18 ms·

The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

299 points by sinak 9y ago

hplust 9y ago
Here is the EFF link [0] that provides additional information and also provides methods of contacting your local government officials to take action. Please send this along! [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/fcc-wants-eliminate-net-neutrality-protections-we-cant-let-happen https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/fcc-wants-eliminate-ne...
- IAmGarrett 9y ago
  This whole battle has felt like the consumers versus the ISP's. Is there economic advantages to consumers if Net Neutrality is eliminated?
  - marricks 9y ago
    "You wont have the government standing between you and your internet!" is the response I've seen around. I'd really love to see if there was any legit defense of this action though...
    - __jal 9y ago
      You also won't have to arm-wrestle a feral badger to check your email! This is yuge, because badgers don't have arms. Don't you see what a difference this will make?
  - zanny 9y ago
    They get things like the Binge On program T-Mobile did. Which was really not beneificial to consumers either, but consumers can perceive it as such - ie, T-Mobile knew they had revenues in excess of the cost of subsidizing favored video and music streaming services, so they made them not count for the data cap they put on their customers. They spin the story to be their great charity in giving away all this data, when the reality was the cost of operating their network was sufficiently low enough they could be providing unlimited bandwidth (or just substantially higher caps) while still profiting, but would rather have the best of both worlds where large media consumers use their platform for the cherry picked unlimited while still exploiting their customer base on every other network attached service they use. Naturally, ISPs (if they care enough to do so) can spin their money grabs as giving away popular services for free (often after said services paid them off) while simultaneously limiting data or bandwidth for everything else. Anything but the dumb pipe ethernet grid is a money grab. Hell, fixed data speeds we have now are money grabs. The reality is that there is a variable amount of bandwidth in a given network, and if ISPs were not exploitative they would guarantee a minimum speed but allow users to saturate the network as much as they can, because that is how the reality of the network operates. As it is, you get somewhere between 0 and your cap speed and are artificially throttled at the cap through anti-consumer behavior they can get away with because there is no competition in infrastructure.
  - rlabrecque 9y ago
    Sure, if you're investing in $CMCSA then this would be pretty good news for you. Otherwise...
  - tw04 9y ago
    Sure - you'll get video streaming from content providers who are able to pay large sums of money without hitting against the artificial caps currently in place. Of course, that also means it'll kill any competitors not willing or able to pay the same extortion, so in the end you'll have less choice, but at least you'll have saved money. Except you won't really save money because once the current administration allows further consolidation in the wireless sector, prices will rise with authority.
    - leereeves 9y ago
      Cable TV 2.0, now available via Comcast.
    - problems 9y ago
      > Of course, that also means it'll kill any competitors not willing or able to pay the same extortion, so in the end you'll have less choice, but at least you'll have saved money. You might save a few bucks in the short run, but lack of competition doesn't tend to be good for markets - especially ones which can rapidly change like online services. Less choice generally means you're paying more.
  - hdespiritu 9y ago
    The major change will likely be companies relying more heavily on user bandwidth through p2p applications, p2p content delivery networks, etc.
  - s73ver 9y ago
    Not in the least.
  - dv_dt 9y ago
    They get submarined costs from both their ISP and any services that come over the network with no market visibility or competitiveness to allow customers to switch away from bad product mixes.
notadoc 9y ago
How, specifically, is this helpful to the consumer or to the internet in general?
- MS_Buys_Upvotes 9y ago
  It's not. Not to get too political but there are two groups: "the people" and "business". Watch every decision the current administration makes. It's helpful for "business" and hurts "the people". This is the opposite of what most people think it should be.
  - vijayr 9y ago
    In the (very) short run, yes what you say makes sense. How does it make sense in the long run? "Business" can't exist without "the people", right? If I don't have money to buy shit then I can't be a good consumer, what are they going to sell to me then? Replace I with millions of people, then what?
    - ue_ 9y ago
      You're quite leading onto an important point with this - businesses require wage labour, capitalism does on a large scale - in order to make sure that there is a large number of people who are able to buy products. Periods of increasing automation means that there are fewer people employed in the old jobs, so they have to be repurposed, or learn new skills. Too much of this is bad for property owners, so there is also a long-term incentive to keep automation growth at a certain level. But that doesn't mean that people are thrown under the bus - that's a view without nuance. Governments recognise that business can only work when there is a certain degree of freedom to the people (a "double freedom" as Marx put it), and this is done mostly or even wholly for the purpose of ensuring this constant flow of capital. As such, the nuanced view is that while it is capital versus "the people" (wage labourers), to protect the status of capital, "the people" must be afforded certain freedoms, or things break down.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    > Watch every decision the current administration makes. Just the current administration, or democracies around the world? It's a fact that capital rules economy and by extension our lives. Why do you think it would be any different under Obama, Hillary, Lincoln, Thatcher, Blair, Castro, Kim Jong Un or Abe? The kind of democracy we have is bourgeois democracy - in place to protect the intersts of those owners of private property, thereby to assure functioning also protecting to some extent those interests of the people, to afford them the freedom necessary under capitalism, but no more. It's not an issue of people v business, it's an issue of capital, which rules every country. It's not even businesses, it's capital itself.
sinak 9y ago
