The Net Neutrality Fight Will Soon Return, And The Bickering Will Be As Stupid As Ever

from the here-we-go-again dept

I know people are bored to death after years of infighting over net neutrality. But the FCC’s attempts to impose something vaguely resembling oversight upon a bunch of shitty regional telecom monopolies that have bludgeoned U.S. broadband into uncompetitive rubble still matters, no matter how tired the press and public might be of the debate, or what telecom industry lobbyists might say.

Last September the Biden FCC announced it was planning to restore net neutrality rules stripped away during the Trump administration amidst a lot of bullshit and fraud. It, of course, didn’t take long for the telecom industry, with GOP allies in lockstep, to whine to the FCC in writing about how imposing baseline oversight of giant telecom monopolies is “unlawful”:

This proposal is unlawful. Regulation of broadband is undoubtedly a major question of economic and political significance. Under the major questions doctrine, articulated in West Virginia v. EPA, an agency must wait for Congressional authorization before acting. In other words, if broadband needs to be regulated as a utility, that is a decision for Congress to make, not the FCC. Congress has not spoken on this issue.”

The courts have already ruled several times that the FCC is currently well within its right to impose (and strip away) net neutrality rules within its authority embedded in the Communications Act, it just has to do a reasonably solid job justifying the decision with, you know, data.

But telecoms (just like every other industry looking to lobotomize what’s left of federal corporate oversight), are really hopeful that the looming Supreme Court Chevron deference ruling curtails regulators from doing much of anything beyond what’s deemed acceptable by corrupt judges with lifetime appointments and a Congress too corrupt to pass any new reforms (you saw what happened when people recommended Congress pass a net neutrality or broadband privacy law: jack shit).

As a refresher: net neutrality as I define it is an often murky attempt to prevent giant telecom monopolies from abusing their internet gatekeeping power to unfairly rip off consumers or disadvantage competitors, especially competitors that compete with an ISP’s own services.

While there’s often a lot of misinformed chatter about how “net neutrality must not matter because the internet didn’t explode upon repeal,” that ignores that a major reason big ISPs didn’t misbehave is because numerous big states rushed in to pass state-level laws they don’t want to violate.

Even if you think net neutrality rules are stupid, cheering for their demise of FCC authority is counterproductive and stupid, given the lack of competition and regulatory oversight (the preferred outcome for AT&T and Comcast) is directly and documentably responsible for high broadband prices, spotty access, slow speeds, and some of the worst customer service ever conceived by man.

If there has to be new net neutrality rules, cable giants like Comcast and Charter are already hard at work lobbying to shape what those rules will look like, ensuring that pretty much anything they choose to do on their networks falls well outside of the FCC’s oversight umbrella.

Big telecoms don’t want the FCC to ban usage caps (a technically unnecessary price-gouging restriction designed exclusively to goose revenues). They don’t want the FCC to ban “reasonable network management” (the term “reasonable” giving broad latitude to do pretty much whatever). They don’t want the FCC to prohibit “zero rating” (a form of paid preference that Mozilla and EU regulators have long criticized as telecoms playing field tilting, often under the guise of helping low income Americans).

Importantly, they also want to make sure the rules pre-empt any tougher state net neutrality rules like those passed in California and Washington state. And, of course, they want the FCC to “forbear” telecoms from any of the parts of Title II classification that would allow the FCC to engage in things like “rate regulation” (which, even under Democratic control, has long been deemed “radical” and off the table, but is routinely trotted out by the GOP and telecoms as a sort of scary bogeyman, even if it never happens).

At this point, I tend to think that if this FCC passes net neutrality rules, they’ll be so filled with loopholes as to be largely useless outside of egregious stuff telecoms never wanted to do anyway (like the outright blocking of websites). And if new rules are passed, I strongly doubt they’ll be enforced with any consistency by an FCC that’s generally timid when it comes to standing up to industry giants.

