US Net Neutrality rules officially repealed

[civvver]

I've gone on the record and said that I don't think individual states regulating the internet within their borders is a good thing.

However, I still support this law by California as it is clear the FCC has sided with the interests of corporations rather than the citizens of the United States on this issue.

Why? We can all get vpns to california and get unthrottled streaming!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Telecommunication regulations are srs bsns in a lot of non-obvious ways. The power to regulation telecommunication is the power to silence. I do not want 50 Kansas's setting up their own rules on how this should be done as that has major implications for the nation as a whole.

And from a technical/business standpoint, having separate regulators within the US would wreck a lot of systems and drive all the biggest players out of business. The cost of compliance with regulations is huge in this sphere and by setting up redundant rule sets you are essentially asking for a monopolistic system to arise as all the little guys can't spend enough money to jump through all the regulatory hoops. It will also slow down technical innovations because a lot of effort will go into (again) complying with redundant, unnecessary regulations rather than actually creating new goods and services.

Moreover, having separate systems will make us a technological backwater in the end. Part of the US's massively favorable market position when it comes to IT is because we have a completely unified and interoperable system of regulations. Countries around the world adopt our standards which put us in a huge market advantage. If you vote to have 50 different Kansas's running the internet in the US then you wind up negating that advantage.

The only fair and rational way to set this up in my estimation is through a high degree of centralization. And by 50 different Kansas's you can take that to mean 50 different California's or whichever state you hate at the moment.

 

[rah]

Yes, this should be handled at the national level. but unfortunately it was "handled"

 

[hobbsyoyo]

100% agreed and I support this bill. I sent Gov Brown a letter through the #ResistBot text message interface in support of this bill to make it known to his team that I wanted him to sign it. Not that I had any special influence on this, I just believe if you care about something you should speak out on it. And ResistBot makes it really easy to be heard by the people in government that represent me.

 

[Takhisis]

As a Socialist notAmerican wacko, I have to point out that government does not represent you, hobbs.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Tangentially related-

California just passed a law that makes it illegal for a bot to pretend that it is human if they're trying to sell goods, services or influence an election.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/364132/california-law-bans-bots-from-pretending-to-be-human

I wonder how effective this law will be and how well they can enforce it. I can think of schemes that get around this bill just by changing the pre-recorded voices to a synthesized, obviously robotic, tone. But they'll still call. Though maybe the lack of a human facade will mean less people will fall for scams.

And the Do Not Call list has been on the books for a decade but by all measure's it is a failure.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I'm sure the WH will call it illegal interference in a perfectly legitimate business practice and further proof that california's government is full blown communist and something must be done about it. I mean, putting the interests of residents above that of major corporations is one of the most despicable acts of satanic communism the world has ever witnessed!

 

[uppi]

Why? We can all get vpns to california and get unthrottled streaming!

They will throttle your VPN traffic, though.

 

[civvver]

Tangentially related-

California just passed a law that makes it illegal for a bot to pretend that it is human if they're trying to sell goods, services or influence an election.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/364132/california-law-bans-bots-from-pretending-to-be-human

I wonder how effective this law will be and how well they can enforce it. I can think of schemes that get around this bill just by changing the pre-recorded voices to a synthesized, obviously robotic, tone. But they'll still call. Though maybe the lack of a human facade will mean less people will fall for scams.

And the Do Not Call list has been on the books for a decade but by all measure's it is a failure.

You should look up the google ai that sounds like a real person. I heard some of it on npr. It can call a restaurant for reservations and says stuff like um, I was thinking thursday, around 7:30. It's quite amazing. There's a huge potential for impersonation with this tech. That's probably where california is going with this. I think what you'll get is a bunch of disclaimers at the beginning of the call just like customer services reps now say this call may be recorded for training purposes, you'll now get this is being recorded and oh by the way I'm a computer not a real person.

 

[Quintillus]

Telecommunication regulations are srs bsns in a lot of non-obvious ways. The power to regulation telecommunication is the power to silence. I do not want 50 Kansas's setting up their own rules on how this should be done as that has major implications for the nation as a whole.

And from a technical/business standpoint, having separate regulators within the US would wreck a lot of systems and drive all the biggest players out of business. The cost of compliance with regulations is huge in this sphere and by setting up redundant rule sets you are essentially asking for a monopolistic system to arise as all the little guys can't spend enough money to jump through all the regulatory hoops. It will also slow down technical innovations because a lot of effort will go into (again) complying with redundant, unnecessary regulations rather than actually creating new goods and services.

Moreover, having separate systems will make us a technological backwater in the end. Part of the US's massively favorable market position when it comes to IT is because we have a completely unified and interoperable system of regulations. Countries around the world adopt our standards which put us in a huge market advantage. If you vote to have 50 different Kansas's running the internet in the US then you wind up negating that advantage.

