Net neutrality was dealt a big blow today...

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for LostProphetFLCL
#1 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (18526 posts) -

Article here

So some shit news to start the day. Apparently a DC appeals court overturned the FCC's neutrality order that was put into place in 2010. They claim that the free market is protection enough so people can just switch ISP's if they aren't happy. Guess these morons are completely unfamiliar with the fact that plenty of people WON'T have much freedom in that regard.

When I lived in an apartment building back in 2009 we were limited to 2 providers at that complex and it is my understanding that such a scenario is not exactly rare. On top of that, you get people living in rural areas who will be lucky to have one single provider offering services to their house due to a more out-of-the-way location.

But whatevs, I guess we don't care about such people.

Thoughts?

Avatar image for angeldeb82
#2 Posted by angeldeb82 (1481 posts) -

I guess that means game over for the Internet! And we can't let it happen! :'(

Avatar image for JML897
#3 Posted by JML897 (33134 posts) -
@LostProphetFLCL said:
“They can go to another broadband provider if they want to reach particular edge providers or if their connections to particular edge providers have been degraded.”

But there are only like 2 broadband providers in my area. Do they think people can choose from dozens of providers?

Avatar image for dave123321
#4 Posted by dave123321 (35342 posts) -

What does this mean for me guys?

Avatar image for k--m--k
#5 Posted by k--m--k (2542 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

What does this mean for me guys?

Avatar image for LostProphetFLCL
#6 Edited by LostProphetFLCL (18526 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

What does this mean for me guys?

My understanding with all this is that if net neutrality falls then the ISP's are going to be able to pull a bunch of shady bullshit where they can essentially make certain sites work well (which of course these would be the sites that pay up to the ISP) while being able to make other sites not work well through their network.

This is a huge issue as the beauty of the internet is the way people with awesome ideas can just start up a site and make it into something huge. A lack of net neutrality basically throws a ton of power into the hands of the big corporations and gives them an ability to snuff out the little guys.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#7 Posted by Wasdie (53494 posts) -

It's not dead yet. This was really only ruling on what the FCC can limit and what they can't. There are still plenty of fights ahead.

What needs to happen is the internet needs to educate people on what net neutrality is. Big ISPs have been running huge campaigns of mis-information to keep non tech savvy people in the dark. Until the public is educated about why net neutrality is a good thing, there won't be any serious resistance from the people who actually make the decisions because our courts are all ruled by aging people who are out of touch with tech and will pretty much buy into any bullshit the ISPs say.

They convinced these judges that there is adequate competition for ISPs in this nation so that it should never be a problem. That's how full of shit they are. They have a monopoly and now they want to capitalize on it.

Avatar image for Fightingfan
#8 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

In reality I only have one option for high speed internet.

It's comcast, or Embarq (Which doesn't use fiber optics....).

Avatar image for OrangeTabbyCat
#9 Edited by OrangeTabbyCat (94 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

It's not dead yet. This was really only ruling on what the FCC can limit and what they can't. There are still plenty of fights ahead.

What needs to happen is the internet needs to educate people on what net neutrality is. Big ISPs have been running huge campaigns of mis-information to keep non tech savvy people in the dark. Until the public is educated about why net neutrality is a good thing, there won't be any serious resistance from the people who actually make the decisions because our courts are all ruled by aging people who are out of touch with tech and will pretty much buy into any bullshit the ISPs say.

They convinced these judges that there is adequate competition for ISPs in this nation so that it should never be a problem. That's how full of shit they are. They have a monopoly and now they want to capitalize on it.

I am afraid we will lose these fights though, without proper laws to enforce net neutrality so we can finally put this to rest, I do not think that these companies will ever stop.

We need to take a stance and enforce it for the future, enough of this struggling nonsense.

Avatar image for THE_DRUGGIE
#10 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (25057 posts) -

Oh yay, can't wait for cablenet!

Avatar image for ReadingRainbow4
#11 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (18733 posts) -

This is absolutely ridiculous, who the hell authorized this shit?

This countiries run by old folks that still subscribe to TV-Guide or what? bananas...

I think it's safe to say liveleak is pretty fucked.

Avatar image for LostProphetFLCL
#12 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (18526 posts) -

@Fightingfan said:

In reality I only have one option for high speed internet.

It's comcast, or Embarq (Which doesn't use fiber optics....).

Exactly why this court ruling is God damn stupid.

Avatar image for DaBrainz
#13 Posted by DaBrainz (7908 posts) -

Does this mean Comcast can block Netflix now?

