FCC is about to repeal Net Neutrality

[Thriftypreneur]

Didn't see anything posted on this, so I thought I would help spread the word. If you don't know what this means, it essentially means that your ISP could decide to charge you $10 per minute for accessing thefastlaneforum.com because reasons. Or, they could decide to blacklist it all together, preventing you from even being able to access it. The point being that the internet would no longer be a "free" space. This matters to any and every person who uses the internet, so, please, help spread the word as the vote is on Dec 14.

Comcast wants to control what you do online. Do you want to let them?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[c4n]

Related: If Your Business Runs on the Internet, Read This.

 

[Denim Chicken]

And doing it over Thanksgiving in hopes that it will pass without much trouble due to the distractions

 

[Isaac Oh]

I don't know man. Maybe we're taking net neutrality and the internet for granted. Essentially it's gonna have the people using the largest amount of bandwidth paying more for use of services that provide that bandwidth like internet cables. I doubt TFLF is gonna suffer much impact and unless your entrepreneurship is totally based on streaming or illegal torrenting, it wouldn't affect you as much either. Plus, with the profits, companies can provide better services by putting more resources to bandwidth issues. I'm all for net neutrality, it's a beautiful idea but I'm also all for exchanging value!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[million$$$smile]

Bottom line:

It's just another form of CONTROL...

 

[TKDTyler]

I don't know man. Maybe we're taking net neutrality and the internet for granted. Essentially it's gonna have the people using the largest amount of bandwidth paying more for use of services that provide that bandwidth like internet cables. I doubt TFLF is gonna suffer much impact and unless your entrepreneurship is totally based on streaming or illegal torrenting, it wouldn't affect you as much either. Plus, with the profits, companies can provide better services by putting more resources to bandwidth issues. I'm all for net neutrality, it's a beautiful idea but I'm also all for exchanging value!

I disagree. There will be a large impact on everybody.

Because the ISP's control traffic, they can give favor to whoever they see fit (i.e. large corps who can afford to pay the fees).

When the fees come into place and traffic is split, smaller startups that don't have the capital will be unable to gain access due to a larger barrier to entry. This means less competition and more monopolies in the marketplace.

What does that mean? Price control is left to the big players, and without new competition, the end consumer suffers.

It'll start small, but will move towards it over time. That's just one problem among many others.

 

[BrooklynHustle]

I don't know man. Maybe we're taking net neutrality and the internet for granted. Essentially it's gonna have the people using the largest amount of bandwidth paying more for use of services that provide that bandwidth like internet cables. I doubt TFLF is gonna suffer much impact and unless your entrepreneurship is totally based on streaming or illegal torrenting, it wouldn't affect you as much either. Plus, with the profits, companies can provide better services by putting more resources to bandwidth issues. I'm all for net neutrality, it's a beautiful idea but I'm also all for exchanging value!

Not at all a fan of the repeal. This appears to be alot more about milking the customer than it does about innovation or better services

If you want to see what America would be like if it ditched net neutrality, just look at Portugal

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Denim Chicken]

Internet after Net Neutrality repealed starterpack • r/starterpacks

If you text 'resist' to 50409 theres a bot that someone made that allows you to easily send a message to your Congressperson

 

[Deleted50669]

And doing it over Thanksgiving in hopes that it will pass without much trouble due to the distractions

Yea that's honestly the most despicable part.

 

[PedroG]

Before making up your mind on how you feel about net neutrality, check out this interview about the economics of it.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Xavier X]

I worked in telecom for over 7 years. I don't see a single positive of repealing net neutrality, from the end-user stand point.

The ISPs on the other hand,.. oh boy!

 

[JAJT]

Here's a 3 minute video on what NN is and how things can change if repealed:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtt2aSV8wdw


The biggest problem is that it discourages competition by allowing a select few to punish the entrepreneurial efforts of their competition as they see fit.

You come out with a fantastic new product/service that disrupts or competes with an established player's products or services? Well don't be surprised if your traffic gets the least priority on the network as a result.

The big players have tried stuff like this in the past and the only thing that's stopped them is the rules and regulations that make net neutrality possible. Example: When Skype and VOIP started getting big, some of the big players tried crippling access to the service for their users because it took money away from their long distance and phone services. And they tried this when it was illegal to do so, from my understanding.

In a world where 1-2-3 seconds extra loading time on your website or service is the difference between mass adoption and the "back" button being hit, this stuff matters a lot to the entrepreneurial world. It legally allows the big players to hinder your ability to compete with them.

 

[TonyStark]

How is this not a violation of free speech?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Deleted50669]

How is this not a violation of free speech?

They aren’t saying we can’t speak, just that many less will be listening.

 

[TonyStark]

They aren’t saying we can’t speak, just that many less will be listening.

Sounds like controlling to me.

 

[Deleted50669]

Sounds like controlling to me.

Indirectly, yes. It’s basically requiring you’re audience to wear earmuffs, and pay to take them off. Pretty much shits on any hope I had of getting my business off the ground.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[TonyStark]

Indirectly, yes. It’s basically requiring you’re audience to wear earmuffs, and pay to take them off. Pretty much shits on any hope I had of getting my business off the ground.

I have faith that the US government will do the right thing.

And if not, give rise to VPN’s and dark net services lol

 

[Deleted50669]

I have faith that the US government will do the right thing.

And if not, give rise to VPN’s and dark net services lol

Amen to that

 

[GuestUser450]

I don't think I'm a nut, shill or fringe ideologue, but folks - here are a few simple questions to ask yourself and think deeply about:

Corporation Vs Government
Who has better customer service?
Who's easier to complain to?
What's easier to fight, company policy or law?
What's worse - higher prices or garbage product?
Which one exists because of a customer, which one is the customer?
What historically has a better track record - good intentions of fairness or an actual fair exchange of market-determined value?

