Is global net neutrality NOW really at risk ?

[Hrothbern]

F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai, issued a statement outlining a plan that would overturn Obama-era regulations regarding net neutrality. The FCC commissioners will vote on the issue on December 14th, 2017, where party affiliations suggest it will likely pass by one vote.

From this article: https://www.popsci.com/net-neutrality-is-under-attack-heres-why-we-need-to-protect-it

I understand that online gaming will be more expensive

Is that real ?

The other thing is that, this thing getting hot again because Trump supports it, it could be used to attack "fake news" in the eyes of Trump.

 

[Synobun]

The horror stories aren't a guarantee, but they would become a possibility should this come to pass.

In America, the general mantra is that if a corporation is allowed to do something awful, they'll do it. That's why regulations are a thing. Other nations typically follow suit with what American corporations get up to and many foreign politicians also emulate American policy. What America does about this will inevitably sway what everybody else does about this.

The legislation on this is already lacking. Throttling is a big deal and is hand-waved away as a matter of infrastructure although it could be construed as breaching net neutrality. A total lack of regulation on this, however, would allow ISPs to outright provide certain sections of the internet as though they are cable packages. For example, buying internet and then buying a package that lets you access a handful of social media sites. Everything else would either not be accessible or you would load it at a fraction of your bought speed. You would, in essence, switch from buying global access at a sustained rate to buying limited access at a paid-use rate.

That then enters bribing territory, where a company with a website can pay an ISP to give their site priority. Facebook could, for example, pay Comcast to make any Facebook-owned site get accessed faster on Comcast networks at the cost of other websites. And there is nothing you could do about it except pay the ISP more money to add more sites to your package.

 

[Evie]

Even putting aside bribery to hurt existing sites, this would make it extremely difficult for new sites to rise and offer new services to compete with old giants, unless they have a backer with the money and clout to ensure they get covered on relevant packages.

In short, far from favoring innovation, this favors stagnation.

 

[warpus]

Hopefully here in Canada we are able to keep our internet providers from pushing through similar legislation. At least for now our Prime Minister and governing party are for net neutrality and its importance as it relates to innovation and business opportunities for average Canadians. Granted, this will be harder to accomplish if America dumps net neutrality... But I don't know if there would be enough political will for anyone to overturn net neutrality in Canada. at least for now.. Having said that I expect our online services to increase in price, yet again, anyway

 

[Synobun]

Hopefully here in Canada we are able to keep our internet providers from pushing through similar legislation. At least for now our Prime Minister and governing party are for net neutrality and its importance as it relates to innovation and business opportunities for average Canadians. Granted, this will be harder to accomplish if America dumps net neutrality... But I don't know if there would be enough political will for anyone to overturn net neutrality in Canada. at least for now.. Having said that I expect our online services to increase in price, yet again, anyway

I think it's safe as long as the Liberals or the NDP are in federal power. The conservatives, however, are seemingly intent on grooming Trump replicas and I wouldn't be shocked if they were to give it a go should the opportunity arise.

 

[warpus]

Sheer (sp?) seems to be doing some things right, but he seems to lack substance, personality, and a platform. I'm not worried about the conservatives, for now, and I'm not convinced that their party would find enough suport in their voter base to want to push something like this through. Although to be fair maybe I'm a bit in the dark about the views of Canadian conservatives on net neutrality. I'd think enough canadian conservatives understand the importance of net neutrality - and if it is axed in the U.S. I'd hope that Canadians pay attention to the fallout and would want to prevent the same thing happening here. Having said that, special interest groups have become really good at convincing conservatives of voting against their interests, not only in the U.S. but also elsewhere.. So.. I'm hopeful, I suppose, for now.. but remain skeptical of our whole political system and its efficiency in delivering what's best for the populace

 

[Colon]

The EU has been having an actual law imposing net neutrality since 2015. What the FCC is doing is an administrative action, and a lot easier to impose. So no, this is not a harbinger for what's to come elsewhere, Europe specifically. If you think Brussels has a habbit of blindly following DC then you need to pay attention. This is not a global issue and the legions of American net-activists pretending that it is and are bothering everyone else about are being extremely obnoxious, in so far such activists aren't already obnoxious.

 

[onejayhawk]

F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai, issued a statement outlining a plan that would overturn Obama-era regulations regarding net neutrality. The FCC commissioners will vote on the issue on December 14th, 2017, where party affiliations suggest it will likely pass by one vote.

