4 ms·

The argument is that your carrier can now block you from getting information relevant to your rights. So you may no longer be able to search for an abortion cl

The argument is that your carrier can now block you from getting information relevant to your rights. So you may no longer be able to search for an abortion clinic, or newspapers that have negative articles about the government could be blocked, internet services in poor black neighborhoods may have their access to educational materials limited, etc. While I think that's an unlikely outcome, it would be devastating to free speech, equality, and diversity.

notdonspaulding 9y ago
> The argument is that your carrier can now block you from getting information relevant to your rights That's not an argument. > So you may no longer be able to search for an abortion clinic, or newspapers that have negative articles about the government could be blocked, internet services in poor black neighborhoods may have their access to educational materials limited, etc. None of these hypotheticals are being seriously contemplated as potential outcomes of the FCC relinquishing its Title II authority over ISPs. Let's focus on the likely outcomes, not the unlikely ones.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > None of these hypotheticals are being seriously contemplated as potential outcomes of the FCC relinquishing its Title II authority over ISPs. Yes, an internet version of Verizon’s “controversial and unsavory” text message policy it's blocking of NARAL is definitely a serious concern.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. are blocking controversial content all the time. Any major content hoster and social network does it. Cloudflare does it. Hosting providers do it. If it were serious concern now, which it hasn't been serious concern in 2016? Or 2014?
    - todayiamme 9y ago
      That's a flawed argument as the level of abstraction matters. We can route around FB and Google. Direct message each other through Signal, Telegram, or just setup our own email servers. We can't do that if the ISP inspects our packets and refuses to send them no matter how we send them. What are you going to do when Comcast decides that hey let's charge $50 more for VPNs and another $4.99 for messaging apps (pre-approved of course)? What will you do when Signal or Telegram aren't on that list due to "security" concerns? What will you do if an ISP decides that all encrypted traffic is bad and decides to create whitelisted exceptions? Where will you go then?
      - smsm42 9y ago
        > We can't do that if the ISP inspects our packets and refuses to send them no matter how we send them. VPN > What are you going to do when Comcast decides that hey let's charge $50 more for VPNs You can't charge "for VPNs" - VPN traffic is just encrypted traffic. Comcast can charge more for encrypted traffic, but that would be completely insane, ruinous for business and Comcast won't ever do it because that would be insane. And of course, it didn't do it until 2015, because it'd be insane. And if they were insane enough to do this, I'd just use AT&T or Verizon or T-Mobile or whatever there would be around. Of course, I won't actually have to do any of that because Comcast is not going to do this insane thing. > and another $4.99 for messaging apps (pre-approved of course) Comcast doesn't approve apps, in fact Comcast has no idea what am I running and whether there are such thing as "apps" on the OS that I am running. But many mobile providers do provide free traffic for certain messaging apps. I've used it when traveling overseas, very useful to send my wife a message "I've landed, everything's fine" without having to pay for a whole daily internet package that I am not going to use. Of course, from NN point of view it is an outrage that must be banned. I fail to see why. And of course, 2015 regulations didn't prevent that from happening either. > What will you do if an ISP decides that all encrypted traffic is bad Wake up? Why invent scenarios that everybody knows would never happen? ISPs had 30 years until 2015 to do it, and we were fine. But now of course suddenly they all go crazy and start destroying their own business because they want $4.99 from you.
        9y ago
