Why You Should Be Freaking Out About The End Of Net Neutrality

[okaawhatever]

Net neutrality is dead.

At least that's the verdict of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which today struck down a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order from 2010 that forced Internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner Cable to abide by the principles of network neutrality. These principles broadly stipulate that ISP network management must be transparent, and that ISPs can't engage in practices that block, stifle or discriminate against (lawful) websites or traffic types on the Internet.

That's the bare bones story, wrapped in ugly acronyms (FCC, ISP, etc.). But why should you care that network neutrality ("net neutrality&quot may be gone for good?

1. No more net neutrality means ISPs can now discriminate against content they dislike.

Everyone gets their Internet from an Internet service provider -- an ISP like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast or Time Warner Cable. Under net neutrality rules, these ISPs have to treat all content you access over the Internet "roughly the same way" -- they can't speed up traffic from websites they like or delay competitor's traffic.

Now, with net neutrality gone, ISPs can discriminate, favoring their business partners while delaying or blocking websites they don't like. Think your cable CEO hates free online porn? Now you'll know for sure!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/net-neutrality_n_4597831.html

This is a great, simplified 5 point list of effects of the ruling. Worth clicking to read the other four.

[octoberlib]

1. Good article.

Some of my friends seem to be having problems grasping why this is so bad. I'll show this to them.

[okaawhatever]

3. i'm wondering if this can lead to something like cable television where you have to buy a package to

access certain sites or even sites that can't get the major companies to carry them. This talks mostly about slowing down or speeding up coverage, but I wonder if they can't eliminate certain sites all together or buy "exclusive streaming rights" to certain sites. You know, the way Walmart paid for exclusive rights to sell certain CD's or some stores buy exclusive rights to certain products.

[octoberlib]

5. I think that's exactly where it will lead nt

[jeff47]

6. That's exactly where Verizon wants to go

Which is why they brought this suit.

[okaawhatever]

12. Thanks for the heads up. Is that somehow tied into their new FIOS Internet, TV and phone package?

I've recently seen several ads for their FIOS tv(?) thing...I'm not sure what they're offering but I assumed it was like Netflix or Huluplus with access to tv shows with their internet package.

[jeff47]

14. FIOS TV is just like cable TV.

It shows the broadcast channels, and a bunch of "cable" channels.

How this helps Verizon is they can limit or block Netflix or Huluplus while not blocking FIOS content.

[snot]

50. I don't think you understand.

This could lead to DU or Democracy Now becoming unusable (too slow) or unaffordable. It could literally drive progressives off the internet. Let alone all the millions of individually-operated blogs and small businesses, which may have nothing to do with politics but might otherwise compete with big corporations.

The internet could become a wasteland of big corporate sites and divertainment, useless for any kind of intelligent discussion, let alone organization.

They don't have to censor anything outright. Consider, among other things, " . . . Napoleon . . . said that it wasn't necessary to completely suppress the news; it was sufficient to delay the news until it no longer mattered."
– attributed by PRWatch to Martin A. Lee & Norman Solomon, Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in News Media (New York: Lyle Stuart, 1991), p. xvii.

[okaawhatever]

64. Thank you for the info. nt

[flying rabbit]

2. K$R

[Lasher]

4. Don't bother us, we're concentrating on more important stuff like local gun crimes and gender wars.

Don't clutter up GD with trivial things like net neutrality and fast track authority for the TPP.

[upaloopa]

53. Well I see you had a lot of influence on net

neutrality. What discussion here stopped the courts from killing net neutrality?
Besides we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[ShadowLiberal]

7. I fear for my career over this

As a professional software developer, I fear for what this idiotic ruling could do to my career long term.

If everyone is an idiot and starts paying the 'tolls' that ISP's put up, then that'll be a massive tax on tech companies, and will greatly harm start up Internet companies, which tend to need a lot of tech people.


Worse yet, I can't believe the stupid arguments I'm seeing about this ruling online at other sites in articles and comments. Techdirt for example basically said that while the end of net neutrality is bad, it would also be bad to have the government step in like the FCC was doing because they could abuse that power in the future.

