Hacker News Re-Imagined

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

  • 3384 points
  • 3 years ago

  • @panny
  • Created a post

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules


@juris 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

This wouldn't be a problem if ISP's weren't de facto monopolies. If there was competition in this space, then there would be incentive to improve the infrastructure and Internet speeds. However, ISP's kill competition by making legal arrangements with local governments to only do business with them, and by cutting competitors' cables. Since we have no way to guarantee reasonable speeds to small time websites now, we should pursue antitrust legal and foster competition in this space. Comcast didn't realize it, but net neutrality was their own safety net.

Reply


@Karunamon 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

What's a person to do if you're generally for the concept of net neutrality (knowing the mendacity of outfits like Comcast), but you're also generally against regulating ISPs like telecoms (knowing the slowness, quantity of bureaucracy, and general incompetence of the federal government when it comes to tech)?

The FCC's Open Internet Order was damn good, and had it survived legal challenge, was one of the better and realistic options (aside from local loop unbundling which is never gonna happen). I think that legal decision was one of the worst ones in recent memory.

Reply


@Crontab 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Corrupt as hell.

Reply


@jmswan 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

All I have to say is this is no longer a free market society. You can buy whatever you want not excluding popular vote... I can't believe we have come to this, but revolution may be the only way out.

Reply


@ikeboy 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Friendly reminder that economists surveyed are far more likely to be for paid prioritization than against

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii

Reply


@makecheck 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

It should have been impossible to make a decision on something like this without first solving the fundamental problem of giving users control over data consumption.

Just try visiting a web site or installing an app on your phone, while using a limited-data or pay-per-use plan (such as a typical cell phone plan or international “data roaming”): you will rack up insane costs BEFORE you have any idea how much data was going to be required for what you wanted to do! That’s insane!!

There is no practical way to find out how much data an action will take, no regulation of web sites and apps, etc. to force them to invest in minimizing their data footprint, and tools such as content blockers are fought tooth and nail in the name of “revenue” and other such crap.

Ironically, the idea of paying more for an Internet “fast lane” is exactly what companies should have done — to their own employees, investing in R&D to make their sites smaller, faster, with better experiences for everyone. Instead, those same companies will probably shovel the same money or more, except into ISPs and other entities to make their bloated experiences “fast”.

Reply


@crtqt3 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Good. this is good

Reply


@sandGorgon 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

India now becomes the largest consumer internet market in the world with net neutrality enforced - without China and the US in play.

Reply


@slg 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

This has been asked a few times but never fully answered, can someone explain why this vote in particular is a problem? I understand net neutrality and I am all for it, but there was considerable public doubt before reclassification that this was the proper way to go about it. It also doesn't seem like the internet regulatory state of pre-2015 was a disaster. Would we better off focusing our efforts on increasing competition among ISPs? The major problem in all the pre-2015 net neutrality issues was that people often did not have any other ISP to use if their current ISP introduced a policy that was anti-consumer.

Reply


@econner 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

What can I do now to help?

Reply


@Exuma 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Can someone explain the rebuttal to/flaws in this article? I'm sure the EFF and many other large organizations wouldn't back NN if it weren't truly a good idea, but then again this article also seems to make some good points.

http://hustlebear.com/2011/01/05/why-net-neutrality-regulati...

Reply


@JustSomeNobody 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

> Ajit Pai, the F.C.C. chairman, said the rollback of the net neutrality rules would eventually help consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer people a wider variety of service options.

Sure, they can. At different paid tiers.

Reply


@kurheim 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

still don't regret not moving to US as a programmer.

Reply


@skate22 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

What a joke

Reply


@Sir_Cmpwn 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Write to your governor and ask them to propose net neutrality protections at the state level. Text RESIST TO 50409 and you can have your letter written and faxed to them in <2 mins for free.

Reply


@tnolet 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

As European bystander this is amazing and scary. Does anyone have any insights if/what this means for trans-atlantic traffic?

Reply


@charter_sucks 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

does this mean anything yet? i mean with all the lawsuits that will be incoming. can cable companies start their bullshit?

Reply


@patwalls 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

I don't care too much for politics, but this one hurts. :(

Reply


@nlperguiy 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

I don't get it. Aren't Republicans for less regulation?

Reply


@jasonrhaas 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

So let me get this straight: This (potentially) means that whomever pays the most money to the ISP gets special privilege?

Sounds right in line with how the rest of America works.

Reply


@yters 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

How will this actually impact me? I saw one graphic which suggested this may make it cheaper for me to pay for just the services I need.

Reply


@shmerl 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

This whole discussion is missing one point. Why are FCC members supposed to represent some parties, instead of being independent experts? It's the root of the problem. Instead of objectively addressing the issue, FCC is dominated by dumb partisan politics.

Reply


@ainiriand 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Can't we just interconnect our routers using wifi and deliver the content ourselves? Using our own network. Using a blockchain to deliver p2p data like Ethereum does. I wish we could do that and screw the telecoms.

Reply


@Dangeranger 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

This is proof positive that the current FCC commission has ignored the will of the voters on this issue.

Support for Net Neutrality was overwhelming and bi-partisan, yet Ajit Pai just plowed forward without consideration for what the citizens demanded.

This is government at its worst.

Reply


@ziyadparekh 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Can you bypass ISPs with a P2P network such as a mesh network?

Reply


@alexpetralia 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Can someone clarify this for me? Perhaps my assumptions are incorrect:

> 1. Bandwidth is limited

> 2. Real-time streaming services, such as video, consume much more bandwidth (by sending more packets through the pipeline) than non-streaming services

> 3. Net neutrality guarantees that each packet is delivered with the same priority

Say Netflix takes up 20% of the bandwidth through its streaming services - each packet must have the same priority as any Netflix or non-Netflix packet. That leaves 80% for everyone else.

People begin streaming more Netflix and it now takes up 40% of the bandwidth. This means 60% for everyone else - fewer of their non-Netflix packets are making it into the pipeline. This means their download speeds slow down.

