So long Net Neutrality!

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And my other concern will be with censorship. We're starting to see politically motivated groups target advertisers of shows/websites/etc these days. We're seeing them target people on social media to get them banned. That's fine because there is competition online.

Now what happens when those mobs move toward the ISP. Let's say some political commentator says something terrible that offends people. Will ISPs bow to pressure from these mobs like TV networks and social media sites do? Will they block a site when we see things like "Comcast supports XXXXXXX" from angry politically motivated people?

Is it far fetched to think an ISP might block an anti-mormon site for it's Utah customers if enough people complain? What about a sensitive financial leak that uncovers crimes but also doxxes people (Panama Papers for instance)? What about extremely violent videos to "protect the kids"?

ISPs had an out when it came to content before. Now they get to be the content police. And when you're trying to sell overpriced internet packages to suburban families, you can't be seen as a company that let's your kid watch beheading videos with a few clicks.

I know they say they won't police content, but many companies have said that before. Reddit was going to be a bastion of free speech until it wasn't. Jack Dorsey proclaimed Twitter was "for freedom of expression and speaking truth to power" until it wasn't. Policing content online is an unwinnable war and when the one doing it now has a monopoly, it makes it even trickier.

You're right this is important. Its the most important discussion to be had in my view as it is a philosophical question. And I think people need to be able to disambiguate what they want vs what should be.

So I'd suggest that there are a couple of forms of censorship an ISP has to make (or make available to people) by its very position in the system.

1) Mass Blocking - Sites which can be considered actively malicious towards the internet ecosystem itself (DDoS attacks & other malicious use cases, etc) which is hopefully straightforward enough. The second are those sites which are performing illegal acts themselves. Now this is where precision matters. It is illegal to disseminate kiddie porn, it is not illegal to disseminate 2 dudes fighting in their backyard even though the content of both is illegal. This is where we are forced to rely on our government to make thoughtful & sober decisions on policy, because government is the only monopoly immune from the possibility of competition (if it chooses).


2) Individual Blocking - Most other forms of subjective censorship can be made by private citizens (you can do this already, and ISPs are making it easier to do). And to that end there can be outlets (including ISPs) offering block lists for people to (voluntarily) implement on their own home networks and/or devices. So porn sites, beheadings, and even political sites can be managed by people that don't want to run across them (or their kids). Is that method corruptible? Sure, everything is potentially corruptible.

But to think that you can ever censor all content you'll find inappropriate, is misguided. No different than thinking you can prevent speech you don't like. Which is why I think its bad business for social media sites (and ISPs) to try to be content police, rather than provide tools for people to do it themselves if they wish to. Its certainly their businesses to run, and I don't disagree they have an interest in setting a base decorum (in the case of social media) for the type of clientele they are trying to attract, but I do think it would be miscalculating backlash that will probably occur at some point if/when they overstep what people can say & do when it comes to politics or unpopular opinions they believe to be divisive, or "hate speech". Bad ideas are best to be shown for what they are, not banning them from being said.


This is more or less how it works today. And I wouldn't expect that to change. While it might sound conceivable, what real incentive would an ISP have to block what amounts to, constitutionally protected speech?

If you watch Fox News rail on MSNBC in a segment, you'll notice Comcast doesn't block Fox News from viewers watching that. And the same goes for competition, they don't block Fox News & CNN because they own MSNBC. Its bad business, so they don't do it. But they could drop those networks if they wanted to be anti-competitive, and its on some level conceivable to benefit them.

Not to mention the FCC going back to classifying them as Title II, but the actual legislative bodies may get involved at that point due to public backlash. Then things get real messy for ISPs. So no they do not have a vested interest in doing that when you take it out a vacuum.

[Atocep]

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...general-report

My question would be if the net neutrality repeal was such a good thing for consumers then why so much disinformation from the FCC?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...general-report

My question would be if the net neutrality repeal was such a good thing for consumers then why so much disinformation from the FCC?

FCC net neutrality process ‘corrupted’ by fake comments and vanishing consumer complaints, officials say - The Washington Post

This also seems odd to happen for something that is such a good thing for consumers to repeal an "irrelevant" regulation.

[RainMaker]

Comcast Accused (Again) of Billing Fraud | DSLReports, ISP Information

[Atocep]

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...-run-broadband

It just so happens Harvard conducted a study on community based internet. One interesting part of the article:

A new study out of Harvard once again makes it clear why incumbent ISPs like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T are so terrified by the idea of communities building their own broadband networks.

According to the new study by the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, community-owned broadband networks provide consumers with significantly lower rates than their private-sector counterparts.

The study examined data collected from 40 municipal broadband providers and private throughout 2015 and 2016. Pricing data was collected predominately by visiting carrier websites, where pricing is (quite intentionally) often hidden behind prequalification walls, since pricing varies dramatically based on regional competition.