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  " Let's focus on the likely outcomes, not the unlikely ones." Ok. Porn, Facebook, Netflix, Wikipedia, and General informational browsing. Facebook is likely to become more cemented in their social media spot. Good luck to the competition - Facebook doesn't count towards data limits. Now, this could go many ways, but we already have issues with this walled garden and folks getting all their news from here. I suspect it is reasonable that such a thing will become worse. Wikipedia could easily be included, which doesn't have some of the scaryness of facebook being free from data caps. Netflix draws customers, and some will offer hulu instead. This could be good or bad. But general information to verify things from facebook or wikipedia? Want to browse porn? Forum for that autoimmune disease you have? Now you are going against your plan, going to look at sites that don't especially work with your ISP. Not if you've gotten over your cap. Maybe you are just throttled? Yup, the doctor's office page won't load quickly enough for you to fill it out and neither will your bank's. Oops. Welcome to dial-up speeds on today's internet. There aren't enough people on some of these niche websites to matter to the near-monopoly you call an ISP so folks can't make enough of a stink to get it changed. And that's really the point. It isn't so much that they will automatically do such things - but the fact that we are so powerless to stop it, when it really shouldn't matter to the ISP whether I watch 5 minutes of cat videos on Youtube or 5 minutes of porn. I don't trust the companies to do the "right" thing without minimally basic regulations outlining things.
smsm42 9y ago
> The argument is that your carrier can now block you from getting information relevant to your rights. I have never heard of anything like that happening in the US before 2015. Could you give me some examples of this happening? I've heard about Google and Facebook and Twitter blocking sites and content that they consider inacceptable, such as Russian media outlets associated with Russian government. I have also heard about some Nazi sites recently being essentially booted from the Internet by companies no longer wishing to be associated with such sites. All this happened while 2015 regulations were still in place, so apparently NN, at least as far as 2015 regulations go, is no barrier to this. However, I have never heard about ISP blocking access to an abortion clinic (excepting parental control, etc. setups of course, which are usually done in more localized manner). > internet services in poor black neighborhoods may have their access to educational materials limited How? Any why anybody, at a time where one can lose his job just for questioning HR diversity policies, and be booted from air for having the same name as a Confederate general, would be crazy enough to do such an outrageously racist thing, even if this were possible (which it almost certainly won't be)? > While I think that's an unlikely outcome, it would be devastating to free speech, equality, and diversity. If it's unlikely outcome, why Canadian politicians talk about it so much and do not talk about more likely things? Rhetorical questions, of course, I know they are just blowing hot air and duckspeaking.
- todayiamme 9y ago
  > I have never heard of anything like that happening in the US before 2015. Could you give me some examples of this happening? Okay. Here's a quick timeline of related incidents where the ISP has modified someone's access to information - it includes an ISP blocking information about a labor strike against the company; """ TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites. http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/08/04/TelusCensor/ http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/08/04/TelusCensor/ WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results. http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/04/05/phone-company-helps-make-case-net-neutrality http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/04/05/phone-company-h... PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/update-paxfire-and-search-redirection https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/update-paxfire-and-sea... - https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... """ I feel that these incidents establish a strong precedent and behavioral pattern that makes the expectation of a hands-off approach by ISPs irrational.

