FCC Votes To Restore Net Neutrality Rules (nytimes.com) 54
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to restore regulations that expand government oversight of broadband providersand aim to protect consumer access to the internet, a move that will reignite a long-running battle over the open internet. Known as net neutrality, the regulations were first put in place nearly a decade ago under the Obama administration and are aimed at preventing internet service providers like Verizon or Comcast from blocking or degrading the delivery of services from competitors like Netflix and YouTube. The rules were repealed under President Donald J. Trump, and have proved to be a contentious partisan issue over the years while pitting tech giants against broadband providers.
In a 3-to-2 vote along party lines, the five-member commission appointed by President Biden revived the rules that declare broadband a utility-like service regulated like phones and water. The rules also give the F.C.C. the ability to demand broadband providers report and respond to outages, as well as expand the agency's oversight of the providers' security issues. Broadband providers are expected to sue to try to overturn the reinstated rules.
The core purpose of the regulations is to prevent internet service providers from controlling the quality of consumers' experience when they visit websites and use services online. When the rules were established, Google, Netflix and other online services warned that broadband providers had the incentive to slow down or block access to their services. Consumer and free speech groups supported this view. There have been few examples of blocking or slowing of sites, which proponents of net neutrality say is largely because of fear that the companies would invite scrutiny if they did so. And opponents say the rules could lead to more and unnecessary government oversight of the industry.
In a 3-to-2 vote along party lines, the five-member commission appointed by President Biden revived the rules that declare broadband a utility-like service regulated like phones and water. The rules also give the F.C.C. the ability to demand broadband providers report and respond to outages, as well as expand the agency's oversight of the providers' security issues. Broadband providers are expected to sue to try to overturn the reinstated rules.
The core purpose of the regulations is to prevent internet service providers from controlling the quality of consumers' experience when they visit websites and use services online. When the rules were established, Google, Netflix and other online services warned that broadband providers had the incentive to slow down or block access to their services. Consumer and free speech groups supported this view. There have been few examples of blocking or slowing of sites, which proponents of net neutrality say is largely because of fear that the companies would invite scrutiny if they did so. And opponents say the rules could lead to more and unnecessary government oversight of the industry.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Only conservatives were saying that. It was a dumb, bad faith argument meant to muddy the waters. They aren't an honest group
Re: (Score:1)
Re:"Net neutrality" misinterpreted in how many day (Score:5, Insightful)
It's supposed to be about neutrality of network Packets, not packet origin (although one necessarily leads to the other, just not vice versa)
You have that backwards. The original purpose was neutrality of packet origin. The concern being addressed was that ISPs, which had become or bought media companies (or vice versa), would hamper users' connections to competing media providers, thus driving users to the ISP's own media arms. It was meant to be protection from the common anticompetitive behavior of leveraging a company's share in one market to gain share in another market.
Re: (Score:2)
You have that backwards. The original purpose was neutrality of packet origin. The concern being addressed was that ISPs, which had become or bought media companies (or vice versa), would hamper users' connections to competing media providers, thus driving users to the ISP's own media arms.
Right. There might have been some back room dickering about transit costs, that is who pays for the network. Thing is, in eras both with and without NN regulation, I don't know there are any documented cases of ISPs actually blocking access to competing content providers. At this point the major ISPs seem to have given up on the idea of vertical integration so NN seems a moot point to me. NN is a solution looking for a problem.
That's what frustrates me here. I thought the whole point of the rule making proc
Re:"Net neutrality" misinterpreted in how many day (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know there are any documented cases of ISPs actually blocking access to competing content providers.
There have been cases of ISPs throttling content providers, e.g.: Verizon throttling Netflix, and may cases of "fast lanes" and exemptions from bandwidth caps. Here's [freepress.net] a list.
Re: (Score:1)
The spirit of the legislation will make further legislation easier since the the idea that the private sector will/must regulate itself is ridiculous. The reasons given for net neutrality included election tampering, foreign state hacking, which several members of congress at the time took great pains to discredit as the private sector was to be left alone to handle issues like these.
Again? (Score:2)
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
It is only 3-4 items down on the front page...
Re: (Score:2)
I think the first article was about the impending vote. This one is saying it cleared.
Net neutrality (Score:2, Insightful)
Weren’t the republicans the ones squealing when social media was blocking them. Yet they are against net neutrality. Maybe we should lift net neutrality so that ISPs can block traffic to right wing terrorist websites.
I didn't see any of that (Score:3, Insightful)
That's protests. There were some minor riots and burned cars after the last super bowl, if that's what you mean. B
Re: (Score:1)
Oh I get it, the whole past erasing thing. The last few were peaceful, ergo the other side is now the bad guys and the other side is vindicated!
All that's happened is the shoe has dropped for the bad behavior, and they aren't going to tolerate the riots, murder and destruction they did before. Being good for a couple years doesn't mean you suddenly get free reign again.
Like I said, stop turning this into a left vs right thing. It's a bad behavior thing, regardless of your political views. Now they're tired
You should try clicking the links (Score:2, Informative)
Remember the words left and right in a political context come from the left and right wings of the French assembly during their revolution. The right wing were monarchists and the left wing w
Re: (Score:2)
You're avoiding common ground. I disagree with anything violent done by the right side, or the left side, but you went back to 'but the left side is better because blah blah blah'.
That speaks volumes.
I'm done with this conversation but here's why. Anytime I independently look up information that validates the right side is not the boogey man and goes against the narrative, lefties coming pouring out going 'Nuh uhh, nooo! The right are bad men! nooo!' and okay, let's look into that. If I get absolute proof o
Re: (Score:1)
DEmanding justice for murdered men in handcuffs is lawful protest.
Re: (Score:2)
and for another the Supreme Court just shut down pretty much all left wing protests [aclu.org] since if literally *anything* goes south the organizes can be held liable
I read the article you linked, it doesn't say that. In fact, Sotomayor says almost the opposite in her accompanying statement. It looks like this will likely continue to be hashed out in lower courts for a while, but it doesn't seem to be a cause for alarm.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"social media" or more simply put, lots of websites... do block them.
Subtly or overtly.
Youtube suspends channels that they don't like for reasons they steadfastly refuse to disclose. I've seen numerous channel owners demanding to know why they had a strike against a video or the channel in general and instead of saying, "we don't like your kind." it's something along the lines of "we can't disclose that information. If they pressed beyond that, the most they got was "because you might use it to change your
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't the republicans the ones squealing when social media was blocking them.
Actually, I think the greater irony was how the Republicans made a big stink about being deplatformed from Twitter and Facebook, and how social media is "the new town square" - then they proceeded to pass legislation that will potentially deplatform the entire userbase of TikTok. Rules for thee, not for me.
Regardless of the partisan bickering, NN for the most part ended up being a nothingburger either way. Turns out that while the market certainly could nickel and dime "fast lane" access, that really only
Re: (Score:3)
Comparing a national security issue like banning all users from tiktok to twitter and facebook de-platforming some users for political affiliation shows that you are either dishonest or don't understand the issues involved. Even democrats are for changing the leadership of or banning tiktok. https://www.axios.com/2024/04/... [axios.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly what net neutrality is, without net neutrality companies can hinder access to certain sites such as Netflix unless you pay extra or if the company has a contract with say Paramount they could block Netflix entirely.
Net Neutrality (Score:3)
This has nothing to do with content, it's preventing ISPs from charging based on what services you use, which has never happened.
The more interesting effect of this would be another example for the supreme court to consider in killing the Chevron deference. This started in the early 80s with a supreme court case that said, if a federal regulation is vague, a court should defer to whatever the relevant federal agency's interpretation of that regulation is. A big part of that, though, is the interpretation ha
Re: (Score:1)
Content is a service. What would you call say blocking access to Rumble or Truth Social and charging extra for it?
Pay no attention. it's not really "net neutrality" (Score:1)
The only thing that can be called net neutrality is a dumb pipe, and we're not getting that, so the whole thing is a bullshit distraction. Besides, without real legislation by congress, it's just a temporary measure anyway
I am conflicted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm conservative as well, and I support the idea of net neutrality. I'm concerned about it's implication as well. Often I don't feel the government, given the actions they've taken of late are actually doing it so that users aren't gouged for special traffic and other bad anti-consumer behaviors. I think it has broader implications than what we think it does.
My concern is the way it's being pushed in is that government as far more oversight into what people are doing online, and ISPs will have to report it
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality only works if the network becomes a utility. There's a good argument that it should effectively be that way, and even if wouldn't result in ideal outcomes, the existing providers have already effectively captured the system that's supposed to regulate them and are just using it to extract more money from the taxpayers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As a conservative,
Here we go...
it might surprise you to say that I'm in favor of net neutrality, and this is an area of where I disagree with a lot of other conservatives. I know I'm not alone though. There are multiple Republicans who joined Democrats in trying to codify this into law, and I stood by that effort as well. This is one of those areas where I see a place for bipartisan support.
Sounds entirely reasonable...
Although I am behind the spirit of this, and understand why this is needed, what I don't stand by is the way this is being implemented. This business of circumventing failed legislation like this is not the right way to to effect change. Despite being for it, I will stand by the inevitable overturning of this when Republicans retake FCC majority. Congress needs to get back to legislating. Yes, it is hard and purposefully so. This however, is disappointing to see.
And there it is. So you want net neutrality but you'll still vote for the people who will fuck it up? Sounds like the Log Cabin Republicans who were shocked they weren't welcome to the RNC https://www.texastribune.org/2... [texastribune.org] But take a wild guess how they will vote when the time comes.
Re: (Score:2)
And there it is. So you want net neutrality but you'll still vote for the people who will fuck it up? Sounds like the Log Cabin Republicans who were shocked they weren't welcome to the RNC https://www.texastribune.org/2 [texastribune.org]... But take a wild guess how they will vote when the time comes.
I support free market and also generally oppose government regulation. I'm also intellectually honest enough to recognize that opposition to net neutrality (NN) is opposite to my conservative principles, since NN's aim is to maintain an open and competitive internet market. NN is important to me not just in principle, but because internet service providers have proven time and time again that it is indeed necessary to protect many of our freedoms.
I would be glad to return to a day where we can see more of
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if you really give a shit about Congress legislating, do something about your party doing little more than electing terrorists and obstructing all legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Ad Blockers (Score:2)
You mean like how Youtube degrades your service when the browser had an Ad Blocker?
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like how Youtube degrades your service when the browser had an Ad Blocker?
Nope, not like that. YouTube isn't a telco, so they're still free to run their site how they please.
Glad to see this back!!!! (Score:1)
Several years ago (around 2007), a video blog called Rocketboom hosted by Amanda Congdon did an episode on Net Neutrality, what it means, and what a future might be like if it went away. https://youtu.be/SPap8ijDv5g?s... [youtu.be]
This was a great take on the subject and should be required for all in Washington that think the internet is a series of tubes, or something close to that.
Years before this I had an argument with Comcast where they were trying to tell me what I could and could not put behind their cable mod
A / B test (Score:2)
So we had a number of years with the laws in place, and then a number of years after they were repealed. Did abuses occur that proved the need for the law? (That's an actual question)
Re: (Score:1)
My understanding is that this has not occured. I saw some discussion from the FTC (hearing maybe???), but cannot find it.
From a free speech perspective, content providers and the government (both federal and increasingly state) are the big players -- although freedom of porn is not necessarily a hill I want to die on.
From a personal perspective - lack of real competion for my Internet provider and increasingly excessive biils, means a lot more to me than this. Although, appointed executive dweebs should not