From this article: https://www.popsci.com/net-neutrality-is-under-attack-heres-why-we-need-to-protect-it

I understand that online gaming will be more expensive

Is that real ?

The other thing is that, this thing getting hot again because Trump supports it, it could be used to attack "fake news" in the eyes of Trump.

There are a lot of similar things going on in Trump's administration. He appointed people whose objective was to overthrow the way that things were done. In the campaign, he called it draining the swamp. Overturning net neutrality regulations is part of the draining, for good or ill.

J

 

[Evie]

The EU has been having an actual law imposing net neutrality since 2015. What the FCC is doing is an administrative action, and a lot easier to impose. So no, this is not a harbinger for what's to come elsewhere, Europe specifically. If you think Brussels has a habbit of blindly following DC then you need to pay attention. This is not a global issue and the legions of American net-activists pretending that it is and are bothering everyone else about are being extremely obnoxious, in so far such activists aren't already obnoxious.

Not a harbringer, but given how heavily US centric the online advertising market is, and how heavy a chunk of web traffic the US market is, the ripple effects will go far beyond American internet access.

Foreign language sites may be less affected, but the english internet as a whole will face a crisis.

 

[Colon]

Not a harbringer, but given how heavily US centric the online advertising market is, and how heavy a chunk of web traffic the US market is, the ripple effects will go far beyond American internet access.

More vague talk. Below this post I'm seeing an ad by a Belgian webshop selling computer gear. I don't know how things are in Canada, but the days that you'd see ads by American firms directed at American users, outside of of the US, are long past here. There may be an American in-between involved with my ad, not sure, but that doesn't matter, because that's not what net neutrality is about. It concerns American ISPs providing internet access to American internet users. American firms don't provide it to European consumers, they don't even have to the physical means to do so (except perhaps by satellite, not sure).

What really gets to me is this. The whole frontpage of reddit was filled with threads about net neutrality yesterday. Practically every subreddit had a thread about it, no matter if the subreddit had nothing to do with the US or the internet. Moderators would mostly allow it. Now, if activists would try the same with an actual global issue such as global warming, or something local that causes large-scale human suffering such as the ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, no way that would fly.
Moreover, a moderator at one subreddit that closed a thread about net neutrality with the justification that it had nothing to do with it and that most of its users weren't American got flooded with downvotes. Probably one of the most downvoted posts on that site. Other people in that thread that objected against it received similar treatment, although such lynching-type behaviour is supposed to be illegal on that site.

The whole things reeks to heaven of first-world problem blow out of proportion, and then only a part of it, and along with that you had (have) this mob behaviour towards dissenters. It pisses me off and its frightens me.

/rant

 

[Synobun]

More vague talk. Below this post I'm seeing an ad by a Belgian webshop selling computer gear. I don't know how things are in Canada, but the days that you'd see ads by American firms directed at American users, outside of of the US, are long past here. There may be an American in-between involved with my ad, not sure, but that doesn't matter, because that's not what net neutrality is about. It concerns American ISPs providing internet access to American internet users. American firms don't provide it to European consumers, they don't even have to the physical means to do so (except perhaps by satellite, not sure).

You are wrong. American companies provide a great deal of online service to foreign countries. Not every American company has local (to you) data centers, and even if they did it might not matter. Any American service that is also offered worldwide would inevitably impact the global service because of what happens in America.

Example: If American ISPs force Netflix to pay a ransom for reasonable access, Netflix will either put the burden of that cost solely on American subscribers or spread that cost across all subscribers worldwide.

It is hilariously ridiculous that you feel frightened by people mobilizing to prevent something bad.

 

[warpus]

The problem is that while this is true

It concerns American ISPs providing internet access to American internet users.

