
The 5 most ridiculous things the FCC says in its new net neutrality propaganda - pulisse
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/28/16710450/fcc-net-neutrality-fact-sheet-is-total-nonsense
======
Rapzid
I think the biggest tragedy is that media outlets are not discussing the
misdirection of this whole thing.

The new "leaders" are billing this as "restoring internet freedom" by
repealing "Obama Era" regulation as if things are being put back to some prior
status quo that never actually existed. FCC enforced this rules prior, Verizon
challenged on overreach and won, and the adjustments were made to bring
enforcement within their reach. This article does a pretty good job of
covering some of the history: [http://fortune.com/2017/11/22/net-neutrality-
fcc-ajit-pai-ve...](http://fortune.com/2017/11/22/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-
verizon-comcast-att/) .

The rest of the details are kinda moot IMHO when the foundation of their
argument, that this is going back to some more free internet(free for ISPs)
that never existed, is dishonest.

~~~
maxxxxx
This is just another example of the American political discourse. You have two
sides that don't even accept the same facts or reality. Most people don't
bother to understand the issues but still passionately defend the talking
points of "their side". See climate change or health care or guns. Impossible
to have any kind of discussion.

~~~
CalChris
> You have two sides that don't even accept the same facts or reality.

That is equivocation.

~~~
wolfram74
I mean, if one side is accepting reality and the other delusional, that
statement holds. I don't think the grandparent was implying both sides held
incompatible delusional ideas.

~~~
maxxxxx
I meant that most people don't bother understanding issues but just vigorously
repeat talking from points from "their side".

------
harshreality
I'm afraid that debating issues like this with anti-neutrality conservatives
is getting lost in the weeds.

Something they probably will respond to, if you can hammer it into their heads
through all the propaganda they've been fed, is that a free market for ISPs
doesn't exist, can't exist (last mile infrastructure can't support a free
market even under ideal conditions), and won't exist under Pai's plan. A free
market for internet providers probably doesn't even exist in Pai's dreams,
unless he's as dumb as the propaganda the FCC is putting out.

Then ask them if they really think it's a good idea, in a low-competition
market that's not free, to let ISPs do nearly whatever they want.

~~~
madaxe_again
This is pretty much the playbook I tried with my father last night, to no
avail.

You see, it’s not about rational arguments - and if you try to fight it on
those grounds, you’ll have Brexit all over your hands, and it’s a nightmare to
clean up.

No - last night I explained how the proposed legislation would directly hurt
him, how it would take away freedoms he currently enjoys. Everything looped
back to “but Obama crippled the internet in 2015” and “but I want internet
freedom”.

When those didn’t fit, it turned into generational crap. “My generation
invented the internet. Yours just uses it for smartphones and twitter and
facebook. We wouldn’t even be having this argument if it weren’t for
millennials messing up the internet.”

He’s not stupid - he’s just suspending the rational thought he’s amply capable
of in favour of comforting lies. No, he’s broken, without hope.

The content, the detail, the logic, the impact - all irrelevant. What is
relevant is picking at the feeling of trapped failure that pervades much of
society, and providing the population with a facile solution to their complex
problems. “Vote for internet freedom, imagine the flag flying in the breeze
against a clear blue sky and an eagle flies by, just like the good old days,
when pop would put you on his shoulders to see the marching band”.

Problem is, when you try to argue either the immediate argument or the broader
emotional trap they’re in, they dig in deeper - nobody wants to be the fool
who fell in a trap.

It’s very nearly if not actually checkmate politics - I cannot see an out that
doesn’t require going through hell, and I’ll be delightfully surprised if this
doesn’t pass into law with roaring popular support.

~~~
miguelrochefort
You want more government. We don't. Get over it.

~~~
masklinn
Now what are you talking about? The only thing TFA wants, assuming they favor
Title II classification for ISPs, is what the FCC has been doing since 2010:

* that ISPs do not discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic

* that ISPs do not block lawful "content, applications, services or non-harmful devices"

You're not "[not] want[ing] more government", you're wanting consumer-facing
ISP control and monopolistic renting over all content.

~~~
en-us
For anyone interested, this is here, section III A:
[https://www.google.com/url?q=https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_publ...](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiKz8bHguzXAhVh4oMKHRSPDzkQFggLMAA&usg=AOvVaw1C-OuAir8QJb-
zpfxl1lKv)

------
JohnTHaller
ISPs have been caught blocking both before and after the net neutrality rules
took effect, just in case you want to be sure the FCC is lying.

------
westurner
> The Federal Communications Commission put out a final proposal last week to
> end net neutrality. The proposal opens the door for internet service
> providers to create fast and slow lanes, to block websites, and to
> prioritize their own content. This isn’t speculation. It’s all there in the
> text.

Great. Payola. Thanks Verizon!

Does the FTC have the agreement information needed to hear the anti-trust
cases that are sure to result from what are now complaints to the FCC (an
organization with network management expertise) being redirected to the FTC?

Title II is the appropriate policy set for ISPs; regardless of how lucrative
horizontal integration with content producers seems.

------
Clubber
After Tom Wheeler (whom I thought was a shill at first), it's obvious how much
of a skunk this guy is.

------
zaroth
ISP blocking would be the single best thing to happen to Internet privacy in
the last 3 decades.

Since it became commonplace for ISPs to trace every single DNS query, HTTP and
SMTP header, etc. and then record, analyze and data mine this information in
perpetuity, and then leverage said analysis to inject advertising, and then
provide real-time tracking information on this analysis, and then....

