[NEWS] Yet again the FCC is threatening net neutrality (PETITION)

[Mardalf]

I am kind of dumbfounded as to how if NN was only imposed in the last few years and everything was cool before And after it was put into action what actually makes repealing it so bad unless they slip new stuff in like all this packaging and pizza slicing of the net

But I honestly haven't been paying any attention

Tldr: I don't understand ether side

[Ad Bot]

[Red Spy]

don't ask mm for a loving explanation

[Ipquarx]

I am kind of dumbfounded as to how if NN was only imposed in the last few years and everything was cool before

it wasn't, telecom companies regularly violated it to the detriment of consumers, it even happened in Canada, which prompted rulings over there to protect it

   MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

    COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

(This is the only non-US example) TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

    AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

    WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

    MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

    PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

    AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called CIA, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

    EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

    VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

    AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

    VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

[Mardalf]

Ah I guess I was just blissfully ignorant of those sort of shenanigans that's not cool *cough*kimjongUncool*cough*forgive me

[Master Matthew²]

forgive me

THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS.
YOU CANNOT Dennis Rodman's PalDO THIS!

[Ipquarx]

[Conan]

    AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called CIA, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

confirmed CIA

[Tactical Nuke]

okay so I see how companies would stifle competition but I don't see how its going to become this apocalyptic scenario where websites are sold in packages like cable television

[Nonnel]

that's not necessarily what will happen, but ISPs will be able to selectively push traffic to some sites and throttle it to others. I don't doubt they'd try to blackmail websites into giving them money for faster traffic or otherwise undo throttling in paid packages.

if you give them the ability to be starfishs then they're going to do it. there's tons of money to be made from this stuff.

[Master Matthew²]

okay so I see how companies would stifle competition but I don't see how its going to become this apocalyptic scenario where websites are sold in packages like cable television

The more people pull the "no one else is doing anything, so why  should I?" mindsets out of their ass, the more likely the companies are to explore that vacancy where you pulled that bullstuff from your starfish.

Thats how.

[otto-san]

i do wonder if more cities will start exploring the idea of city-owned broadband access like chattanooga did. cities already often own local power, water, gas, and waste, so i don't see why they couldn't own internet access as well. i can't say if i like that idea more or less than cable companies having a local monopoly but it's certainly an idea that would stop companies like comcast from being able to widely implement such Bullstuff

[Red Spy]

The more people pull the "no one else is doing anything, so why  should I?" mindsets out of their ass, the more likely the companies are to explore that vacancy where you pulled that bullstuff from your starfish.

Thats how.

that's the most convoluted 'you're forgeted' i've ever heard

[Tactical Nuke]

considering that they didn't try selling the web in packages before the rules were passed, the only reason I could possibly see them doing it now is that pro-NN alarmists freaking out about how they would do something like that indirectly gave them the idea in doing so

aka it's your guys' fault

[otto-san]

considering that they didn't try selling the web in packages before the rules were passed, the only reason I could possibly see them doing it now is that pro-NN alarmists freaking out about how they would do something like that indirectly gave them the idea in doing so

aka it's your guys' fault

they did/are. not in the sense that you might be thinking, but mobile carriers especially have played around with ideas where you pay some amount each month to remove certain sites from your data cap or allow access to certain sites

two examples i can remember:
https://readwrite.com/2011/01/04/uh_oh_internet_basic_mobile_video_will_be_youtube/
https://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video.html

even if they're cleverly guised as something good for consumers, they're still restrictive and anti-competitive

[gr8dayseth]

considering that they didn't try selling the web in packages before the rules were passed, the only reason I could possibly see them doing it now is that pro-NN alarmists freaking out about how they would do something like that indirectly gave them the idea in doing so

aka it's your guys' fault

good lord ur trying so hard to make us seem like we're the bad guys here aren't ya

but i mean they did already in some other countries so it's not totally out of the blue that they'd decide to do that here too, plus the stuff that otto said