Anti-net neutrality and online classes - please explain?

[Sneezyone]

Which set of previous rules? Pre-2014 or Wheeler’s mods?

Wheeler’s rules were a half-measure. The record advocates like me built demanded more and he decided on compromise. He was wrong. Rosenworcel and Clyburn understood much better what the stakes were and went along with what they could get. I spoke to them in person. Rosenworcel held hearings in arkansas. Pai never bothered to take the public temp. When I met with him, along with other CCSSO officers, his mind was already made up. That was five years ago now? The fix was in.

 

Honestly, none of the carrier BS will effect me much because I live in areas with robust access/investment and universities with Research and Education network access. It’s the small/rural fries, once again, that will take it in the shorts until a new administration/committee chair takes over.

 

It just bothers me to hear people parrot these anti-NN talking points without realizing what’s at stake. The freaking farm bureau was aligned against the telecoms in this because, guess what, they need Internet to dust the right lands, use their GPS-guided tractors, etc. this isn’t a liberal or anti-free market issue.

Edited December 28, 2017 by Sneezyone

[ktgrok]

 

It just bothers me to hear people parrot these anti-NN talking points without realizing what’s at stake. The freaking farm bureau was aligned against the telecoms in this because, guess what, they need Internet to dust the right lands, use their GPS-guided tractors, etc. this isn’t a liberal or anti-free market issue.

 

And it bugs me to hear people talking as if those against it just don't understand how things work...while the absolute best minds in the field are pretty much uniformly in favor of net neutrality. My husband knows the absolute most well versed people when it comes to how the internet works, how it functions in real life, what the vulnerabilities are, how it can be abused ,how to hack it, and how businesses use it, abuse it, and mold it. And yet, according to some of the things being said, they just really don't understand the issues at hand. Um...right. Sure. 

[Sneezyone]

If I’m understanding it correctly, under the Obama admin., the internet network providers (not sure if that’s the right title) were regulated as if they were public utilities. Under the current admin., the government regulations will return to seeing these companies/providers as for-profit corporations with a product/service for sale.

No. Public utilities are still for-profit companies with products to sell. As utilities, their products are deemed so essential to life and commerce that their profit margins and service standards are regulated to ensure market fairness for all. With the repeal of these rules, consumers are no longer protected by those regulatory tools.

 

ETA: that this additional regulation was created because utilities were effectively granted monopolies in most of the country (specifically, electric utilities). Government subsidized the building of electric lines (as it did with the R&E fiber backbones) that helped serve rural areas and, in exchange, required that consumers receive services at fair rates. Those regulatory tools are what’s at play when folks talk about ‘common carrier’. They don’t have to be used/deployed but they are an important stick in preventing abuses.

Edited December 28, 2017 by Sneezyone

[EmseB]

do you honestly think those that were against the recent ruling believed( or argued) that the changes would happen immediately?

 

The question in the OP was about someone closing down their business because of the ruling. So it seems at least one person thought that and acted accordingly.

 

ETA that anecdotally, my Twitter and FB feed was full of people whose panic over the whole thing was pretty palpable for something they thought was going to slowly happen six months or a year from now. There were threats and racist memes sent to and about Pai, people likened it to armageddon and/or the apocalypse.

Edited December 28, 2017 by EmseB

[Matryoshka]

So the internet being classified as a public utility would be a bad thing because government regulators and lobbyists of the big communications companies would then have much more influence over the internet, no?  The only way "big money" gets influence is via government regulation that they can lobby for. The people arguing for "net neutrality" are arguing for more government control of the internet, not less. And as a result, more influence from "big money" because who gets the most say in new laws and regulations? The people that can afford lawyers and lobbyists, which isn't individuals. Also, the fact that the people making policy in many government organizations these days have direct ties to big giant companies that want to control the market make it very difficult for individuals to have any influence once the government takes hold an industry via something like net neutrality.

 

NO, no, no.

 

Net neutrality just means the roads are all free and open to all.  It is not regulation, it is the way the internet has always worked.  Roads get built, cars can drive on them.

 

The companies want to charge tolls to go on the fast roads, or say who can drive on them, or limit your ability to take the off-ramps to get to smaller sites - you can just get to the stuff on the highway.  The 'regulation' says NO, broadband companies cannot set up toll gates, blocking on and off-ramps to get to and from side-roads, nor engage in other kinds of highway robbery.   Without 'regulation', there will be setting up roadblocks and demanding cash to get on.