The most important question: These corporations you despise and rail against for being corrupt and having too much power... I wonder - How do monopolies exist without help from the very thing you see as an alternative?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[JAJT]

The most important question: These corporations you despise and rail against for being corrupt and having too much power... I wonder - How do monopolies exist without help from the very thing you see as an alternative?

Out of curiosity - does this mean you are in favor of the elimination of net neutrality?

If so... what good do you see coming from it?

I want more competition, not less, and I see a lack of neutrality to be a blow against competition and technological advancement in many different ways. It shifts the landscape from one of "anyone with an idea can knock anyone else off the pedestal" to one of "anyone with enough money to make a deal with the leader, provided it's in their best interests, can compete with permission".

Check out this brief history of neutrality infringements I just read about when reading up a bit more on the arguments:

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

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.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

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.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

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.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

I'm all for corporations, and corporations being allowed to run their own operations, and small government in general, but shit like this should give most people who use the internet pause.

If the landscape for internet service providers was truly competitive, then these kinds of infractions would be "ruinous" to their businesses. The only way they can get away with them is through pure lack of competition. If it was as easy as saying "I disagree, I'm taking my business elsewhere" there would be no issue. The problem is there is no "other bank across the street" to take your money to.

The choice between "let us F*ck you" and "go F*ck yourself" isn't much of a choice at all, IMHO.

 

[GuestUser450]

Out of curiosity - does this mean you are in favor of the elimination of net neutrality?
If so... what good do you see coming from it?

Yes. I know it sounds crazy, but I've thought about this. I'm sure everything you sourced is correct. And that's why we have a legal system, to fight those infringements. But what do you do when the infringement is the system? I'd rather fight a corp than the entity that enforces the law. Simply, I'd rather pay more and feel ripped off than deal with a bureaucratic, gruel-version of the internet. Look further down the road and tell me that isn't likely.

The choice between "let us F*ck you" and "go F*ck yourself" isn't much of a choice at all, IMHO.

Life is full of messy choices. The goal is to not completely ruin shit just make ourselves more comfortable or rationalize our narratives. This isn't the hill I want to die on, so I see it as an expense of living life. Just gimme the bill and get out of my way.

 

[PedroG]

Out of curiosity - does this mean you are in favor of the elimination of net neutrality?

If so... what good do you see coming from it?

I want more competition, not less, and I see a lack of neutrality to be a blow against competition and technological advancement in many different ways. It shifts the landscape from one of "anyone with an idea can knock anyone else off the pedestal" to one of "anyone with enough money to make a deal with the leader, provided it's in their best interests, can compete with permission".

Check out this brief history of neutrality infringements I just read about when reading up a bit more on the arguments:

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

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.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

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.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

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.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

I'm all for corporations, and corporations being allowed to run their own operations, and small government in general, but shit like this should give most people who use the internet pause.

If the landscape for internet service providers was truly competitive, then these kinds of infractions would be "ruinous" to their businesses. The only way they can get away with them is through pure lack of competition. If it was as easy as saying "I disagree, I'm taking my business elsewhere" there would be no issue. The problem is there is no "other bank across the street" to take your money to.

The choice between "let us F*ck you" and "go F*ck yourself" isn't much of a choice at all, IMHO.

Great post! It seems to me the source of the problem is the lack of competition. We really don't have many choices as to which ISPs to use.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[PedroG]

But what do you do when the infringement is the system?

This is my concern. Politicians have been talking for years about how the internet needs to be regulated, so when I hear that the government is gonna get involved and impose rules, I get very nervous.

 

[JAJT]

I'd rather fight a corp than the entity that enforces the law.

What do you do when corporations are the ones having the laws changed to their benefit through back-room deals and lobbying?

When the government won't listen because they've been purchased, corporations won't listen because they were the ones doing the purchasing, and competition is impossible because both government and corporations have made it that way... Who do you take the fight to?

 

[lowtek]

We haven't had "net neutrality" the entire time the internet has been in existence. So... why the sudden drive for it now?

Net Neutrality is like every other government program. A power grab designed to solve a problem that exists only because of other government programs and regulations.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[c4n]

We haven't had "net neutrality" the entire time the internet has been in existence.

Care to elaborate? What ISP has been giving data packets from certain websites priority over data packets from other internet traffic?

 

[MJ DeMarco]

"net neutrality"?

You mean, like "the affordable care act?"

 

[PedroG]

Care to elaborate? What ISP has been giving data packets from certain websites priority over data packets from other internet traffic?

I think he means we didn't have the net neutrality law until 2 years ago, which is kind of the point I was making earlier. I still see it as an excuse for the government to start regulating the internet.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GuestUser450]

What do you do when corporations are the ones having the laws changed to their benefit through back-room deals and lobbying? When the government won't listen because they've been purchased, corporations won't listen because they were the ones doing the purchasing, and competition is impossible because both government and corporations have made it that way... Who do you take the fight to?

Exactly. This is my point, just from a different angle. When things are crooked, we fight it, when things are law we accept it. Monopolies can't exist without regulation in their favor. There's never been neutrality. It's been a self-regulating wild west and it's worked well. The argument that legislation can somehow preserve this is misguided. Forget fairness, promote competition. Fighting for smaller ISPs with our wallets is a lot easier than living with an omnipotent white knight with good intentions.

 

[Eskil]

"net neutrality"?

You mean, like "the affordable care act?"

Sure buddy, and like the "national security agency"
Lol... gotta love government oxymorons