Net Neutrality is losing the war

[wufwugy]

Craig Aaron: Google-Verizon Pact: It Gets Worse

Please follow the link on bottom of huffpo article to savetheinternet and submit message to FCC. Takes five seconds.

This stuff is extremely important. If the FCC and/or Congress/White House give in, the internet will become an unhindered corporate dictatorship. It won't be overnight, but it will happen. If net neutrality is not protected we can say goodbye to entrepreneurs, websites like this and most of the ones we visit being forced to pay ISP premiums in order to operate at capacity (which is just the best case scenario), and elimination of pirating and p2p. None of us want a world where corporate bribery runs the internet

[Hawk]

rigoddamndiculous imo.

please do something fcc.

[wufwugy]

Also, it's possible that if neutrality was cut off today, we wouldn't be able to play on ANY poker sites in short order. If the ISPs chose to not receive bribes from PS and FTP, we'd have to wait until legislation passes and Harrahs and MGM got licensed. Nobody wants that.

[BankItDrew]

What are the chances of us not being able to to FTR or PokerStars due to this bullshit?

[mcatdog]

Agree, but I think the real problem is that broadband service in America is provided by a patchwork of local monopolies that provide bad service bundled with a bunch of crap that I never even use. When I moved last summer, I was excited that I didn't have to use Comcast anymore, only to discover that Charter is much, much worse.

If we can find a way to create local competition, the issue of net neutrality would disappear because a smart person would always be there to start a new provider that allowed people to use p2p. We would also see speeds increase and prices drop. Corporate bribery already runs the Internet insofar as the service providers and stooges beholden to them in the FCC have decided against broadband open access. Net neutrality is a very poor substitute for open access IMO, but it's at least better than nothing which is what we're about to have.

[Micro2Macro]

fol's?

[wufwugy]

What are the chances of us not being able to to FTR or PokerStars due to this bullshit?

Extremely low. It's a hypothetical possibility based on an absence of neutrality, but I would be surprised if things happened so bad so fast that this came to pass.

However, without neutrality, the web will gradually discourage and eliminate entrepreneurs like FTR and 'unregistered' sites like PS.

In the real world of zero neutrality I suspect that sites like FTR will be packaged and grandfathered in by content providers (like google), and poker sites (assuming it's explicitly legal) would 'pay dues' to the ISPs. Or something like that. One big change will be that new content and new ideas will basically be run by the primary providers. So when poker was huge and X and co made FTR they wouldn't have been successful because they weren't in bed with corporate giants that favor their own content and own talent. All google would have to do is run their own poker site/forum then bribe ISPs to favor their content then lo n behold no poker content other than google's exists.

[wufwugy]

Agree, but I think the real problem is that broadband service in America is provided by a patchwork of local monopolies that provide bad service bundled with a bunch of crap that I never even use. When I moved last summer, I was excited that I didn't have to use Comcast anymore, only to discover that Charter is much, much worse.

If we can find a way to create local competition, the issue of net neutrality would disappear because a smart person would always be there to start a new provider that allowed people to use p2p. We would also see speeds increase and prices drop. Corporate bribery already runs the Internet insofar as the service providers and stooges beholden to them in the FCC have decided against broadband open access. Net neutrality is a very poor substitute for open access IMO, but it's at least better than nothing which is what we're about to have.

Great points, and I haven't thought too much about them, honestly

I'm unsure of what will happen in the ISP world. A talking point is what you brought up about increased competition and such, but reality is that this doesn't always work, and that when it does it's often due to regulatory policy that our government doesn't really back up anymore and simple business 'mistakes' that the big corporations make less and less IMO

[sweetlemon69]

I'm a network architect irl, and I'll tell you, it's just to expensive to meet the demands of Internet whores. Carriers are losing out on money that is being made "over the top services". They're becoming just the last mile pipe provider, and that's it. And it's way to expensive to just provide that. I for one would totally pay each month to have my ps3/xbox traffic gain more priority of other peoples p2p/torrents. Intellectual property should be paid for. Not at the obscene rates that they are currently at, but paid for none-the-less.

[BankItDrew]

I shared it with FB becuz I wuz scared.

[Kits]

Come live in Australia. Our nanny government wants to censor our internets. What are we fucking communist China?

[wufwugy]

I should probably add/clarify some stuff

I am far from qualified to express much opinion on this matter, yet so is everybody else. This is a whole bunch of unknown territory that even the industry insiders and analysts couldn't predict effects with a high level of accuracy. I've been wracking my mind trying to figure out this thing, yet I can't even get by one of the first steps (analogy). I don't know if a corporate monopoly of the internet would be like cable TV or like microsoft or Wall Street. I'm naturally very paranoid about these things, and the hypotheticals are all possible, yet most are not remotely probable.