But in a few weeks or months, as the debate starts to rekindle, you’ll see all kinds of missives seeded in the press by industry about how these net neutrality rules are akin to a “socialist takeover of the internet.” They’ll, once again, be framed as unreasonably radical, even if the loophole-filled rules don’t actually accomplish much and will never be enforced with any meaningful zeal.

The FCC has never done a particularly good job holding companies like AT&T and Comcast accountable. And as the rightward-lurching Supreme Court steadily chips away at regulatory independence, I highly doubt that’s going to change anytime soon. The FCC is struggling to even map broadband or get Comcast to stop ripping consumers off with bullshit fees, much less tackle market failure.

It’s why I tend to think that as the net neutrality fight returns to telecom policy conversation (deemed passé and irrelevant in the era of big tech debates), it remains important to keep the focus centered on market failure caused by regional monopolization and muted competition, resulting in the spotty, expensive, and slow broadband networks Americans have come to know and love so dearly.

With sagging regulatory authority coming up fast in the rear view mirror courtesy of the Supreme Court, it’s going to be more important than ever to carefully pick battles and focus very specifically on the foundational problems that matter. And when it comes to broadband, it’s unchecked monopoly power.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The Net Neutrality Fight Will Soon Return, And The Bickering Will Be As Stupid As Ever”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
119 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Some have assumed it is simply an attempt to kill the internet.

The oligarchs said the internet was a novelty that would go away, so now they have to prove they were right thirty some years ago. It may be too late as the cat has escaped the bag and the oligarch mouth pieces are really getting scratched up trying to put it back in.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

“you said “violence”. It wasn’t tho”

idk, some people in the videos look awful violent to me.
Rage filled propagandized fools attempted to construct a gallows, there were weapons stashed, police were battered to the point of death …..

but it was not violent, thank god for that

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:7

People were shot, Matty. That’s violence whether you want it to be or not

YES. Well, one person, not “people”. BY A COP. Not a protestor. And he should be prosecuted but never will be.

Are you trying to pretend a cop being violent makes the protest violent? SUPER HOT TAKE.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Well, in terms of the protestors being violent:

Shortly after 2:00 p.m., several rioters attempted to breach a door on the West Front of the Capitol. They dragged three D.C. Metro police officers out of formation and down a set of stairs, trapped them in a crowd, and assaulted them with improvised weapons (including hockey sticks, crutches, flags, poles, sticks, and stolen police shields) as the mob chanted “police stand down!” and “USA!”.[69] At least one of the officers was also stomped.[70]

Some rioters beat officers on the head with lead pipes,[71] and others used chemical irritants, stun guns, fists, sticks, poles and clubs against the police. Some trampled and stampeded police, pushed them down stairs or against statues or shone laser pointers into their eyes. One D.C. Metro officer was hit six times with a stun gun, was beaten with a flagpole, suffered a mild heart attack, and lost a fingertip.[68][72] Three officers were hit on their heads by a fire extinguisher allegedly thrown by a retired firefighter.[73][74][75]

But sure, keep pretending that January 6th wasn’t violent.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

My gawd, have you seen ANY riot involving antifa?

I’m not saying that stuff is OK, but it is waaaaaaaayyyy less severe than what happened during the BLM riots.

So? Your claim was that Jan 6 wasn’t violent, not that it “wasn’t as violent as other riots”.

But deflecting when you’re proven to be lying is your go-to move.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Your claim was that Jan 6 wasn’t violent, not that it “wasn’t as violent as other riots”.

CAN YOU READ?!? Someone else said it was violent, I said it wasn’t nearly as violent as the BLM riots.

So yes I directly said that. Jesus wept. Just scroll UP. Fuuuk you’re dumb.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

CAN YOU READ?!? Someone else said it was violent, I said it wasn’t nearly as violent as the BLM riots.

Evidently your memory is as bad as Biden’s and Trump’s and your reading comprehension has vanished.

Scroll up yourself. Someone else said that Jan 6 was violent, then you literally replied “it wasn’t tho”. You only changed your argument when you were proven wrong.