[okaawhatever]

13. I wonder if that's a little "sponsored content" article over at TechDirt. So many of the "articles"

these days are sponsored advertisements in the form of articles. i don't see for one second how people involved in the web in any fashion wouldn't be concerned with this. Maybe TechDirt or some others were promised they'd get preferential treatment if they played it up, effectively shutting the door behind them for competition. Besides, what has the FCC done to cause a bunch of problems for business anyway? The Fairness Doctrine, the equal time rule??? You know, those abusive rulings that hurt people who wanted to buy our airwaves and take over our political news and messaging.

[octoberlib]

8. Statement from Senator Franken

Senator Franken disagrees, making a different economic argument. His statement follows [bolding TechCrunch]:

Anyone who goes online to shop, promote their business, or simply to connect with the world should be worried about today’s opinion. I have been fighting to make sure the Internet is a level playing field for everyone—the website of a Minnesota small business should load as quickly as the website of a large corporation.

Getting rid of net neutrality is bad for consumers and the economy, plain and simple. And it’s a real risk to the Internet as we know it. Net neutrality is the common-sense idea that big corporations like Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner shouldn’t control who gets to innovate, communicate, or start a business on the Internet. The FCC needs to respond immediately in a way that keeps the internet open to all of us, not just big corporate interests.


http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/14/senator-al-franken-condemns-todays-net-neutrality-ruling/

[klook]

47. Well stated by Sen. Franken

"The website of a Minnesota small business should load as quickly as the website of a large corporation."

Also from the TechCrunch article:

If you are unsure which side of the debate you’re on, ask yourself which of the following two statements is more accurate:

1. Net neutrality erodes ISPs’ ability to generate revenue from their networks, retarding infrastructure investment, and shifting costs ultimately to consumers and away from content creators that depend on fiber that they didn’t lay.


2. Net neutrality ensures that every voice, regardless of its wealth, scale, message or progenitor, has equal weight, keeping the Internet the open driver of innovation and discussion that it has always been.

As Ferenstein argues, there is significant nuance required in crafting the legal parameters for net neutrality, and we shouldn’t presume that any sort of regulatory outline we can draw is the correct idea. That difficulty, naturally, doesn’t mean that the project isn’t worth the time required to get it right.

But I would argue that granting companies that both deliver and create content the right to decide what is worthy of viewing, and what is not worthy of viewing for their customers, is far more troubling than option No. 1 above.
-- more: http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/14/senator-al-franken-condemns-todays-net-neutrality-ruling/

The Internet is not a private enterprise owned by the ISPs, any more than highways are owned by the contractors who built them. The ISPs should be thanking us citizens -- the real owners of the Internet -- every day for keeping them in business.

[Kurovski]

9. K&R

Brit Hume is a sexist!!!

Don't mind me, I'm just creating a diversion.

[jsr]

10. Excellent summary

[bl968]

11. Why you should be freaking out

You should be freaking out because the bandwidth that your ISP want's to charge Netflix for access to for isn't theirs to sell, it's yours. You bought and paid for it along with any other content you want to access while using it. If your isp attempts to degrade your access to Netflix or any other service who hasn't paid them; sue them for breach of contract.

[Demeter]

15. Well, Congress is just going to have to act to restore it

[Enthusiast]

44. ...

[SolutionisSolidarity]

57. Why? This only happened because the FCC has not reclassified ISPs as common carriers.

Obama can fix this. There's no hiding behind Congress for the Administration on network neutrality.

[Demeter]

58. Do write a public petition and circulate it, then

On the White House website...since you seem to know the solution and speak the lingo. I'll gladly sign. So will most of DU.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

59. It's already there.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/restore-net-neutrality-directing-fcc-classify-internet-providers-common-carriers/5CWS1M4P

[BarackTheVote]

16. I don't think this will stand

I can't believe that the FCC will let this go. And any ISP that tries to put the internet behind a paywall will quickly whither on the vine. AOL made it difficult to get to external websites, trying to keep people inside of their own box, and they were roundly rejected and subsequently died.