The only fair and rational way to set this up in my estimation is through a high degree of centralization. And by 50 different Kansas's you can take that to mean 50 different California's or whichever state you hate at the moment.

Yes and no. While there would be higher overhead with each state having its own regulations, I don't see that as the doom of the telecommunications industry either. I can think of two industries that have similar parallels.

One is the auto industry, where California emissions requirements are stricter than national ones, and as a general policy, automakers follow the stricter California ones rather than having one car for California and the rest for the other 49 states. Provided a handful of states provide the lead on net neutrality regulations, and their regulations are similar, then the situation would be more or less like the auto emissions one for the auto industry. I think this would be a good outcome, although unfortunately internet service is something that is easier to segment by state than auto manufacturing.

Another is the insurance industry, which already has seriously different regulations by state that it has to deal with. Nonetheless, there are insurance companies that do business in all 50 states, as well as many other regional or local ones. And though it is a relatively tough industry to start a new business in, it is certainly not impossible - I know of a couple new auto insurance companies off the top of my head - you just don't start with all 50 states at once. On the whole, (non-medical) insurance is a much more competitive industry than ISP service in most states, too - regulation has not hindered competition.

As a software developer, I think the compliance cost would be lower than ISPs would like to have you believe, too. If they buy network equipment and leave it at the default settings, it will be perfectly neutral to traffic. So the higher cost is actually to throttle customers and prioritize certain traffic. That lets them add surcharges, so they make money on it, but the cost of doing the right thing is actually lower - it just makes it harder to gouge customers and companies for worse service.

The only real added costs of net neutrality regulations would be in the legal department, but again, if you aren't trying to toe the line of the regulations, it shouldn't be that difficult to verify compliance.

 

[Oerdin]

It has been hilarious hearing ISPs cry crocodile tears claiming "we don't want 50 different regulations!" What did these ******s think would happen? After they corruptly bribes the Feds to stop regulating them, of course, the states would step in. This was obvious from step one. So either they are monumentally incompetent or their crocodile tears are not genuine and they should be ignored.

Either way the best thing for consumers is for states to step into the area corrupt feds just abandoned.

Moderator Action: The use of the word "******" in that context is not permitted on the forum. PLease do not use it that way in future. --LM

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yes and no. While there would be higher overhead with each state having its own regulations, I don't see that as the doom of the telecommunications industry either. I can think of two industries that have similar parallels.

One is the auto industry, where California emissions requirements are stricter than national ones, and as a general policy, automakers follow the stricter California ones rather than having one car for California and the rest for the other 49 states. Provided a handful of states provide the lead on net neutrality regulations, and their regulations are similar, then the situation would be more or less like the auto emissions one for the auto industry. I think this would be a good outcome, although unfortunately internet service is something that is easier to segment by state than auto manufacturing.

Another is the insurance industry, which already has seriously different regulations by state that it has to deal with. Nonetheless, there are insurance companies that do business in all 50 states, as well as many other regional or local ones. And though it is a relatively tough industry to start a new business in, it is certainly not impossible - I know of a couple new auto insurance companies off the top of my head - you just don't start with all 50 states at once. On the whole, (non-medical) insurance is a much more competitive industry than ISP service in most states, too - regulation has not hindered competition.

As a software developer, I think the compliance cost would be lower than ISPs would like to have you believe, too. If they buy network equipment and leave it at the default settings, it will be perfectly neutral to traffic. So the higher cost is actually to throttle customers and prioritize certain traffic. That lets them add surcharges, so they make money on it, but the cost of doing the right thing is actually lower - it just makes it harder to gouge customers and companies for worse service.

The only real added costs of net neutrality regulations would be in the legal department, but again, if you aren't trying to toe the line of the regulations, it shouldn't be that difficult to verify compliance.

You realize the US doesn't lead the world in either automobile manufacturing or health care, right?

I am not saying it couldn't be made to work. I am saying it would be a major step backward and help usher in the future where the US isn't the global leader in internet technology.

You are massively understating how expensive compliance is.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It has been hilarious hearing ISPs cry crocodile tears claiming "we don't want 50 different regulations!" What did these ******s think would happen? After they corruptly bribes the Feds to stop regulating them, of course, the states would step in. This was obvious from step one. So either they are monumentally incompetent or their crocodile tears are not genuine and they should be ignored.

Either way the best thing for consumers is for states to step into the area corrupt feds just abandoned.

They want 50 states worth of rules because only they can afford to be compliant 50 times over. It forces the entire infrastructure deeper into monopolistic models. Any of their complaints about compliance are exaggerated. They just don't like California's law.

If Kansas passed a law allowing only VerizonVeri right to provide internet and gave it the power to throttle all they want, it would be the biggest cheerleader for state's rights.