It’s hilarious how you try to gaslight us when there’s a written record of your dumbfuckery.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

My gawd, have you seen ANY riot involving antifa?

And what relevance has that to do with you explicitly denying there were any violence Jan 6? Do you think you can escape the fact that you lied?

So not only are you stupid as fuck, you are also a consummate liar. It’s safe to assume that anything you say is a lie.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

The oligarchs said the internet was a novelty that would go away,

Interesting. See, this is funny:

By 2005, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s”

Paul Krugman, the left’s favorite (and nearly always hilariously wrong) economist said that in nineteen ninety-eight The internet was already well underway by then. Amazon was 4 years old.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Republicans/US conservatives: The government telling internet service providers to treat everyone equally is tyranny, a government takeover of the internet!

Also republicans/US conservatives: Online platforms treating everyone equally is a heinous attack on the first amendment, they must be prohibited from exercising their first amendment rights by removing content and/or users from their property just because they want nothing to do with the content/users in question and want to keep advertisers and users happy.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

I would prefer free market competition sort things out in all cases. The typical ISP duopoly we see is the result of regulatory capture to start with.

I also think social media should be perfectly free to do whatever ideological censorship they wish. But if they exert editorial control it’s their content and they lose 230 protections (which yes, contrary to what MM tells you, is how it works). That should strongly incentivise them to have a light touch and clear-cut, unambiguous rules. Also, btw, any “Guidance” from the gov absolutely is 1a violation (also contrary to what MM will claim)(which is a problem for the gov, not the SM platform).

Basically there should just be a lot less gov involvement, top to bottom. I am in fact quite consistent on this.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Umbrella Corp? You mean Pfizer and Big Pharma, Nintendo, the entirety of the American music AND movie industries…

Besides,the free market also gave us the exodus of advertisers from ElonMuskLandia, I mean the site formerly known as Twitter.

So Matthew is an even bigger hypocrite then he seems to portray himself as.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I also think social media should be perfectly free to do whatever ideological censorship they wish. But if they exert editorial control it’s their content and they lose 230 protections (which yes, contrary to what MM tells you, is how it works).

So you haven’t read 47 USC §230 yet? It’s amazing how you can tell us what the law says without actually having read it, are you a psychic perhaps? Do you also do astrological readings? Horoscopes?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

But if they exert editorial control, it’s their content and they lose 230 protections

Actually, no. If actual editorial control (i.e., not moderation) is exerted, then the website cannot rely on Section 230 protections in relation to that content, but if a user posts a comment and the website gets sued over it, then Section 230 kicks in as usual. To be clear, a website does not lose Section 230 protections just because they may publish an article that can be sued over on grounds of defamation, for example.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Moderation certainly can become editorial control, it depends upon how it’s applied. Anyway, you seem to be conflating a few things. Section 230 would not apply to whatever they exerted editorial control over, it would still apply to things they did not. It’s not all or nothing. Traditionally this would be the articles vs the comments. THe thorny bits is that SM very much could be argued to exterting editorial control over what amounts to “comments” (what should be 3rd party content) by say banning all comments arguing against mandatory vaccination or something like that. That’s a pretty clear editorial position. (in every sense)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Section 230 would not apply to whatever they exerted editorial control over, it would still apply to things they did not.

Which is exactly what I just said, dipshit. Way to make my argument for me, then show that you still don’t understand it. Are you sure your real name’s not Josh Hawley?

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Moderation certainly can become editorial control […]

It can’t not be editorial control. It doesn’t matter how it’s used: viewpoint-based, tone-based, topic-based, whatever, that’s all still editorial control.

Anyway, you seem to be conflating a few things. Section 230 would not apply to whatever they exerted editorial control over, it would still apply to things they did not.

Given that pretty much every decision made with regards to the publication of 3rd-party content on a platform accessible to many is necessarily an exertion of editorial control in some fashion, the distinction you make doesn’t actually exist in reality. And no, §230 still applies to whatever they exerted editorial control over. The exception is where they themselves helped to create that content or added something that would make it unlawful.