ISPs can either (1) increase bandwidth in order to increase the amount of non-Netflix packets get through, (2) throttle Netflix or (3) neither increase bandwidth nor throttle Netflix, resulting in non-Netflix content slowing down.

Is my analysis incorrect here? Perhaps I am missing something obvious?

To me, it looks like Net Neutrality is (3). In this case, streaming services (and those consuming them) get a free ride to due to the rule mandating that packets must be delivered at the same time (so you benefit if you simply stuff the channel with a ton of your packets, a la Netflix). It would also make sense why Big Tech would support this (they receive the benefit), while Big Telecom would oppose this (they incur the costs). In an economic sense this would seem to be an inefficient market (as regulation tends to do).

However there are always noble reasons behind regulation (even if they are not implemented properly). I don't see (2) as particularly bad in an economic sense, but because these telecoms are notoriously anti-competitive, perhaps the ideal of a competitive market goes out the door?

Would greatly appreciate if anyone could clarify.

Reply


@jackfrodo 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

This has made me feel pretty damn powerless, as pretty much every site/person of significance has stated their opposition to such a repeal, and yet they went through it anyway. Just a gut feeling that our democracy isn't working properly when such a loud and clear, great majority of the population messaging is completely ignored.

Reply


@gt_ 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

When I first moved to Portland, Oregon about 10 years ago, the inner sections of the city has free city-wide wireless. I was broke and in school, but still basking in what I believed the future would be like. 2 years later, they pulled the plug so I had to get a Comcast account and forgo having internet at my art studio. And now this.

Reply


@sq_ 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Now, to wait for the EFF and friends to sue.

From what I've read, it seems like they've got some pretty good arguments against the FCC, so hopefully something good will come of that.

Reply


@tedwasright 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Ben Shapiro Breaks down net neutrality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBrZ_CPgm7o

Reply


@dontyouremember 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Washington state is fighting it:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-gov-jay...

Washington state will act under our own authority and under our own laws and under our own jurisdiction to protect the very important measure of net neutrality for all Washington citizens,” he said. “We are not powerless.

Reply


@abpavel 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Demand for Cisco SCE and similar will explode. These boxes are specifically tailored for per-user traffic management on carrier scale, and can throttle and account traffic per URL per user. Network vendors producing carrier grade equipment should profit.

Reply


@maruhan2 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

The argument of NN being a preemptive regulation on hypothetical future problems and thus could lead to unintentionally hurting "good" entities got me thinking why there can't be a new regulation scheme.

I'd call it "conditional enactment".

Basically, let us assume we want to regulate A because of a, b, and c reasons. We'll create a "conditional enactment" where it states the regulation proposal with reasons for regulating and the penalty for not abiding by the regulation. This basically acts as a save point where if some entity eventually does do A and qualifies one of those a,b,and c reasons, we'll continue on from that "save point". Now that we'll have more info, we can talk about what the pros and cons of regulating A are, adjust the regulation terms, adjust the punishment, and vote on the revised proposal. If the regulation passes, that entity is now subject to punishment even if the regulation passed after the entity's action was done. Any other entities that did A before the regulation passed is not subject to punishment.

This would potentially prevent the unintended side effects of the regulation and allow us to evaluate the state of the regulation while still putting the entities that could create harm in check.

Reply


@asurty 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Perhaps this will only spur the global do gooders of the world to come up with better (more permanent) solutions for promoting privacy, free speech and innovation.

As a reader of HN I feel like there is already great work being done here (eg/ lets encrypt).

ahem pineapple fund, if you are a real thing, maybe you can put something under EFF's tree for xmas?

Reply


@jasonrhaas 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

So let me get this straight: It (potentially) means that whomever pays the most money to the ISP gets special privilege?

Sounds right in line with how the rest of America works.

Reply


@jonhuber 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Net neutrality is the solution to a sub problem. Content companies having a monopoly on the last mile. We should really be pushing for structural separation and ownership rules of communications infrastructure, which I suppose is the end game of net neutrality anyways.

Like roads, it doesn't necessarily make sense to have competition in the last mile space, two fibers/cables/etc running to the same dwelling. New Zealand and Australia have created infrastructure companies for creating a whole sale last mile network. Like deregulated electric or gas, the infrastructure provider is responsible for handling the physical connection while service provider provides the actual service over the infrastructure. In the case of internet in Australia, the NBN provides the fiber connection and the ISP provides network connectivity. It is even possible to have two ISPs over the single fiber.

Got a terrible ISP. Churn and burn. However, if all the ISPs are terrible, then you probably still need net neutrality.

Really, you need both. Structural separation, so at least there is some choice. Net neutrality rules, so companies can't monetize their customer.

Disclaimer: Australia's NBN is a bit of a mess due to politics, but New Zealand did it right with UFB.

Reply


@shiado 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Is there anything that can be done at the protocol level to make the anti-NN goals of the ISPs unfeasible? Would a sudden surge in IPV6 adoption make the databases used to locate and label certain traffic useless? What about at the DNS level? BGP? Perhaps the best way to enforce net neutrality is by forcing the adoption of protocols that ensure it.

Reply


@chinathrow 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Can we have a black bar on top?

Reply


@nautilus12 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

So can someone explain what this could mean on the consumer side? I've been mostly thinking about it from the producer side and how tech companies will have to pay a premium for fast service to be delivered to users, but I'm seeing the packages and wondering if as a consumer I would have to call up my ISP to add a random site that I want to access to my service. How would like aggregation sites like Reddit or Ycombinator even work then? I dont know enough about what ISP's can and cannot do to answer this question for myself.

Reply


@ansible 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

There was a discussion about all this during NPR's Morning Edition.

The FCC chair talked about how there was very loose regulation of the Internet back in 1996 during the Clinton Administration. And this should be a model for regulation of the ISPs going forward.

Except that the world was quite different in 1996. You actually had a lot of competition with ISPs, because most people were doing dialup. If I didn't like AOL, I could just switch to Prodigy (yes, I know), or one of the local ISPs. That was easy.