[merrily]

18. Seems as though the FCC can fix this, if it so chooses.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled (see full opinion below) that the FCC lacked the authority to impose anti-discrimination rules because it had failed to classify broadband Internet as a common-carrier service.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2014/01/fccs-net-neutrality-rules-struck-down-by-dc-circuit.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/199639287/Net-Neutrality-Rules-Struck-Down-by-Appeals-Court

And, if not the FCC, then certainly Congress.

Wanna put down big money on what the FCC and Congress will do?

[Papa]

24. I agree with your main point, but you have it backwards

AOL actually began with a "walled garden" approach where you really couldn't get out to the Internet, and then they let down the wall and there was an explosion of growth for AOL, and the Internet. AOL lost it's subscribers when broadband came around, along with poor decision making in trying to transition their dial up customers to a broadband connection.

[merrily]

17. What good does freaking out do?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

19. Well, my life and well-being depend on the Internet staying exactly as it is. If this

thing happens, I will have nothing left to live for.

[merrily]

25. Will "freaking out" change any of that?

I am not saying that the court decision is not important. I am asking what good freaking out will do.

Seems to me that freaking out will do very little, beside raise your cortisol levels and your blood pressure.

[Th1onein]

28. Distract much?

Leave it.

[merrily]

29. Distract from what?

[Th1onein]

31. You're hijacking the thread.

But then, you knew that, didn't you?

[merrily]

32. No, that is only your opinion and you are mistaken.

My point is that taking action is preferable to only freaking out or only posting about something.

In this case, unlike many others about which we wring our collective hands, I believe there is effective action that can be taken.

BTW, I posted a one line question. Since then, I have only been responding to people who thought they had some right to chastise me for posting it, like you, for example.

[Luminous Animal]

33. What have you done to promote taking action? Nothing, nada, zilch.

The only thing you've contributed is negativity.

The only thing.

The OP provides the why. What did you add?

[merrily]

36. I suggested an action that I think might work.

The only thing you've contributed is negativity.

The only thing.

The OP provides the why. What did you add?

My question had a point, at least in my mind. Aside from responding to you and the other poster who thinks she is the boss of my posts, all my posts on this thread were related to the OP.

Aside from attacking me personally, what have you contributed to this thread?

[Luminous Animal]

38. Your question had no point other than negativity. You brought nothing to the discussion.

My contribution is to call you out for doing so.

[merrily]

39. LOL!

[Luminous Animal]

40. Hope you didn't frighten the horses.

[merrily]

41. If your posts haven't frightened them, they are probably fine.

[Th1onein]

61. You're outing your motivation with every post you make.

Last edited Thu Jan 16, 2014, 08:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Good luck with that. I'm putting you on Ignore.

[merrily]

63. Thank heaven.

[Luminous Animal]

20. Perhaps it will spur a person to take action or

make a dismissive remark on the internet. Clearly. You've made your choice.

[merrily]

27. A call to effective action is very different from a call to freak out.

I did not dismiss taking effective action.

In fact, I did not dismiss anything. I asked a question. You responded to it with a dismissive remark.

Am I dismissive of doing nothing more than freaking out? Yes, I am.

Am I dismissive of action that, based on history, is likely to get people nowhere? Yes, I am.

Proudly so, on both counts.


Am I dismissive of taking action that might have an impact? Absolutely not.

[Luminous Animal]

34. Never said that you dismissed taking action. Only that you made a dismissive remark.

If you are dismissive of doing nothing then where is your contribution other than making a dismissive remark?

Piss or get off the pot.