Here is the "fact sheet" that Ajit Pai distributed at the event at the Newseum today: https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/857288519227756554 https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/85728851922775655... Also of note, YC, TechStars and Engine Advocacy released their "Startups for Net Neutrality" letter to Pai this morning: http://www.engine.is/startups-for-net-neutrality http://www.engine.is/startups-for-net-neutrality
- glitcher 9y ago
  The bullet points under the section "A New Approach" of that fact sheet seem like pure political rhetoric. Where is the evidence to support the legitimacy of any of those claims???
  - TearsInTheRain 9y ago
    I think the evidence is implicit in the fact that the opposite of those things happened when net neutrality was put in place
    - pseudalopex 9y ago
      That's anything but a fact. Investment increased overall.[1] The FCC classified ISPs as "telecommunications services", same as now, until the mid-2000s. That's the framework that worked well for decades. The one Pai wants is the one that killed competition. The FCC issued network neutrality regulations in 2010 because ISPs had started to violate the guidelines the FCC unanimously approved in 2005. They only invoked Title II after ISPs sued to block the 2010 regulations. Privacy regulation wasn't a problem until Congress removed the FCC's authority, and they could easily give the FTC the necessary authority without re-re-re-classifying ISPs. [1] https://consumerist.com/2017/02/28/fcc-chair-claims-broadband-investment-at-historic-low-level-because-of-net-neutrality-thats-not-what-the-numbers-say/ https://consumerist.com/2017/02/28/fcc-chair-claims-broadban...
      - rhino369 9y ago
        The FCC regulated dsl as a telecommunications service until 2004. But dial up and cable internet were not. That's part of the reason why cable internet is so dominant. Dsl companies were required to let competition use their last mile. So nobody wanted to invest. It was only after telecoms got the gIt assurances that the FCC wouldn't unbundle fiber that Verizon and att started expanding.
outsidetheparty 9y ago
> Pai argued that rolling back the rules will encourage ISPs to spend more on their broadband networks How? How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network incentivize those ISPs to expand that network? It's just so frustrating that these guys no longer even bother to pretend that their arguments make any logical sense at all. "We'll protect user privacy by eliminating these rules that protect user privacy!" "We'll boost competition and choice, by giving the existing entrenched players more control and power!" This is just such a naked demonstration of regulatory capture. It boggles my mind.
- __jal 9y ago
  He's just spewing bullshit to get past the decision becoming final. Engaging on a level of logic with someone who is seeking an outcome and just says whatever they think will support their view. This is about the exercise of power. And as has happened since Reagan, when the clownshow in office is finally shown the door, the D's get to clean up the mess, work towards fixing economy yet again, and the cycle of life is complete. Sigh.
  - hosh 9y ago
    I keep thinking about http://www.cringely.com/2015/03/31/the-net-neutrality-mystery/ http://www.cringely.com/2015/03/31/the-net-neutrality-myster...
  - splintercell 9y ago
    In past I've seen comments and incendiary language like this be given warning from the mods. I come to this site because despite of being more liberal leaning, I can have calm conversations with people.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - F2 9y ago
      How exactly is the comment you're replying to "incendiary"?
ShameSpear 9y ago
I just feel hopeless. I don't think there's anything we can do at this point
- stephenitis 9y ago
  It's OK to feel hopeless. You might want to focus on things that you do have an effect on in your daily life and try not to dwell on the current news. Changes aren't meant to be quick and drastic, our government is designed deliberately so that it was slow. also read into what the EFF does. Stay strong and hang in there.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Go on protest marches, meet people, consider going on strike. You have economic power, just develop the will and skill to use it in coordination with others. The objective of bullshit policies like this is to lower your morale as much as to change the strategic landscape. You'll discover that venting your anger is not draining but empowering.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  Get organized. There are, depending on your willingness to occasionally bend the law, groups ranging from militant antifa to the organizers of March for Science. You can also call, email or fax elected representatives (this one works at its best when you follow up e.g. with ACLU and their targeted campaigns) - or if you want, also run for an elected office. Surprisingly easy depending on where you live. Or you can just talk with your family, friends and neighbors and explain to them that Trump is feeding them untreated sewage while marketing it as deluxe bottled water. Read up on the latest tweets of Donald Trump, check their validity (e.g. Snopes comes in handy) and show those who you talk to the facts. Sometimes it just needs someone from the "outside" to break a Trump fan out of the Facebook fascist filter-bubble.
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
Woot! This will CREATE JOBS! Pai is disgusting.
- dang 9y ago
  Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN?
  - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
    Sure. But let's be clear on something. Pai's released fact sheet clearly says it will "create jobs": https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/857288519227756554 https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/85728851922775655...
js2 9y ago
I just setup monthly donations to the EFF (I'm ashamed I didn't do so a long time ago), and you should too. Also don't forget to check if your employer will match your donations. https://supporters.eff.org/donate/ https://supporters.eff.org/donate/
- ballenf 9y ago
  You can also choose them through the Amazon Smile program: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/chpf/homepage/ref=smi_se_ssr_srch_stsr?q=electronic+frontier+foundation&orig=%2F https://smile.amazon.com/gp/chpf/homepage/ref=smi_se_ssr_src...
cakeface 9y ago
The sneakiest thing just happened to me on that Washington Post site. There was an overlay ad, no big deal, with an X to close it in the upper right of the screen. I moved my mouse up there to click the X and the site shifted slightly so what I actually clicked was "Subscribe"!
- ezekg 9y ago
  Relevant commit strip: http://www.commitstrip.com/en/2017/02/16/the-dark-side-of-coding-the-cross http://www.commitstrip.com/en/2017/02/16/the-dark-side-of-co...
- glitcher 9y ago
