4 ms·
That's not actually true. NN is something we've had since the foundation of the internet. The FCC has only been enforcing it the current legal framework for t
by ep103 9y ago
That's not actually true. NN is something we've had since the foundation of the internet. The FCC has only been enforcing it the current legal framework for the last two years.
Prior to 2 years ago, the FCC enforced NN without stipulating that ISPs were classified as "Title 2" communications services. Because ISPs really, really didn't want to be classified as Title 2s, whenever the FCC asked them to change their practices and thereby enforce net neutrality, the ISPs nearly always conceeded.
Two years ago, Verizon refused to do so, and the matter went to court. Verizon argued that unless the FCC explicitly classified ISPs as Title 2 communications services, the FCC shouldn't be allowed to enforce NN the way they had been for the previous 20 years.
The court agreed. Verizon was banking on the fact that, quite simply, they had made enough donations to Washington that the FCC wouldn't be willing to reclassify, and NN would die a quiet death.
But then a giant public backlash happened, and Thomas Wheeler and the two Democrats realized they DID have political support for Title 2 reclassification, and they did exactly that. So for the last two years the FCC has been enforcing NN the way it always has been before.
So in short, no, NN is what we've always had. Removing NN would be a MAJOR change to how the internet is regulated.
And while I am all for free market solutions, we can't have free market solutions for last mile ISPs, when last mile ISPs have local monopolies on (I've read as high as) 90% of the US. If you both remove NN, and allow ISPs to continue being regional monopolies, you haven't created a free market, you've just hurt the people and the economy.
- jquery 9y agoTl;dr we didn’t have NN but we didn’t need it and now we do because. The FTC and FCC can still enforce anticompetitive regulations. This is so much FUD.
- ep103 9y agoI don't understand how you read my comment, and came to the exact opposite conclusion to what I was saying. What I literally just said was that we have had NN for the last 20 years. The exact legal definition for how the FCC enforces NN changed 2 years ago, but the fact that they continued enforcing NN did not. If Ajit Pai gets his way with this vote, the FCC will no longer be allowed to enforce NN. This would be the first time in 20 years that the FCC would not be able to enforce NN, which has never happened before.
- jquery 9y agoGood thing we have elections and laws and if the bad behavior you predict happens (which I doubt) we can fix the situation.
- ep103 9y agoI agree, the current Alabama election, and the 2018 elections are going to be very important. I'm not sure why you think the bad behavior wouldn't happen. [This reddit link](https://np.reddit.com/r/KeepOurNetFree/comments/7ej1nd/fcc_unveils_its_plan_to_repeal_net_neutrality/dq5hlwd/?sh=45a33b81&st=JAA62V5F https://np.reddit.com/r/KeepOurNetFree/comments/7ej1nd/fcc_u...) compiled a number of times the FCC has had to step in to enforce NN. And if the ISPs weren't planning on behaving against NN, why spend the money fighting against it? But at least we're on the same page now : )
- uhhhhhhh 9y agoI'm amazed at your lack of knowledge on a subject you insist on repeatedly commenting about. Net Neutrality has existed longer than you pretend, nearly 15 years in various forms that have gotten stronger over time. We have past examples of the bad behavior being stopped by net neutrality you are trying to pretend may or may not happen in the future. The "Market" solution was already tried, and bad actors/bad behaviors already drove the "solution" of net neutrality. You're pretending the past doesn't exist and you're claiming we haven't tried and watched the market solution fail to protect consumers. As for other comments, no China doesn't have Net Neutrality. Without NN, ISP's were deregulated preventing the FTC/FCC from being able to regulate them specifically as you've claimed. What consumers want with NN doesn't immediately fall under "anti-competitive" (look at cable for example), so no the FTC/FCC cannot use anti-competitive regulations to provide the same consumer protections as NN. You repeatedly confuse censorship with "pay to access" or "pay to perform". NN isn't to prevent censorship, its to prevent pay for access/speeds and turning the web into a tiered/package platform like cable is.