Discussion:
Net Neutrality: Dead as of June 11
(too old to reply)
Jason
2018-05-10 15:55:31 UTC
Permalink
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/10/technology/net-neutrality-end-date/index.html?sr=twmoney051018net-neutrality-end-date1131AMStory

The end of net neutrality is now scheduled for next month.
The Federal Communications Commission said in a notice filed Thursday that new rules repealing the net neutrality protections are set to take effect 30 days from this Friday, or June 11.

"Now, on June 11, these unnecessary and harmful internet regulations will be repealed and the bipartisan, light-touch approach that served the online world well for nearly 20 years will be restored," Ajit Pai, chairman of the FCC, said in a statement Thursday.

The Republican-led FCC voted along party lines in December to repeal the Obama-era net neutrality rules, which were intended to prevent internet providers from blocking, speeding up, or slowing down access to specific online services.

The FCC previously said that parts of the repeal order would take effect on April 23. The rest of the order required the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, which the FCC says it received earlier this month.

The new timeline comes as net neutrality advocates make a last ditch effort to undo the repeal.

Senate Democrats are currently pushing for a vote on a bill to overturn the decision as soon as next week. Even if the resolution passes the Senate, it still faces an uphill battle in the House.

Gigi Sohn, a counselor to former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, recently told CNN that the future of net neutrality will likely "stay murky" through the remainder of this calendar year, "at the very least."

More than 20 states have filed a lawsuit to stop the net neutrality repeal. Several states, including New Jersey, Washington, Oregon and California, have gone so far as to push legislation to enforce the principles of net neutrality within their borders.

This local legislation could lead to a legal showdown, however.

A spokeswoman for the FCC previously directed CNNMoney to a section of the final order for net neutrality, in which the FCC asserts authority to prevent states from pursuing laws inconsistent with the net neutrality repeal.

"It's patently illegal for the states to make their own internet policy," says Roslyn Layton, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who served on President Trump's transition team for the FCC.

Layton expects telecommunications companies will sue the states if they try to enforce the protections.

CNNMoney (New York)
First published May 10, 2018: 11:28 AM ET
c***@aol.com
2018-05-10 17:09:28 UTC
Permalink
They were never actually implemented. Duh.
Terry del Fuego
2018-05-10 23:38:26 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 May 2018 08:55:31 -0700 (PDT), Jason
Post by Jason
The new timeline comes as net neutrality advocates make a last
ditch effort to undo the repeal.
I worked for a major telecom for 15+ years. When this first started to
get talked about, I and all the other underlings got stuck on a
conference call with a director.

SLOWING DOWN TRAFFIC BETWEEN CUSTOMERS AND SITES THAT HADN'T PAID
EXTRA FOR ACCESS WAS THE EXPLICITLY STATED CORPORATE GOAL.

No matter what any of the bastards try to claim now, selling customers
X speed but only actually delivering (X minus Y) speed if customers
wished to browse a site that hadn't paid the additional bribe was
exactly what they were shooting for. It wasn't couched in coded
language, it wasn't ambiguous, it wasn't a hypothetical. It was what
they desperately wanted to do.

This was long enough ago that the site they were talking about
throttling was Amazon, not Netflix.
David Carson
2018-05-11 03:51:17 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 May 2018 16:38:26 -0700, Terry del Fuego
Post by Terry del Fuego
I worked for a major telecom for 15+ years. When this first started to
get talked about, I and all the other underlings got stuck on a
conference call with a director.
SLOWING DOWN TRAFFIC BETWEEN CUSTOMERS AND SITES THAT HADN'T PAID
EXTRA FOR ACCESS WAS THE EXPLICITLY STATED CORPORATE GOAL.
No matter what any of the bastards try to claim now, selling customers
X speed but only actually delivering (X minus Y) speed if customers
wished to browse a site that hadn't paid the additional bribe was
exactly what they were shooting for. It wasn't couched in coded
language, it wasn't ambiguous, it wasn't a hypothetical. It was what
they desperately wanted to do.
I always imagine that this is how the higher-ups at Google talk about
their goal of world domination.
Terry del Fuego
2018-05-11 18:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Carson
I always imagine that this is how the higher-ups at Google talk about
their goal of world domination.
It's interesting that you'd mention Google in this context, because
there are potential privacy implications with traffic prioritization
or throttling or whatever you want to call it. Such a system only
works if attention is being paid to who connects to whom and
troubleshooting would probably only work if logs were kept.

Granted, that's probably already happening most of the time as well,
but a desire to annoy one's customers via this type of system would
encourage even more of it.

After decades in the workplace, I probably shouldn't have been
surprised by an openly expressed desire to intentionally give
customers less than what they were billing for, yet I still was.

I wonder how many people who think net neutrality is government
overreach would be OK with ordering and paying for prime rib but
getting a reheated Gardenburger.
David Carson
2018-05-11 21:44:08 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 11 May 2018 11:33:22 -0700, Terry del Fuego
Post by Terry del Fuego
I wonder how many people who think net neutrality is government
overreach would be OK with ordering and paying for prime rib but
getting a reheated Gardenburger.
There have been laws against that for a long time.

It's more like paying for an all-you-can-eat buffet where they keep the
lettuce, jello, and rolls stocked, but the kitchen is only allowed to send
out one order of chicken wings per half hour.

Loading...