[merrily]

35. No, I asked a question. You interpreted it as dismissive.

[Dustlawyer]

21. The FCC isn't going to fix this, they are a subsidiary of BIG MEDIA!

Once again we have a serious problem that Congress can fix but won't because they too are a subsidiary of BIG BUSINESS!
Let's set a date in June of this year to start protesting about the need for COMPLETE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM AND PUBLICLY FUNDED ELECTIONS!
How about Saturday, June 21st? I will organize one for my town, how about you? I am not very computer literate and do not know where to post other than here, WolfPAC.com and my own FB page. Need some help here people. I am fed up enough to take the heat and we are running out of time! The Internet is the last area of communication that the 1% do not control. In fact, it is the last major area they do not control. They have the President(to a greater or lesser extent: No Wall Street prosecutions and insiders running the Fed...), Congress, much of the Judiciary including the Supremes, MSM, MIC, and most state governments. Once they control access to the internet, turn out the lights, the party's over, it's BIG BROTHER TIME IN THE USA!!!

[merrily]

26. After Citizens United, it seems to me that campaign finance reform will

require a Constitutional amendment, and I very much doubt that is a realistic possibility.

And, if you want to overrule Citizens United via a Constitutional Amendment, make sure you write an amendment that takes into account the freedom of association cases, too, esp. NAACP v. Button and other cases that the SCOTUS cited in its Citizens United opinion.

BTW, how big a demonstration do you think it will take to trump the lobbyists and campaign donations of companies like Verizon and Comcast, to convince Congress that a large majority of America's 150 million adults (give or take) will vote them out of office unless they fix this? Do you think 2 million demonstrators will suffice? How about 15 million?

[Dustlawyer]

45. It would take more than 15 million and way more than a weekend. We need a spark which may not

happen until the protests. This thing is a steep uphill battle. The Plutocracy is not just going to fold, but if we can count on politicians to be politicians, they may get worried if the polls start moving our way big time. The protest are to get this SINGLE MESSAGE through. The MSM will cover it to some degree if it is big and sustained enough. It also has to be bi-partisan. We would need to get some on the right who are true patriots and have enough of a brain to understand that they no longer have Representative government either. Better to do while Obama's in office for that reason.
Is it too late to get Ethan from Mission Impossible?

[merrily]

49. IMO, a boycott of the providers would have a better shot at success.

We need a spark which may not
happen until the protests.

We also need a spark, and a lot of work, to make the protests happen. And/or to make a boycott happen.

[snot]

51. +1000. The FCC has sided against us at every opportunity for the last decade or more.

Which is not to say that we shouldn't register our protest to the FCC, too; but the fact is that, under Bush, they acted against the largest public outcry in history, in terms of the masses of people who communicated their objections to proposed regulations.

Here are some petitions one can sign, f.w.i.w.:

https://act.demandprogress.org/sign/fcc_net_neutrality/?akid=2440.4208.SgbOP_&rd=1&t=1

http://act.freepress.net/go/15563?t=2&akid=4565.9321159.997o4x

[Blue_Tires]

56. Yeah, the ruling years ago which allowed telecoms to tier service

was the beginning of the end...

[AzDar]

22. K & R

[awoke_in_2003]

23. We have a propaganda machine...

that would make Goebbels blush.

[merrily]

30. This seems to be a perfect situation for a national boycott. Are we willing?

Cancelling your internet service as soon as it changes to non-neutral would seem to me to have a good chance of success, maybe better than any other course of action.

Are you willing to make that sacrifice?

[Le Taz Hot]

42. Millions of people rely on the internet

for their livelihood. Are YOU willing to give up your job for this issue? I'm thinking probably not. You might want to try real hard to muster up some compassion. Failing that, fake it.

[merrily]

43. Many people rely on the internet at, but not everyone's personal subscription

has to do with earning a living. I am willing to give up my at home subscription as a protest..

You might want to try real hard to muster up some compassion. Failing that, fake it.

Wow.

[Hugin]

37. Well, I guess this means so long, folks.

I can't imagine TPTB will suffer having something called, Democratic Underground on THEIR Internets for long.

Nice knowing ya.

[no_hypocrisy]

46. What potentially can happen with DU?

I have Verizon for my service provider.

If Verizon is offended by DU, can this happen:

1) I can't access DU, truthdig, common dreams, etc. b/c Verizon is blocking it yet I'm paying the same (if not more) money for my monthly service?