  In chrome dev tools, delete the first 2 div's under the <body> tag, then highlight <body> and in the css pane disable the element style for overflow-y: hidden; YMMV depending on platform :)
- edejong 9y ago
  During careful A/B testing, this site-modification has proven to increase the 'subscribe'-click ratio from 0.002% to 80% Which self-conscious mid-manager would say no to that?
- zkms 9y ago
  This is why I disable javascript on my laptop and block ads on my iphone. I shouldn't have to chase around advert-closing buttons that's jinking like a high-performance fighter aircraft.
  - milcron 9y ago
    If you run Firefox on Android, you can use the NoScript extension there as well. Sadly, Firefox for iOS is just a wrapper around WebKit, so Firefox extensions do not work there.
    - pythonistic 9y ago
      Firefox Reader view has been my savior both on laptops and on my mobile phone. It doesn't work on every page, but where it does, it removes the styling and JavaScript and I get to concentrate on the content.
tzs 9y ago
> Pai's proposal is set for a vote at the FCC's May 18 open meeting. If it is approved, Pai will begin seeking public feedback on the plan, which calls for regulating ISPs more lightly and asks Americans for ways to preserve the core principles of net neutrality, such as the idea that blocking or slowing traffic should be off-limits. Well, the obvious way to "preserve the core principles of net neutrality, such as the idea that blocking or slowing traffic should be off-limits" is to not get rid of the regulation that prohibits blocking or slowing traffic.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Well, the obvious way to "preserve the core principles of net neutrality, such as the idea that blocking or slowing traffic should be off-limits" is to not get rid of the regulation that prohibits blocking or slowing traffic. Yeah, and hopefully as much energy (and more) as was mobilized against the previous FCC for not being as vigorous as some wanted in the last round of Open Internet rulemaking will be directed into the public comments for the FCC actually reversing direction. But I don't expect it will matter as much; with Wheeler's FCC, the goals were clearly for neutrality and the debate was over the means; with Pai's FCC, despite lip service to the principles of neutrality, the real overwhelming goal seems to be to free ISPs to do what they want, so I'm not sure any contrary comment will have much weight.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
digitalmaster 9y ago
The power and influence of monopolies are a direct threat to democracy. This is just another example.
ficho 9y ago
"“Two years ago, I warned that we were making a serious mistake,” Pai said. “It’s basic economics: The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.” Just reading this makes me angry. Has he ever heard of monopolies / oligopolies, or simply the place of government in regulating public utilities. Apply his quote to water supplies and see what happens.
- twoodfin 9y ago
  Demand for water isn't growing at nearly the rate of demand for bits. If communities expected their regulated water utilities to deliver twice as much water every 18-36 months, they'd be in for some tough times.
  - ficho 9y ago
    That's irrelevant, if anything in your example you should compare growth in productivity for bits and for water independently and see if they manage to meet their demands Also water is a much more finite supply. The point of my example was that as you leave government out of the tap water market and instead of getting more of it, you get less, more expensive and of lesser quality. Economics teach that in some industries, the government and a certain amount of regulation is healthy and good for the market; leaving actors to themselves just makes them tend naturally towards monopolies which then trifle innovation. Communications is one of those markets.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      The difference in demand is highly relevant: U.S. water utilities can't even attract enough investment to replace century-old lead pipes and sewers; similarly tepid investment in internet infrastructure would have left us all with dial-up still. The U.K. and France have both privatized their water systems and it has worked fine. Conversely, U.S. water systems, which are mostly still publicly owned, are a total disaster: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/epa_1_trillion_needed_for_us_p.html http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/epa_1_trillion_n.... Economics certainly teaches that some markets are susceptible to natural monopolies and government regulation is appropriate there. But it also teaches that making a kind of business less profitable will drive investment away from that business. The question is how do you regulate to balance those competing concerns. You have to protect consumers, but you also have to figure out how to get sufficient investment into the industry. The U.K. does a good job balancing the interests. There is a single, regulated monopoly that owns most of the last mile (BT Openreach), but the regulations are designed so that the monopoly is actually very profitable. Most state and local governments do a terrible job balancing those interests with regards to utility companies. Regulated rates keep water and sewer bills low, but dramatically limit the profitability of water utilities. As a result our water infrastructure is hundreds of billions of dollars in the red.
sxates 9y ago
I'm paying 30% more each month to use a local ISP that's dedicated to Net Neutrality and online privacy (sonic.net) instead of Comcast/xfinity, because Comcast, along with the other large telecom companies, are actively undermining competitive markets, consumer freedom, and in a sense, our democracy. An extra $20-30/month is a small price to pay to keep what little competition they have alive. I'd encourage everyone else to examine their choices here if they have any (which I realize for many is 'bad' or 'bad').
- hanspragt 9y ago
  I am a Sonic subscriber myself, but they just resell AT&T so I am not sure how much a difference it really makes.
  - yo-code-sucks 9y ago
    Only in areas that they haven't laid fiber.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    Sonic actually provides it's own fiber to the home to some areas (FTTH). Their Fiber to the Node (FTTN) is resold AT&T.
- fattire 9y ago
  If I had that choice, I would do the same.
rdxm 9y ago
would be really interrsting to do a deep dive on Pai's personal finances. He's not even trying to hide how much he's in the bag for the telecom/ISPs.
- doctorshady 9y ago
  Isn't this exactly the sort of thing the government accountability office is for? I'm seriously asking - someone this transparently corrupt deserves an investigation big time.
msoad 9y ago