Avatar image for LostProphetFLCL
#14 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (18526 posts) -

@DaBrainz said:

Does this mean Comcast can block Netflix now?

The battle is far from over. This is just a big setback.

Avatar image for jer_1
#15 Posted by jer_1 (7451 posts) -

I can't wait until Meganet gets unrolled, I'll probably make use of it in the future since it's basically corporations vs humanity. Kim Dotcom is on to something... Rip the system! :D

Avatar image for Riverwolf007
#16 Posted by Riverwolf007 (26023 posts) -

i recently moved to an area with basically ONE high speed provider.

as you can imagine it sucks like a gaping chest wound.

they have zero interest in giving any kind of ****s.

i mean i guess i could try satellite but that looks like a terrible option too.

Avatar image for lamprey263
#17 Edited by lamprey263 (34630 posts) -

I live in an area with only one provider, guess I'm fucked.

Avatar image for Trail_Mix
#18 Edited by Trail_Mix (2579 posts) -

Wow, doesn't give one very many options.

I mean, how out of touch must you be to even consider this?

Avatar image for jcknapier711
#19 Posted by jcknapier711 (470 posts) -

@LostProphetFLCL said:

Article here

When I lived in an apartment building back in 2009 we were limited to 2 providers at that complex and it is my understanding that such a scenario is not exactly rare. On top of that, you get people living in rural areas who will be lucky to have one single provider offering services to their house due to a more out-of-the-way location.

But whatevs, I guess we don't care about such people.

Thoughts?

It has nothing to do with being able to choose your ISP. It has to do with being able to choose what content you want to view. The ISP's can now force that choice on you. They can now block one content provider in favor of the content provider that pays your ISP the most money.

There is no longer free speech on the internet. You simply cannot have it when you have these people dictating where you download your content from.

What would be totally awesome is if everyone just created our own ad-hoc network. But there are too many people who are too clueless about tech to do that, forget about finding enough people willing to do it.

Avatar image for LostProphetFLCL
#20 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (18526 posts) -

@jcknapier711 said:

@LostProphetFLCL said:

Article here

When I lived in an apartment building back in 2009 we were limited to 2 providers at that complex and it is my understanding that such a scenario is not exactly rare. On top of that, you get people living in rural areas who will be lucky to have one single provider offering services to their house due to a more out-of-the-way location.

But whatevs, I guess we don't care about such people.

Thoughts?

It has nothing to do with being able to choose your ISP. It has to do with being able to choose what content you want to view. The ISP's can now force that choice on you. They can now block one content provider in favor of the content provider that pays your ISP the most money.

You missed my point. The whole justification for striking down the previous FCC rule was that "people can choose their ISP's" which as I mentioned is not that simple as many people get shoe-horned into having to choose between a couple carriers or even be forced with having only one option.

Avatar image for jcknapier711
#21 Edited by jcknapier711 (470 posts) -

Hmm... I actually read a different article and didn't bother to read yours. Sorry, didn't mean to sound like I was picking on you. The article I read did not give that as a justification, just that there will be more "innovation" and other equally vague terminology.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#23 Edited by Perfect_Blue (30164 posts) -

THE FREE MARKET IS SO AWESOME, INVISIBLE HAND, FVCK YEAH!

Hope this shit doesn't happen in Canada but considering how our government knows 0 about the internet, it wouldn't surprise me.

Avatar image for deeliman
#24 Posted by deeliman (3766 posts) -

Glad I'll never have to deal with this.

Avatar image for airshocker
#25 Edited by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

THE FREE MARKET IS SO AWESOME, INVISIBLE HAND, FVCK YEAH!

Hope this shit doesn't happen in Canada but considering how our government knows 0 about the internet, it wouldn't surprise me.

You guys already have worse internet than us presently.

Avatar image for outworld222
#26 Posted by outworld222 (2862 posts) -

Okay I'm not a big net neutrality expert but by reading some of the explanations here, this is nothing short of an outrage!

Someone here said that the policies are being run by people who prescribe to TV_GUIDE or some bs like that?? It's totally true with and I am in agreement with what he said.

On a slightly different subject, why do laws keep getting changed or superseded towards new laws? It's like....if a law works, fine, don't change its behavior or characteristics anymore.

I take it this law (That worked well) was passed in 2010? Then some dude had the audacity to strike it down (Or amend it?)

Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#27 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -

Amazes me that there are people who don't support net neutrality.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#28 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

i am fucking pissed

Avatar image for Randolph
#29 Posted by Randolph (10542 posts) -

Then they need to make deals like our apartment complex has illegal. I'm not allowed by my landlord to have anything other than mediacom for cable and internet.