THe thorny bits is that SM very much could be argued to exterting editorial control over what amounts to “comments” (what should be 3rd party content) by say banning all comments arguing against mandatory vaccination or something like that. That’s a pretty clear editorial position. (in every sense)

It’s also an editorial position to ban all swearing, to determine what is or isn’t harassment, to ban a topic entirely, to delete a single post from a user, or to ban a certain user for whatever reason. Even choosing not to moderate at all is itself an editorial position. If you are deciding whether to publish, refuse to publish, remove, keep, hide, edit, or put in some particular order, that is a reflection of one’s editorial position.

And yes, that scenario is absolutely immunized by §230. It’s not even remotely a gray area. Did they create or develop the content at issue? No. Did they make a decision as a publisher about whether and, if so, in what manner to publish that content, actively or passively? Yes. Is that decision connected to why one would hypothetically sue them over it? Yes. Those are pretty much the only requirements for §230 to apply to a provider or user of an interactive computer service, which SM services definitely are.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Bari Weiss, I’m not gonna read all your comment, you’re too autistic for most of your commentary to be relevant.

It can’t not be editorial control. It doesn’t matter how it’s used: viewpoint-based, tone-based, topic-based, whatever, that’s all still editorial control.

Sure, I agree with that. Let me rephrase: Section 230 excuses a very limited and specific form of editorial control without becoming the “publisher”. But not all editorial control.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Sure, I agree with that. Let me rephrase: Section 230 excuses a very limited and specific form of editorial control without becoming the “publisher”. But not all editorial control.

We understand that this is what you WANT it to say, but anyone with ANY intellectual honesty (or knowledge of the reality) would note that NOT A SINGLE COURT HAS EVER read the law that way.

Could that change? Sure.

But EVERY SINGLE COURT that has ruled on this issue disagrees with you.

Which you should at least be willing to admit.

If you were honest (lol) you could admit “this is how I read the law,” or “this is how I think the law should be interpreted.” But the fact that you PRETEND that courts HAVE already interpreted the law that way is where people make fun of you.

NOT A SINGLE COURT has agreed with you to date.

And that’s why people mock you for being foolish, Matthew.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

You sure like to gaslight and move goal-posts, which is why you switched to talking about “legal advice” – which is something you do when you realize you fucked up.

If you think Mike is giving legal advice, then you are also giving legal advice by merely making your opinion known on laws and legal matters. If you think that is false, you are free to provide examples of Mike giving legal advice, I’ll wait.

You constantly confuse opinions with facts and call people liars or whatever. What you then fail to recognize is that you often in the very next sentence present your opinion as fact which is why people think you are a fucking clown.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

“I would prefer free market competition sort things out in all cases. ”

Cool story bro.
There is no such thing as the free market. It is a model of some utopian fantasy land that can never exist anywhere other than your mind. It is a lazy person’s attempt at understanding economics, it assumes way too much about the marketplace, human consumption characteristics, and the future.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:7

The two tier justice system worries me GREATLY, not that lawsuit in particular. (I fully expect to get thrown out, also) Liberals have given up basically any pretense of the rule of law. This is how civil wars start.

You realize I don’t actually like Trump, very much? I want him to win now just to spite you tho.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Do you REALLY not understand that someone can dislike someone (I didn’t say hate) and still recognize they’re being lied about or mistreated?

That you don’t understand that…well, I knew that, but it explains a lot. It explains a lot that you didn’t even try to hide it. Like you actually thought that was an OK thing to say. Amazing.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:7

gotta be kiddin me

I think that you have just realized your preconceptions are nonsense, and you’re big mad about it, so you’re just gonna just make exclamations instead.

