a thing.

Oh, and I use the Free University of Berlin for my usenet access. They
charge, but it's in the noise.

[7 lines snipped]

Post by RS Wood
Good governance. It's nice, if you can get it.

America has the best Government money can buy.

[Huge]

Post by RS Wood
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 21:59:59 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Rich
Usenet, being text only (I'm ignoring the alt.binaries heirarchy here)
is very unlikely to be impacted. The speed to which they would have to
throttle to make Usenet unusable would result in *every* modern website
being completely unusable to the point that folks would be calling up
their provider thinking their links were down. And that support call
flood would convince them they had throttled too far.

Au contraire. It will be considered niche/specialty and made
unavailable in traditional packages. If you want anything other than
port 80 you'll have to upgrade to the 'curmudgeon edition' which offers
NNTP and gopher and FTP, but costs quite a bit more.
If you want access to any non USA/EU sites, that will cost more as
well, actually. Hell, they'll segregate these markets down to the very
last domain, and charge accordingly. Scumbags.

Another reason for being glad one does not live in the USA. Still, now
we'll get to see if the aphorism that "the Internet treats censorship
as a fault and routes around it" is true or not.

[Mike Spencer]

Post by Huge
Another reason for being glad one does not live in the USA. Still, now
we'll get to see if the aphorism that "the Internet treats censorship
as a fault and routes around it" is true or not.

Does that explain why email I send from my account in NS to my wife [1]
whose address is on another ISP based in Ontario is routed through the
USA? Huh.

I can't surmise if that sort of routing will give US service/backbone
providers leverage to arm-twist Canadian ISPs into some new and odious
fee structure.


[1] Yes, she's two rooms away but URLs or full text for technical
articles don't make for good shouted exchanges, let alone
convivial fireside conversation. :-)

[Huge]

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by Huge
Another reason for being glad one does not live in the USA. Still, now
we'll get to see if the aphorism that "the Internet treats censorship
as a fault and routes around it" is true or not.

Does that explain why email I send from my account in NS to my wife [1]
whose address is on another ISP based in Ontario is routed through the
USA? Huh.

Not the same thing. That depends on where your ISP has bought bandwidth.

Post by Mike Spencer
I can't surmise if that sort of routing will give US service/backbone
providers leverage to arm-twist Canadian ISPs into some new and odious
fee structure.

In which case it will be worth Canadian ISPs setting up their own bandwidth.
IMNHO, the "net neutrality" thing will result in much less traffic being
routed through the USA.

Post by Mike Spencer
[1] Yes, she's two rooms away but URLs or full text for technical
articles don't make for good shouted exchanges, let alone
convivial fireside conversation. :-)

Two rooms? I email stuff to my wife who's sitting 5 feet to my left!

[Richard Kettlewell]

Post by Huge

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by Huge
Another reason for being glad one does not live in the USA. Still,
now we'll get to see if the aphorism that "the Internet treats
censorship as a fault and routes around it" is true or not.

At a purely technological level it’s false, the Internet has been
censored since at least the 1990s, with the cooperation of connectivity
providers (who don’t like going to prison).

As a statement about the tendency of end users to seek out workarounds,
there’s a bit more to it, but I think that’s more a fact about human
nature than computer networks as such.

Post by Huge

Post by Mike Spencer
Does that explain why email I send from my account in NS to my wife
[1] whose address is on another ISP based in Ontario is routed
through the USA? Huh.

Not the same thing. That depends on where your ISP has bought
bandwidth.

Also, potentially:
- who they’ve outsourced email too
- which multinational they’re part of

My ‘British’ ISP is actually part of a larger US-based company and
receives inbound email via infrastructure which seems to be in the
Netherlands (not that I usually use my ISP-provided address).

[Paul Sture]

Post by Huge

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by Huge
Another reason for being glad one does not live in the USA. Still, now
we'll get to see if the aphorism that "the Internet treats censorship
as a fault and routes around it" is true or not.

Does that explain why email I send from my account in NS to my wife [1]
whose address is on another ISP based in Ontario is routed through the
USA? Huh.

Not the same thing. That depends on where your ISP has bought bandwidth.

Post by Mike Spencer
I can't surmise if that sort of routing will give US service/backbone
providers leverage to arm-twist Canadian ISPs into some new and odious
fee structure.

In which case it will be worth Canadian ISPs setting up their own bandwidth.
IMNHO, the "net neutrality" thing will result in much less traffic being
routed through the USA.

Between 2005 and 2010 or so, I was getting regular speed boosts from my
cable ISP without extra charges. This was no doubt driven by competition.

A notable aspect of those upgrades was that for the first week or three,
US sites didn't seem to be any faster. That delay was probably down to
the ISP monitoring the demands of several hundread thousand users and
then negotiating with whoever for the newly required bandwidth, and
stumping up whatever extra cash was necessary.

Post by Huge

Post by Mike Spencer
[1] Yes, she's two rooms away but URLs or full text for technical
articles don't make for good shouted exchanges, let alone
convivial fireside conversation. :-)

Two rooms? I email stuff to my wife who's sitting 5 feet to my left!

Heck, I've emailed long URLs and code snippets to myself just to read
them on a different system :-)

(I do have better methods for doing that nowadays)

[Rich]

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by Huge
Another reason for being glad one does not live in the USA. Still,
now we'll get to see if the aphorism that "the Internet treats
censorship as a fault and routes around it" is true or not.

Does that explain why email I send from my account in NS to my wife
[1] whose address is on another ISP based in Ontario is routed
through the USA? Huh.

No, the MX record in the DNS system for the domain name your wife's
email is hosted on determines where email is routed.

As to why an Ontario ISP is routing email through the US, it could be
that they have 'outsourced' their email to a US company. I.e., they
might be buying email service from Google (or other 'email' service
provider), and rebranding the service under their own domain name.

[Larry Sheldon]

Post by The Real Bev
Apparently prices are better in areas with actual competition.

My, there is a surprise!

[RS Wood]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:29:49 -0500
RS Wood <***@therandymon.com> wrote:

Well, congratulations to the oligarchs: they did it.
https://nypost.com/2017/12/14/fcc-repeals-landmark-net-neutrality-rules/

//-- clip

WASHINGTON — The US Federal Communications Commission voted along party
lines Thursday to repeal landmark 2015 rules aimed at ensuring a free
and open internet, setting up a court fight over a move that could
recast the digital landscape.

The approval of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal marks a victory for
internet service providers like AT&T Inc., Comcast Corp. and Verizon
Communications Inc. and hands them power over what content consumers
can access.

Democrats, Hollywood and companies like Google parent Alphabet Inc. and
Facebook Inc. had urged Pai, a Republican appointed by President Donald
Trump, to keep the Obama-era rules barring service providers from
blocking, slowing access to or charging more for certain content.

Consumer advocates and trade groups representing content providers have
planned a legal challenge aimed at preserving those rules.

The meeting was evacuated before the vote for about 10 minutes due to
an unspecified security threat, and resumed after sniffer dogs checked
the room.

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, a Democrat, said in the run-up to the
vote that Republicans were “handing the keys to the internet” to a
“handful of multibillion-dollar corporations.”

Pai has argued that the 2015 rules were heavy-handed and stifled
competition and innovation among service providers.

“The internet wasn’t broken in 2015. We weren’t living in a digital
dystopia. To the contrary, the internet is perhaps the one thing in
American society we can all agree has been a stunning success,” he said
Thursday.

The FCC voted 3-2 to repeal the rules.

Consumers are unlikely to see immediate changes resulting from the rule
change, but smaller startups worry that the lack of restrictions could
drive up costs or lead to their content being blocked.

Internet service providers say they will not block or throttle legal
content but that they may engage in paid prioritization. They say
consumers will see no change and argue that the largely unregulated
internet functioned well in the two decades before the 2015 order.

