USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!!

[Peter Lemkin]

The FCC just killed net neutrality

It's over

By Jacob Kastrenakes Dec 14, 2017, 1:12pm EST

Illustration by Alex Castro / The VergeNet neutrality is dead at least for now. In a 3-2 vote today, the Federal Communications Commission approved a measure to remove the tough net neutrality rules it put in place just two years ago. Those rules prevented internet providers from blocking and throttling traffic and offering paid fast lanes. They also classified internet providers as Title II common carriers in order to give the measure strong legal backing.
Today's vote undoes all of that. It removes the Title II designation, preventing the FCC from putting tough net neutrality rules in place even if it wanted to. And, it turns out, the Republicans now in charge of the FCC really don't want to. The new rules largely don't prevent internet providers from doing anything. They can block, throttle, and prioritize content if they wish to. The only real rule is that they have to publicly state that they're going to do it.
ADVOCATES SAY INTERNET PROVIDERS WILL PRIORITIZE THEIR OWN CONTENT OVER THEIR COMPETITORS
Opponents of net neutrality argue that the rules were never needed in the first place, because the internet has been doing just fine. "The internet wasn't broken in 2015. We were not living in some digital dystopia," commission chairman Ajit Pai said today. "The main problem consumers have with the internet is not and has never been that their internet provider is blocking access to content. It's been that they don't have access at all."
While that may broadly be true, it's false to say that all of the harms these rules were preventing are imagined: even with the rules in place, we saw companies block their customers from accessing competing apps, and we saw companies implement policies that clearly advantage some internet services over others. Without any rules in place, they'll have free rein to do that to an even greater extent.

READ THE DISSENTING STATEMENTS OF THE DEMOCRATIC FCC COMMISSIONERS

Supporters of net neutrality have long argued that, without these rules, internet providers will be able to control traffic in all kinds of anti-competitive ways. Many internet providers now own content companies (see Comcast and NBCUniversal), and they may seek to advantage their own content in order to get more eyes on it, ultimately making it more valuable. Meanwhile, existing behaviors like zero-rating (where certain services don't count toward your data cap) already encourage usage of some programs over others. If during the early days of Netflix, you were free to stream your phone carrier's movie service instead, we might not have the transformational TV and movie company it's turned into today.
One of the two Democrats on the commission, Jessica Rosenworcel, called today's vote a "rash decision" that puts the FCC "on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the American public." This vote, Rosenworcel says, gives internet providers the "green light to go ahead" and "discriminate and manipulate your internet traffic," something she says they have a business incentive to do.
"THIS IS NOT GOOD. NOT GOOD FOR CONSUMERS. NOT GOOD FOR BUSINESSES."
"​This is not good," Rosenworcel says. "Not good for consumers. Not good for businesses. Not good for anyone who connects and creates online."
Commissioner Clyburn, the other Democrat, said the implications of today's vote are "particularly damning ... for marginalized groups, like communities of color, that rely on platforms like the internet to communicate." No one will be able to stop internet providers if they allow the social media services these groups rely on to slow down, blocking the dissemination of information, Clyburn said.

WHAT PUBLIC LIBRARIES WILL LOSE WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY

Both Rosenworcel and Clyburn also criticized the FCC's handling of the public comment period that proceeded this vote, saying that the administration acted inappropriately in ignoring millions of voices in support of net neutrality. "It is abundantly clear why we see so much bad process with this item: because the fix was already in," Clyburn said. Rosenworcel said the commission showed a "cavalier disregard" for the public and a "contempt" for citizens speaking up.
The vote comes after a contentious and messy public comment period. After opening the proposal up for feedback earlier this year, the commission received a record-breaking 22 million comments. But many of those comments were spam 7.5 million, according to the commission and the FCC has refused to help investigations into what happened. The commission was also quiet about website problems that caused its comment form to crash briefly in May.
THE FCC CAN EXPECT A LAWSUIT
Those comments are likely to play a role in whatever lawsuit hits following this vote. Net neutrality supporters are almost certain to sue the commission in an attempt to invalidate this proceeding and restore the 2015 net neutrality rules. While the commission is allowed to change its mind, it isn't allowed to change rules for "arbitrary and capricious" reasons. In court, the FCC will have to prove that enough has changed since 2015, and that there's enough evidence in the record of comments, to back up the conclusion that it ought to revoke net neutrality.

NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS FCC'S NET NEUTRALITY VOTE WOULD COME AFTER A "CORRUPTED" COMMENTS PROCESS

Since the beginning of this proceeding, the commission has made it very clear that it isn't really interested in most public comments either, despite a requirement to accept and consider them. The commission has stated time and again that it only values legal arguments, so we may see complaints that millions of consumer comments were ignored. Even if they don't include the spam, the net neutrality proceeding was still the most commented ever at the commission.
This is the first time in more than a decade that the FCC has actually been opposed to net neutrality. The FCC has been promoting open internet rules since the mid-2000s, though it wasn't until 2010 that they were turned into formal regulations. In 2014, those were overturned in court after the FCC was sued by Verizon. The court said that the FCC could try again using Title II, and so it did that in 2015. Those rules, which have been in place for two years, are the ones getting overturned today.
YOU WON'T SEE MAJOR CHANGES OVERNIGHT
The vote ran over over an hour, with extensive speeches from the five commissioners, particularly from the two dissenting Democrats. In an highly unusual moment, the commission's meeting room was evacuated briefly "on advice of security." Cameras that remained on and streaming showed dogs being brought in to search the room.
Now that the vote is over, the commission will take a few weeks to make final adjustments to the rules. They'll then be filed with the Federal Register and appear there in a few months. At that point, net neutrality will officially be off the books, and these new rules (or really, the absence of any) will take effect.
So what can you expect to change now that net neutrality is over? Not all that much not overnight, at least. Rather than large swaths of the internet suddenly becoming unavailable or only offered for a fee, internet providers will likely continue to explore subtler methods of advantaging themselves and their partners, like offering data to use certain services for free or speeding up delivery of their own content.
These are things that may initially sound good. But in the long run, they disadvantage upstarts that don't have the money to pay up. The problem is that, eventually, we may not know what products and services we missed out on because they never made it through the mess.




Net neutrality is dead. It's time to fear Mickey Mouse




By T.C. Sottek Dec 14, 2017, 3:18pm EST



It's a red letter day for the media industry. Disney just took control of 21st Century Fox's media empire, and the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal net neutralityregulations that prevent internet providers from discriminatory behavior. These two industry-shaking events will set media companies on a dramatic collision course with ISPs. It is the conflict that threatens the internet.
THE DEATH OF NET NEUTRALITY WILL NOT LOOK LIKE AN APOCALYPSE
This week you might have seen lots of talk about fast and slow lanes, blocked websites, and the end of the internet. But the death of net neutrality is not going to look like a sudden apocalypse. It's going to look more like things we've already seen: data caps, "free" data for apps, and service bundling, like an AT&T mobile plan that comes with HBO. These schemes will change the internet slowly, and they might even seem boring.

[URL="https://twitter.com/cwarzel/status/941374503417872384"]
[/URL]
[URL="https://twitter.com/cwarzel"]Charlie Warzel
@cwarzel[/URL]


the most unsettling thing to me about net neutrality news is that now i'm probably not gonna know it right away if something fucked up happens because it'll be complicated sounding and opaque and probably boring
7:29 PM - Dec 14, 2017

• [URL="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=941374503417872384"]
  77 Replies[/URL]
  
• [URL="https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=941374503417872384"]
  5050 Retweets[/URL]
  
• [URL="https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=941374503417872384"]
  151151 likes[/URL]
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy








More and more of these little schemes will add up over time as ISPs merge with more media companies and own more content. These mergers will create huge conflicts of interest, because companies that own access to the internet will be tempted to rig it in favor of their own shows and services. Some of these schemes will show up on an internet bill, while others will be decided in backroom corporate warfare that leaves customers stuck in the middle and in the dark. The next Comcast versus Netflix might be Comcast versus Disney.
So let's talk about Disney. Combined with Fox, it now has massive leverage over the content industry. It can use that leverage to compete with Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, because, like Disney, those ISPs are trying to sell people their own video services. Because Disney now owns so much content, other media companies have greater incentive to consolidate to improve their bargaining positions. And ISPs have greater incentive to merge with media companies so they can reap profit from the content that travels on their networks. It's an escalating cycle of consolidation.
Here are some obvious conflicts that have already resulted from the Disney merger:

• Disney now has a controlling stake in Hulu
  
• Hulu was jointly owned by Disney (30%), Fox (30%), Comcast (30%) and Time Warner(10%) to compete with YouTube; now Disney owns more than both Comcast and Time Warner combined
  
• Comcast owns NBCUniversal, which broadcasts shows on Hulu
  
• Time Warner is about to be owned by AT&T, which is a competitor of Comcast
  
• Time Warner is a competitor of both NBC and Disney
  
• Comcast and AT&T control the network that people use to watch content from Disney, Time Warner, and NBC
  
• (This is just a fun place to put this disclosure: Comcast's NBCU division is a minority investor in Vox Media, which owns The Verge.)
  

If this all sounds confusing to you, that's because it's confusing. In this world of mergers and overlapping conglomerates, the internet will be a pawn between companies that want to sell you television.
Net neutrality regulations kept ISPs from the worst possible discriminatory behaviors, including paid prioritization, throttling traffic, and blocking websites or services completely. But ISPs quickly pushed these limits after the 2015 Open Internet Order went into effect, and they faced no consequences. The Republican FCC that just killed net neutrality said that all of this represented "hypothetical harm," which is a lie, because there's real evidence that ISPs are already trying to do these things.
T-Mobile discriminated between types of content by giving customers unlimited access to music, and then video, from huge media brands. It even throttled video traffic and misled consumers about it, calling the practice "optimization." AT&T zero-rated DirecTV data, discriminating against other video distributors. Verizon similarly zero-rated its Go90 video service. A report under Chairman Tom Wheeler's FCC said AT&T and Verizon's zero-rating programs violated net neutrality, but that inquiry was dropped by current FCC chairman Ajit Pai.
ISP CONGLOMERATES HAVE MASSIVE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Compounding the problem is that most people have terrible choices for internet service in America, if they even have a choice at all. That means a lot of customers are trapped by their ISP: if Comcast makes a deal you don't like, and it's your only choice for ISP, there's nothing you can do about it. This gives the ISPs a ton of leverage against competitors, because they can't send their content through other providers to reach their customers. The reason Comcast had so much leverage against Netflix is because many of Comcast's customers couldn't get Netflix from anyone else.
Vertically integrated ISPs like Comcast and Verizon have huge incentives to make up for the decline in cable television revenue by making the internet more like cable, and they are already working on that by bundling video services with internet plans. (ISPs are also buying internet companies to compete with Google and Facebook, creating even more conflicts of interest.) Think about it: why wouldn't you privilege the media companies you own if your customers have few or no choices about where to buy their internet service?
US regulators have publicly recognized the threat of consolidation with their actions, even if they still allow these hugely problematic mergers to occur. A consequence of Comcast buying NBCUniversal was that Comcast had to enter a consent decree that enforced net neutrality rules to make sure it didn't put NBC's competitors at a disadvantage. But that decree ends in 2018 just as the FCC's net neutrality regulations are also eliminated. Comcast has promised it won't behave badly, but without regulation all we have is trust. Comcast has not earned that trust.
The net neutrality discussion is fundamentally about how speech ought to be treated in a free society. The vision that was given the force of law in the FCC's Open Internet Order required ISPs to play fairly: to treat all traffic the same and let their customers decide what to say and where to go without coercion from the operators of the utility.
So this is the threat to the internet: media companies and ISPs are consolidating at an alarming scale, these arrangements create massive conflicts of interest, and these conflicts of interest threaten the integrity of the internet without vital fairness regulations. We can't talk about net neutrality anymore without talking about Mickey Mouse.