I’m sure you could come up with a cherry picked edge case eventually — “Republicans want to ban porn!” (I don’t) but generally leftists want to regulate everything (claiming they know how it should work, or that they’re “solving” some inequality) and conservatives want a free market and you actually know that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Because deregulation’s a method of giving control over people’s lives to corporations, who are even less morally qualified to have that level of control over people’s lives than a government, in exchange for personal profit in the form of generous “campaign donations” from said corporations.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

But if they exert editorial control it’s their content and they lose 230 protections (which yes, contrary to what MM tells you, is how it works).

If that is how it works, why hasn’t every single social media been sued out of existence at this point?

Reality itself doesn’t agree with you, Matty.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

why hasn’t every single social media been sued out of existence at this point?

Reality itself doesn’t agree with you,

Yes, that’s pretty much why. But more specifically, section 230 was created as a direct response to the ruling in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., which one year earlier had said that moderation did make a provider responsible for the content.

And since anti-indecency laws are in the news again, it’s worth noting that 230 is the only section of the CDA that wasn’t stuck down in 1997 (“In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. That burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve.”)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I also think social media should be perfectly free to do whatever ideological censorship they wish. But if they exert editorial control it’s their content and they lose 230 protections (which yes, contrary to what MM tells you, is how it works).

First, if a site does “ideological censorship,” that IS editorial control. They’re deciding what is or isn’t allowed on their site. It’s impossible to “censor” while NOT exerting editorial control. Your implication that social media can censor but can’t exert editorial control and still maintain section 230 immunity doesn’t make any sense.

Second, regarding “if they exert editorial control it’s their content and they lose 230 protections,” I’m going to go straight to the source to show you just how completely wrong you are.

First we have Chris Cox on the House Floor (emphasis mine):

the existing legal system provides a massive disincentive for the people who might best help us control the Internet to do so.

I will give you two quick examples: A Federal court in New York, in a case involving CompuServe, one of our on-line service providers, held that CompuServe would not be liable in a defamation case because it was not the publisher or editor of the material. It just let everything come onto your computer without, in any way, trying to screen it or control it.

But another New York court, the New York Supreme Court, held that Prodigy, CompuServe’s competitor, could be held liable in a $200 million defamation case because someone had posted on one of their bulletin boards, a financial bulletin board, some remarks that apparently were untrue about an investment bank, that the investment bank would go out of business and was run by crooks.

Prodigy said, “No, no; just like CompuServe, we did not control or edit that information, nor could we, frankly. We have over 60,000 of these messages each day, we have over 2 million subscribers, and so you cannot proceed with this kind of a case against us.”

The court said, “No, no, no, no, you are different; you are different than CompuServe because you are a family-friendly network. You advertise yourself as such. You employ screening and blocking software that keeps obscenity off of your network. You have people who are hired to exercise an emergency delete function to keep that kind of material away from your subscribers. You don’t permit nudity on your system. You have content guidelines. You, therefore, are going to face higher, stricker liability because you tried to exercise some control over offensive material.”

Mr. Chairman, that is backward.

Mr. Chairman, our amendment will do two basic things: First, it will protect computer Good Samaritans, online service providers, anyone who provides a front end to the Internet, let us say, who takes steps to screen indecency and offensive material for their customers. It will protect them from taking on liability such as occurred in the Prodigy case in New York that they should not face for helping us and for helping us solve this problem.

Second, Ron Wyden (again, emphasis mine):

Republican Congressman Chris Cox and I wrote Section 230 in 1996 to give up-and-coming tech companies a sword and a shield, and to foster free speech and innovation online.

Essentially, 230 says that users, not the website that hosts their content, are the ones responsible for what they post, whether on Facebook or in the comments section of a news article. That’s what I call the shield.

But it also gave companies a sword so that they can take down offensive content, lies and slime — the stuff that may be protected by the First Amendment but that most people do not want to experience online. And so they are free to take down white supremacist content or flag tweets that glorify violence (as Twitter did with President Trump’s recent tweet) without fear of being sued for bias or even of having their site shut down.