People like me can and did switch ISPs on a regular basis. In my case, looking for a reliable Net News feed.

Compared to today, where there is only one (or if you are lucky) two ISPs for the area. You don't have a choice, so these ISPs are defacto monopolies.

The reasons given for repeal are just wrong, and this is a transparent attempt by the big ISPs to make more money, without benefit to the average citizen or even the other Internet companies which made the Internet awesome to begin with.

Reply


@ransom1538 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Comcast board meeting (RIGHT NOW): "First things first, how do we charge more for netflix streaming."

Reply


@bitL 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

How often do we see a person from a 3rd world country being installed at the top of an organization with the intent to subvert it? I have seen it happening in at least 3 corporations that tanked a year-two after that. It seems like natives don't want to do dirty work (nobody wants to be Elop), so external ones with a different philosophy and conscience are brought in.

Reply


@tazelo123 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

I think all comments so far have missed the point. So called "net neutrality" is really just a big government handout to Google, Facebook, Amazon and others who want a free ride on the infrastructure built over decades by private company investments of billions of dollars. Putting a chokehold on the telcos has made it so these large companies don't have to make similar investments and put large infrastructure assets on their balance sheets that would depress their stock prices dramatically. If Google, FB, etc. want a free rider internet, they can go pay for it themselves. All of these companies have enough cash on hand to make the investment right now if they wanted to -- it would just make the billionaire ceos a lot less wealthy. I'm surprised nobody has pointed this out yet.

Reply


@gcb0 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

why everyone thinks ISP will start to sell internet as tiered tv channels? this is not happening and will not happen.

what will, and is happening for the last 3 decades, is that ISP charge to do something they used to beg for: co location of high traffic services.

contente providers, lets pick netflix as an example, uses ton of bandwidth. but they already paid for their uplink. now, customers pay for the downlink. and ISP now see their oversold pipes actually being used (what a surprise). so they beg netflix to pretty please place some edge servers on their data centers so they dont pay the expensive outbound traffic. and netflix gladly did that because that cut latency from 300ms to 2ms for those customers. everyone happy.

then ISPs started to sell that as a feature for the reduced latency. but if nobody bougth, they would still fall back to begging for them to do that for free. and everyone still happy.

now they can outrigth limit how much expensive outbound bandwidth they will spend on netflix content. no matter that the ISP own customers already paid for bandwidth for that service or another. so netflix and all other providers will have to pay a huge premium for colocation (for that great latency reduction feature) or a still high premium simply to not be blocked!

the client will just see that they can't connect to netflix. the isp doesnt even have to warn their own users, because there is nothing they can do. netflix is the one who have to pay up. so they will have to charge more and pass that to ISPs. and that is the ISP end game. they can still be afloat after cable cutters moved to streaming platforms they dont own and operate (which is the likely outcome, since all their attempts are falling flat on their faces)

Reply


@gerbilly 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

What I don't get, is how come the advertising industry isn't opposing this?

How are the ad trackers going to track you across the entire internet now if ISPs are going to partition it into packages?

If you don't get the facebook package, or whatever, doesn't that mean that facebook won't get to know all the other sites you visit?

Reply


@khazhou 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

He brings shame to the Indian tech community.

Reply


@kin 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

I'm surprised I haven't heard anything along the lines of Ajit being hacked or receiving death threats.

My only hope from this is that as soon as cable companies start their bullshit, people become aware of how this all happened and maybe we can reverse the damage in the long run. I'm also hoping things like Google Fiber get more aggressive or Musk keeps his promise of launching his internet satellite.

Reply


@diebir 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Your public lands? Under attack. Your Internet? Under attack. Your government funding? Under attack. What do you get? Nothing. Prepare to get f$cked over by your friendly republican majority.

Reply


@nautilus12 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

This is the biggest story of the year. Whoever got to posting this first is now a hacker news god.

Reply


@opensports 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Could someone at Y Combinator please find a revolutionary ISP startup and add it to the W18 batch?

We got a feature request today: "My next request would be for you to save net neutrality in the U.S. Thanks."

Reply


@r2dnb 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

From my perspective, the positive to this is that it will incentivize tech giants to accelerate the development of the web platform (WebRTC, WebGL, Web Assembly, Web Torrent and the like) as stuffing everything in HTTP and using encryption will protect them from the dirty blocking of services, and will allow them to focus their efforts on fighting throttling. For this reason, I hope Comcast and others will scare the hell out of them and do some big time media-covered dirty throttling.

I can already see for-a-better-web.org where Apple, Microsoft, Google and others explain why they have finally decided to move their ass and get serious about implementing the modern web in their browsers. With their level of funding, the time all of this is taking is ridiculous. When Netflix and YouTube get their first bill from tier 1 providers, Web Torrent and libtorrent will receive a pull request within a week and chrome will be patched overnight.

I do not think that the small guy will be hit by these rules, mostly because I think that by the time it comes to that, politics will have changed. The end result will be that everybody will benefit. Implementing the modern web seriously is the one thing that web giants can do to protect themselves, as it would enable a fully decentralized web. The difference between that and NN is that the modern web would actually help the small guy by making it easy to for example start a decentralized YouTube. So it's easier to cry fool on NN, and look like you're concerned about the small guy when in reality you too are concerned about protecting your interests in the most convenient way possible.

Not saying all of this is a conspiracy, just saying tech companies are far from being disarmed, they also have their monopolies they want to protect. Keep it in mind before crying over this vote, or spending money and time on volunteering. Let Tier 1 dudes give them the hardest time of their life and watch. If it gets to hitting the average Joe, do something but my take is it won't have the time to get to that.

Reply


@tomvon 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Sorry, I'm calling bullshit on this vote.

Reply


@zardo 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Is anyone working on market based routing over mesh networks with crypto currencies? Would that have been disallowed under the network neutrality rules?

Reply


@LeicaLatte 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Congrats I guess.

Reply


@socrates1998 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Slowly but surely, our open internet will get choked. This is just one step in horrible path that will lead to our largest corporations controlling almost everything in our lives with very little competition.

I am blaming the tech giants for this ruling. They are the only ones with enough power to challenge this horrible ruling and they sat idle and watched it happen.

They may have given lip service to net neutrality, but their lack of enthusiasm and almost zero effort speaks volumes on their true opinions.

Microsoft crossed over to the dark side a long time ago.

Now, Google, Apple, Facebook join them in completely abandoning the ethos upon which the companies were founded.

I have been skeptical of their true intentions for years, and facebook has probably been corrupt since day one, but I thought if they were able to keep net neutrality, then I would think there was a chance for them.

No longer. They are gone. Truly sad day for the world.

Reply


@cortexio 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

exciting times :)

Reply


@peterwwillis 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

I don't think any Net Neutrality advocates have yet addressed the fact that last mile ISPs can't find new ways to subsidize broadband roll-outs and upgrades. The only way to pay for it is to charge you more. So while the internet access stays "fair" (which is already questionable at best), you pay more money, and service roll-out continues to be slow and crappy.

Some form of compromise regulation is needed to both retain the fairness of access, but also allow ISPs to find new ways to monetize. But most people don't seem open to talking about this.

Reply


@berbec 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Reply


@arunc 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Lobbying and money can do anything? American policy makers are more messed-up than I thought. How worst could it get?

Interesting to watch it's impact in US in the long run. At least the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India listened [0]. If not the situation in India would be really bad.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_India

Reply


@mcast 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

A relevant and interesting discussion on net neutrality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKD-lBrZ_Gg

Reply


@briga 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Here's my question: why was such a momentous decision decided by a board of five people? A decision that will affect hundreds of millions of people was decided by five people. Isn't that insane? Whatever happened to democracy in America?

Reply


@Fede_V 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

As I've previously said: for people that believe Pai acted according to good faith, are you willing to bet that, as soon as he is legally allowed to do so, Pai won't be given a VP-level sinecure at Verizon or Comcast?

Reply


@averagejoe-2018 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

I’m surprised I haven’t seen more mention of the Neighborhood Network Construction Kit: http://communitytechnology.github.io/docs/cck/

I believe it has been partly created by the folks who are building their own internet service in Detroit (more about that at https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kz3xyz/detroit-me...)

While the fight rages on for the major providers to commit to being open and fair, I believe it is probably very prudent to simultaneously begin sorting out how we could go about 1) fostering competition and 2) creating community-backed local networks and making them appealing enough (even if just to us tech folks at first) that they start to catch on. If we start at the foundational level (i.e. getting peoples’ homes connected or connectable on a locally-controlled network, wireless or otherwise, regardless of whether that network still links up to a major provider’s backbone in turn, which it would), then we are in a better position to then start looking at linking up those local networks directly to one another (forming regional networks, etc) and also to backbones provided by companies/organizations that commit (in writing) to an open and fair internet. To that last point, I think it might be worthwhile to also explore the possibility of a non-profit organization with values similar to Mozilla finding a way to purchase, build, or otherwise control some of the internet backbone/internet access in America (forgive me, I know very little of what’s all involved at that level, I'm sure it's a herculean task).

In any case, this all seems daunting. But I propose that the initial approach is to start small, start local, but use a multi-pronged strategy (e.g. crowdfunding for projects, raising up wireless community networks, advocacy and marketing help for fair and privacy-conscious ISPs, exploration of non-profit backbone formation, etc), and pick up momentum.

If there is no real market competition, and we’re subject to monopolies, and those monopolies directly go against the loudly voiced will of their customers and what appears to be the majority of American citizens, then let’s give ‘em hell. It’s not a short-term project. But everything starts somewhere…

On my soapbox ------------- We are talking about who controls access to free speech here. As benign as it may seem to some people that an internet provider might be allowed to throttle some bandwidth and block some sites, their monopoly nature means that, under these new rules, they pose a threat of direct censorship of speech that reaches the masses, which in turn directly threatens the liberty of the American citizen. It’s important, both for us and for future generations, to fight this tooth and nail and to even go so far as to rebuild internet access ourselves over the course of years under a new charter if that’s actually what it takes. The internet is the greatest free speech tool we have as citizens. And regardless of whether we believe in regulation or de-regulation, the reality is that a group of monopoly controllers of internet access pushed hard for rules allowing them to throttle, censor, and use our data in ways that make many of us feel uneasy. They wouldn't push that hard if they didn't intend to use these allowances in some way. It’s a legitimate threat.

Overcoming this threat is a cause that’s worth thinking about, and acting on behalf of, in big and bold ways. And perhaps we could also solve for some of our ongoing privacy concerns along the way. Because, my god, what person does not wonder if we are slowly sliding away from being citizens who are truly free to speak our minds and not be spied on arbitrarily with a privacy situation such as we are facing, a situation which is already unreasonable and is getting worse.

Aren’t you tired of being leveraged against?

Hope is not lost. We just have to take it into our own hands and fight the fight. Because that’s what happens when you’re tired of it.

In the interim…

...while this gets started, we need to compile a list of internet service providers who will commit in writing on their customer agreements that they will not block or throttle access to content which is lawful. Perhaps we could also find providers willing to commit in writing that they will treat their users’ data as private, not sell our data to third parties, etc. We then need to become loud advocates for these companies. We need to effectively help them with their marketing by raising their visibility up and by encouraging people to switch to them. Imagine how many people would be interested in starting an ISP if they knew that they would get free marketing!

In other words, I propose that we mourn the state of things quickly and then transition into action. If nothing else, that might just be the most effective form of protest we could engage in. In fact, I think this might be the form of protest that works best today in a variety of realms...don’t just hold signs and march, don’t just voice frustration in venues, instead simply begin creating what you want to see...and don’t give up.

Reply


@MrGando 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Are the big companies really in favor of neutrality? At least in the short mid-term I believe it’s more helpful for them to get their silos even more consolidated...

Also... they haven’t been super loud for neutrality and this happened. It almost felt as if they did not care.

It’s a sad day.

Reply


@diyseguy 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Is there any recourse? clever technical workaround? switch to tor network?

Reply


@w0m 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

fuck

Reply


@deadmetheny 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Your current plan does not allow you to read this comment. Please contact us to expand your plan to allow Discussion Forum access for a monthly fee of $4.99.

Reply


@mrcabada 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

R.I.P. innovative America, everything there is dying for people to innovate :-(

Reply


@stevefan1999 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

This is the darkest day of the Internet. We the customers are now accused for not buying better services, instead of being treated equally and anonymously.

Reply


@Exuma 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Violence isn't the answer but boy would I love to smash that smug asshole's kneecaps.

Reply


@40acres 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

VOTE.

As I've grown older I've realized more and more that this is the only way for citizens voices to be truly heard. You aren't going to outspend the big donors and you aren't going to out influence the lobbyists. If you want a particular rule set or laws to be enacted you'd better vote for the politicians who agree with your worldview.

Mad that the FCC has repealed net neutrality? Vote for congress members who are pro-NN.

Mad that national parks have had their land area significantly reduced? Vote for pro national park congress members.

Mad that we're giving a huge tax cat to billionaires and corporations and yet the middle class gets a temporary reprieve? Vote for congress members who want to deliver true tax reform.

I could go on and on but I think you get the point.

Reply


@rdxm 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

so a few things:

1) i'm somewhat skeptical that this will result in noticable price or service degredation scenarios.

2) there is now way in hell trump gets a second term so pai wil be gone soon, i.e. this was a tempest in a teapot.

3) it's fundamentally unclear that this will actually be harmful. of course the investment argument is total bull shit, but realistically, wireless is going to obviate classical monopoly power that exists today for incmbents.

maybe my views are silly, but, most peopel really won't notice a difference..

Reply


@philonoist 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Thank god! Thank Heavens! Thank TRAI (Telecom regulatory authority of India)

We specifically opposed tampering net neutrality just this year.

But is it just a matter of time for India to follow suit?

Reply


@nkkollaw 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Can someone explain if this will affect anyone outside of the US, and how..?

Reply


@w0m 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Fuck

Reply


@ausjke 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Most of the time you really only have one ISP to choose from, so it is kind of monopoly already in practice, now with this brain-dead repeal, what will happen then? Don't like this at all.

Reply


@at-fates-hands 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Honestly, I don't care either way.

Even after the NN rules were in place, I saw absolutely no difference in my area (I live in a major metro area in the midwest) and saw no advantage either way. The gloom and doom stuff people talked about prior to NN I never experienced, and post NN being enacted, I didn't experience any of the benefits either.

Reply


@southphillyman 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

If "nothing is going to change" then why the repeal? What benefit will this repeal actually bring? Either they pushed for this to be petty and undo an Obama era bill or something dastardly is in the pipeline.

Reply


@stestagg 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙



@erlich 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

This is really good because now we can see if all the outrage was justified.

Reply


@cdancette 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

So This Is How Liberty Dies... With Thunderous Applause

Reply


@dingo_bat 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Awesome. I really appreciate how professional Ajit Pai has been through all the internet hate. Finally a step in the right direction for government policy.

Reply


@croatoan 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Even Hacker News doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about? You people too huh? Can't be bothered to read the regulations that you supposedly give a shit about, you too?? Fuck man, the amount global social media companies can brainwash people is STUNNING!! READ THE FUCKING DOCUMENTS!

The Net Neutrality regulation passed on Feb 26 2015: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015... The 2015 regulation that allows global tech companies to monopolize all information on the internet, strips the FCC of its power to prevent censorship and monopolization, and hands control of the internet to the EU.

The Net Neutrality repeal set to be decided on Dec 14 2017: https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201... The 2017 repeal of the 2015 NN regulation reverts all the bullshit from the 2015 regulation, eliminates global tech companies control of internet, prevents censorship, and returns the FCC its previous powers(the powers they had for the 20 years before 2015 and never once abused or censored or blocked or throttled with, just like theyve done with radio & phone for 83 years and tv for 50 years).

TLDR: READ PAGES 82-87 IN 2017 NN REPEAL.

Reply


@Parcissons 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

If one wants to upkeep civilisation, one needs to train its citizens to protect the infrastructure, the backbone, one needs to train the citizen, to repair, to provide, to create, to fight, against all that corrodes. So if liberty dies, one cell every day, it can rise again, harder and stronger, recreated not by a goverment, which can turn sour any day in power- but by something - which to erradicate, would mean the end of the nation.

Reply


@exabrial 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Unpopular opinion: Title II is not a great solution to Net Neutrality. The only thing I disklike is there isn't a better option already in place.

I would rather see the FTC address EULAs. If a company says, "we may from time-to-time limit your bandwidth" I think they should be on the hook to produce a report every month when and why they limited you. This is not much different than the report you get from your investments, or your cell phone carrier report when you place a call or send a text message.

Reply


@kotrunga 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

In that article, a quote...

"We are helping consumers and promoting competition," Mr. Pai said in a speech before the vote. "Broadband providers will have more incentive to build networks, especially to underserved areas."

Please, Mr. Pai. Help consumers? That's a lie.

Reply


@neo4sure 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

I think the cable guys just awakened the sleeping giant. By making sure they can tighten the screws on Silicon Valley they have spawned out a multitude of startups that will topple them one day. The cable companies make money by making something scarce. They will milk every penny of their investment and give it back to the investors without much reinvesting it back to create cheaper broadband for the masses. Silicon Valley’s whole business model is based on cheap access to the internet that's why google Facebook etc is investing so much to connect the third world. I believe they were hedging against net neutrality dying someday. I can't imagine after winning the first battle they took a timeout. The investments in the 3rd world internet may ultimately lead to newer cheaper ways to connect the world. Cabel companies clocks started to run out the day they attacked net neutrality. Let's see how they survive in about 10 years’ time.

Reply


@mwilliaams 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

It's not democratic. It's republican. Remember that America is a republic, not a democracy. Each state has 2 senators/electoral votes because this country was founded as the United States. It was supposed to be more of a coalition of states united under a federal government, than a single nation.

Also, California has a huge population with tons of representatives, and basically every elected official is democratic. I don't think you should complain.

Reply


@macinjosh 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Amazingly good news!

The argument that net neutrality protects the little guy, the small startup, etc is backwards. Internet giants like Facebook, Google, Netflix et al. only want net neutrality so that their current business model is protected through government force.

There are plenty of mechanisms in place to keep telcos in check. (e.g. FTC, customer choice).

If we really want to reform Internet policy create more competition in the marketplace by making it easier to start an ISP not harder.

Reply


@callmeed 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Can states enact their own Net Neutrality rules? If so, is there any likelihood of it happening in places like NY or CA?

Reply


@HappyDreamer 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Soon more and more people will have access to Facebook & such stuff only, but not the real Internet? It'll get simpler, in the next presidential election in the US, for Trump and Putin to win again, via Facebook propaganda & ads?

Reply


@gaius 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Good for The People - bad for Google. Actually those are the same thing.

Reply


@jonnycomputer 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

wow, that's a lot of comments. (:

Reply


@netn123 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

I haven't seen anyone else post anything along these lines, but doesn't this make it legal for the the government to ask/force/pay ISPs to hide sites (e.g. wikileaks, etc)? Maybe that is why politicians didn't really try to stop it?

Reply


@paul7986 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Where was Google and Facebook.. they did nothing vs. them previously taking action against SOPA.

Reply


@brian-armstrong 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

If you voted for Trump, this one's on you.

Reply


@unemployed1 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Good

Reply


@maruhan2 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Someone help me find better information on this. Regardless of how "good" the NN regulation is, I think it's a very fair point that this is a regulation for a preemptive and hypothetical scenario that had so far not occurred.

Are there enough proof that the scenario isn't hypothetical, and companies have already been doing something unfair?

Reply


@idibidiart 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

If we stage a nation-wide boycot of Amazon, Walmart.com, and a few other big retailers (and stop using Google, Bing et al) I can almost guarantee it that they will move mountains to bring back net neutrality. You have to get the big corporations a profit motive to get anything done in this country.

Reply


@ziikutv 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Heres a thing, I see a lot of comments about starting an indie-ISP of sorts.

Simple question: if the monopolies were finally able to break net neutrality laws, don't you think they can likely introduce some bullshit legislation to kill indie-ISPs?

Reply


@lsllc 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

This wasn't a fairy tale.

Reply


@niftich 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Pai says he is "helping consumers and promoting competition".

Unfortunately, half of the states have laws and regulations that hamper efforts of local governments to build out municipal broadband [1] to take their own broadband access into their hands.

Republican politicians are often [2][3] at the forefront of these state bans, despite citizens of all political leanings in favor of localities being allowed to do this [4][5].

[1] https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... [2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-la... [2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-la... [3] https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/81c82846-... [4] https://muninetworks.org/content/pew-survey-reveals-overwhel... [5] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/10/americans-ha...

Reply


@polygon-pusher 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Time to take down the internet. A simple solution to a stupid problem.

Reply


@pmoriarty 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Would anything stop the next administration from reinstating net neutrality?

Reply


@LeRieur 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

It's just like they are treating the Internet bandwidth as a tragedy of commons, while it's not.

Reply


@mlindner 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Good riddance.

Reply


@aaronbrethorst 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Call your Congressperson and Senators today and tell them that you want them to enshrine NN into law. And then vote against them next time they’re up for re-election if they don’t. In the case of your Congressperson, this will be next November.

Phone numbers are here: https://www.battleforthenet.com/

Reply


@febin 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

I hope this will make innovators build a new powerful internet that is not dependent on telecos. Trump is not going to like it.

Reply


@depeters 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

American will no longer be a place of innovation. Another country will have to lead the world now

Reply


@deedubaya 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

I believe this is the Stratechery article Pai quoted and used for justification of the rollback.

https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/

Reply


@melq 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

{Error: please contact your ISP to upgrade to their HN+ service in order to see this premium comment}

Reply


@jermaustin1 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Will the "new walled internet" have a better user interface than America Online?

Reply


@iain_r 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙



@turc1656 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Net neutrality was a band-aid from the start for a larger problem that was unaddressed. ISP's, big telecom, etc. are/were committing acts that are illegal under existing law. For example, they were blocking certain sites/services that were competing with their own. That's a clear cut felony of restraint of trade. And possible other felonies related to monopolistic and anti-competitive practices.

The correct solution to this was to put the people responsible for approving those actions in jail for those crimes. But we didn't do that. Instead, we got net neutrality. The Rule of Law continues to be ignored in the US and with net neutrality the offending companies were simply forced to wine and dine us with a fancy dinner before deciding to fuck us whenever they wanted.

Reply


@brondeau 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

SAD.....

Reply


@grizzles 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Some bad policy there from the FCC. The best outcome now would be if Google + Facebook + AWS, etc partnered and started charging domestic ISPs a price to access their content. Amazon is the elephant here because they can introduce a clause in the AWS agreement giving themselves the power to negotiate like this.

If they did it now, at the outset of this policy, it would be hard for ISPs to claim "antitrust" since the four horsemen would effectively be protecting smaller websites.

The alternative is the charge going the other way, with ISPs gaining the power to slice and dice the internet up, with small websites possibly having to pay more than one ISP.

Reply


@ulkram 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

In case you want to hear both sides of the argument:

http://exponent.fm/episode-133-two-terrible-options/

Reply


@neuronexmachina 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

My prediction: One of the first actions ISPs will take will be to block ads from specific DNS names and IP addresses. Opposition to this will be fairly limited since nobody likes ads, but after the precedent is set they'll then allow ad providers who pay a toll to the ISP, and from there it'll spread to blocking/throttling of other content.

A couple years ago there was an ISP in the Caribbean who did something similar for Google and Facebook ads: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151001/06351732404/isp-a...

Reply


@SauciestGNU 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Edit: You know what, fuck it. I don't think I can say anything here that hasn't been said a thousand times already.

Reply


@mtkd 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

It may be for the best over time - the innovation that comes from the decision is likely an increment over where we are now - and possibly have wider benefits that just enabling NN.

Reply


@hajderr 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

That's a great country

Reply


@lwansbrough 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

I’m in Thailand right now and everywhere I go I see about 100 wires being routed along each telephone pole. 3 utility lines across the top for power, then the most incoherent mess of cables I’ve ever seen. One pole I saw had become a literal birds nest. These are fiber and copper lines for individual ISPs. That’s what the internet looks like in a free market.

I wish this image of free choice of ISP was used as an argument against repealing net neutrality. Nothing speaks to republicans more than showing them how their decision will fuck up their nice neighborhoods.

Reply


@GrumpyNl 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Wow, so the US just gave away the internet to the telco's and providers. Wanna see Netflix, pay, wanna see facebook pay.

Reply


@gt_ 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

My mother lives in a rural part of Kentucky. While staying with her over the summer, I visited the office of the local DSL broadband provider, ‘Brandenburg Telephone’ and it was like a step back in time. This is one of the areas Comcast deemed unworthy of serving and the result is very affordable max 5mbps internet with top notch customer service.

I wonder how this region will be affected. Anyone have predictions?

Reply


@gkanai 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Ben Thompson who writes Stratechery, which is often posted here, had a piece on Net Neutrality a few weeks ago which was quite controversial. Thompson is pro neutrality, but anti-title II.

https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/

Because that article was so controversial, he wrote an update as well:

https://stratechery.com/2017/light-touch-cable-and-dsl-the-b...

Pai was on Marketplace Tech before the vote and specifically mentioned Thompson as for Pai's stance.

marketplace tech with molly wood; 12/13/2017: Ajit Pai on what his internet will look like

https://overcast.fm/+F6tgDywN0

I thought it was fascinating that Pai cited Thompson by name.

Reply


@Aron 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

I hope all the loud voices that are against this move have codified their predictions in a way that they can look back and see if they were accurate.

Reply


@Clanan 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Here are the salient quotes from the repeal which, I think, indicate the tech reaction to it might be overblown and might be "encouraged" by big tech players who aren't doing this for altruistic reasons. The key here is that the repeal allows the FTC to regulate things, and it's better at breaking monopolistic practices. (I'm still not sold on the argument that this will push innovation, though.)

> 500-504 The FTC’s unfair-and-deceptive-practices authority “prohibits companies from selling consumers one product or service but providing them something different,” which makes voluntary commitments enforceable. The FTC also requires the “disclos[ur]e [of] material information if not disclosing it would mislead the consumer,” so if an ISP “failed to disclose blocking, throttling, or other practices that would matter to a reasonable consumer, the FTC’s deception authority would apply.”

> 507-508 Many of the largest ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc.) have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content. These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.

> Invokes Sherman Antitrust acts

FCC also reserves the right to return to Title II classification, which AT&T tried to block in this:

> 176. We also reject AT&T’s assertion that the Commission should conditionally forbear from all Title II regulations as a preventive measure to address the contingency that a future Commission might seek to reinstate the Title II Order.647 Although AT&T explains that “conditional forbearance would provide an extra level of insurance against the contingency that a future, politically motivated Commission might try to reinstate a ‘common carrier’ classification [2015 Net Neutrality Regulations],”648 we see no need to address the complicated question of prophylactic forbearance and find such extraordinary measures [are] unnecessary.

Edit: the vote also keeps the government from classifying the internet as a public utility. I think that's a good thing because the govt could otherwise step in and "regulate" content it doesn't agree with.

Reply


@maskedinvader 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Next step lawsuits, hopefully Congress can enact a law to settle the issue once and for all.

Reply


@acjohnson55 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

I'm curious how this could impact the cryptocurrency space. If the government is effectively showing willingness to hand the Internet over to moneyed interests, does that damage the assumption that the Internet is a failsafe medium for cryptocurrency networks to operate? Should we also fear the banks using similar leverage to protect their interests if it looks like cryptocurrencies stand a reasonable chance of circumventing their oligopoly?

Anybody counting on the Internet for their disruptive future plans should hear this message loud and clear.

Reply


@matmo 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

If we had Fiber everywhere, would bandwidth arguments still be applicable?

Reply


@einrealist 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Now, the US telco market has to prove that it works without these rules. We will see...

Reply


@omginternets 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Europe has it's problems, but I don't regret moving to London. Not one bit. The innovation here is real and tangible, by and large unencumbered by this kind of crap.

Reply


@Blazespinnaker 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

It’s a lot of hang wringing over nothing. Google, amazon, even Apple and Msft rely on a healthy internet. They represent over 2 trillion market cap. They can easily compete with the telecoms.

Reply


@putinontheritz 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

>I worked at ISPs, have backbone engineer friends, and candidly: I think this issue is silly. But if it's yours... sigh...

Reqlly? Why?

Reply


@EGreg 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Did anyone really think that public outcry or "blacking out" the web would sway this administration?

We have to get Congress to pass that law:

https://www.wired.com/story/after-fcc-vote-net-neutrality-fi...

Reply


@bjt2n3904 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Common response on HN for the past two months has been nothing short of hyperbolic. "The world will end if NN is repealed".

Speaking as a conservative: When Obama was president, I got told the same thing about the ACA. The world will end, the sky is falling, America is finished. But eight years later, here I am, nothing's that much worse.

I have no reason to believe this is "the beginning of the end" of anything. Life will carry on as normal.

Disproportionate reactions (like HN is doing right now) is not good for anyone. Take a step back from politics. Take a deep breath. Take a walk outside. This isn't the end of the world.

Reply


@akerro 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Why are meshnets not popular and why is no one talking about them?

Can we start some discussion about software like cjdns?

Reply


@akerro 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Comcast is committed to free and open Internet, nothing to worry for now https://imgur.com/gallery/RPgJf

Reply


@jayess 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

In 24 hours no one will be thinking about this and literally nothing will happen, despite the absolute mouth-foaming hysteria we're seeing today.

Reply


@Proven 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Good riddance!

Reply


@electic 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

It is time to make the Internet a utility. Unfortunately, it wont happen until we get Democrats back into the Senate and House.

Reply


@pknerd 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

there should be black bar for this.

Reply


@dirtbox 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

This seems like a last gasp attempt to tighten the monopoly, and it's doomed to fail. If nothing else, this will set the wheels in motion to bypass the established ISPs altogether, whether it's via node distribution or banking on Musk's satellite network. Or holding out hope that Google will pick up their fiber business again. Whatever happens, it's going to be interesting.

Reply


@wtf_is_up 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Finally, something good came from the Obama administration. Appointing Pai to the FCC was probably their greatest accomplishment.

Reply


@tptacek 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

The voters elected a Republican government. That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine. Anybody who told you that lobbying the FCC was going to make a difference here was, whether they meant to or not, selling a bill of goods.

As someone who respects but mostly profoundly disagrees with principled Republican laissez-faire regulatory strategy (at least, once we got past 1991 or so), it is more than a little aggravating to see us as a community winding ourselves in knots over market-based regulation of telecom at the same time as the (largely unprincipled) Republican congress is putting the finishing strokes --- literally in ball-point pen --- on a catastrophically stupid tax bill that threatens universal access to health insurance, not just for those dependent on Medicare but on startup founders as well.

If you care deeply about this issue, stop pretending like filling out forms and putting banners ads is going to persuade Republican regulators to act like Democrats. "Net Neutrality" isn't my personal issue --- I worked at ISPs, have backbone engineer friends, and candidly: I think this issue is silly. But if it's yours... sigh... fine.

But do it right: get out there, to your nearest seriously threatened D districts or to the nearest plausibly flippable R district (the suburbs are great for this), open up your damn wallets, and donate.

The FCC may very well be right that it's not their job to impose our dream portfolio of rules on Verizon (certainly, a lot of the rules people are claiming NN provided were fanciful). It doesn't matter how dreamlike the rules are: Congress can almost certainly enact a law, which the FCC can't revoke.

But otherwise, be clear-eyed: elections have consequences. We elected the party of deregulation. Take the bad with whatever the good is, and work to flip the House back.

Reply


@paiisgod 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙



@nusu 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

I wonder just one thing, why Google, Facebook, Amazon and Netflix didn't do real move about this?

Reply


@jgeerts 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Democracy is fundamentally broken, the examples go far and wide accross the globe.

Lobbies are winning from the population and governments don't give a damn about the people who put them in office.

How can we fix it?

Reply


@arstin 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Does anyone know about grassroots efforts to provide internet in major cities? Any links to follow updates or just for more info?

Being completely ignorant, it should be feasible with so many people in a few square miles.

I would absolutely contribute to an internet coop in Chicago were such a thing to get going. Even just to avoid the annual two hour phone calls to Comcast when I discover they added $100 worth of shit I didn't order to my bill without asking me.

Reply


@dpierce9 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Congress can override the FCC using the Congressional Review Act. Simple majority in each house. The CRA also prohibits the agency from introducing similar regulations ever again. Call your Congressperson! Particularly if your members are on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Reply


@drawkbox 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Unfortunately telcos have had a great year in power consolidation in spite of everyone's opinions or demands. Representatives in government have represented the ISPs/telcos over individual demands, voting in favor of their bribes over what nearly everyone wants.

Jeff Flake started this destruction in the senate where he pushed through the ISP privacy bill that allows them monopoly power and first rights to users info that they have no choice in excluding. Google/Facebook/Amazon earned your data by giving you a service you wanted, ISPs just default get it first now and you have NO CHOICE in the matter.

Ajit Pai has now handed the keys to the ISPs further in removing title II protections and common carrier status. Net neutrality is now gone.

Underneath all the madness of 2016/2017, telcos/ISPs have been slashing and burning the internet and privacy. They better hope competition is held back for some time because people will not forget this.

ISPs are not a service friendly to consumers who want fair internet or small/medium business that want fair representation in the markets.

Reply


@strayamaaate 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Democracy at its finest!

One minor positive is the requirement for disclosure, but time will tell if this is actually enforced.

As an Australian, I feel a mounting sense of fear that we’re next...

Reply


@trisimix 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

Inb4 rip that tmobile startup thing

Reply


@paiisgod 3 years

Replying to @panny 🎙

The Federal Communications Commission just ended net neutrality by a 3-2 vote despite a security threat that temporarily disrupted the proceedings. All this does is return things to the way they were back in 2015. You would think that with all the hysterics coming from the Jews, Silicon Valley and a variety of Marxist terrorists that this was the end of the world. It is not the end of the world. In fact, it is better that net neutrality regulations are repealed. It is interesting that the 3 men on the panel voted to repeal it and the 2 women on the panel voted against it. Women are by and large a bunch of idiots and don’t know shit about technology. Women who have tried to run large technology firms have failed. It only took Marissa Mayer a few years to destroy Yahoo and she got paid many millions of dollars for her efforts. The fact that we have women at this high of a level within the FCC is dumb beyond imagination.

Either way, it is good that net neutrality regulations are repealed. Net neutrality regulations have not prevented Internet censorship from the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter and other Silicon Valley firms. Of course, we didn’t see any of those leftists crying as these sites banned all sorts of people from their services for political reasons.

Repealing these rules also gives more incentive to new players entering the service provider market. More competition means more choices and more options.

The Internet was a better place in 2015. It is far worse now. This is just one step that will hopefully help improve things.

These leftist retards are going to look awfully silly when they’re still able to access the web like they did prior to this decision. It is funny to see the hysterics though. There’s a community meltdown happening on Twitter, Reddit and the other safe space social media sites as we speak.

Keep crying faggots!

Reply


About Us

site design / logo © 2021 Box Piper