Like many other republican policies it's going to hurt the poor more than others. I would probably be fine paying extra to access "all of internet" but for a low income person it's going to be devastating. They will lose access to many useful resources due to this policy.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
joezydeco 9y ago
Wouldn't it be fun if Netflix, Hulu, HBO, and a few other streamers all decided to throttle the Washington DC area down to, say, 10% of normal outbound bandwidth for a long weekend? Maybe it wouldn't touch Pai, but if it pissed off a huge block of his neighbors maybe he'd start to understand the idea.
- eli 9y ago
  Hah! The federal government doesn't care whatsoever about DC residents. We don't even have a Senator to complain to. What exactly do you expect his pissed off neighbors to do?
  - joezydeco 9y ago
    Okay, then wherever most of these public officials stay overnight and weekends. Alexandria? McLean? Congressmen would be tougher, since they're always flying around. The idea is to bring the pain to people that surround Pai on a daily basis.
kakarot 9y ago
We're all getting very tired. If this doesn't pass today, it will pass tomorrow. The slow entrenchment of government over our freedoms and rights as international sovereign beings seems relentless. If we cannot push for high-order legislation outlining very clear rules for our digital rights soon, we won't have any rights left to claim. And then we can only take them by force. I would prefer to avoid that.
cwisecarver 9y ago
I live in a rural area in the mid-atlantic US. My choices for internet are 10mbit DSL from CenturyLink or LTE (with bandwidth caps). I've only lived here for a year but my previous two homes have had at least two options for 100mbit+ internet, FiOS and Comcast, and LTE. Comcast serves across the street from my house and told me it would be $76k out of my pocket to get service here. For < 1mi run of fiber. I'm 100% in favor of making ISPs common carriers and making it unlawful for them to track their customers' habits. I've worked for two ISPs in my career. They should be happy with the business of providing internet to customers and compete on delivering better, faster, and more reliable service not on selling their customers' information or eyeballs to the highest bidder.
doctorshady 9y ago
So, I'm just going to ask outright; what would it take to get a politician like Pai investigated? I'd find it very hard to believe at this point that he doesn't have his hands stuck in exactly the sort of pies (no pun intended) that could get him in trouble.
- GeneralMayhem 9y ago
  Well, first, you'd need even a single person in his party not to be in it with him, and to be willing to cross party lines to do what's right. That's obviously not going to happen. Second, you'd need corruption to be illegal. Since the people who benefit from it are the ones writing the laws, it's not, at least not in the particular ways they generally do it.
  - doctorshady 9y ago
    Maybe this is a stupid question, but why would it have to be someone of the same party? Why couldn't it just be some unhappy members of the FCC staff? Considering the jarring change from Wheeler to Pai, there's got to be a few people with a good look at his schedule that don't approve of it.
    - GeneralMayhem 9y ago
      Because the Republicans control all three branches of the government, and they're extremely well bought^H^H^H^H^H^H organized. In the rare case that a non-Republican has the power to do anything, they'll be removed with or without cause if they try (see: Sally Yates).
      - doctorshady 9y ago
        Let's say for the purposes of arguing though, that Trump or members of the Trump administration are removed by way of the Russia investigation. I guess it all works on a case by case basis, but generally speaking, how would that affect the FCC chair's standing?
- 9y ago
pvnick 9y ago
This is what happens when bureaucrats in the administrative state determine rules rather than congress.
- GeneralMayhem 9y ago
  You can't seriously think that the current Congress would do better?
emehrkay 9y ago
Hacker News'ers, why did you vote for republicans knowing they'd do something like this?
theprop 9y ago
I suggested a decade ago that Net Neutrality rules could be foregone, but one important caveat is needed, that no charges to consumers or producers be levied in respect to violating net neutrality i.e. a producer can't pay to have their packets move faster/slower. That's the only way to prevent abuses which are essentially extortion. Without that rule, the ISPs will invest money into new networks...but it will have negative consumer value and a lot of rent-seeking or pure extortion value for the ISPs. Packet-based systems are so efficient that some sort of QoS packet routing makes no sense technically in respect to the overhead of brand new networking schemes. Unbiased packet routing is doing just great streaming HD videos on Netflix to 100 million people worldwide, and will continue to do great. The more fundamental problem is that the bottlenecks are at the last mile and there is NO WAY that Verizon is going to lay two cables to your home, one fast lane for important traffic, and another slow lane!! Without last mile investment, there can not be any meaningful technical gains from violating net neutrality. ISPs want to get rid of net neutrality in order to extort money from Google, Facebook, Netflix and others. Netflix is already paying an extortion fee to Verizon who threatened them with slower speeds if they didn't pay up. The government's job is to insure that markets are fair and that effective monopolies don't abuse their power, through simple regulations. ISPs and Telco.s have regularly demonstrated for over a hundred years that they HAVE TO BE REGULATED...we would not have an internet or an inter-operable phone network if governments all over the world did force these companies to talk to other networks! The breakup of AT&T just over two decades ago (seems much longer!) was tremendous in spurring on lower costs and competitors in telecommunications.
Corrado 9y ago
"Pai argued that rolling back the rules will encourage ISPs to spend more on their broadband networks, speeding the spread of high-speed Internet across the country. He also claimed it would create new jobs and help protect Internet users' privacy by returning some authority to the Federal Trade Commission to sue companies that violate their own privacy policies." So, "create new jobs" is the new "think of the children" in politics. If you want to get anything done in the current political climate you just have to utter that magical phrase and everything is OK. Based on this, I'm going to view any policy that claims to create jobs with the same sceptical eye as I used with the children fear mongers.
jenniferh19 9y ago
With the destruction of net neutrality the ISPs control the internet basically free to do as they wish. Block ISPs for good with VPN such as PureVPN https://www.purevpn.com/ https://www.purevpn.com/