So please, explain how the actions Cox and Wyden are talking about, actions that they are explicitly saying are protected under section 230, are not editorial control. Because they sound like editorial control. And the authors of the law are saying that’s protected.

It really shouldn’t be this hard to understand, you catastrophic moron.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

JMT (profile) says:

Re:

“Net neutrality” is just an excuse for more government interference in the internet which is almost never a good idea.

Net neutrality is the default natural state of the broadband market in every country with a effective competition, i.e. where customers can chose from multiple providers and easily change between them, and as a result providers don’t take every opportunity to fuck over their customers for a buck. NN regulations are not required in these countries.

NN regs are not “government interference in the internet”, they don’t affect The Internet at all. They are consumer protections against corporate abuse.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

They are consumer protections against corporate abuse.

But kind of bad ones. As you say, meaningful competition tends to solve this problem better. What you didn’t say was that in most areas where such competition exists, it was encouraged or forced by government policy—often requirements for third-party access.

The USA, bizarrely, went the other way. When DSL companies said it was unfair they had to share their lines and cable providers didn’t, the FCC decided nobody would have to share their lines (elsewhere, cable providers have to share too). And that’s where things have remained, with very little progress.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

Net neutrality is the default natural state of the broadband market in every country with a effective competition,

Yes, I agree, so reintroduce free market, you walnut.

NN regs are not “government interference in the internet”, they don’t affect The Internet at all.

There you are complete fuucking wrong. I assure you they will affect the internet a great deal AND there won’t be a free market, so just the worst of all worlds.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Why don’t you explain to us how curbing the anti-consumer behaviors of monopolistic ISP’s is going to effect the entire worldwide network that is The Internet

Oh, I’m sorry, you think the world renowned super efficient and unbiased federal government (not a thing, our government isn’t even that bad, it’s just not something governments do) is gonna wave a magic wand and remove all the inefficiencies?

What, are they gonna form a committee to declare where each packet should go?

No no, traffic for FPS games is de-prioritized, they’re too violent, 800 ping is fine. We need C-Span in 4k tho.

End to end encryption is banned btw. FBI doesn’t like it. VPNs too.

Get fffing real.

effect the entire worldwide network that is The Internet.

*Affect. And also we are obviously talking about the part of it (more often the “last mile”) that’s in the US, you actual idiot.

Don’t just make wild claims

Look, the fact you can’t see the downsides AT ALL and yet are being dismissive just kinda makes it hard for me to take you seriously. Go back to defending holocaust deniers I guess.

BernardoVerda (profile) says:

Re:

“Net neutrality” is just an excuse for more government interference in the internet which is almost never a good idea.

No. You are desperately confused. In actually, “Net Neutrality” is merely a legal/political label for one of the foundational, fundamental, basic design specifications that the whole Internet was built on.

This label was invented because private actors wanted to discriminate, to leverage their position to control and extort unearned economic rent. “Net Neutrality” is essentially acknowledging that internet service providers are effectively “common carriers”, and therefore must ship all legitimate packets in a fair and equal manner, rather than be exploit their position as a “choke point” or “troll under the bridge”.

That’s why Verizon (for example) can’t charge either you or TechDirt an additional fee to deliver packets from TechDirt to your computer, on the bullshit excuse that those packets originated on (for example) Verizon’s portion of the network. That’s why Verizon can’t charge either you or the Wall Street Journal extra, to deliver WSJ pages to your computer, but let USA Today packets through at a lower price.

That’s why ITT can’t make a special deal with MSNBC to privilege MSNBC media packets over those of CNN, nor hamper those from Fox because Fox didn’t pay extra to expedite (or not hamper) theirs. That’s why Google Fiber can’t give New York Times packets slower or less reliable transport because Google doesn’t like how NYT covers Big Tech in their news coverage, and why Time Warner doesn’t give CNN privileged transport because they have a business relationship or common ownership. That’s why, for that matter, why your ISP can’t simply flat-out dump packets from Daily Caller (nor DailyKos), just because they don’t like them.