What I do know for fact, however, is that corporate interests ARE NOT consumer interests, and if consumers benefit from corporations writing the rules it's associative at best. This doesn't mean that agencies like the FCC are better though. They've done a lot to fuck up communications where they have a ton of regulatory power.

I predict changes will be made towards tiered access not unlike TV, consumers will end up paying more collectively, and megacorps like google and comcast will become stronger. My worry stems much from the fact that it's hypothetically possible to be much, much worse. It is completely possible that google could get powerful enough that they basically own the internet; it's this kind of thing, but to lesser degrees, that I think would cause problems.

But no, it's not going away, changes will be made, but as to what degree are unknown, and they will be very, very slow.

[boost]

Like you say wuf, I'm woefully unqualified to make predictions on this subject, but of course I'm going to anyways..

I could see things getting fairly bad here in the states if NN bites the dust, but our saving grace could be fair trade treaties held with other countries. Either the megacorps have to give foreign entities a free pass, or they run the risk of being sued on the basis of fair trade treaties. This could potentially cause all start-ups and even many established internet based companies located in the US to move overseas, thus rendering the monopoly powerless.

Again, I am not qualified to make this prediction, but it would seem possible. But I guess it would also be possible for the rest of the world to simply follow suit..

[wufwugy]

That's a good point, and I'll add to it that I think the level of dynamism is very important here. This is one thing that turns a monopoly in the computer industry into not a monopoly i.e. even if Microsoft owned 95% of the industry, if they didn't constantly improve their product they would lose market share with the quickness due to the rapid pace of development of the industry. OTOH, other monopolies can be very bad because the industry isn't changing and they can sit on their ass and collect the rake

I think the dynamism of the internet is extremely high, and this is a very good sign. I just always get my panties in a wad when megacorps make backroom deals. Whenever that happens, there's almost always some huge mess that spurs up somewhere

[mcatdog]

What I do know for fact, however, is that corporate interests ARE NOT consumer interests, and if consumers benefit from corporations writing the rules it's associative at best. This doesn't mean that agencies like the FCC are better though. They've done a lot to fuck up communications where they have a ton of regulatory power.

I'm not sure there's a big difference between corporate interests and regulatory agencies. What usually happens is politicians pass a new law and leave it to the regulators to clarify the details. However, the politicians don't have time to do more than take an occasional look at what, for example, the FCC is doing, but the ISPs and other special interests spend their whole lives thinking about communications. They have their lobbyists influence the regulations so that they just protect the ISPs own monopoly arrangements. This is what happened a few years ago when the FCC ruled that ISPs don't have to provide broadband open access, allowing ISPs to have monopolies.

The regulatory process actually worked in our favor when banks successfully lobbied to take the teeth out of UIGEA enforcement but it almost always hurts the average consumer when corporations hire lobbyists that basically write the regulations themselves. Same thing has happened on Wall Street, in health care, etc.

[Hoopy]

I need to educate myself more on this but it's pretty scary how much power Corporations have in today's society and the influence they wield on Governments.

[Warpe]

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Da...C-300754A1.pdf

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
August 9, 2010 John Giusti - (202) 418-2000
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
ON VERIZON-GOOGLE ANNOUNCEMENT

“Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That’s one of its many problems. It is time to move a

decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.”

- FCC -

[bigred]

I need to educate myself more on this but it's pretty scary how much power Corporations have in today's society and the influence they wield on Governments.

So you're saying it's scary that entities with a lot of money have a lot of influence in a world influenced by money?

[boost]

philosoraptor is so awesome.

[sweetlemon69]

In the end, consumers will just get what they pay for. From the outset, we've gotten a CRAP ton for pretty much free. In my opinion, the voluminous amount of data, information and media out there that we've have access to, and the ridiculous expectations consumer are pushing, for $40 a month, isn't sustainable for carriers. Plain and simple. No matter how many customers a carrier signs on, or how much they can charge before they start losing customers, the technology itself, that the Internet is built upon, just isn't being pumped out fast enough and cheap enough. Remember, we're all paying to use somebody ELSE'S network. If we want true NN, build your own networks and cdn's.

[boost]

In the end, consumers will just get what they pay for. From the outset, we've gotten a CRAP ton for pretty much free. In my opinion, the voluminous amount of data, information and media out there that we've have access to, and the ridiculous expectations consumer are pushing, for $40 a month, isn't sustainable for carriers. Plain and simple. No matter how many customers a carrier signs on, or how much they can charge before they start losing customers, the technology itself, that the Internet is built upon, just isn't being pumped out fast enough and cheap enough. Remember, we're all paying to use somebody ELSE'S network. If we want true NN, build your own networks and cdn's.