In many markets, analysts couldn’t make direct comparisons with a private ISP, either because the ISP failed to meet the FCC’s 25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up standard definition of broadband (a problem for countless telcos who refuse to upgrade aging DSL lines), or because the ISP prequalification website terms of service “deterred or prohibited” data collection.

[Buccaneer]

I am not sure this is the appropriate thread but I marginally felt worth to mention that I finally took the plunge to subscribe to wsj.com. It had gotten to the point of being disgusted with cnn.com (which had been my regular 'news' source for a long time).

I did some digging and found this graph


I wanted a relatively objective, unbiased news site since I had given up on cnn (and no way I would even touch foxnews or even the networks). There are some good options but WSJ really stood out as being more trusted by both ends of the political spectrum. That's cool. Looking at the articles, I like what I saw.

I guess my point is that if it takes paying to get quality on the web, I will start doing so.

[cuervo72]

lol@buzzfeed

[Thomkal]

Senate votes to keep net neutrality



http://thehill.com/policy/technology...utrality-rules

[Atocep]

The most shocking news of the day. Right before the OIG report on the FCC hack is due to be released, Pai admits they weren't actually hacked. His story about being 100% in the dark about the non-hack is less believable than Trump's claim he didn't know about the Trump Tower meeting.


https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/06/fc...tually-hacked/

[Thomkal]

And blames Obama too. Amazing

[cuervo72]

Well, blames Obama for hiring Bray. Bray...well, he wasn’t my favorite (though he wasn’t a total fraud like the guy before him). Seemed more worried about getting his name out on social media and setting himself up for his next gig (which I’m not sure worked so well as he was there a lot longer than we expected he would be).

He also used our contract vehicle to hire a number of his peeps, some of whom were of questionable worth — while long-timers who were responsible for actual systems were jettisoned.

So yeah, I’m good with Pai throwing him under the bus.

[Atocep]

It's almost like everything we were told by the FCC and Big Telecoms was bullshit.

FCC accused of colluding with Big Cable to game 5G legal challenge • The Register

"It has come to our attention that certain individuals at the FCC may have urged companies to challenge the order the Commission adopted in order to game the judicial lottery procedure and intimated the agency would look unfavorably towards entities that were not helpful," it reads.

In effect, the letter alleges that FCC staff – almost certainly from Pai's office – put pressure on the big telcos to challenge an order that is designed to benefit them as a way of gaming the judicial system so the case didn't end up in a court likely to overturn it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Harvard Study Shows Why Big Telecom Is Terrified of Community-Run Broadband - Motherboard

It just so happens Harvard conducted a study on community based internet. One interesting part of the article:

I missed this previously but all I can say is that I suspect some cherry picking went on. I've seen three of those "municipal" systems in action. All three were notoriously overpriced & undercapable.

And 2 of the 3 still managed to lose taxpayer money in the process.

[RainMaker]

Also it appears all those good things that were supposed to happen after net neutrality was revoked didn't happen.

It's Now Clear None of the Supposed Benefits of Killing Net Neutrality Are Real - Motherboard

[sterlingice]

Biggest ISPs paid for 8.5 million fake FCC comments opposing net neutrality | Ars Technica

In something that probably surprises no one here, yeah the vast majority of net neutrality comments on the FCC page were fake. Heck, that story came out a couple of years ago.

Two things that aren't really surprising but are of note:
1) Known industry stooge Ajit Pai tried to block evidence collection about this
2) Industry paid for at least 8 million of the fake comments, including using real names

Nearly 18 million out of 22 million comments were fabricated, including both pro- and anti-net neutrality submissions, the report said. One 19-year-old submitted 7.7 million pro-net neutrality comments under fake, randomly generated names. But the astroturfing effort funded by the broadband industry stood out because it used real people's names without their consent, with third-party firms hired by the industry faking consent records, the report said.


The NY AG's office began its investigation in 2017 and said it faced stonewalling from then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who refused requests for evidence. But after a years-long process of obtaining and analyzing "tens of thousands of internal emails, planning documents, bank records, invoices, and data comprising hundreds of millions of records," the NY AG said it "found that millions of fake comments were submitted through a secret campaign, funded by the country's largest broadband companies, to manufacture support for the repeal of existing net neutrality rules using lead generators."


It was clear before Pai completed the repeal in December 2017 that millions of people—including dead people—were impersonated in net neutrality comments. Even industry-funded research found that 98.5 percent of genuine comments opposed Pai's deregulatory plan. But today's report reveals more details about how many comments were fake and how the broadband industry was involved.

SI

[PilotMan]

So it's been 5 years, what has the result been?

[Kodos]

The internet is now working perfectly. No problems!

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

So it's been 5 years, what has the result been?

Data caps, very little high speed internet growth, and lobbying to prevent increasing the definition of high speed internet.

With Google fiber no threat to come down into my area my internet speeds haven't increased in these 5 years.