Avatar image for ExtremeBanana
#30 Posted by ExtremeBanana (159 posts) -

doot doot

Avatar image for Shottayouth13-
#31 Edited by Shottayouth13- (7014 posts) -

I hope the courts in my country turn this shit down if it ever gets brought up.

Avatar image for Toxic-Seahorse
#32 Edited by Toxic-Seahorse (4999 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

What does this mean for me guys?

Technically this means that ISPs do not have to abide by certain rules set up by the FCC. For example, ISP's can slow down downloads from certain sites, or even restrict access to sites if they choose to do so. The first example is more realistic since most people wouldn't notice, and Comcast was already caught doing it. The second example would be suicide for a company but still completely legal as of right now.

However, the battle is far from over.

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#34 Posted by The-Apostle (12195 posts) -

Of all the boneheaded, ill-gotten court rulings I've seen in my life, this one takes the cake.

I hope to God the next court is competent enough to overturn this crappy ruling. Seriously. Can you fire a judge/justice/whatever for incompetence?

Avatar image for WiiCubeM1
#35 Posted by WiiCubeM1 (4735 posts) -

Well that sucks.

Avatar image for airshocker
#36 Edited by airshocker (31700 posts) -

This is a pretty good article I just read. The FCC needs to pull their heads out of their asses.

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#37 Edited by The-Apostle (12195 posts) -
@airshocker said:

This is a pretty good article I just read. The FCC needs to pull their heads out of their asses.

If this is the case, couldn't the FCC just change the wording so they can keep net neutrality?

Avatar image for StrifeDelivery
#38 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1901 posts) -

@The-Apostle said:
@airshocker said:

This is a pretty good article I just read. The FCC needs to pull their heads out of their asses.

If this is the case, couldn't the FCC just change the wording so they can keep net neutrality?

I believe even the judge that ruled in this case said that the current law isn't sufficient enough to do what the FCC wants; however, he goes on to say that the FCC should basically get a move on it to amend it or draft a new law.

Avatar image for Crunchy_Nuts
#39 Edited by Crunchy_Nuts (2749 posts) -

According to the US, the internet is NOT a means of communication and therefore ISPs can do as they wish with them.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#40 Posted by Master_Live (18821 posts) -

Legally it was the right decision. Moving forward:

Net Neutrality Ruling: What are the FCC’s Options?

While striking down federal rules mandating equal treatment of Internet traffic, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit left the Federal Communications Commission with some some wiggle room to regulate Internet providers.

It said two specific rules imposed by the FCC’s “open Internet order” exceed the agency’s authority under current law. But notably, the appeals court didn’t declare the whole concept of net neutrality unlawful, nor did it say the FCC couldn’t regulate broadband providers.

The FCC has the option to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court or it can roll back its policy. But it also has several other options it could pursue without totally abandoning the goal of ensuring that broadband providers treat all Internet content equally.

Here are a few of them:

Reclassify broadband providers as common carriers: The ruling said the FCC violated provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by regulating broadband providers as if they were phone companies. But the FCC could get around that problem by classifying Verizon and other broadband providers as “common carriers,” putting them under the same statutory regulation regime as the phone companies.

“The Communications Act doesn’t clearly address broadband providers, which means their regulatory status is a matter of reasonable agency discretion,” Daniel Lyons, a professor at Boston College Law School who specializes in telecommunications law, told Law Blog by email. But the idea of treating the Internet like a digital Ma Bell — with rate and interconnection mandates — isn’t likely to gain traction in Washington, and Congress could try to oppose such a move.

Reclassify and trim: A less unwieldy approach would be to designate broadband providers as common carriers and then for the FCC then to scrape away market-stifling regulations so that what’s left over is more tailored to the digital age. The FCC can relieve regulated entities of statutory obligations with what’s known as “forbearance authority.”

Amend the Telecommunications Act: Congress could add a title to the Telecommunications Act to cover broadband providers. But that would require a whole new, complicated law that Washington may not have the political will to draft. The process could take several years.

Neutrality light: The appeals court struck down “anti-discrimination” and “anti-blocking” rules intended to prevent broadband providers from favoring their own content and slowing down emerging rivals, like Hulu and Netflix, or charging competing content sites completely different prices for the same service. Mr. Lyons says the court left the door open for less sweeping rules that would still block broadband companies from entering into exclusive agreements that are denied to others.

“The Court may have left room for the FCC to require that if broadband providers offer the equivalent of priority mail, they make that option available for anyone to purchase,” Mr. Lyons said.