I think that you're missing a key part of the equation. We, the consumers, are also giving a ton away for free. We have writing blogs, posting on forums, torrenting porn, posting youtube vids, updating our facebook pages, etc. All of these things are what make the internet the internet. If for example harsh upload restrictions with overage penalties existed, then the value of being able to access the internet would diminish since there would be less content being uploaded.

The problem is, the internet is no longer a luxury (it hasn't been for a long time) so we as consumers can't just go without, or in many cases we can't even switch to another provider. The internet is a now a utility, and its heading towards being a monopolistic unregulated utility. Imagine if the gas or electric company could hold your service ransom for whatever fees they wished to charge. Well that's pretty much what the ISP's are looking to do.

[mcatdog]

I wish I could get cable Internet for $40 a month.

[wufwugy]

YouTube - ‪Google/Verizon Internet Deal w/ Jason Rosenbaum‬‎

[sweetlemon69]

This is a massive topic that we need to discuss at a pub.

[wufwugy]

David Segal: Stop the Internet Blacklist

Well this is the worst and most real thing in net neutrality so far. Bill just entered committee, and if it became law, the government would have pretty much autonomy over internet censorship

If made law, could be the end of the internet as we know it

Sign petition to stop internet blacklist

Stop the Internet Blacklist! | Demand Progress

[Galapogos]

Wow, I can't believe how many comments in that first link you gave support this bill. You guys are fucked.

[Jack Sawyer]

Ya, it's real fucked up.

In the United States, a new law proposal called The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced last week, and there will be a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday.

If passed, this law will allow the government, under the command of the media companies, to censor the internet as they see fit, like China and Iran do, with the difference that the sites they decide to censor will be completely removed from the internet and not just in the US.

Please see the following article from the Huffington Post for more information.

Seems like "they" simply decided they now own the internet, fuck everybody else.

If the US gov deems that PokerStars or Full Tilt Poker break the law, you know what will happen. You have to follow wufwugy's links to make your voice be heard now.

[wufwugy]

the sites they decide to censor will be completely removed from the internet and not just in the US.

Source?

[Jack Sawyer]

Source?

demonoid.com

but here is a proper breakdown of what I mean:

According to the EFF, the new bill would break the internet one domain at a time by requiring domain registrars/registries, ISPs, DNS providers, and others to block internet users from reaching certain websites that are hosted in the US. The bill would also create two internet blacklists. The first is a list of all the websites hit with a censorship court order from the Attorney General. The second is a blacklist of domain names that the Department of Justice determines — without judicial review — are "dedicated to infringing activities."

The bill only requires blocking for domains in the first list, but strongly suggests that domains on the second list should be blocked as well by providing legal immunity for Internet intermediaries and DNS operators who decide to block domains on the second blacklist as well.

Visitors to blocked sites will see a 404 error message.

If the site is hosted outside the US, the Justice Department would approach the registries controlling the top level dot.com, dot.net and dot.org domains, which are all US based.


Read more: Combating online Infringement and Counterfeits Act riles rights groups - Online rights groups prepare for battle | TechEye

of importance particularly to online poker players imo

“Where the registry or registrar is not located in the United States, the Act would provide the Attorney General the authority to serve the order on other specified third parties at its discretion, including ISPs, payment processors, and online ad network providers,” Leahy said.
“These third parties... are critical to the financial viability of the infringing website’s business.”

from some other forum

There is generally a lack of information on this bill, and more importantly, its actual political prospects. Most bills die, one way or another, and only the bigger, more politically charged ones, or those likely to be passed ever get serious media attention. If this starts getting more media attention, then I'll start worrying that it might actually go somewhere.

This isn't to say that I'm not worried about the bill - the bill would give absurd powers to the government which potentially harm me financially. As a US online poker player, this bill is especially scary, because it might allow the Justice Department, which has been claiming online poker to be illegal in apparent contradiction to appeals court precedent for the past decade and then finding ways to take action against sites while dancing around the basic issue (mostly they harass the payment processors), a way to block the sites without ever having to prove that the activity is illegal. It's worth noting that online gambling sites ended up on the Australian list even though they had nothing to do with the rationale for that list.

I don't want to spread fear, but we this seems to be some very important shit that could affect us all in far greater ways than we can picture imo

[boost]

dude, fuck poker.. porn would cease to be free.. srsly, poker is not the issue, dude.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Agree, but I think the real problem is that broadband service in America is provided by a patchwork of local monopolies that provide bad service bundled with a bunch of crap that I never even use. When I moved last summer, I was excited that I didn't have to use Comcast anymore, only to discover that Charter is much, much worse.

