Internet Service News (US ISPs are bad and should feel bad)

[Quicklet]

It's a loss for citizens and will stifle innovation in the sense that companies will no longer invest in developing fast lanes and content providers won't be able to buy access to a fast lane. However, no part of this says that suddenly our internet is going to become faster. For the most part, this ruling does nothing to change the fact that ISPs are still going to be shitty, still have monopolies, and largely still have no reason to develop better infrastructure.

A national fiber project would be one of the best infrastructure investments we could get, but realistically it could be a decade or more before that's politically feasible. Short-term I think municipal fiber is going to drive a lot of improvements, but you're right, this isn't so much about making things immediately better as it is preventing them from getting worse.

[Serra]

First, agreed, but nothing about this vote had anything to do with such a project. And second, I see almost no chance of that happening.. At the state level, the other FCC decision opens up the possibility of city projects, but I can't imagine a national project run by the federal government (and that's not even taking into account the constitutional side of it).

[RKenshin]

My friend is the head IT person at his company. He literally sent me a text out of nowhere Thursday that said, "Well, that's the end of free internet".

IT people are not immune to Republican propaganda, while rare I definitely know of a few persistent Republican IT professionals that fall lock-and-step with everything the GOP pushes (even if it shouldn't pass the common sense test).

Political parties love to get people to vote against their own interests.

[enzan]

Do we know for sure that this will actually allow municipal fiber projects? If it does, can someone point me in the direction of information on the subject, and how a small town can go about starting something?

[Serra]

The big ruling that everyone is talking about did not, but this decision kinda opens the door to it. The decision itself only applies to two municipalities in North Carolina and Tennessee, but they left the door open for the FCC to get involved if other state or local governments get in the way in the future.

[Necronus]

IT people are not immune to Republican propaganda, while rare I definitely know of a few persistent Republican IT professionals that fall lock-and-step with everything the GOP pushes (even if it shouldn't pass the common sense test).

Political parties love to get people to vote against their own interests.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't trying to imply he "fell for" Republican propaganda. In fact, this friend of mine is a self declared "true conservative" who considers the Republican party as it stands to be the actual "Liberal Left" and people like Obama and whoever recently got elected as the PA Governor are "actually Stalin". Yet he constantly bitches about how horrible his Comcast service is and how there's no free market of choice (since his home is in a rural township). Honestly, the only reason I've managed to be his best friend for over a decade is I simply ignore any political statements he makes.

[kuronosan]

So now the concern is that the FCC had the regulations written by Comcast et al and it secretly benefits them because government and because they're running ads that say "net neutrality compliant".

Fuck it. I give up.

[Meresgi]

So now the concern is that the FCC had the regulations written by Comcast et al and it secretly benefits them because government and because they're running ads that say "net neutrality compliant".

Fuck it. I give up.

Honestly would not be surprised at all by this, which is sad.

[Koul]

net neutrality compliant... oh fuck me. God. I can just hear all the ISPs telling consumers that now. "Don't worry, we're net neutrality COMPLIANT! All is good with this shitty ass service! teehee ^_^/" /rubs nipples

[kuronosan]

Honestly I think they're just using it for marketing to keep customers. It's a little tinfoily to say that it's more than that without having read the "regulations".

Most people I know that disagree say that if it was simple and "what we asked for" then it wouldn't be 300 pages long.

[Waraji]

I'm sure the 300 page length has a lot to do with the application of Title II language to this form of communication. Also find it funny that most news outlets were all like "Why was it kept hidden from the public" /conspiracytrain.

[BerenTebogo]

People who don't understand why it is 300 pages have never been around academia, politics, or above middle management business.

[Waraji]

Really, 300 pages seems pretty short considering what's at stake.

[kuronosan]

Well, I know that.

[Serra]

Look, we all know that it's 300 pages so that Obama could hide somewhere between page 150 and 250, say page 217, that he is the new Overlord of all of America, no one can have guns anymore, and that Islam is the new official religion.

I recommend using that explanation anytime anyone complains about the length.

[kuronosan]

Look, we all know that it's 300 pages so that Obama could hide somewhere between page 150 and 250, say page 217, that he is the new Overlord of all of America, no one can have guns anymore, and that Islam is the new official religion.

I recommend using that explanation anytime anyone complains about the length.

I actually thought about that but people are getting really up in arms. I've said simple things, like "Hey, wait till we can see the law before you start complaining" only to get responses like "YOU OBAMA BOT THIS IS ALL PART OF HIS PLAN TO RUIN AMERICA I WORK IN IT IT'S THE END".

These very same people are the ones who before were acting as though it would never pass the FCC. Suddenly it does, and it's just all too good to be true before anyone knows exactly what "it" is. On top of that, these people clearly have little to no retail or marketing experience. Companies are starting to advertise Fiber and 100+ mbps speed internet when it's not available, but I don't see them going "OMG WHAT HAS GOOGLE DONE ALL PART OF THEIR PLAN" about it.

At the end of the day, everyone keeps telling me net neutrality is about free flow of information... not about suppressing companies from making money off of Netflix et al for subscriber bandwidth use.

To me, net neutrality was about allowing everyone to have equal shares of internet bandwidth by making it so that speed and availability wasn't prioritized by cost.

Their response? "I want my VOIP to have higher priority over your porn download", basically.

[Serra]

To those people, you should point out that's not how it would work. Let's be honest, if anyone can afford to pay to get their content to consumers, it's the porn industry.

[Zalrik21]

Don't know if this has been discussed about or not but here: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015...et-neutrality/

“Once the federal government establishes a foothold into managing how Internet service providers run their networks they will essentially be deciding which content goes first, second, third, or not at all," Blackburn said in an announcement yesterday. "My legislation will put the brakes on this FCC overreach and protect our innovators from these job-killing regulations.”

Then this I found interesting

In the latest election cycle, Blackburn received $25,000 from an AT&T political action committee (PAC), $20,000 from a Comcast PAC, $20,000 from a cable industry association PAC, and $15,000 from a Verizon PAC, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

[Ghost_Wheel22]

And she's been a mouthpiece for like five years. Her prices are so low I bet she was the girl you could get in the back of your truck for a fifth of Jack in school.

[kuronosan]

Internet freedom? You mean freedom for providers to charge you whatever they want instead of fair practice?

Sounds like Republicans.