Is global net neutrality NOW really at risk ?

[Commodore]

Well there is also the issue that ISPs can now legally sell your browsing habits. Does this bill cover that too?

No, it does not cover that. The bill is pretty much identical to what the FCC just did, with the exception that it does not allow ISPs to block or throttle content.

And I do not expect the bill to pass in any case.

The best hope it has is that the bill is being proposed by a Republican. Since Republicans usually vote strictly on party loyalty, that means this bill is almost guaranteed to have their support.

 

[Lexicus]

Since Republicans usually vote strictly on party loyalty, that means this bill is almost guaranteed to have their support.

I predict that loyalty to the rich rent-seekers will trump party loyalty in this instance.

 

[metalhead]

What I'm saying is that even in the consumer side, wired networks will form the back bone of the wireless infrastructure. We will never be able to server the two in any meaningful way barring some next gen developments that no one can conceive of at the moment.

I don't know, there is already some experimental stuff out there that attempts to deliver Internet access using high frequency bands, claiming they can offer gigabit Internet to consumers. It's not clear whether they can yet work as advertised, but I think the tech is probably closer than you think.

Either way, I believe the regulatory distinctions are based on how the data is delivered to the end consumer. If it comes via wireless, it falls under utility regulations where wired Internet does not.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

According to Reddit, AT&T has begun a program of forced account upgrades under the guise of 'customer loyalty' rewards. They increase customer's accounts to the highest speed tier and apply a promotional credit to cover the cost. The problem is that the credit only lasts one month, at which point the customer is surprised with a larger bill. Oh and did I mention they didn't ask anyone if they could do this?

They unilaterally changed the terms of service and stuck consumers with a higher bill without consent.

We don't just need an FCC that is free from regulatory capture, we need a strong and active consumer financial protection bureau to stop this kind of crap.

 

[Hrothbern]

We don't just need an FCC that is free from regulatory capture, we need a strong and active consumer financial protection bureau to stop this kind of crap.

That reminds me of discussions I had 40 years ago where I challenged some ideologists of left wing political parties in my country with the point of view that the political parties as they had come into being around 1900 would become obsolete onver time by cohesion issues.

The competition between self organisations and ideologies.
(at that moment durability, sustainability, climate energy, North-South, etc were very poorly picked up by the union and mach0 strict ideological structure of those parties)

and would be replaced by organised consumers (or inhabitants) initiatives.... of more and more ad hoc nature.
The consumer organisation more and more a faciliating body, that could easily adapt and organise one issue actions.. without a real ideology (a method) but still based on some basic values protecting the many against the establishment.

I was almost executed.

 

[Lexicus]

We don't just need an FCC that is free from regulatory capture, we need a strong and active consumer financial protection bureau to stop this kind of crap.

My idea of strong and active consumer financial protection bureau:

 

[sophie]

You're still thinking too small:

 

[Hrothbern]

As technical nerd
considering the lesser slope of the blade of the Mega
that will impair the reliability to chop through all the necks in a swift fashion
But perhaps that is intended ?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Some good news -
The big ISPs asked the FCC to redefine broadband. They wanted to lower the floor on what the FCC considers to be broadband so that they could stop expanding actual broadband access while still grabbing all of the subsidies they have been given by the various state and federal government entities to expand broadband access.

Thankfully, the FCC actually shot this request down. (I don't remember the speeds in question or which ISP made the request but you can google)


On the other hand, it looks like the Democratic effort in the Senate to re-instate net neutrality is not going anywhere. Apparently they can pass it with just a simple majority within a certain window of the FCC ruling (6 months?) but I don't think the Republicans will bring it to the floor despite it having over 50 votes. Also I assume (but am not certain) that the House would have to pass the same legislation and that's not going to happen.

 

[Commodore]

On the other hand, it looks like the Democratic effort in the Senate to re-instate net neutrality is not going anywhere.

It might. I just read that AT&T has flipped sides on the issue. Initially they supported the FCC repeal of net neutrality, but now they are urging Congress to pass a law reestablishing and protecting net neutrality. With a major ISP now backing net neutrality, that could swing things in our favor.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It might. I just read that AT&T has flipped sides on the issue. Initially they supported the FCC repeal of net neutrality, but now they are urging Congress to pass a law reestablishing and protecting net neutrality. With a major ISP now backing net neutrality, that could swing things in our favor.

The trick is that they want the government to pass a net neutrality act that they largely wrote themselves. On the surface it looks like they back net neutrality but in reality they are taking regulatory capture to the next level. The law they want would heavily favor their own business interests, or so I read someplace.

 

[Commodore]

The trick is that they want the government to pass a net neutrality act that they largely wrote themselves. On the surface it looks like they back net neutrality but in reality they are taking regulatory capture to the next level. The law they want would heavily favor their own business interests, or so I read someplace.

Hey, we have to start somewhere. And we sure as hell aren't going to get net neutrality back without some major corporate backing since they are the only ones who have the politicians' ears nowadays.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Hey, we have to start somewhere. And we sure as hell aren't going to get net neutrality back without some major corporate backing since they are the only ones who have the politicians' ears nowadays.

I do not accept this route. I will continue voting for politicians that push for real net neutrality and against those that don't.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

A mayor just quit an FCC advisory board as way of protesting the regulatory capture that has happened at the top level.

 

[Commodore]

I do not accept this route. I will continue voting for politicians that push for real net neutrality and against those that don't.

As will I. But that doesn't change the fact that corporations are the real power in this country, which means we are going to have to appeal to them if we want something. As sad as it may be, large corporations are more or less the de facto government of the US.

 

[Lexicus]

As sad as it may be, large corporations are more or less the de facto government of the US.

We can break their power but only by organizing.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

LOL So finally Ajit is under scrutiny for corruption:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/technology/fcc-sinclair-ajit-pai.html

Basically when he rewrote the rules to benefit the consolidation of media, it appears he was doing it specifically for the benefit of Sinclair Broadcasting. Sinclair is a far-right media network that has focused on gobbling up local news stations and inserting right wing editorial content in the broadcasts of news stations they own without even disclosing they are in fact editorials and not news. Basically they are attempting to turn every local news station into Fox News and Ajit gave them the power to consolidate even more stations under their banner than they were allowed to before (which was already a lot).

 

[Commodore]

This was bound to happen. Pai's corruption is so apparent that it simply couldn't have gone ignored forever.

 

[Lexicus]

This was bound to happen. Pai's corruption is so apparent that it simply couldn't have gone ignored forever.

I dunno...the President is Donald Trump...I don't think we live in a world/country where corruption invariably gets you in trouble...

 

[Commodore]

I dunno...the President is Donald Trump...I don't think we live in a world/country where corruption invariably gets you in trouble...

Oh I'm not doubting there is a good chance nothing will happen to him, I'm just saying he was so obvious and blatant with his corruption that it couldn't simply be swept under the rug and ignored. The government has to at least pretend to investigate him due to his lack of subtlety.