FCC chairman Ajit Pai out, net neutrality back

ZDNet ^ | 30.November.2020 | Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

[palmer]

Net-neutrality requires internet service providers to treat all data the same *regardless of content*. If net-neutrality is in effect a stream from CNN and OANN travel at the same speed.

If that's a problem (which it is not), then use a VPN.

[DarthVader]

No it is the narrative of the media. They are conveniently leaving out how the legislatures in PA and AZ are rejecting the certifications and are awarding the electors. Will happen in MI today and we will have Trump with 279 EV’s.

[Boise3981]

There is no "net neutrality" now.

There's some net-neutrality now. California passed their own net neutrality law and, as a rather large market, what they want can often dictate standards to the rest of the country. Further, some of the steps the FCC took to remove net-neutrality are still under litigation and haven't taken effect yet.

While whether the effects are a big deal or not is a matter of opinion, who benefits really isn't. Removing net-neutrality benefits those with the deepest pockets capable of paying the premium for access to the "fast lane". Removing net-neutrality harms the "little guy" or the non-mainstream as they can't afford to keep up with the established corporations. Keeping net-neutrality helps alternative views and newer startups.

But whether it's a big enough deal to worry about is a matter of opinion.

[Boise3981]

Not that it matters because Net Neutrality is about having the government decide what is proper content.

The exact opposite, actually. Net neutrality requires ISPs treat all content equally, regardless of what it is. It prevents someone (government, corporations, whomever...) from throttling back some sites while speeding up others.

[Mr. K]

WRONG!!!
Net neutrality is government takeover of the Internet...Have you not learned anything here???!!!

[palmer]

Please name a "little guy" and how net non-neutrality has hurt him/her.

[Boise3981]

The only content that ISPs would ever throttle is HD or 4K

That's certainly the most likely content to be throttled back. And if that's the only content, then it would benefit Amazon and Netflix and Hulu and hurt the new startup with a good idea but limited funds. But in the big picture, probably not that big of a deal.

But especially in rural areas, HD and 4K aren't the only things that might be throttled back. Any video service takes enormous amounts of bandwidth. So an ISP might throttle down all video unless the creators paid a "fee". That would mean CNN would stream fast and clear while OANN or Newsmax would not. Or a provider with a monopoly on an area (which is a problem in most of the country) who wanted to could, theoretically, throttle back stuff based on an ideology or content they don't like. For example: Comcast, which is a partner with NBC, could throttle back conservative outlets and throttle up MSNBC.

With net-neutrality providers have to treat all content the same. Without it, companies can throttle up or down as they see fit for whatever reasons they want.

[Boise3981]

If that's a problem (which it is not), then use a VPN. If, as an ISP, I set all "normal" traffic at 50% and prioritize specific outlets (like CNN or MSNBC or whatever), then using a VPN isn't going to get around that. The VPN would fall as "normal" traffic and get throttled back and the "fast lane" would be reserved for outlets that pay me or that I like.

VPN can help keep you private or bypass filters, it won't avoid "fast lanes".

[palmer]

But especially in rural areas, HD and 4K aren't the only things that might be throttled back. Any video service takes enormous amounts of bandwidth. So an ISP might throttle down all video unless the creators paid a "fee".

Could, might, maybe. The fact is nobody throttles anything unless it's to keep their network from getting overloaded. Even if they decided to throttle it would have no effect except on live streams. Anything else can be buffered.

For example: Comcast, which is a partner with NBC, could throttle back conservative outlets and throttle up MSNBC.

What utter nonsense. Use a VPN, end of story.

[a fool in paradise]

Liable for what you post because they are not a publisher asshole

[palmer]

VPN can help keep you private or bypass filters, it won't avoid "fast lanes".

Please name a single "little guy" or "conservative source" impacted by lack of access to "fast lanes".

[Boise3981]

No it is the narrative of the media. They are conveniently leaving out how the legislatures in PA and AZ are rejecting the certifications and are awarding the electors.

The PA legislature adjourned yesterday and will not meet again until January.

