13 ms·
The 5 most ridiculous things the FCC says in its new net neutrality propaganda
- JohnTHaller 9y agoISPs have been caught blocking both before and after the net neutrality rules took effect, just in case you want to be sure the FCC is lying.
- Clubber 9y agoAfter Tom Wheeler (whom I thought was a shill at first), it's obvious how much of a skunk this guy is.
- libman 9y agoHacker News is communist propaganda. All contrary opinion is censored. No one will ever read this.
- libman 9y agoI FUCKING WANT TO SLOWMURDER YOU LYING COMMUNIST SCUM, DESTROYING INTERNET FREEDOM AND SILENCING ALL DISSENT! IF YOU WANT GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED INTERNET, MOVE TO NORTH KOREA!!!
- westurner 9y ago> The Federal Communications Commission put out a final proposal last week to end net neutrality. The proposal opens the door for internet service providers to create fast and slow lanes, to block websites, and to prioritize their own content. This isn’t speculation. It’s all there in the text. Great. Payola. Thanks Verizon! Does the FTC have the agreement information needed to hear the anti-trust cases that are sure to result from what are now complaints to the FCC (an organization with network management expertise) being redirected to the FTC? Title II is the appropriate policy set for ISPs; regardless of how lucrative horizontal integration with content producers seems.
- harshreality 9y agoI'm afraid that debating issues like this with anti-neutrality conservatives is getting lost in the weeds. Something they probably will respond to, if you can hammer it into their heads through all the propaganda they've been fed, is that a free market for ISPs doesn't exist, can't exist (last mile infrastructure can't support a free market even under ideal conditions), and won't exist under Pai's plan. A free market for internet providers probably doesn't even exist in Pai's dreams, unless he's as dumb as the propaganda the FCC is putting out. Then ask them if they really think it's a good idea, in a low-competition market that's not free, to let ISPs do nearly whatever they want.
- bnjms 9y agoThe follow up is to use conservative free market rhetoric towards maintaining a free market on the internet, and pointing out that neutral networks are the default state and are therefore NN is not burdensome legislation. Any other ideas? I really think the most conservative position is to maintain a neutral internet.
- betterunix2 9y agoMaybe point out that there is a competitive market for ISPs in France because of line-sharing rules: https://venturebeat.com/2014/11/12/what-france-has-taught-me-americans-are-suckers-who-have-themselves-to-blame-for-crappy-broadband/ https://venturebeat.com/2014/11/12/what-france-has-taught-me...
- JohnTHaller 9y agoBut sharing is socialism! eyeroll
- bnjms 9y agoAnd if they say that's "just Europe" point out that it's similar to power utility rules in conservative states. Fiber optic lines are not that dissimilar to power lines.
- FranOntanaya 9y ago
- jhiska 9y agoYou're preaching to the choir.
- Rapzid 9y agoI think the biggest tragedy is that media outlets are not discussing the misdirection of this whole thing. The new "leaders" are billing this as "restoring internet freedom" by repealing "Obama Era" regulation as if things are being put back to some prior status quo that never actually existed. FCC enforced this rules prior, Verizon challenged on overreach and won, and the adjustments were made to bring enforcement within their reach. This article does a pretty good job of covering some of the history: http://fortune.com/2017/11/22/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-verizon-comcast-att/ http://fortune.com/2017/11/22/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-ve... . The rest of the details are kinda moot IMHO when the foundation of their argument, that this is going back to some more free internet(free for ISPs) that never existed, is dishonest.
- amelius 9y agoWell, big media outlets kind of have an incentive to destroy the internet.
- bla2 9y agoThis article is on The Verge, which is probably interested in the net staying around.
- briantakita 9y agoWhat do you mean by "interested in the net staying around"? What makes you think that the verge is interested in that? Does the verge support censoring certain opinions on the internet? If so, which ones?
- wlll 9y ago> What do you mean by "interested in the net staying around"? > What makes you think that the verge is interested in that? I'd guess because they make their money by having a presence on the Internet. If it went away, or became unviable, their business might fold. > Does the verge support censoring certain opinions on the internet? If so, which ones? I don't know, but I don't see how this is relevant?
- briantakita 9y agoThe Daily Wire (i.e. Ben Shapiro) has the other side of the Net Neutrality debate. It's interesting that the verge article does not touch on any of these points. I've seen other comments mentioning debates getting lost in the weeds. Perhaps there are some presuppositions or matters of importance that are not being understood? http://www.dailywire.com/news/18613/7-reasons-net-neutrality-idiotic-aaron-bandler http://www.dailywire.com/news/18613/7-reasons-net-neutrality...
