Octopus Overlords

A federal appeals court on Monday rejected a request to review its decision upholding the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality regulations.

The victory for net neutrality supporters comes just days after FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced that he is starting proceedings to repeal the rules, and could set the stage for a Supreme Court showdown.

In its denial for what's called an en banc review, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' majority cited FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's plans to repeal the net neutrality rules.

Moliere wrote:The FCC Graciously Sets Internet Providers Free to Sell Your Data

COMCAST, VERIZON, AND other internet service providers got the go-ahead from the Federal Communications Commission today to sell your personal information without your permission. At least for now.

Last October the agency passed a set of rules that would have required internet providers to take steps to protect your private data from hackers, notify you if someone hacked your data, and require your explicit permission before selling your data. Today the FCC suspended those rules before they took effect.

“The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission are committed to protecting the online privacy of American consumers,” FCC chairman Ajit Pai and Federal Trade Commission chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen said in a joint statement today. “We believe that the best way to do that is through a comprehensive and consistent framework.”

The move may head off a congressional review of the rules that could have hobbled the FCC’s ability to make new privacy regulations in the future. The agency will now likely pass a set of less stringent rules more in line with the way the FTC regulates websites like Facebook and Google. If the FTC does at some point require websites to seek explicit permission before selling your data, the FCC may then follow suit for internet providers. Neither agency responded to a request for comment, but Pai has said in the past that he believed having divergent rules for websites and ISPs would lead to confusion among consumers. We’re not sure you’re going to find the new status quo exactly crystal clear.

The Trump administration supports the Federal Communications Commission effort to overturn net neutrality rules passed during the Obama years, a White House spokesperson said yesterday.

"The previous administration went about this the wrong way by imposing rules on ISPs through the FCC's Title II rulemaking power," White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters yesterday. "We support the FCC chair's efforts to review and consider rolling back these rules and believe that the best way to get fair rules for everyone is for Congress to take action and create regulatory and economic certainty."

...

The Trump administration "believes that rules of the road are important for everyone—website providers, Internet service providers, and consumers alike," Sanders said. Trump himself hasn't talked much about net neutrality, but in a November 2014 tweet he called the rules "Obama's attack on the Internet" and claimed they would "target conservative media."

AT&T is facing a complaint alleging that it discriminates against poor people by providing fast service in wealthier communities and speeds as low as 1.5Mbps in low-income neighborhoods.

The formal complaint filed today with the Federal Communications Commission says that AT&T is violating the Communications Act's prohibition against unjust and unreasonable discrimination. That ban is part of Title II, which is best known as the authority used by the FCC to impose net neutrality rules. But as we've explained before, Title II also contains important consumer protections that go beyond net neutrality, such as a ban on discrimination in rates, practices, and offerings of services.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:20 am And net neutrality is about to die. Can't there just be one thing this administration does that isn't terrible?

While the EU does have some fairly decent net neutrality rules, countries do have some leeway in terms of enforcement -- especially when it comes to "zero rating" (or the act of imposing usage caps, then exempting your own or a partner's content). So ISPs in Portugal have already started taking advantage of it in a way that eerily echoes the warnings net neutrality advocates have been making for years. Lisbon-based mobile and fixed broadband provider MEO has been selling broadband service tiers for some time that cap your internet data usage, after which they're happy to sell you additional buckets of data depending on which types of services you traditionally use:

"Net Neutrality" means corporations can't pay to manipulate how you use the internet (PORN).
If this goes away, not only will all your data (PORN HABITS) be scrutinized by telecom companies, they can decide how fast your internet works on certain websites (YOUR PORN WON'T LOAD).

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:10 pm Oh wow. I wonder what life will be like with slower internet?

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:10 pm Oh wow. I wonder what life will be like with slower internet?

Max Peck wrote:

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:10 pm Oh wow. I wonder what life will be like with slower internet?

Sure, it'll be slower for some people, but it'll be more expensive for everyone.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:21 pm

Max Peck wrote:

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:10 pm Oh wow. I wonder what life will be like with slower internet?

Sure, it'll be slower for some people, but it'll be more expensive for everyone.

Especially with the asshole in charge who thinks a single isp choice is competition.

Specifically, for six months my office has been investigating who perpetrated a massive scheme to corrupt the FCC’s notice and comment process through the misuse of enormous numbers of real New Yorkers’ and other Americans’ identities. Such conduct likely violates state law — yet the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence in its sole possession that is vital to permit that law enforcement investigation to proceed.

In May 2017, researchers and reporters discovered that the FCC’s public comment process was being corrupted by the submission of enormous numbers of fake comments concerning the possible repeal of net neutrality rules. In doing so, the perpetrator or perpetrators attacked what is supposed to be an open public process by attempting to drown out and negate the views of the real people, businesses, and others who honestly commented on this important issue. Worse, while some of these fake comments used made up names and addresses, many misused the real names and addresses of actual people as part of the effort to undermine the integrity of the comment process. That’s akin to identity theft, and it happened on a massive scale.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:27 am Linky no worky (on iOS at least)

Jaymann wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:18 pm I thought I saw something about alternative internet access already in the works.

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:30 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:18 pm I thought I saw something about alternative internet access already in the works.

This is what I saw. Makes sense for the future of net neutral internet to go local, as long as the telecoms can't outlaw it.

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:06 pm Form submitted to the FCC.

the commission said it didn’t really care about the public’s opinion on net neutrality unless it was phrased in unique legal terms. The vast majority of the 22 million comments were form letters, the official said, and unless those letters introduced new facts into the record or made serious legal arguments, they didn’t have much bearing on the decision. The commission didn’t care about comments that were only stating opinion.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:42 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:06 pm Form submitted to the FCC.

Let's see how the last round of comments were handled:

the commission said it didn’t really care about the public’s opinion on net neutrality unless it was phrased in unique legal terms. The vast majority of the 22 million comments were form letters, the official said, and unless those letters introduced new facts into the record or made serious legal arguments, they didn’t have much bearing on the decision. The commission didn’t care about comments that were only stating opinion.