notdonspaulding 9y ago

> The argument is that your carrier can now block you from getting information relevant to your rights That's not an argument. > So you may no longer be able to search for an abortion clinic, or newspapers that have negative articles about the government could be blocked, internet services in poor black neighborhoods may have their access to educational materials limited, etc. None of these hypotheticals are being seriously contemplated as potential outcomes of the FCC relinquishing its Title II authority over ISPs. Let's focus on the likely outcomes, not the unlikely ones.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> None of these hypotheticals are being seriously contemplated as potential outcomes of the FCC relinquishing its Title II authority over ISPs. Yes, an internet version of Verizon’s “controversial and unsavory” text message policy it's blocking of NARAL is definitely a serious concern.
- smsm42 9y ago
  Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. are blocking controversial content all the time. Any major content hoster and social network does it. Cloudflare does it. Hosting providers do it. If it were serious concern now, which it hasn't been serious concern in 2016? Or 2014?
  - todayiamme 9y ago
    That's a flawed argument as the level of abstraction matters. We can route around FB and Google. Direct message each other through Signal, Telegram, or just setup our own email servers. We can't do that if the ISP inspects our packets and refuses to send them no matter how we send them. What are you going to do when Comcast decides that hey let's charge $50 more for VPNs and another $4.99 for messaging apps (pre-approved of course)? What will you do when Signal or Telegram aren't on that list due to "security" concerns? What will you do if an ISP decides that all encrypted traffic is bad and decides to create whitelisted exceptions? Where will you go then?
    - smsm42 9y ago
      > We can't do that if the ISP inspects our packets and refuses to send them no matter how we send them. VPN > What are you going to do when Comcast decides that hey let's charge $50 more for VPNs You can't charge "for VPNs" - VPN traffic is just encrypted traffic. Comcast can charge more for encrypted traffic, but that would be completely insane, ruinous for business and Comcast won't ever do it because that would be insane. And of course, it didn't do it until 2015, because it'd be insane. And if they were insane enough to do this, I'd just use AT&T or Verizon or T-Mobile or whatever there would be around. Of course, I won't actually have to do any of that because Comcast is not going to do this insane thing. > and another $4.99 for messaging apps (pre-approved of course) Comcast doesn't approve apps, in fact Comcast has no idea what am I running and whether there are such thing as "apps" on the OS that I am running. But many mobile providers do provide free traffic for certain messaging apps. I've used it when traveling overseas, very useful to send my wife a message "I've landed, everything's fine" without having to pay for a whole daily internet package that I am not going to use. Of course, from NN point of view it is an outrage that must be banned. I fail to see why. And of course, 2015 regulations didn't prevent that from happening either. > What will you do if an ISP decides that all encrypted traffic is bad Wake up? Why invent scenarios that everybody knows would never happen? ISPs had 30 years until 2015 to do it, and we were fine. But now of course suddenly they all go crazy and start destroying their own business because they want $4.99 from you.
      - 9y ago
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
" Let's focus on the likely outcomes, not the unlikely ones." Ok. Porn, Facebook, Netflix, Wikipedia, and General informational browsing. Facebook is likely to become more cemented in their social media spot. Good luck to the competition - Facebook doesn't count towards data limits. Now, this could go many ways, but we already have issues with this walled garden and folks getting all their news from here. I suspect it is reasonable that such a thing will become worse. Wikipedia could easily be included, which doesn't have some of the scaryness of facebook being free from data caps. Netflix draws customers, and some will offer hulu instead. This could be good or bad. But general information to verify things from facebook or wikipedia? Want to browse porn? Forum for that autoimmune disease you have? Now you are going against your plan, going to look at sites that don't especially work with your ISP. Not if you've gotten over your cap. Maybe you are just throttled? Yup, the doctor's office page won't load quickly enough for you to fill it out and neither will your bank's. Oops. Welcome to dial-up speeds on today's internet. There aren't enough people on some of these niche websites to matter to the near-monopoly you call an ISP so folks can't make enough of a stink to get it changed. And that's really the point. It isn't so much that they will automatically do such things - but the fact that we are so powerless to stop it, when it really shouldn't matter to the ISP whether I watch 5 minutes of cat videos on Youtube or 5 minutes of porn. I don't trust the companies to do the "right" thing without minimally basic regulations outlining things.

smsm42 9y ago

> The argument is that your carrier can now block you from getting information relevant to your rights. I have never heard of anything like that happening in the US before 2015. Could you give me some examples of this happening? I've heard about Google and Facebook and Twitter blocking sites and content that they consider inacceptable, such as Russian media outlets associated with Russian government. I have also heard about some Nazi sites recently being essentially booted from the Internet by companies no longer wishing to be associated with such sites. All this happened while 2015 regulations were still in place, so apparently NN, at least as far as 2015 regulations go, is no barrier to this. However, I have never heard about ISP blocking access to an abortion clinic (excepting parental control, etc. setups of course, which are usually done in more localized manner). > internet services in poor black neighborhoods may have their access to educational materials limited How? Any why anybody, at a time where one can lose his job just for questioning HR diversity policies, and be booted from air for having the same name as a Confederate general, would be crazy enough to do such an outrageously racist thing, even if this were possible (which it almost certainly won't be)? > While I think that's an unlikely outcome, it would be devastating to free speech, equality, and diversity. If it's unlikely outcome, why Canadian politicians talk about it so much and do not talk about more likely things? Rhetorical questions, of course, I know they are just blowing hot air and duckspeaking.

todayiamme 9y ago
> I have never heard of anything like that happening in the US before 2015. Could you give me some examples of this happening? Okay. Here's a quick timeline of related incidents where the ISP has modified someone's access to information - it includes an ISP blocking information about a labor strike against the company; """ TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites. http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/08/04/TelusCensor/ http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/08/04/TelusCensor/ WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results. http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/04/05/phone-company-helps-make-case-net-neutrality http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/04/05/phone-company-h... PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/update-paxfire-and-search-redirection https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/update-paxfire-and-sea... - https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... """ I feel that these incidents establish a strong precedent and behavioral pattern that makes the expectation of a hands-off approach by ISPs irrational.