 

[Quintillus]

You realize the US doesn't lead the world in either automobile manufacturing or health care, right?

I am not saying it couldn't be made to work. I am saying it would be a major step backward and help usher in the future where the US isn't the global leader in internet technology.

You are massively understating how expensive compliance is.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough that I was talking about the insurance industry in general, not the health insurance industry. Yes, compliance costs in the insurance industry are high. I've worked in the (non-medical) insurance industry for several years, and have personally implemented changes brought about by changing regulations. But I also don't believe they would be anywhere near as high for net neutrality, as long as ISPs were actually being net-neutral. It's a massively simpler proposition to provide non-biased internet service to all customers than to comply with all the state regulations on maritime insurance, keep up with changing state-level regulations, and so forth.

If the topic were regulation of anything IT related at all, perhaps the complexity would be similar to the insurance industry, and then it could start causing problems. But, unless the subject was changed somewhere on page 2, which I skipped, I maintain that net neutrality, even if the laws varied per state, would still be much simpler than insurance regulations.

I also believe that a far bigger threat to U.S. internet technology dominance than ISPs having to spend millions on abiding by net neutrality regulations would be not having net neutrality. Consider something like Netflix, that is high-bandwidth. When it came out, not everyone had broadband, but if you did, you could subscribe to Netflix. What if at the time Netflix first launched their streaming business, ISPs were whitelisting only their own streaming services, and Netflix was limited to 2 Mbps? Netflix would not have been a compelling option in the U.S. at all, besides their DVD operation, and would never have taken off like it did. Meanwhile, foreign video streaming sites would have developed, and eventually one of them (like Spotify in music) would have decided to enter the U.S. market, and (unlike a fledgling Netflix) would have had the money to pay kickbacks to the ISPs to get fast lanes. This is the danger that a lack of net neutrality poses to U.S. internet technology leadership - in a non-neutral environment, new high-bandwidth technologies will be at an inherent disadvantage in the U.S., while foreign competitors in net-neutral countries will be able to develop far more effectively.

I'm also familiar with the auto industry, as I currently work in it. The California/U.S. divide for regulations is one that affects all auto companies selling vehicles in the U.S., so I'm not sure what your point is there. And the lack of U.S. leadership has far more deep-seated issues than regulations, such as lack of quality, that in many cases didn't really begin to be addressed until 2009 and the TARP program.

 

[Hygro]

Update:
Just one hour after Gov. Jerry Brown, California, signed the net neutrality bill Trump complained about it and....:



As a side note
Jerry Brown signed (that same Sunday ?) also .....:


I think I like California

Ayyy I think I like you

preamble: im really sufficiently drunk. I hope this is coherent.

this is one of those things: On principle I don't agree, but in practice I do. On principle a board of directors should be whoever can direct management to do right with that business. Gender diversity is a distraction by definition. GRIMNESS WARNING: an old boys club, in the face of the un-practiced, will mean the old boys are *generally* best at directing. And will stay that way. hMMM.

So.. what then? Of course the state of things is self reinforcing, and if we want any real equality we need a kind of 50-50 equality for at least a generation just to start parsing things. Will that suck for me? Depends. If women are corporate equals to men or better, then in the shortest run it hurts me (women take mer jerbs), the middle run its cool (companies run better), and the long run it helps me because the world is run by corporations, and, suck it suboptimality in my world.

On the off chance women are actually worse at these things (none of my experience suggests this), we still should do it. We should still elevate women to get through that. None of this involves me personally but...: The worst case scenario is some manosophere fantasy that society collapses under feminist poop-testing, in which case their own logic states men fix it, and back to the game we go. Best case scenario under this particular logic is that we provide a gender-catharthis that allows everyone to keep it real and go be where they should be.

I feel like I'm leaving out a lot. Well, in self-congrats fashion, I can't believe how much drunk hugro ahas already edited, excepting that least bit. But the point being: it's obviously a good idea.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough that I was talking about the insurance industry in general, not the health insurance industry. Yes, compliance costs in the insurance industry are high. I've worked in the (non-medical) insurance industry for several years, and have personally implemented changes brought about by changing regulations. But I also don't believe they would be anywhere near as high for net neutrality, as long as ISPs were actually being net-neutral. It's a massively simpler proposition to provide non-biased internet service to all customers than to comply with all the state regulations on maritime insurance, keep up with changing state-level regulations, and so forth.

If the topic were regulation of anything IT related at all, perhaps the complexity would be similar to the insurance industry, and then it could start causing problems. But, unless the subject was changed somewhere on page 2, which I skipped, I maintain that net neutrality, even if the laws varied per state, would still be much simpler than insurance regulations.