We haven't seen paid tiers of internet or special packages offered by ISP's as was feared, but we also haven't seen any changes at all really. Just put some caps on people's data and call it a day.

One thing that has changed is my bill. I'm now paying $135 a month just for internet.

[dubb93]

Can agree. My bill has atleast doubled if not tripled. There have been zero new providers enter the area either with at least one pulling out (Verizon transferred all customer accounts to Frontier who just lost a lawsuit with the AG for not providing advertised speeds.) All that said I can't rally complain. My neighbors are cows and fields, yet I have access to Comcast internet at least. If they ever leave the area no one in the county would have access to high-speed internet though, which kind of seems like a problem.

[Edward64]

We had Comcast and switched to AT&T for flat monthly fee of $50.

Don't remember the speeds or GB allowed, but it's sufficient for our internet and streaming purposes.

[Sweed]

Small town NW Iowa and nothing much has changed other than caps and price increases.

I may be lucky as a local company is bringing fiber to our town. Starting downtown with businesses and neighborhoods that branch off of that. I live in the area that can get it. They'll run fiber to the house at no charge even if you don't commit to using their service.

If I switch to their service I will save about $20-25 per month, have no caps, speed will stay the same. For $10 more the speed will double. Along with that the price is guaranteed for life. Currently pay $104, new price ~$80. ~$90 if I want to double the speed. With the lifetime price I think I'll stay ahead of the game, pay the extra $10, and take the extra speed. Still about $14 cheaper than I pay now.

[sovereignstar v2]

I would lose my shit if I had a data cap.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar v2

I would lose my shit if I had a data cap.

I have to pay extra to not have one.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar v2

I would lose my shit if I had a data cap.

Me too. With 5 data consuming adults in the house. But I also pay a small fortune each month, despite Cincinnati Bell Fiber just going in in our neighborhood, and yeah, in the past 5 years, my bill has gone up probably 35%.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I have to pay extra to not have one.

I do as well, which is why I pay $135 a month just for internet. The caps were made official 5 years ago and it started out as a 1TB cap. Despite 4K video, streaming, and work from home booming in those 5 years Comcast has only raised the cap to 1.2TB.

[RainMaker]

I now have a data cap. It's 1.2 TB which I haven't gone over, but I also have cable. If I were streaming constantly, it'd probably be real close. And if I had a big family, it would definitely be over.

Seems like the strategy is to punish cord cutters and make them pay an extra $30-$50/month.

From a net neutrality standpoint, a lot of the damage is behind the scenes. It's made it near impossible to self-host your e-mail. Smaller streaming companies have been hampered by having to pay the ransom to large ISPs.

It's mostly turned the internet into an oligopoly which sucks for innovation.

[RainMaker]

And this might not matter to some, but these changes have lowered the quality of streaming and made 4K HDR streaming quite pointless. Netflix is the biggest culprit here as they've lowered bitrate to some incredibly low levels. You're better off pirating something (if it exists in blu-ray) and watching it that way.

Some of that is to save money, but a big reason is that there are so many cord cutters with data caps that it was hurting their retention rates. Apple is the only streaming service I know of that has not made drastic cuts. But they're also a "quality over quantity" service and likely have less viewed hours per customer.

[flere-imsaho]

Data caps are so nakedly anti-consumer it's not even funny. There are two options for dealing with increased consumer usage:

1. Invest in infrastructure.

2. Put in a data cap.

The first costs money, the second makes you money.


I suppose one could argue that competition could give rise to offerings without caps, but I live in suburban Chicagoland and we just went from 3 providers to 2, so....

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Data caps are so nakedly anti-consumer it's not even funny. There are two options for dealing with increased consumer usage:

1. Invest in infrastructure.

2. Put in a data cap.

The first costs money, the second makes you money.


I suppose one could argue that competition could give rise to offerings without caps, but I live in suburban Chicagoland and we just went from 3 providers to 2, so....

I honestly don't even know if data caps are actually because of limits to infrastructure, or if it isn't just another way to suck more money out of peoples pockets.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I honestly don't even know if data caps are actually because of limits to infrastructure, or if it isn't just another way to suck more money out of peoples pockets.

Covid proved it has nothing to do with managing their network. They were able to handle the surge of people staying and working from home just fine.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, I was being generous there.

[RainMaker]

It has nothing to do with capacity. I think their CTO even stated during an interview that the data caps were not a capacity issue. It was to punish cord cutters.

I guess as long as this is the net neutrality thread, companies are going to set up special exceptions for political spam.

Gmail will start spam-proofing political fundraising emails this week - The Verge

[Atocep]

Comcast announced about a month ago that they were tripling our top speed to 1.2 Gbs

This week they announced they're raising their rates

[sovereignstar v2]

I see the companies that were responsible for the fraudulent SEC comments back in 2017 got the tiniest fines ever. White collar crime FTW

New York AG fines companies that spammed FCC with fake anti-net neutrality comments | Engadget