Basically 99% of the incredibly invasive shit that ISPs do today is legal, and
remained legal under the "net neutrality" legislation we had. In fact, several
laws require ISPs to keep and provide this information on request, and often
without a warrant.

So please bring on the blocking, bring on the fast and slow lanes, bring on
the _directly visible_ infringements of our privacy while using the so-called
"dump pipes". Because only then will people be motivated to maybe seek out and
utilize the myriad technologies available to prevent ISPs from deploying their
prioritization and blocking and tracking schemes, and we will all be better
off for it.

And while the ILECs continue to burn themselves to the ground, SpaceX can
launch their ~10,000 satellites and I'll happily pay them $200/mo for better
service in a competitive market unencumbered by regulations which increasingly
don't apply to the majority of consumer internet usage (i.e. mobile) anyway.

IMO, the right angle to fight any change in "net neutrality" legislation is a
quid pro quo which lifts network management and QoS restrictions on the ISPs
in return for federal mandate that localities are guaranteed the right to
provide their own local muni-service following a local election majority vote,
as well as establishing a Federal fund for low-interest financing of those
deployments.

~~~
greglindahl
Satellite internet is not an unregulated market in the US.

------
briantakita
The Daily Wire (i.e. Ben Shapiro) has the other side of the Net Neutrality
debate.

It's interesting that the verge article does not touch on any of these points.
I've seen other comments mentioning debates getting lost in the weeds. Perhaps
there are some presuppositions or matters of importance that are not being
understood?

[http://www.dailywire.com/news/18613/7-reasons-net-
neutrality...](http://www.dailywire.com/news/18613/7-reasons-net-neutrality-
idiotic-aaron-bandler)

~~~
rjbwork
>"Competition ensures that companies do not have the leverage to discriminate
against particular websites," Shapiro added.

What competition? I've got the "choice" between AT&T or Comcast. Both suck
hugely, but in different ways. I'm sure both will not hesitate to force
companies to cut them checks to push their bits to my computer.

> It's crony capitalism in favor of web giants like Facebook and Google.
> That's why they support net neutrality, since it targets their competitors.

How? My company can't afford to pay every ISP for priority access to fast
lanes, but our larger, entrenched competitors can.

Maybe it's just my bias, but I only see these kinds of arguments from heavily
right leaning sources, and to my mind they miss the mark every time. I don't
understand how allowing ISPs to block or throttle companies that don't cut
them whatever checks they ask for isn't anti-competitive, and how it could
possibly promote competition in an industry full of natural monopolies.

------
dingo_bat
Let's try to make sense of Verge's points:

1\. Creation of fast/slow lanes

> If you read carefully, you’ll notice the FCC isn’t even trying to debunk the
> creation of fast and slow lanes. It’s just trying to debunk that they “will
> worsen consumers’ online experience.” That’s a matter of opinion, and
> clearly, we all know which side the FCC lands on.

Verge says: FCC has stated an opinion and we all know what kind of people have
an opinion that doesn't match ours lol.

2\. ISPs will block sites

> The FCC is trying to repeal a rule that stops ISPs from blocking websites,
> so the commission absolutely can’t guarantee internet providers won’t do
> that when the rules are gone. But despite saying this “won’t” happen, the
> answer goes on to say, okay, maybe ISPs will block sites. But hey, people
> will get mad about it!

Verge says: The FCC says the free market will take care of any restrictions
ISP try to place on their service. As if the free market ever worked!

3\. NN repeal will protect users' privacy

> On a really technical level, the FCC is correct here.

> The commission’s privacy rules were struck down by Congress earlier this
> year, so there aren’t any privacy rules in place at the moment. But that
> happened, in part at least, thanks to the current FCC chairman’s campaign
> against them. Had those rules been kept in place, consumers would have been
> covered by much stricter privacy protections than what the Federal Trade
> Commission will guarantee. That’s because the FTC mostly has privacy
> guidelines — not strict rules — whereas the FCC was able to define specific
> behaviors that are unacceptable. Without net neutrality, privacy enforcement
> will go back to the FTC’s broader approach.

Verge says: FCC is correct. But that won't prevent us from making up some
bullshit!

4\. NN is hurting broadband investments

> And if you only look at the numbers cable companies give you, that would
> appear to be true. If you take a broader view, it’s clear that broadband
> investment had already been declining before net neutrality was put in
> place. <link to [https://www.vox.com/2014/5/12/5711082/big-cable-says-
> broadba...](https://www.vox.com/2014/5/12/5711082/big-cable-says-broadband-
> investment-is-flourishing-but-their-own-data>)

Verge says: FCC is stupidly believing ISPs' own data. Here, take some data
that proves them wrong. Oh btw this data is also provided by ISPs.

5\. Broadband providers will charge you a premium if you want to reach certain
online content.

> What the commission is arguing here is that, because something didn’t happen
> in the past, it therefore won’t happen in the future. But that’s not how
> anything works. And there’s a good argument to make that, because the FCC is
> explicitly giving ISPs the thumbs-up on this stuff, it’s more likely to
> happen than ever.

Verge says: The FCC is completely right. But fuck them for not supporting
unneeded extra government regulation and oversight.

~~~
pzone
Whoa there, acknowledging that the FCC might not be purely an agent of
corporate propaganda and might actually be stating what it believes is in
everyone's best interest?

Watch out for the downvote brigade!

------
jhiska
You're preaching to the choir.