I also believe that a far bigger threat to U.S. internet technology dominance than ISPs having to spend millions on abiding by net neutrality regulations would be not having net neutrality. Consider something like Netflix, that is high-bandwidth. When it came out, not everyone had broadband, but if you did, you could subscribe to Netflix. What if at the time Netflix first launched their streaming business, ISPs were whitelisting only their own streaming services, and Netflix was limited to 2 Mbps? Netflix would not have been a compelling option in the U.S. at all, besides their DVD operation, and would never have taken off like it did. Meanwhile, foreign video streaming sites would have developed, and eventually one of them (like Spotify in music) would have decided to enter the U.S. market, and (unlike a fledgling Netflix) would have had the money to pay kickbacks to the ISPs to get fast lanes. This is the danger that a lack of net neutrality poses to U.S. internet technology leadership - in a non-neutral environment, new high-bandwidth technologies will be at an inherent disadvantage in the U.S., while foreign competitors in net-neutral countries will be able to develop far more effectively.

I'm also familiar with the auto industry, as I currently work in it. The California/U.S. divide for regulations is one that affects all auto companies selling vehicles in the U.S., so I'm not sure what your point is there. And the lack of U.S. leadership has far more deep-seated issues than regulations, such as lack of quality, that in many cases didn't really begin to be addressed until 2009 and the TARP program.

Eh it appears we've been unintentionally cross-talking. I agree the cost to compliance for net neutrality is trivial

I am stating that giving 50 states each the power to completely regulate the internet and IT services in their borders will create an insane compliance landscape. I'm not assuming or limiting my argument to 50 states each implementing net neutrality. I'm talking about Kansas requiring opt-in access to material that Kansas finds obscene (or banning it altogether), about California banning the advertising of non-FDA approved medicines in Google search results, about Texas banning wikipedia pages on evolution in public universities - and the entire mountain of crappy, nonsensical and outright oppressive regulations that 50 states would be free to enact if the power to regulate was ceded from the FCC.

All of those examples are made up, btw, so let's not get hung on specific ones.

I support California implementing net neutrality; I just would rather have the FCC returned to being a neutral, rationale and anti-monopolistic institution. It's the entire mountain of regulations that all the states will create that will be insane to comply with. This will drive all the small business out of the market and further strengthen the hold of the big telecoms. It also won't guarantee that all, most or even any states go decide to implement net neutrality. If anything, a court ruling might render California's effort to enforce net neutrality illegal but at the same time open the door to other regulation. This is really a potential can of worms we could be opening.

I would not put it past this supreme court to play both sides of the issue in order to help businesses.

 

[Takhisis]

I support California implementing net neutrality; I just would rather have the FCC returned to being a neutral, rationale and anti-monopolistic institution.

Uhm…

As a Socialist notAmerican wacko, I have to point out that government does not represent you, hobbs.

 

[uppi]

As a software developer, I think the compliance cost would be lower than ISPs would like to have you believe, too. If they buy network equipment and leave it at the default settings, it will be perfectly neutral to traffic. So the higher cost is actually to throttle customers and prioritize certain traffic. That lets them add surcharges, so they make money on it, but the cost of doing the right thing is actually lower - it just makes it harder to gouge customers and companies for worse service.

The only real added costs of net neutrality regulations would be in the legal department, but again, if you aren't trying to toe the line of the regulations, it shouldn't be that difficult to verify compliance.

It is an interesting argument that ISPs will go for a neutral network in the face of various state-specific regulations, but I think it would be dangerous to rely on that. The problem is that some services (VoIP for example) require QoS prioritization, otherwise they would become unusable. However, such prioritization is always on the border of having a neutral network. The regulations will have exceptions for that, but with several different regulations, the legal way to provide these services might not overlap and ISPs have no way to roll out router configs that are legal in every state. At this point they would be forced to develop systems and processes that take state specific regulations into account. But once they spent the money on that, they will have most of the infrastructure in place to begin throttling state by state and reap the profits from that.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I would not put it past this supreme court to play both sides of the issue in order to help businesses.

Well, looks like we're going to see if I was right.

Now the FCC claims that it has no legal authority to impose net neutrality because it claims the internet is not a telecommunication service and is instead a communication service and therefore the rules that bound the FCC are different. They simultaneously claim that they have the right to prevent the states from regulating the internet because it is a service which crosses state lines.

The courts have already ruled that the FCC can impose net neutrality once and either way this is ruled I am sure it will be appealed up to the Supreme Court. I predict that if the FCC wins this case, SCOTUS will not take the appeal. OTOH, should the FCC lose, I think SCOTUS will take the case and side with the FCC.

Which is freaking crazy because states absolutely do regulate interstate commerce within their borders so long as their rules do not clash with federal rules. If the FCC is arguing that it can't impose net neutrality then there is no regulatory conflict and the states should be allowed to do this on their own. They don't see it that way, naturally, because that goes against the interest of Verizon et al.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...court-that-net-neutrality-rules-were-illegal/