 

Net neutrality PREVENTS giant companies from controlling the market, not the other way around.  Your argument is exactly backwards.

[Matryoshka]

The question in the OP was about someone closing down their business because of the ruling. So it seems at least one person thought that and acted accordingly.

 

It has not taken effect yet.  The woman closing down her business is making excuses.

 

No one knows how this will play out if the repeal stands.  My guess is nothing will happen right away, and then it will only be gradual, so that the outcry is minimal and those who don't think it's a big deal will continue to be complacent until it's too late.  

Edited December 28, 2017 by Matryoshka

[EmseB]

NO, no, no.

 

Net neutrality just means the roads are all free and open to all.  It is not regulation, it is the way the internet has always worked.  Roads get built, cars can drive on them.

 

The companies want to charge tolls to go on the fast roads, or say who can drive on them, or limit your ability to take the off-ramps to get to smaller sites - you can just get to the stuff on the highway.  The 'regulation' says NO, broadband companies cannot set up toll gates, blocking on and off-ramps to get to and from side-roads, nor engage in other kinds of highway robbery.   Without 'regulation', there will be setting up roadblocks and demanding cash to get on.

 

Net neutrality PREVENTS giant companies from controlling the market, not the other way around.  Your argument is exactly backwards.

 

 

Shouting no repeatedly at me doesn't make for a better argument.

I disagree entirely. As a citation, I offer the internet pre-2015, aka before this rule was put into place, which would not bear out all the dire predictions that you have outlined above.

 

NN, or at least the portion that was repealed that's got everyone so shook, allows regulation of the internet the same way the government regulates other public utilities. It applies ma-bell governance to ISPs and the internet via the government and lobbyists and bureaucrats.  It is literally looking back to another age of communication and applying it to this one. Exactly regressive. And, yeah, it's free and open to all as long as the government says it is.  The government is in charge of that if the internet is classified as a public utility. So, that's all well and good as long as someone we don't like doesn't take power...oh wait. Well, shoot.

 

It's funny, I would think that this administration of all administrations giving themselves less control over something like the internet would make people happy.

 

But I will hush as I'm getting too close to political comments I would guess.

[EmseB]

It has not taken effect yet.  The woman closing down her business is making excuses.

 

No one knows how this will play out if the repeal stands.  My guess is nothing will happen right away, and then it will only be gradual, so that the outcry is minimal and those who don't think it's a big deal will continue to be complacent until it's too late.  

 

I don't know that she's making an excuse. Maybe she is. It seems as though she honestly believes she won't be able to operate on the internet as it was prior to 2015. If you read the many, many dire predictions prior to the repeal it would make sense that some people would be led to believe that they would indeed not be able to run an online learning business successfully after the repeal of NN.

 

We do know how it will play out. We can look at how the internet worked and how ISPs operated and charged people prior to 2015.

[Sneezyone]

Shouting no repeatedly at me doesn't make for a better argument.

I disagree entirely. As a citation, I offer the internet pre-2015, aka before this rule was put into place, which would not bear out all the dire predictions that you have outlined above.

 

NN, or at least the portion that was repealed that's got everyone so shook, allows regulation of the internet the same way the government regulates other public utilities. It applies ma-bell governance to ISPs and the internet via the government and lobbyists and bureaucrats.  It is literally looking back to another age of communication and applying it to this one. Exactly regressive. And, yeah, it's free and open to all as long as the government says it is.  The government is in charge of that if the internet is classified as a public utility. So, that's all well and good as long as someone we don't like doesn't take power...oh wait. Well, shoot.

 

It's funny, I would think that this administration of all administrations giving themselves less control over something like the internet would make people happy.

 

But I will hush as I'm getting too close to political comments I would guess.

 

Pre-NN rules, the providers spent a year and a half on their best behavior, trying not to catch a case, because they knew NN regs were on the table. They managed to successfully convince some people, not most, that they would continue to voluntarily act in the public interest if their handcuffs were removed. There was zero evidence of them doing anything like that in the prior decades (the record Goldberry laid out is an example). Quite the contrary, they were actively working at the state level to pass anti-competitive legislation that would prevent municipal broadband providers from doing what they refused to do for rural Americans.