299 points by sinak 9y ago

Here is the EFF link [0] that provides additional information and also provides methods of contacting your local government officials to take action. Please send this along! [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/fcc-wants-eliminate-net-neutrality-protections-we-cant-let-happen https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/fcc-wants-eliminate-ne...

IAmGarrett 9y ago
This whole battle has felt like the consumers versus the ISP's. Is there economic advantages to consumers if Net Neutrality is eliminated?
- marricks 9y ago
  "You wont have the government standing between you and your internet!" is the response I've seen around. I'd really love to see if there was any legit defense of this action though...
  - __jal 9y ago
    You also won't have to arm-wrestle a feral badger to check your email! This is yuge, because badgers don't have arms. Don't you see what a difference this will make?
- zanny 9y ago
  They get things like the Binge On program T-Mobile did. Which was really not beneificial to consumers either, but consumers can perceive it as such - ie, T-Mobile knew they had revenues in excess of the cost of subsidizing favored video and music streaming services, so they made them not count for the data cap they put on their customers. They spin the story to be their great charity in giving away all this data, when the reality was the cost of operating their network was sufficiently low enough they could be providing unlimited bandwidth (or just substantially higher caps) while still profiting, but would rather have the best of both worlds where large media consumers use their platform for the cherry picked unlimited while still exploiting their customer base on every other network attached service they use. Naturally, ISPs (if they care enough to do so) can spin their money grabs as giving away popular services for free (often after said services paid them off) while simultaneously limiting data or bandwidth for everything else. Anything but the dumb pipe ethernet grid is a money grab. Hell, fixed data speeds we have now are money grabs. The reality is that there is a variable amount of bandwidth in a given network, and if ISPs were not exploitative they would guarantee a minimum speed but allow users to saturate the network as much as they can, because that is how the reality of the network operates. As it is, you get somewhere between 0 and your cap speed and are artificially throttled at the cap through anti-consumer behavior they can get away with because there is no competition in infrastructure.
- rlabrecque 9y ago
  Sure, if you're investing in $CMCSA then this would be pretty good news for you. Otherwise...
- tw04 9y ago
  Sure - you'll get video streaming from content providers who are able to pay large sums of money without hitting against the artificial caps currently in place. Of course, that also means it'll kill any competitors not willing or able to pay the same extortion, so in the end you'll have less choice, but at least you'll have saved money. Except you won't really save money because once the current administration allows further consolidation in the wireless sector, prices will rise with authority.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    Cable TV 2.0, now available via Comcast.
  - problems 9y ago
    > Of course, that also means it'll kill any competitors not willing or able to pay the same extortion, so in the end you'll have less choice, but at least you'll have saved money. You might save a few bucks in the short run, but lack of competition doesn't tend to be good for markets - especially ones which can rapidly change like online services. Less choice generally means you're paying more.
- hdespiritu 9y ago
  The major change will likely be companies relying more heavily on user bandwidth through p2p applications, p2p content delivery networks, etc.
- s73ver 9y ago
  Not in the least.
- dv_dt 9y ago
  They get submarined costs from both their ISP and any services that come over the network with no market visibility or competitiveness to allow customers to switch away from bad product mixes.

notadoc 9y ago

How, specifically, is this helpful to the consumer or to the internet in general?

MS_Buys_Upvotes 9y ago
It's not. Not to get too political but there are two groups: "the people" and "business". Watch every decision the current administration makes. It's helpful for "business" and hurts "the people". This is the opposite of what most people think it should be.
- vijayr 9y ago
  In the (very) short run, yes what you say makes sense. How does it make sense in the long run? "Business" can't exist without "the people", right? If I don't have money to buy shit then I can't be a good consumer, what are they going to sell to me then? Replace I with millions of people, then what?
  - ue_ 9y ago
    You're quite leading onto an important point with this - businesses require wage labour, capitalism does on a large scale - in order to make sure that there is a large number of people who are able to buy products. Periods of increasing automation means that there are fewer people employed in the old jobs, so they have to be repurposed, or learn new skills. Too much of this is bad for property owners, so there is also a long-term incentive to keep automation growth at a certain level. But that doesn't mean that people are thrown under the bus - that's a view without nuance. Governments recognise that business can only work when there is a certain degree of freedom to the people (a "double freedom" as Marx put it), and this is done mostly or even wholly for the purpose of ensuring this constant flow of capital. As such, the nuanced view is that while it is capital versus "the people" (wage labourers), to protect the status of capital, "the people" must be afforded certain freedoms, or things break down.
- ue_ 9y ago
  > Watch every decision the current administration makes. Just the current administration, or democracies around the world? It's a fact that capital rules economy and by extension our lives. Why do you think it would be any different under Obama, Hillary, Lincoln, Thatcher, Blair, Castro, Kim Jong Un or Abe? The kind of democracy we have is bourgeois democracy - in place to protect the intersts of those owners of private property, thereby to assure functioning also protecting to some extent those interests of the people, to afford them the freedom necessary under capitalism, but no more. It's not an issue of people v business, it's an issue of capital, which rules every country. It's not even businesses, it's capital itself.