- rjbwork 9y ago>"Competition ensures that companies do not have the leverage to discriminate against particular websites," Shapiro added. What competition? I've got the "choice" between AT&T or Comcast. Both suck hugely, but in different ways. I'm sure both will not hesitate to force companies to cut them checks to push their bits to my computer. > It's crony capitalism in favor of web giants like Facebook and Google. That's why they support net neutrality, since it targets their competitors. How? My company can't afford to pay every ISP for priority access to fast lanes, but our larger, entrenched competitors can. Maybe it's just my bias, but I only see these kinds of arguments from heavily right leaning sources, and to my mind they miss the mark every time. I don't understand how allowing ISPs to block or throttle companies that don't cut them whatever checks they ask for isn't anti-competitive, and how it could possibly promote competition in an industry full of natural monopolies.
- betterunix2 9y ago"the FCC should be encouraging de-regulation in order bring in more competition" In fact, deregulation is what created local ISP monopolies in the first place: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2558413/networking/fcc-removes-dsl-network-sharing-rules.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2558413/networking/fcc... So yes, there are matters of importance that are not being understood...
- jccalhoun 9y agoUnless I totally misunderstand net neutrality, that article has very little to do with net neutrality. A number of the points are about the FCC's rules not net neutrality itself and there are some that don't seem to make any sense at all to me (like #6).
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- zaroth 9y agoISP blocking would be the single best thing to happen to Internet privacy in the last 3 decades. Since it became commonplace for ISPs to trace every single DNS query, HTTP and SMTP header, etc. and then record, analyze and data mine this information in perpetuity, and then leverage said analysis to inject advertising, and then provide real-time tracking information on this analysis, and then.... Basically 99% of the incredibly invasive shit that ISPs do today is legal, and remained legal under the "net neutrality" legislation we had. In fact, several laws require ISPs to keep and provide this information on request, and often without a warrant. So please bring on the blocking, bring on the fast and slow lanes, bring on the directly visible infringements of our privacy while using the so-called "dump pipes". Because only then will people be motivated to maybe seek out and utilize the myriad technologies available to prevent ISPs from deploying their prioritization and blocking and tracking schemes, and we will all be better off for it. And while the ILECs continue to burn themselves to the ground, SpaceX can launch their ~10,000 satellites and I'll happily pay them $200/mo for better service in a competitive market unencumbered by regulations which increasingly don't apply to the majority of consumer internet usage (i.e. mobile) anyway. IMO, the right angle to fight any change in "net neutrality" legislation is a quid pro quo which lifts network management and QoS restrictions on the ISPs in return for federal mandate that localities are guaranteed the right to provide their own local muni-service following a local election majority vote, as well as establishing a Federal fund for low-interest financing of those deployments.
- greglindahl 9y agoSatellite internet is not an unregulated market in the US.
- dingo_bat 9y agoLet's try to make sense of Verge's points: 1. Creation of fast/slow lanes > If you read carefully, you’ll notice the FCC isn’t even trying to debunk the creation of fast and slow lanes. It’s just trying to debunk that they “will worsen consumers’ online experience.” That’s a matter of opinion, and clearly, we all know which side the FCC lands on. Verge says: FCC has stated an opinion and we all know what kind of people have an opinion that doesn't match ours lol. 2. ISPs will block sites > The FCC is trying to repeal a rule that stops ISPs from blocking websites, so the commission absolutely can’t guarantee internet providers won’t do that when the rules are gone. But despite saying this “won’t” happen, the answer goes on to say, okay, maybe ISPs will block sites. But hey, people will get mad about it! Verge says: The FCC says the free market will take care of any restrictions ISP try to place on their service. As if the free market ever worked! 3. NN repeal will protect users' privacy > On a really technical level, the FCC is correct here. > The commission’s privacy rules were struck down by Congress earlier this year, so there aren’t any privacy rules in place at the moment. But that happened, in part at least, thanks to the current FCC chairman’s campaign against them. Had those rules been kept in place, consumers would have been covered by much stricter privacy protections than what the Federal Trade Commission will guarantee. That’s because the FTC mostly has privacy guidelines — not strict rules — whereas the FCC was able to define specific behaviors that are unacceptable. Without net neutrality, privacy enforcement will go back to the FTC’s broader approach. Verge says: FCC is correct. But that won't prevent us from making up some bullshit! 4. NN is hurting broadband investments > And if you only look at the numbers cable companies give you, that would appear to be true. If you take a broader view, it’s clear that broadband investment had already been declining before net neutrality was put in place. <link to https://www.vox.com/2014/5/12/5711082/big-cable-says-broadband-investment-is-flourishing-but-their-own-data> https://www.vox.com/2014/5/12/5711082/big-cable-says-broadba... Verge says: FCC is stupidly believing ISPs' own data. Here, take some data that proves them wrong. Oh btw this data is also provided by ISPs. 5. Broadband providers will charge you a premium if you want to reach certain online content. > What the commission is arguing here is that, because something didn’t happen in the past, it therefore won’t happen in the future. But that’s not how anything works. And there’s a good argument to make that, because the FCC is explicitly giving ISPs the thumbs-up on this stuff, it’s more likely to happen than ever. Verge says: The FCC is completely right. But fuck them for not supporting unneeded extra government regulation and oversight.