 

If you look at the model language ALEC circulated to restrict the expansion of municipal broadband programs, they were pushed and adopted in multiple states in the run up to this NN fight. If NN was lost, the state legislation would potentially be moot. If they won on NN and were free to do as they pleased, the state legislation ensured they'd have no new competitors/municipal entrants to the market. Keep in mind, municipal broadband means a town deciding to fund this initiative. That local imperative was overruled by these copycat statutes. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/29/17244/alec-based-restrictions-city-run-internet-risk-after-fcc-ruling ETA: These statutes also went so far as to prohibit state higher education institutions from using their existing, unused, government-funded research and education network capacity to provide broadband access to K-12 schools. Seriously. These are not good people. Also ETA: In Arkansas, many of the legislators of good will we informed about this stuff had NO IDEA that they'd passed a law preventing the state from using it's own resources to connect K-12 schools and really had no idea the extent to which the state was being ripped off (price-gouging). This multi-pronged, state and federal approach to fight  open and fair competition and protect profits at the expense of schools was deliberate.

 

The MAJOR difference between Ma Bell and the Internet is that the phone lines were already completely built out and fully paid off when the company was broken up and deregulated. We DO NOT have fully built-out fiber lines in this country and the lines the government paid for are being used by the private sector with no requirement that they be used in the public interest. These things are not even remotely similar.

 

A much better parallel is what was required to ensure rural electrification.

Edited December 28, 2017 by Sneezyone

[Corraleno]

NN, or at least the portion that was repealed that's got everyone so shook, allows regulation of the internet the same way the government regulates other public utilities. It applies ma-bell governance to ISPs and the internet via the government and lobbyists and bureaucrats.  It is literally looking back to another age of communication and applying it to this one. Exactly regressive. And, yeah, it's free and open to all as long as the government says it is.  The government is in charge of that if the internet is classified as a public utility. So, that's all well and good as long as someone we don't like doesn't take power...oh wait. Well, shoot.

 

It's funny, I would think that this administration of all administrations giving themselves less control over something like the internet would make people happy.

 

Laws preventing corporations from screwing consumers =/= "government control." It amazes me how easily people can be persuaded to vote against their own self interests by reframing legal protections as "government control."

 

When legislation is drafted by corporate lawyers and presented to Congress along with big donations to reelection campaigns, it's rather absurd to frame these issues as a case of "government" (bad!) versus "corporate interests" (good!). In 2017, they are one and the same thing.

[Sneezyone]

Laws preventing corporations from screwing consumers =/= "government control." It amazes me how easily people can be persuaded to vote against their own self interests by reframing legal protections as "government control."

 

When legislation is drafted by corporate lawyers and presented to Congress along with big donations to reelection campaigns, it's rather absurd to frame these issues as a case of "government" (bad!) versus "corporate interests" (good!). In 2017, they are one and the same thing.

 

They're working both sides of the fence too! The one thing about what happened with FASTERArkansas that still pisses me off is the Waltons of Wal-Mart (who have tremendous influence in the state and largely funded the K-12 campaign) sold the effort down the river in exchange for control of the Little Rock Public School District. How sick is that? So, yeah, no broadband for AR kids but the Waltons got a whole school district to play with and charterize so it's all good. https://broadbandnow.com/Arkansas

Edited December 28, 2017 by Sneezyone

[Corraleno]

The question in the OP was about someone closing down their business because of the ruling. So it seems at least one person thought that and acted accordingly.

 

As I understand it, the online provider referenced in the OP is continuing classes this year, but will not be continuing next year.

 

So no, that is not the same thing as Arctic Mama implying that since her Netflix streaming speed is fine today, net neutrality will have no effect on speed.

[goldberry]

 

I disagree entirely. As a citation, I offer the internet pre-2015, aka before this rule was put into place, which would not bear out all the dire predictions that you have outlined above.

 

 

Net neutrality did not begin in 2015.  The FCC was regulating net neutrality as far back as 2004. I cited examples "pre-2015".  The rule from 2015 was meant to solidify the FCC having authority to do so since it was being challenged in court.  The court cases I cited pre-2015 do in fact bear out that companies intend to screw consumers on this issue if they are not stopped. 

 

If they were not enforcing net neutrality before 2015, then how did those court cases come to be? 

[goldberry]

Laws preventing corporations from screwing consumers =/= "government control." It amazes me how easily people can be persuaded to vote against their own self interests by reframing legal protections as "government control."

 

This, exactly.