sinak 9y ago

Here is the "fact sheet" that Ajit Pai distributed at the event at the Newseum today: https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/857288519227756554 https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/85728851922775655... Also of note, YC, TechStars and Engine Advocacy released their "Startups for Net Neutrality" letter to Pai this morning: http://www.engine.is/startups-for-net-neutrality http://www.engine.is/startups-for-net-neutrality

glitcher 9y ago
The bullet points under the section "A New Approach" of that fact sheet seem like pure political rhetoric. Where is the evidence to support the legitimacy of any of those claims???
- TearsInTheRain 9y ago
  I think the evidence is implicit in the fact that the opposite of those things happened when net neutrality was put in place
  - pseudalopex 9y ago
    That's anything but a fact. Investment increased overall.[1] The FCC classified ISPs as "telecommunications services", same as now, until the mid-2000s. That's the framework that worked well for decades. The one Pai wants is the one that killed competition. The FCC issued network neutrality regulations in 2010 because ISPs had started to violate the guidelines the FCC unanimously approved in 2005. They only invoked Title II after ISPs sued to block the 2010 regulations. Privacy regulation wasn't a problem until Congress removed the FCC's authority, and they could easily give the FTC the necessary authority without re-re-re-classifying ISPs. [1] https://consumerist.com/2017/02/28/fcc-chair-claims-broadband-investment-at-historic-low-level-because-of-net-neutrality-thats-not-what-the-numbers-say/ https://consumerist.com/2017/02/28/fcc-chair-claims-broadban...
    - rhino369 9y ago
      The FCC regulated dsl as a telecommunications service until 2004. But dial up and cable internet were not. That's part of the reason why cable internet is so dominant. Dsl companies were required to let competition use their last mile. So nobody wanted to invest. It was only after telecoms got the gIt assurances that the FCC wouldn't unbundle fiber that Verizon and att started expanding.

outsidetheparty 9y ago

> Pai argued that rolling back the rules will encourage ISPs to spend more on their broadband networks How? How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network incentivize those ISPs to expand that network? It's just so frustrating that these guys no longer even bother to pretend that their arguments make any logical sense at all. "We'll protect user privacy by eliminating these rules that protect user privacy!" "We'll boost competition and choice, by giving the existing entrenched players more control and power!" This is just such a naked demonstration of regulatory capture. It boggles my mind.

__jal 9y ago
He's just spewing bullshit to get past the decision becoming final. Engaging on a level of logic with someone who is seeking an outcome and just says whatever they think will support their view. This is about the exercise of power. And as has happened since Reagan, when the clownshow in office is finally shown the door, the D's get to clean up the mess, work towards fixing economy yet again, and the cycle of life is complete. Sigh.
- hosh 9y ago
  I keep thinking about http://www.cringely.com/2015/03/31/the-net-neutrality-mystery/ http://www.cringely.com/2015/03/31/the-net-neutrality-myster...
- splintercell 9y ago
  In past I've seen comments and incendiary language like this be given warning from the mods. I come to this site because despite of being more liberal leaning, I can have calm conversations with people.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - F2 9y ago
    How exactly is the comment you're replying to "incendiary"?

ShameSpear 9y ago

I just feel hopeless. I don't think there's anything we can do at this point

stephenitis 9y ago
It's OK to feel hopeless. You might want to focus on things that you do have an effect on in your daily life and try not to dwell on the current news. Changes aren't meant to be quick and drastic, our government is designed deliberately so that it was slow. also read into what the EFF does. Stay strong and hang in there.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Go on protest marches, meet people, consider going on strike. You have economic power, just develop the will and skill to use it in coordination with others. The objective of bullshit policies like this is to lower your morale as much as to change the strategic landscape. You'll discover that venting your anger is not draining but empowering.
mschuster91 9y ago
Get organized. There are, depending on your willingness to occasionally bend the law, groups ranging from militant antifa to the organizers of March for Science. You can also call, email or fax elected representatives (this one works at its best when you follow up e.g. with ACLU and their targeted campaigns) - or if you want, also run for an elected office. Surprisingly easy depending on where you live. Or you can just talk with your family, friends and neighbors and explain to them that Trump is feeding them untreated sewage while marketing it as deluxe bottled water. Read up on the latest tweets of Donald Trump, check their validity (e.g. Snopes comes in handy) and show those who you talk to the facts. Sometimes it just needs someone from the "outside" to break a Trump fan out of the Facebook fascist filter-bubble.

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

Woot! This will CREATE JOBS! Pai is disgusting.

dang 9y ago
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN?
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  Sure. But let's be clear on something. Pai's released fact sheet clearly says it will "create jobs": https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/857288519227756554 https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/85728851922775655...

js2 9y ago

I just setup monthly donations to the EFF (I'm ashamed I didn't do so a long time ago), and you should too. Also don't forget to check if your employer will match your donations. https://supporters.eff.org/donate/ https://supporters.eff.org/donate/

ballenf 9y ago
You can also choose them through the Amazon Smile program: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/chpf/homepage/ref=smi_se_ssr_srch_stsr?q=electronic+frontier+foundation&orig=%2F https://smile.amazon.com/gp/chpf/homepage/ref=smi_se_ssr_src...

cakeface 9y ago

The sneakiest thing just happened to me on that Washington Post site. There was an overlay ad, no big deal, with an X to close it in the upper right of the screen. I moved my mouse up there to click the X and the site shifted slightly so what I actually clicked was "Subscribe"!