That’s why ISP’s can’t charge you an extra fee to “allow” you to connect to your bank or pay your bills online, nor to let you access more than one bank online. You can use PayPal simply and Venmo simply because PayPal and Venmo are on the internet, not because you pay extra for a “Premium” internet plan that includes PayPal and Vemo. Packets traveling between your computer/smartphone and Door Dash are equal to those to and from Uber Eats. Neither has to pay more to reach you, and your ISP can’t charge you more to let you access both of them, equally and without favoritism or interference.

That’s what “Net Neutrality” is about. It’s not some conspiracy-theory scheme to let the government interfere with the Internet; it’s a foundational design principle and framework that prevents interference with the Internet.

Believe me, you don’t want the alternative.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

No. You are desperately confused. In actually, “Net Neutrality” is merely a legal/political label for one of the foundational, fundamental, basic design specifications that the whole Internet was built on.

No….that’s what you THINK it is. That’s what they’ll tell you it is when they pass it. And then the law and/or regulation (regulations really shouldn’t be substituting for laws, guys) gets used for all sorts of other horrible shit.

You stupid deluded moron.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

No. You are desperately confused. In actually, “Net Neutrality” is merely a legal/political label for one of the foundational, fundamental, basic design specifications that the whole Internet was built on.

No….that’s what you THINK it is. That’s what they’ll tell you it is when they pass it. And then the law and/or regulation (regulations really shouldn’t be substituting for laws, guys) gets used for all sorts of other horrible shit.

You fuucking simpleton

Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

§ 8.5 No blocking.
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so
engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to
reasonable network management.

  1. Section 8.7 is amended to read as follows:
    § 8.7 No throttling.
    A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so
    engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or
    service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
  2. Section 8.9 is redesignated section 8.19.
  3. New section 8.9 is added to read as follows:
    § 8.9 No paid prioritization.
    (a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so
    engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.
    (b) “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or
    indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic
    shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a)
    in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity.
    (c) The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the
    practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the
    Internet.
  4. New section 8.11 is added to read as follows:
    § 8.11 No unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage standard for Internet conduct.
    Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so
    engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to
    select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications,
    services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications,
    services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a
    violation of this rule.

That’s it. That’s Net Neutrality, quoted directly from the FCC’s Open Internet order.

No literate, mentally functioning human could possibly read any “horrible shit” in there, to claim “don’t fraudulently fuck with internet fraffic” somehow leads to fucking with internet traffic – the 100% opposite of Net Neutrality. Only an unthinking bot programmed by criminals to spread deliberate lies could ever claim otherwise. Hence, matty.

Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

That’s what they’ll tell you it is when they pass it. And then the law and/or regulation (regulations really shouldn’t be substituting for laws, guys) gets used for all sorts of other horrible shit.

What actually happened in the real world:

There were no bad effects caised by net Neutrality from the beginning of the intermet any time before it was killed in the early 2000s due to “internet is Titpe I” corruption, than a lot bad happened without it in the following years, and then when NN was partially restored in 2015 nothing bad happened because of it. Because naturally there was no possibility of anything bad happening because the rules are so clear and explicitly narrow in scope that they’re only beyond the comprehension of those proven to have attoscopic intellects such as matty’s.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Ah yes, the ‘that thing that’s already been found to be lawful in prior lawsuits is without doubt unlawful because we refuse to admit to already losing this argument’ gambit.

When the law is on your side, pound on the law.

When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.

When neither the law or facts are on your side, lie through your teeth and merely repeat your lies louder when called on it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Time for someone to pound on the ISPs. If they’re gonna make any change difficult, we may as well try for something actually significant; not just these half-assed “net neutrality” measures (“you can keep your monopoly, and high prices and terrible service, just with a few minor tweaks”).

To start, let’s say that no broadband network operator serving a million people or more can be an ISP; they can keep the network, or the customer accounts for accessing that network, but not both.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »