
Ajit Pai says you’re going to love the death of net neutrality - okket
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/ajit-pai-says-youre-going-to-love-the-death-of-net-neutrality/
======
pavel_lishin
> _ISPs ' required disclosures "will allow consumers to make an informed
> decision about which Internet service provider is best for them_

The one that's best for me is literally the only one that's available in my
area, so my informed decision is whether to have the internet or not.

~~~
Someone1234
The FCC actually changed the definition of an ISP so that cellular and
satellite providers are included. Meaning according to official FCC statistics
your area is swarming with competition, in spite of having just a single wired
ISP.

In fact according to official statistics, even rural areas with zero wired
internet options have a great competitive landscape. Let that sink in...

~~~
mrsteveman1
> The FCC actually changed the definition of an ISP so that cellular and
> satellite providers are included.

Wireless providers are competition for home internet service the same way the
gas station down the street selling water bottles for $3/each is an
alternative to running water.

You aren't going to get a $300 water bill just because some company in another
_state_ spent several days secretly filling your in-ground pool with the
garden hose without permission, nor would anyone tolerate having that happen
repeatedly while being told they can only brush their teeth but not flush the
toilet for the rest of the month.

A while back, the DSL here was not working for a few days, so I connected my
iPhone to my Macbook. Normally that's not an issue while away from home or in
a car for an hour or two, as there are limits to how much data anything could
use in that amount of time.

Apple's Photos app proactively downloaded something like _25GB_ of old stuff
from iCloud Photo Library that I didn't ask to download, didn't browse
through, or even remember having, simply because the local drive had free
space and Apple decided that both the space and the bandwidth were freely
available for it to waste.

If wireless providers were forbidden from imposing ridiculous data caps I
would be fine with calling them competition, because we _do_ have multiple
high speed providers here, they're just not _usable_ because they'd rather be
selling water bottles.

------
jorblumesea
Sure, and Mulvaney is really going to "streamline" the CFPB...

Why is it always "removing regulations" == "removing things that protect the
average person from predation"

The small government/less regulations argument is just a dog whistle for
unfettered corporatism.

------
kevin_b_er
He _removed_ the consumer protection. I now know with full confidence he will
lie to my face just like certain other politicians. All of his words are now
and in the future are automatically hollow.

~~~
spoiledtechie
Cite your claim. He strengthened it. Obama admin didn't actually implement any
consumer protection.

~~~
kevin_b_er
Title II was a consumer protection. It is removed. We have less. The only
thing now is a lack of competition unless you count a convenient redefinition
of competition to include wireless.

To quote another FCC commissioner: > Internet service providers now have the
power to block websites, throttle services, and censor online content. They
will have the right to discriminate and favor the Internet traffic of those
companies with whom they have pay-for-play arrangements and the right to
consign all others to a slow and bumpy road. Plain and simple, thanks to the
FCC's rollback of net neutrality, Internet providers have the legal green
light, the technical ability, and business incentive to discriminate and
manipulate what we see, read, and learn online.

What do we have left? Well truth in advertising. But that just requires lies
by omission and half truths to bypass. "Speeds up to 1 Gbit" is truthful. 0.01
mbit is within the advertised "truth", except when browisng websites that not
paid Comcast's now legal extortion fee. Then they'll get less.

We have a protection that was removed! Full stop. The existing protection of
truth in advertising did not change. So we went _down_.

------
mistrial9
There is a city here with a six lane freeway running right through the middle
of many previous residential areas.. It might seem obvious that a six lane
freeway produces constant noise, heavy particulate matter in the air all year,
and a constant blanket of heavy matter downwind on every surface, the soil,
your clothes, etc..

The benefit of this heavy motorway is that areas far from the city became the
new (wealthy) suburbs and shopping malls.

It is a matter of record that some local politicians made speeches about how
the new freeway would benefit the original city it runs through. I think they
use the phrase "tortured truth" to express how these statements reflect what
actually happened. I expect somewhat similar rise in fortunes, and drop in
privileges, associated with the new "un-Net".

~~~
kinsomo
> It is a matter of record that some local politicians made speeches about how
> the new freeway would benefit the original city it runs through. I think
> they use the phrase "tortured truth" to express how these statements reflect
> what actually happened.

Does anyone have any more info on the meaning and usage of the term "tortured
truth."

I've been looking for new, concise ways to refer to a dishonest use of
selectively chosen truth to mislead.

------
gfosco
Anyone willing to consider that maybe he's right about this issue?

~~~
bthrm
As a European: he’s right. You’ll love zero-rating. I do. :-)

~~~
Someone1234
You love this[0]? Ick.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-
rating#/media/File:Screen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-
rating#/media/File:Screenshot-2017-10-28_MEO_-
_Televisão,_Internet,_Telefone_e_Telemóvel.png)

~~~
bthrm
Yes, paying extra to get unlimited traffic to certain services is good. It’s
good there’s choice.

~~~
Someone1234
You, as the consumer, aren't making the choice. The ISP is picking which
companies get the privileged position. It is in effect king-making certain
services.

~~~
bthrm
No because European law does not allow them to do that. If you zero rate
YouTube you have to zero rate all video streaming sites, for example.

~~~
Someone1234
So in effect you're arguing it works due to Net Neutrality?

------
polski-g
Its important for everyone to know that the existence of non-existence of the
Obama-era NN rules had no bearing on what most people think net neutrality
did. (read: Those rules did nothing for consumer protection). ISPs were free
to opt-out of those rules if they so chose to do so.

[https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-
fc...](https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-
regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/)

~~~
Someone1234
That's a legal theory that was never challenged (i.e. that ISPs could fall
outside of Common Carrier status and bypass Title II). It was likely never
challenged because not being a Common Carrier might make them liable for the
content traveling over the wire.

This article is ruminating on what might occur, not what actually occurred.

~~~
polski-g
The DC Court of appeals said just the same:

[https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD0...](https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD079A89E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf)

an ISP making sufficiently clear to potential customers that it provides a
filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of “editorial intervention.” Id.
¶ 549. For instance, Alamo Broadband, the lone broadband provider that raises
a First Amendment challenge to the rule, posits the example of an ISP wishing
to provide access solely to “family friendly websites.” Alamo Pet. Reh’g 5.
Such an ISP, as long as it represents itself as engaging in editorial
interventi on of that kind, would fall outside the rule. See U.S. Telecom
Ass’n , 825 F.3d at 743; FCC Opp’n Pets. Reh’g 28 -29; FCC Br. 146 n.53 . The
Order thus specifies that an ISP remains “free to offer ‘edited’ services”
without becoming subject to the rule ’s requirements . Order ¶ 556.

------
spoiledtechie
Can I be the antagonist here?

I simply want a free market for the internet. Stop with government
intervention on both sides. Simply protect the consumer and let the free
market take over.

Who cares if companies like netflix get charged more? It will allow another
competitor to bubble up since Netflix will start adjusting their prices. This
works. Its called capitalism.

In theory, simply look at Lasik. Lasik 5 years ago, used to be 5k an eye. Now
I can get it from a Pandora commercial for just $200.00. Thats capitalism. It
drove prices down. I expect the same thing to happen with this. Competition
will drive prices down quickly. It also allows the providers like Cox or
Verizon to invest in their infrastructure. EVERYONE knows we are way behind
Japan and other countries with our infrastructure.

Let people decide with their dollars, rather than the government deciding.

~~~
thomastjeffery
That would be fine if there were _any competition to begin with_.

Allowing incumbents to abuse their customers does devalue them, making their
competitors _relatively_ more valuable. The problem is that there are _no
competitors_!

What we are left with are incumbents who can devalue themselves via customer
abuse without consequence, which simply boils down to customer abuse.

~~~
Grue3
By your logic, no competitive market can ever arise because somebody is always
the first, and incumbents can't possibly be competed with. Why isn't
everything a monopoly?

If lack of regulation allows for an incumbent to engage in anti-consumer
behavior, it opens a huge door for a more consumer-friendly competitor to
sweep the market.

~~~
thomastjeffery
No, my logic is that no one can compete with an already present oligopoly.

Opening that door is fruitless, because it is still impossible for a small
business to compete with the oligopoly.

ISPs are already very difficult ventures. There is a _huge_ upfront cost,
including infrastructure and land rights, that incumbents have already either
paid or had paid for by government aid. There has also been huge support from
government for incumbents. New ventures are risky, so incumbents are almost
always chosen for tax spending.

And let's not blow this out of proportion: That door is not _huge_. It is
barely significant in ideal circumstances. Infrastructure quality and price
matter more than net neutrality to most consumers.

------
JustSomeNobody
Part of me really hopes the internet heads into the crapper within the next
couple years. It's time for a reboot anyway, to clear the cruft.

~~~
barneygumble742
Reboot the internet with IPv6 and now all your internal devices will be openly
addressable to the internet. I see nothing good coming from that.

~~~
phinnaeus
NAT is not a firewall. There's no reason you can't hide your LAN from a WAN
connection with IPv6.

~~~
flyinghamster
Exactly right. When I enabled IPv6 on my home LAN, I made very sure that only
those hosts (and ports!) I wanted open were available to the outside world.
Otherwise, incoming IPv6 is DROP by default.