ezekg 9y ago
Relevant commit strip: http://www.commitstrip.com/en/2017/02/16/the-dark-side-of-coding-the-cross http://www.commitstrip.com/en/2017/02/16/the-dark-side-of-co...
glitcher 9y ago
In chrome dev tools, delete the first 2 div's under the <body> tag, then highlight <body> and in the css pane disable the element style for overflow-y: hidden; YMMV depending on platform :)
edejong 9y ago
During careful A/B testing, this site-modification has proven to increase the 'subscribe'-click ratio from 0.002% to 80% Which self-conscious mid-manager would say no to that?
zkms 9y ago
This is why I disable javascript on my laptop and block ads on my iphone. I shouldn't have to chase around advert-closing buttons that's jinking like a high-performance fighter aircraft.
- milcron 9y ago
  If you run Firefox on Android, you can use the NoScript extension there as well. Sadly, Firefox for iOS is just a wrapper around WebKit, so Firefox extensions do not work there.
  - pythonistic 9y ago
    Firefox Reader view has been my savior both on laptops and on my mobile phone. It doesn't work on every page, but where it does, it removes the styling and JavaScript and I get to concentrate on the content.

tzs 9y ago

> Pai's proposal is set for a vote at the FCC's May 18 open meeting. If it is approved, Pai will begin seeking public feedback on the plan, which calls for regulating ISPs more lightly and asks Americans for ways to preserve the core principles of net neutrality, such as the idea that blocking or slowing traffic should be off-limits. Well, the obvious way to "preserve the core principles of net neutrality, such as the idea that blocking or slowing traffic should be off-limits" is to not get rid of the regulation that prohibits blocking or slowing traffic.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Well, the obvious way to "preserve the core principles of net neutrality, such as the idea that blocking or slowing traffic should be off-limits" is to not get rid of the regulation that prohibits blocking or slowing traffic. Yeah, and hopefully as much energy (and more) as was mobilized against the previous FCC for not being as vigorous as some wanted in the last round of Open Internet rulemaking will be directed into the public comments for the FCC actually reversing direction. But I don't expect it will matter as much; with Wheeler's FCC, the goals were clearly for neutrality and the debate was over the means; with Pai's FCC, despite lip service to the principles of neutrality, the real overwhelming goal seems to be to free ISPs to do what they want, so I'm not sure any contrary comment will have much weight.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

digitalmaster 9y ago

The power and influence of monopolies are a direct threat to democracy. This is just another example.

ficho 9y ago

"“Two years ago, I warned that we were making a serious mistake,” Pai said. “It’s basic economics: The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.” Just reading this makes me angry. Has he ever heard of monopolies / oligopolies, or simply the place of government in regulating public utilities. Apply his quote to water supplies and see what happens.

twoodfin 9y ago
Demand for water isn't growing at nearly the rate of demand for bits. If communities expected their regulated water utilities to deliver twice as much water every 18-36 months, they'd be in for some tough times.
- ficho 9y ago
  That's irrelevant, if anything in your example you should compare growth in productivity for bits and for water independently and see if they manage to meet their demands Also water is a much more finite supply. The point of my example was that as you leave government out of the tap water market and instead of getting more of it, you get less, more expensive and of lesser quality. Economics teach that in some industries, the government and a certain amount of regulation is healthy and good for the market; leaving actors to themselves just makes them tend naturally towards monopolies which then trifle innovation. Communications is one of those markets.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    The difference in demand is highly relevant: U.S. water utilities can't even attract enough investment to replace century-old lead pipes and sewers; similarly tepid investment in internet infrastructure would have left us all with dial-up still. The U.K. and France have both privatized their water systems and it has worked fine. Conversely, U.S. water systems, which are mostly still publicly owned, are a total disaster: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/epa_1_trillion_needed_for_us_p.html http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/epa_1_trillion_n.... Economics certainly teaches that some markets are susceptible to natural monopolies and government regulation is appropriate there. But it also teaches that making a kind of business less profitable will drive investment away from that business. The question is how do you regulate to balance those competing concerns. You have to protect consumers, but you also have to figure out how to get sufficient investment into the industry. The U.K. does a good job balancing the interests. There is a single, regulated monopoly that owns most of the last mile (BT Openreach), but the regulations are designed so that the monopoly is actually very profitable. Most state and local governments do a terrible job balancing those interests with regards to utility companies. Regulated rates keep water and sewer bills low, but dramatically limit the profitability of water utilities. As a result our water infrastructure is hundreds of billions of dollars in the red.

sxates 9y ago

I'm paying 30% more each month to use a local ISP that's dedicated to Net Neutrality and online privacy (sonic.net) instead of Comcast/xfinity, because Comcast, along with the other large telecom companies, are actively undermining competitive markets, consumer freedom, and in a sense, our democracy. An extra $20-30/month is a small price to pay to keep what little competition they have alive. I'd encourage everyone else to examine their choices here if they have any (which I realize for many is 'bad' or 'bad').

hanspragt 9y ago
I am a Sonic subscriber myself, but they just resell AT&T so I am not sure how much a difference it really makes.
- yo-code-sucks 9y ago
  Only in areas that they haven't laid fiber.
- r00fus 9y ago
  Sonic actually provides it's own fiber to the home to some areas (FTTH). Their Fiber to the Node (FTTN) is resold AT&T.
fattire 9y ago
If I had that choice, I would do the same.

rdxm 9y ago

would be really interrsting to do a deep dive on Pai's personal finances. He's not even trying to hide how much he's in the bag for the telecom/ISPs.

doctorshady 9y ago
Isn't this exactly the sort of thing the government accountability office is for? I'm seriously asking - someone this transparently corrupt deserves an investigation big time.

msoad 9y ago

Like many other republican policies it's going to hurt the poor more than others. I would probably be fine paying extra to access "all of internet" but for a low income person it's going to be devastating. They will lose access to many useful resources due to this policy.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

joezydeco 9y ago

Wouldn't it be fun if Netflix, Hulu, HBO, and a few other streamers all decided to throttle the Washington DC area down to, say, 10% of normal outbound bandwidth for a long weekend? Maybe it wouldn't touch Pai, but if it pissed off a huge block of his neighbors maybe he'd start to understand the idea.