//-- clip

[Huge]

Post by RS Wood
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:29:49 -0500
Well, congratulations to the oligarchs: they did it.
https://nypost.com/2017/12/14/fcc-repeals-landmark-net-neutrality-rules/
//-- clip
WASHINGTON — The US Federal Communications Commission voted along party
lines Thursday to repeal landmark 2015 rules aimed at ensuring a free
and open internet,

Sad now.

[Sn!pe]

Post by Huge

Post by RS Wood
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:29:49 -0500
Well, congratulations to the oligarchs: they did it.
https://nypost.com/2017/12/14/fcc-repeals-landmark-net-neutrality-rules/
//-- clip
WASHINGTON — The US Federal Communications Commission voted along party
lines Thursday to repeal landmark 2015 rules aimed at ensuring a free
and open internet,

Sad now.

Don't be sad, it's the way of the world. The money drives
everything; just accept that and it won't hurt so much.

[RS Wood]

Post by Sn!pe

Post by Huge

Post by RS Wood
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:29:49 -0500
Well, congratulations to the oligarchs: they did it.
https://nypost.com/2017/12/14/fcc-repeals-landmark-net-neutrality-rules/
//-- clip
WASHINGTON — The US Federal Communications Commission voted along party
lines Thursday to repeal landmark 2015 rules aimed at ensuring a free
and open internet,

Sad now.

Don't be sad, it's the way of the world. The money drives
everything; just accept that and it won't hurt so much.

So, according to that article, the article was: "everything was working fine
prior to 2015, and then that scumbag Obama imposed this extra burden of
regulation upon us, and it's not fair, waaa, waaa, waaah."

But ostensibly that regulation was a reasonable safeguard. Just because no
one had ever behaved badly doesn't preclude them from doing so. And in
fact, in a weird, perverse way, somehow the freedom of having the rules
lifted almost feels like an invitation to behave badly.

Big money bought this government, and is now exacting the pound of flesh
they feel they deserve. Airlines got a present this Xmas, now telecom has
too. Oil and coal will get theirs soon enough, I'm sure.

Getting tougher and tougher to be a start up these days, that's for sure:
the big guns are doing what they can to close the doors of the walled
garden, and get out the milking equipment.

[Paul Sture]

Post by Sn!pe

Post by Huge

Post by RS Wood
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:29:49 -0500
Well, congratulations to the oligarchs: they did it.
https://nypost.com/2017/12/14/fcc-repeals-landmark-net-neutrality-rules/
//-- clip
WASHINGTON — The US Federal Communications Commission voted along party
lines Thursday to repeal landmark 2015 rules aimed at ensuring a free
and open internet,

Sad now.

Don't be sad, it's the way of the world. The money drives
everything; just accept that and it won't hurt so much.

A cynical but light hearted look at the situation:

<https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/14/net_neutrality_vote_great/>

I've a feeling the comments section is going to run and run on that one.

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Post by Huge
Sad now.

Don't be sad, it's the way of the world. The money drives everything;
just accept that and it won't hurt so much.

The world is the world, but the US has a Constitution, whose 1st
Amendment famously states:

Government shall not encroach on the right to make a buck.


Marko

[Mike Spencer]

M

Post by Marko Rauhamaa

Post by Huge
Sad now.

Don't be sad, it's the way of the world. The money drives everything;
just accept that and it won't hurt so much.

The world is the world, but the US has a Constitution, whose 1st
Government shall not encroach on the right to make a buck.

Not, of course, in those explicit words. The US Declaration of
Independence was big on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
In the ensuing years, during the debates over what the country should
become, liberty was upstaged by -- the revolution hijacked by --
private property.

Madison rated posession of property equal to or above liberty
(Federalist #10), a view echoed a couple of centuries later by George
Bush I, "free markets and free elections" where he put markets first.
And the US Constitution went Madison's way.

Further reading: _Private Property and the imits of the American
COnstitution_, Jennifer Nedelsky, U.Chicago, 1990.

[Roger Blake]

Post by Huge
Sad now.

I don't know, are people's lives so wrapped up in the danged internet
at this point that this is such a big deal? Aside from work, I find the
'net convenient for certain things and use it for a few items of interest,
but could certainly live without it.