2) Can Verizon strong-arm DU and extort a lot more money to allow it to continue online, making it financially unfeasible for Skinner and Elad to maintain this site?

[snot]

52. YES.

[D23MIURG23]

48. I do find this concerning, but...

Keep in mind who stands to lose from a "tiered" internet:

Amazon.com, multibillion dollar corporation.
Ebay, multibillion dollar corporation
Google, multibillion dollar corporation
Netflix, multibillion dollar corporation
Facebook, multibillion dollar corporation

And that is just a few. Sure, they can all afford to be the top tier of the comcast/verizon internet, but politics and idealistic objections aside, what business wants to pay extra for something it already has? IMO if net neutrality starts to be phased out in practice its going to pit the telecoms against literally everyone else in the country, including some people and organizations with influence and deep pockets.

"Think your cable CEO hates free online porn? Now you'll know for sure!"

And what do you think will happen to David Vitter's stance on net neutrality after his favorite diaper website goes dark?

I agree, we should be concerned and open to any action we can take on this, because the internet is much more than entertainment for a LOT of people. Having said that, I wouldn't freak out just yet. The telecoms might think they are the masters of the universe, but if they go after the internet in a way that seriously disrupts it, they are going to find out quickly that they are not.

[snot]

54. I disagree. We've already let things go too far. To suppose that

our oppressors are going to suddenly decide not to exploit every opportunity to benefit themselves at our expense, in terms of both money and power, is, i.m.h.o., dangerously naive.

[D23MIURG23]

60. This isn't a zero sum game between "oppressors" and "oppressed".

I'm not suggesting that the telecoms won't try to fuck us over, or that they won't have backers in politics. I'll allow this press release from a study published in 2007 on the effects of ending net neutrality to make my point for me:

Not surprisingly, they [the researchers] found that broadband service providers were the ones to gain the most from ending net neutrality because they could collect fees from content providers. The content providers such as Yahoo! and Google, in turn, would be the biggest losers.

(emphasis mine)
http://news.ufl.edu/2007/03/07/net-neutrality/

Content providers meaning not only small websites, but also multi-billion dollar multinational corporations like Google and Amazon who have no more financial incentive than mom-and-pops-antiques.com in paying protection money to Comcast so that they can keep doing business. Surprise! Lots of oppressors giant, self-interested companies have a reason (other than the feelings of consumers) to want to keep net neutrality.

Coming at this issue with a defeatist attitude is stupid. There is still time before the telecoms implement anything, and options that the FCC and congress haven't exhausted yet to keep net neutrality around. If you think that basically all the businesses on the internet aren't going to put any pressure on politicians to do something about this, you are the naive one. This is just as much a billion dollar issue for them as it is for the telecoms.

[snot]

68. I am not defeatist. I just don't trust megacorps to look out for anyone's interests but their own.

Google's interests may be temporarily in partial consonance with ours; but they can and have sacrificed our liberties for their interests whenever it suited them.

[D23MIURG23]

69. Fair enough. I don't have any disagreement with that. n/t

[snot]

55. We are already in an infowar. Ending net neutrality means we lose.

As Lawrence Lessig warned back in 2001, "The innovation commons of the Internet threatens important and powerful pre-Internet interests. During the past five years, those interests have mobilized to launch a counterrevolution that is now having a global impact."

See also from 2011: "The internet as a model of free speech and access is coming to an end, says web expert Tim Wu". --http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/the-master-switch-tim-wu-internet

That said, "Nothing is inevitable, except defeat for those who give up without a fight." – "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" (1961), script by Irwin Allen & Charles Bennett.

[Hugin]

66. Yep, at BEST the 'net will become a "provider/consumer" model like X-box live.

Where the illusion of interaction and individual control is maintained, but, one can only see what content is allowed from some central source that holds all the cards. House rules, man.

[pam4water]

62. I'm sure freaking out.

[adavid]

67. This is the ....

BIGGEST blow to independent media, ever!