eli 9y ago
Hah! The federal government doesn't care whatsoever about DC residents. We don't even have a Senator to complain to. What exactly do you expect his pissed off neighbors to do?
- joezydeco 9y ago
  Okay, then wherever most of these public officials stay overnight and weekends. Alexandria? McLean? Congressmen would be tougher, since they're always flying around. The idea is to bring the pain to people that surround Pai on a daily basis.

kakarot 9y ago

We're all getting very tired. If this doesn't pass today, it will pass tomorrow. The slow entrenchment of government over our freedoms and rights as international sovereign beings seems relentless. If we cannot push for high-order legislation outlining very clear rules for our digital rights soon, we won't have any rights left to claim. And then we can only take them by force. I would prefer to avoid that.

cwisecarver 9y ago

I live in a rural area in the mid-atlantic US. My choices for internet are 10mbit DSL from CenturyLink or LTE (with bandwidth caps). I've only lived here for a year but my previous two homes have had at least two options for 100mbit+ internet, FiOS and Comcast, and LTE. Comcast serves across the street from my house and told me it would be $76k out of my pocket to get service here. For < 1mi run of fiber. I'm 100% in favor of making ISPs common carriers and making it unlawful for them to track their customers' habits. I've worked for two ISPs in my career. They should be happy with the business of providing internet to customers and compete on delivering better, faster, and more reliable service not on selling their customers' information or eyeballs to the highest bidder.

doctorshady 9y ago

So, I'm just going to ask outright; what would it take to get a politician like Pai investigated? I'd find it very hard to believe at this point that he doesn't have his hands stuck in exactly the sort of pies (no pun intended) that could get him in trouble.

GeneralMayhem 9y ago
Well, first, you'd need even a single person in his party not to be in it with him, and to be willing to cross party lines to do what's right. That's obviously not going to happen. Second, you'd need corruption to be illegal. Since the people who benefit from it are the ones writing the laws, it's not, at least not in the particular ways they generally do it.
- doctorshady 9y ago
  Maybe this is a stupid question, but why would it have to be someone of the same party? Why couldn't it just be some unhappy members of the FCC staff? Considering the jarring change from Wheeler to Pai, there's got to be a few people with a good look at his schedule that don't approve of it.
  - GeneralMayhem 9y ago
    Because the Republicans control all three branches of the government, and they're extremely well bought^H^H^H^H^H^H organized. In the rare case that a non-Republican has the power to do anything, they'll be removed with or without cause if they try (see: Sally Yates).
    - doctorshady 9y ago
      Let's say for the purposes of arguing though, that Trump or members of the Trump administration are removed by way of the Russia investigation. I guess it all works on a case by case basis, but generally speaking, how would that affect the FCC chair's standing?
9y ago

pvnick 9y ago

This is what happens when bureaucrats in the administrative state determine rules rather than congress.

GeneralMayhem 9y ago
You can't seriously think that the current Congress would do better?

emehrkay 9y ago

Hacker News'ers, why did you vote for republicans knowing they'd do something like this?

theprop 9y ago

I suggested a decade ago that Net Neutrality rules could be foregone, but one important caveat is needed, that no charges to consumers or producers be levied in respect to violating net neutrality i.e. a producer can't pay to have their packets move faster/slower. That's the only way to prevent abuses which are essentially extortion. Without that rule, the ISPs will invest money into new networks...but it will have negative consumer value and a lot of rent-seeking or pure extortion value for the ISPs. Packet-based systems are so efficient that some sort of QoS packet routing makes no sense technically in respect to the overhead of brand new networking schemes. Unbiased packet routing is doing just great streaming HD videos on Netflix to 100 million people worldwide, and will continue to do great. The more fundamental problem is that the bottlenecks are at the last mile and there is NO WAY that Verizon is going to lay two cables to your home, one fast lane for important traffic, and another slow lane!! Without last mile investment, there can not be any meaningful technical gains from violating net neutrality. ISPs want to get rid of net neutrality in order to extort money from Google, Facebook, Netflix and others. Netflix is already paying an extortion fee to Verizon who threatened them with slower speeds if they didn't pay up. The government's job is to insure that markets are fair and that effective monopolies don't abuse their power, through simple regulations. ISPs and Telco.s have regularly demonstrated for over a hundred years that they HAVE TO BE REGULATED...we would not have an internet or an inter-operable phone network if governments all over the world did force these companies to talk to other networks! The breakup of AT&T just over two decades ago (seems much longer!) was tremendous in spurring on lower costs and competitors in telecommunications.

Corrado 9y ago

"Pai argued that rolling back the rules will encourage ISPs to spend more on their broadband networks, speeding the spread of high-speed Internet across the country. He also claimed it would create new jobs and help protect Internet users' privacy by returning some authority to the Federal Trade Commission to sue companies that violate their own privacy policies." So, "create new jobs" is the new "think of the children" in politics. If you want to get anything done in the current political climate you just have to utter that magical phrase and everything is OK. Based on this, I'm going to view any policy that claims to create jobs with the same sceptical eye as I used with the children fear mongers.

jenniferh19 9y ago

With the destruction of net neutrality the ISPs control the internet basically free to do as they wish. Block ISPs for good with VPN such as PureVPN https://www.purevpn.com/ https://www.purevpn.com/