If we can find a way to create local competition, the issue of net neutrality would disappear because a smart person would always be there to start a new provider that allowed people to use p2p. We would also see speeds increase and prices drop. Corporate bribery already runs the Internet insofar as the service providers and stooges beholden to them in the FCC have decided against broadband open access. Net neutrality is a very poor substitute for open access IMO, but it's at least better than nothing which is what we're about to have.

Wins this thread.

[IowaSkinsFan]

mcat, I'd love to have this explained to me more because I have no idea why broadband service is monopolized. I just saw this statement from you, no one else has ever told me that.

[dsmrolla06]

mcat, I'd love to have this explained to me more because I have no idea why broadband service is monopolized. I just saw this statement from you, no one else has ever told me that.

I would like to think that it is because of the expense of creating the network, but when you look at my area for example. In one county AT&T is the service provider, and the next county over is verizon with comcast in both. It wouldnt be hard for att to expand their internet service to the next county but they dont, probably because of some backroom deal with verizon.

[mcatdog]

mcat, I'd love to have this explained to me more because I have no idea why broadband service is monopolized. I just saw this statement from you, no one else has ever told me that.

Read this, it's a long article but you can skip down to the net neutrality section if you don't want to read the whole thing. The future of the internet: A virtual counter-revolution | The Economist

To summarize, in the US, whoever owns the wires (which is usually a single company for each community) is allowed to have a monopoly on broadband service over its network. In most other industrialized countries, the owner of the wires has to lease their bandwidth to the highest bidder among ISPs. They have competition and we don't. This policy is based on a decision made by the FCC a few years ago where the network operators argued that they'd have no incentive to improve their networks if they had to share their bandwidth. Of course this is wrong because if you improve your amount of bandwidth then there's more available to auction off but in a pathetic display of allowing corporate special interests to get their way the FCC agreed to let them keep their local monopolies.

The results are that broadband service in the US is craptastic compared to other industrialized countries, especially Japan, Korea, and Scandinavia.
Internet Speeds and Costs Around the World, Shown Visually

[Jack Sawyer]

dude, fuck poker.. porn would cease to be free.. srsly, poker is not the issue, dude.

that too ofc

[Galapogos]

Can someone explain how the US can make a site disappear for everywhere if the site isn't based in the US like the guy claimed could happen in Jack's link? I have barely more than a casual understanding of how the actual tubes of the internet work but I really don't see how that can happen.

[wufwugy]

^I'm not buying that. I think it's probably something somebody just said

[boost]

The idea is that most major domains are US based, .com, .net, etc. Still not sure this is true, as I'm no expert on the way the tubes work either. But even without this push over the top, its a scary fucking scenario.

[CapreNoctum]

Wow...this seems be the theme in America..if it's good and fuck it up. The sad part is that it always comes down to money and power at the cost of freedom. Although I doubt this will happen because there is such a massive net neutrality movement, then again this is America and anything can happen.

[Micro2Macro]

so is this just going to be in the US or what?

I'm vastly undereducated in how this all works.. but why does it seem like the us gov is always the one trying to step in and fuck shit up? I thought that job was for countries like russia, or pakistan.

[jyms]

NWO

[CapreNoctum]

NWO

Exactly...

[jackvance]

Can someone explain how the US can make a site disappear for everywhere if the site isn't based in the US like the guy claimed could happen in Jack's link? I have barely more than a casual understanding of how the actual tubes of the internet work but I really don't see how that can happen.

Didn't read any of the links but I do know the biggest DNS servers are located in the US. So even if your whatever.com website is located outside of the US, they can remove it from the DNS list so noone will be able to find your site anymore, effectively removing it from the internet. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[KoRnholio]

Didn't read any of the links but I do know the biggest DNS servers are located in the US. So even if your whatever.com website is located outside of the US, they can remove it from the DNS list so noone will be able to find your site anymore, effectively removing it from the internet. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

This is my understanding: I think the best way to think of it is gateways. When you punch in xyz.com the request is sent through a ton of different DNS servers (ever done a tracert in dos?). All it would take is one of the main hubs to shut the door on that particular site/IP and you don't get to connect. Loss of Net Neutrality = they can open and close the doors to different sites/content/etc at will (or based on what/who you pay).

[Micro2Macro]

nuke north america imo, problem solved.

take out usa, mexico, and well canada is just canada and us being gone won't make any impact whatsoever on the rest of the world :P