AZ is also out of session until January.

As a result, neither one of those legislatures can do anything unless called back for a special session by the governor (which the Dem governor in PA won't do, and the governor of AZ isn't going to do given he certified things yesterday).

MI's legislature is still in session, but those other two aren't and won't be before the electoral college votes.

[Boise3981]

Please name a "little guy" and how net non-neutrality has hurt him/her.

It's a bit of a hypothetical.

But, for example, if net-neutrality hadn't existed in the late 90s then Yahoo would have been able to pay the premium and throttle up their content and Google would never have had a chance.

If net-neutrality hadn't existed in the early 2000s then Blockbuster would have been able to pay the premium and Netflix or Hulu would never have had a chance.

Net neutrality benefits those without the resources to pay for the premium access to the fast lanes. It allows the next idea, the next Google/Netflix/Hulu or whatever, to compete based on the quality of their idea. Removing net-neutrality benefits established corporations with deeper pockets, like Amazon, NBC, Netflix, etc... because it's an obstacle for any future competitors to overcome.

[dfwgator]

The Net Neutrality Act makes the Internet neutral like the Affordable Healthcare Act made healthcare affordable.

[Boise3981]

What utter nonsense. Use a VPN, end of story.

That's... not what a VPN does.

Could, might, maybe. Yup. We're talking about uncharted territory here.

But net-neutrality requires providers to treat all traffic and all content equally. Preventing anyone from playing favorites for either profit or ideology. Removing net-neutrality will allow some ISPs to throttle people up/down for profit, and allow other ISPs to throttle people up/down for ideological reasons. It will happen. Maybe it'll be widespread, maybe not. But it will happen in some places.

If you like the larger corporations and feel like sites that share your ideology wouldn't be throttled back by corporations, then net-neutrality isn't a big deal.

If, however, you suspect that some in corporate America might frown upon your ideology and attempt to silence you or you're interested in making it easier for innovation and competition, then net-neutrality becomes important to you.

Whether you like it or not depends on your prioritization and what's important to you.

[palmer]

But, for example, if net-neutrality hadn't existed in the late 90s then Yahoo would have been able to pay the premium and throttle up their content and Google would never have had a chance.

Google built their monopoly using crawlers in datacenters. Yahoo failed to do that and lost. In fact Yahoo failed so miserably, they started buying Google's crawled data in 2000. There was no reason or way to throttle Google results to end uses even back then and certainly not now. The next Google has no barriers.

It allows the next idea, the next Google/Netflix/Hulu or whatever, to compete based on the quality of their idea.

They can compete without streaming HD or 4k, just using buffering. The end user may prefer clicking and seeing instant HD, but that's not a problem the government needs to solve. Allowing the government to take over the internet just so instant streaming is "neutral" is a terrible solution for a non-problem.

[palmer]

Whether you like it or not depends on your prioritization and what's important to you.

What's important to me is that government stay out of regulating the internet.

[DarthVader]

AZ legislature called for a special session last night and PA legislature presented and voted on the Resolution rejecting the Certification yesterday about 19 hours ago. You are out of the loop.

[KobraKai]

It really seems that you are gaslighting everybody with your repeated comments about net neutrality. We do not have net neutrality now, so all these things you keep listing, all these doom prognostications about what will happen to us without net neutrality, are all fiction.

[poconopundit]

All you to know about Net Neutrality is that Obama got $100 million from Netflix.

Netflix is an over the top provider of internet services — movies, TV, etc.

Obama delivered net neutrality for Netflix and was paid a reword accordingly.

The problem with Netflix is they expect to pay zero fees when the ability to deliver the service needs to be paid for by telecoms and ISPs who actually own networks and raise the money to support them and buy wires, cables, switches for which Netflix wouldn’t exist.

So net neutrality was always a con to stiff the companies providing the satellites, cables, and high speed internet services.

People need to pay for what that use. Otherwise we become like California where they have rolling blackouts because they refuse to pay Pacific Electric to maintain their network properly to prevent fire and other natural disasters from damaging the lines.