Here in Canada we are very impacted by what happens down there in the crazy land of the Americans. Our telecoms will try to push for similar nonsense if this happens in the U.S., so we have to remain vigilant up here too. I realize the E.U. is further removed from American politics, but the fact remains that the U.S. has a lot of influence over the internet as a whole. So even if this won't impact Europe directly at first, and even though the E.U. probably has regulations in place and enough pro-net-neutrality momentum moving in the opposite direction of the Americans, telecoms are often in cahoots with each other and as a result our prices up here in Canada will probably increase anyway, if they increase for users down south. These companies share CEOs, pricing strategies, and all sorts of other stuff that will affect everyone around the planet if this goes through. With that in mind I don't mind seeing all the net neutrality nonsense on reddit, it was a mild annoyance at worst.. I realize this affects you guys in Europe even less, but until America is pushed out from having so much control over the internet, which I don't see happening anytime soon, I think it's something all of us have to continue paying attention to whether we live in Canada or Poland or wherever

 

[Hrothbern]

but until America is pushed out from having so much control over the internet

isn't this likely to happen ?
perhaps I jump to conclusions, but this is just as the US keeping out, by not ratifying, of many UN convenants, like the Paris Climate, but for example up to not ratifying the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, being in the splendid company of Iran, Palau, Somalia, Sudan, Tonga, Niue and the Vatican City.

The difference here being that so much of the internet is based in the US, because of that big market.
I see the EU making her own in the course of time, just like the Asian Russia-China-India-block.
And perhaps that is a good development.

But on the other hand a military power like the US isolating herself from the main stream world, direct or indirect, is overall a risk for the world peace.

 

[Colon]

Example: If American ISPs force Netflix to pay a ransom for reasonable access, Netflix will either put the burden of that cost solely on American subscribers or spread that cost across all subscribers worldwide.

Because it's utterly beyond the ability of a firm like Netflix to host data outside the US to serve customers outside the US and price accordingly. I'm sure you're prepared to present another set of hypotheticals to convince me this is a global matter of the utmost importance, but the odds are I've already seen it (as I had the Netflix one).

Just curious if you deliberately twisted my words or just accidently ignored the whole part of my post concerning mobbing behaviour.

 

[warpus]

If Netflix has to pay more to deliver content to a large group of their customers, they're going to mitigate these losses in profit in any way they can. It could mean that only American prices go up, but it could also mean that prices go up across the board. Having to set up new infrastructure to go around this nonsense does after all cost money

 

[Zelig]

I'm unconcerned. Doesn't affect me.

I think this could be good for the US in the long run - overturn it in a few years, force the ISPs to eat the costs and waste their investments - make them less motivated to try again in the future.

The conservatives, however, are seemingly intent on grooming Trump replicas and I wouldn't be shocked if they were to give it a go should the opportunity arise.

Yeah, what a disaster Jean-Pierre Blais has been.

 

[warpus]

I've read that it might not be as easy as "overturning" it once a new and slightly more sane administration is in office. The reason, IIRC, is that if it's a law, then it's a lot more annoying to undo it.. or something like that. I could have it completely backwards, but from what I understand overturning it would be a much larger undertaking than what they are doing now

 

[Silurian]

If netflix put up their prices in Europe Netflix will lose market share for product that it does not have the rights too. Then its income will fall and its will have less money to compete for rights to distribute in Europe. Then it will lose more market share.

 

[Hrothbern]

I just saw on Dutch news, that the Dutch media tycoon John de Mol, of Talpa and Big Brother, etc is heading to set up an alternative for Google and Facebook, because he does not like the power of those two.

https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2204243-john-de-mol-wil-concurreren-met-google-en-facebook.html

 

[uppi]

You are wrong. American companies provide a great deal of online service to foreign countries. Not every American company has local (to you) data centers, and even if they did it might not matter. Any American service that is also offered worldwide would inevitably impact the global service because of what happens in America.

Example: If American ISPs force Netflix to pay a ransom for reasonable access, Netflix will either put the burden of that cost solely on American subscribers or spread that cost across all subscribers worldwide.

It is hilariously ridiculous that you feel frightened by people mobilizing to prevent something bad.

If Netflix has to pay more to deliver content to a large group of their customers, they're going to mitigate these losses in profit in any way they can. It could mean that only American prices go up, but it could also mean that prices go up across the board. Having to set up new infrastructure to go around this nonsense does after all cost money

Erm, Netflix wouldn't have to set up new infrastructure in Europe. They can just continue to use their existing European infrastructure that serves their European customers anyway. No company that generates the amount of traffic that Netflix does would be stupid enough to try to serve everything from American data centers. Tier 1 traffic isn't free, after all. In fact, these companies are very interested in moving further into the ISP networks even with net neutrality.

Any company that can afford to pay for a proper CDN, will for the most part only feel the national effects when regulation is abolished. The small operations that don't have enough international customers to justify paying for international infrastructure will be hurting the most, because they cannot get those customers if their service is bad abroad and in turn cannot finance improving the service for them.