[Huge]

Post by Roger Blake

Post by Huge
Sad now.

I don't know, are people's lives so wrapped up in the danged internet
at this point that this is such a big deal?

Imagine that your telephone provider won't allow you to make calls to people
other than its own customers. That's the kind of thing that will happen.

[Paul Sture]

Post by Huge

Post by Roger Blake

Post by Huge
Sad now.

I don't know, are people's lives so wrapped up in the danged internet
at this point that this is such a big deal?

Imagine that your telephone provider won't allow you to make calls to
people other than its own customers. That's the kind of thing that
will happen.

I had a small foretaste of that in the mid-nineties when folks in the UK
who could were bailing out of BT by switching to alternate providers.

I tried calling BT's Directory Enquiries to get the number of someone
who had switched and was told that without the name of the alternate
provider they couldn't help me.

[Peter Mc Donough]

...

Post by Paul Sture

Post by Huge
Imagine that your telephone provider won't allow you to make calls to
people other than its own customers. That's the kind of thing that
will happen.

I had a small foretaste of that in the mid-nineties when folks in the UK
who could were bailing out of BT by switching to alternate providers.
I tried calling BT's Directory Enquiries to get the number of someone
who had switched and was told that without the name of the alternate
provider they couldn't help me.

Which makes sense. Looking up a number cost time and that is money. Why
should they spend what you save?.

cu
Peter

[Paul Sture]

Post by Peter Mc Donough
...

Post by Paul Sture

Post by Huge
Imagine that your telephone provider won't allow you to make calls to
people other than its own customers. That's the kind of thing that
will happen.

I had a small foretaste of that in the mid-nineties when folks in the UK
who could were bailing out of BT by switching to alternate providers.
I tried calling BT's Directory Enquiries to get the number of someone
who had switched and was told that without the name of the alternate
provider they couldn't help me.

Which makes sense. Looking up a number cost time and that is money. Why
should they spend what you save?.

You are missing the point. The fact that I suddenly needed to know
someone's supplier was completely unexpected. I'd not heard it
discussed in any of the news items about Directory Enquiries that I'd
listened to.

BT had already started charging for Directory Enquiries at that point,
so it was in the news. IIRC the old free/minimal cost system had been
abused by business users seeking whole batches of numbers in a single
call, with the result that the new charges also introduced a maximum
or 2 (or 3?) enquiries per call.

[Peter Mc Donough]

Post by Paul Sture

Post by Peter Mc Donough

Post by Paul Sture
...
I tried calling BT's Directory Enquiries to get the number of someone
who had switched and was told that without the name of the alternate
provider they couldn't help me.

Which makes sense. Looking up a number cost time and that is money. Why
should they spend what you save?.

You are missing the point. The fact that I suddenly needed to know
someone's supplier was completely unexpected. I'd not heard it
discussed in any of the news items about Directory Enquiries that I'd
listened to.

You are right.
What I noticed, that often people expect some service without
considering that providing that service will have to be paid by group
"somebody". They are then astonished that they are suddenly assigned to
group "somebody".

cu
Peter

[RS Wood]

Post by Huge
Imagine that your telephone provider won't allow you to make calls to people
other than its own customers. That's the kind of thing that will happen.

They can call it ... Compuserve. Or AOL, either of which refuses to
communicate with the other in the year 1993.

I've always thought we'll sooner or later revisit the age of BBSes. But it
now occurs to me it won't be the sort of revolutionary act I'd thought, but
rather because competing systems wall each other off (Google refuses to let
Amazon devices broadcast Youtube; Amazon refuses to sell Chrome streaming
devices), effectively forcing us into that type of ecosystem by design.

Hope I get lumped in with the kermudgeons, because that's where I'll fit in.

[Larry Sheldon]

Post by RS Wood

Post by Huge
Imagine that your telephone provider won't allow you to make calls to people
other than its own customers. That's the kind of thing that will happen.

They can call it ... Compuserve. Or AOL, either of which refuses to
communicate with the other in the year 1993.
I've always thought we'll sooner or later revisit the age of BBSes. But it
now occurs to me it won't be the sort of revolutionary act I'd thought, but
rather because competing systems wall each other off (Google refuses to let
Amazon devices broadcast YouTube; Amazon refuses to sell Chrome streaming
devices), effectively forcing us into that type of ecosystem by design.
Hope I get lumped in with the curmudgeons, because that's where I'll fit in.

I'll stay, as always, with the lowercase "r" republicans.

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2017/12/15/bookworm-beat-121517-net-neutrality/

[Roger Blake]

Post by Huge
Imagine that your telephone provider won't allow you to make calls to people
other than its own customers. That's the kind of thing that will happen.

How do you know that will happen? (I would just go to another phone provider.
There are many.)

[Aharon Robbins]

Post by Roger Blake

Post by Huge
Imagine that your telephone provider won't allow you to make calls to people
other than its own customers. That's the kind of thing that will happen.

How do you know that will happen? (I would just go to another phone provider.
There are many.)

See

https://np.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/7i595b/will_the_repeal_of_net_neutrality_actually_help/dqwzn1g/

If past behavior is an indicator, things will not be good.

[Roger Blake]

Post by Aharon Robbins
https://np.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/7i595b/will_the_repeal_of_net_neutrality_actually_help/dqwzn1g/
If past behavior is an indicator, things will not be good.

Doesn't really matter to me, since I make little use of the internet despite
having worked with it since the 1980s. It can be fun or informative at times
but in the end it just does not seem all that important. I would have no
problem living without the 'net if it came down to it.

[RS Wood]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:49:25 -0500

Post by RS Wood
Internet service providers say they will not block or throttle legal
content but that they may engage in paid prioritization. They say
consumers will see no change and argue that the largely unregulated
internet functioned well in the two decades before the 2015 order.

It's official:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/technology/net-neutrality-repeal.html

Net neutrality is dead in America. Can't wait to see all the awesome
innovation America's tech sector is now free to explore: bundled
internet packages, premium websites, pay-to-play. Let's do to the
internet what we did to cable tv - that seemed to work pretty well,
didn't it?*


* if your definition of success is monetizing the slow, expensive death
of a platform for short-term profit.

[RS Wood]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 14:29:55 -0400

Post by RS Wood
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:49:25 -0500

Post by RS Wood
Internet service providers say they will not block or throttle legal
content but that they may engage in paid prioritization. They say
consumers will see no change and argue that the largely unregulated
internet functioned well in the two decades before the 2015 order.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/technology/net-neutrality-repeal.html
Net neutrality is dead in America. Can't wait to see all the awesome
innovation America's tech sector is now free to explore: bundled
internet packages, premium websites, pay-to-play. Let's do to the
internet what we did to cable tv - that seemed to work pretty well,
didn't it?*
* if your definition of success is monetizing the slow, expensive death
of a platform for short-term profit.

Interesting piece from NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/technology/how-net-neutrality-repeal.html

Today, the internet is run by giants. A handful of American tech
behemoths — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — control the
most important digital infrastructure, while a handful of broadband
companies — AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon — control most of the
internet connections in the United States.

The very idea that large companies can’t dictate what happens online is
laughable now. Large companies, today, pretty much are the internet. In
this world, net neutrality didn’t have a chance.

So, what now?

There’s a misunderstanding that the repeal of net neutrality will
result in immediate and drastic change online. That won’t happen. With
lawsuits and legislation pending, with the media still paying attention
and with activists poised to pounce on obvious infractions, broadband
companies are going to be extremely careful, in the short run, to be on
their best behavior. The internet won’t be slower tomorrow. You won’t
be blocked from certain sites. You aren’t going to be charged more.

But as I argued last fall, a vibrant network doesn’t die all at once.
Instead it grows weaker over time, with innovative start-ups finding it
ever more difficult to fight entrenched incumbents.

As I’ve noted often in the last few years, big companies have been
crushing small ones over and over again for much of the last decade.
One lesson from everything that has happened online recently —
Facebook, the Russians and Cambridge Analytica; bots and misinformation
everywhere — is that, in the absence stringent rules and enforcement,
everything on the internet turns sour. Removing the last barriers to
unfair competition will only hasten that process.

It’s not going to be pretty.

“History shows us that companies that have the technical capacity to do
things, the business incentive to do them and the legal right — they
will take advantage of what is made available to them,” said Jessica
Rosenworcel, an F.C.C. commissioner and a Democrat, who voted against
the repeal of net neutrality last year.

By repealing neutrality rules, the government has just given our online
overlords that legal right, she cautioned.

“Now they can block websites and censor online content,” Ms.
Rosenworcel said. “That doesn’t make me feel good — and if you rely on
the internet to consume or create, it shouldn’t make you feel good,
either.”

[Sylvia Else]

Post by RS Wood
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 14:29:55 -0400

Post by RS Wood
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:49:25 -0500

Post by RS Wood
Internet service providers say they will not block or throttle legal
content but that they may engage in paid prioritization. They say
consumers will see no change and argue that the largely unregulated
internet functioned well in the two decades before the 2015 order.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/technology/net-neutrality-repeal.html
Net neutrality is dead in America. Can't wait to see all the awesome
innovation America's tech sector is now free to explore: bundled
internet packages, premium websites, pay-to-play. Let's do to the
internet what we did to cable tv - that seemed to work pretty well,
didn't it?*
* if your definition of success is monetizing the slow, expensive death
of a platform for short-term profit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/technology/how-net-neutrality-repeal.html
Today, the internet is run by giants. A handful of American tech
behemoths — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — control the
most important digital infrastructure, while a handful of broadband
companies — AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon — control most of the
internet connections in the United States.
The very idea that large companies can’t dictate what happens online is
laughable now. Large companies, today, pretty much are the internet. In
this world, net neutrality didn’t have a chance.
So, what now?
There’s a misunderstanding that the repeal of net neutrality will
result in immediate and drastic change online. That won’t happen. With
lawsuits and legislation pending, with the media still paying attention
and with activists poised to pounce on obvious infractions, broadband
companies are going to be extremely careful, in the short run, to be on
their best behavior. The internet won’t be slower tomorrow. You won’t
be blocked from certain sites. You aren’t going to be charged more.
But as I argued last fall, a vibrant network doesn’t die all at once.
Instead it grows weaker over time, with innovative start-ups finding it
ever more difficult to fight entrenched incumbents.
As I’ve noted often in the last few years, big companies have been
crushing small ones over and over again for much of the last decade.
One lesson from everything that has happened online recently —
Facebook, the Russians and Cambridge Analytica; bots and misinformation
everywhere — is that, in the absence stringent rules and enforcement,
everything on the internet turns sour. Removing the last barriers to
unfair competition will only hasten that process.
It’s not going to be pretty.
“History shows us that companies that have the technical capacity to do
things, the business incentive to do them and the legal right — they
will take advantage of what is made available to them,” said Jessica
Rosenworcel, an F.C.C. commissioner and a Democrat, who voted against
the repeal of net neutrality last year.
By repealing neutrality rules, the government has just given our online
overlords that legal right, she cautioned.
“Now they can block websites and censor online content,” Ms.
Rosenworcel said. “That doesn’t make me feel good — and if you rely on
the internet to consume or create, it shouldn’t make you feel good,
either.”

The underlying problem is that last-mile delivery of internet access is
a natural monopoly, just as it is for electricity, gas, water and
sewage. It's next to impossible for find a business case for parallel
construction of such infrastructure, even if the incumbent is prevented
from improving its service or cutting its prices to see off the
interloper (as it would usually do).

In Australia, we are seeing the national broadband network being
constructed for last-mile delivery. While its implementation has been
somewhat bungled, the principle is sound, and presumably it will work
properly eventually. I only hope that some future government doesn't
sell it to the highest bidder with few if any restrictions in a short
term cash grab (there is some precedents for a government doing that -
see Sydney Airport for an example).

Until the US government sees the light, the US consumer is going to get
ripped off.

Sylvia.