Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
So as we've been noting, a lot of people remain under the impression that companies like Google and Netflix still support net neutrality, and they'll be rushing in any moment now to help thwart the FCC's latest attempt to kill the rules. In reality, Techdirt readers know that Google hasn't actually supported net neutrality since around 2010 or so. Netflix, also perceived as a consumer ally on the subject, made it clear recently that it no longer sees the need to fight for net neutrality now that it's an international video powerhouse. The company's shift from disruption engines to slightly myopic legacy turf protectors should surprise nobody.
That said, Google and Netflix's departure from the conversation left many net neutrality advocates wondering if any bigger companies would be willing to lend a hand in the latest chapter in the debate. Amazon managed to answer that question this week by throwing its weight behind a July 12 "Day of Action" being coordinated by consumer advocacy group Fight For the Future. According to the group's website, Amazon will join Reddit, Etsy, the ACLU, California ISP Sonic, Mozilla, Kickstarter, BitTorrent, Github and Vimeo for a day of protest -- both online and off -- against the FCC's plan to gut the popular consumer protections.
The plan appears to be to mirror the Internet Slowdown Day back in 2014. You'll recall that that effort, which involved numerous major websites warning their visitors about the threat to net neutrality via site banners, helped convince Tom Wheeler to stop half-assing things, and classify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act (giving them the adequate legal authority to enforce the rules). His decision was subsequently supported by the courts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09 2017, @08:37AM
So wait, are we supposed to be protesting anti-Net Neutrality, or should we instead be protesting Amazon and Reddit's protesting pro-NN?
Decisions, decisions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09 2017, @08:44AM (7 children)
Problem was that the laws that were struck down had nothing to do with ISP regulation, more of what the FCC is allowed to do.
Should the FCC be allowed to arbitrarily set what each ISP's service level agreement is?
Will this be abused to favor certain ISPs?
Can the unelected chairs of the FCC shutdown large swathes of the Internet due to accusations of violating the service level agreement that is also set by the FCC?
Complications and more complications.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09 2017, @09:07AM (6 children)
No, it's all very simple. Do you want only Facebook or do you want the entire internet? Only net neutrality will give you the internet instead of few nasty oligarchs.
(Score: 3, Funny) by kaszz on Friday June 09 2017, @09:27AM (2 children)
Time for ISPs to give Facebook a slooooowww motion coooonnnection? ;)
Special routerd version :p
Maybe Facebook will get a new BGP announcement of being available at 0.0.0.0/32 ;)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 09 2017, @05:39PM (1 child)
Time for ISPs to give Facebook a slooooowww motion coooonnnection? ;)
I smell a Kickstarter! With the demise of NN we should all chip in to buy Facebook a slow-lane!
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday June 09 2017, @05:52PM
I'm thinking more of network technicians that intentionally make connections to Facebook slow and error prone ;)
"oops"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09 2017, @10:02AM (2 children)
Do you want some bureaucrat deciding the only ISP in your area should be shut down?
(Score: 2) by kaganar on Friday June 09 2017, @01:37PM
No, but I don't like bureaucrats deciding I only can have one viable "high-speed" ISP because somehow cable companies don't provide telecommunications. If we're going to allow regional monopolies, then we can't pretend capitalism or other market forces are going to work. This bullshit of big-money businesses "just wouldn't do bad things" is so incredibly stupid, especially coming out of the mouths of reps for companies with fantastic margins due to unscrupulous tactics. Money is power, and power corrupts -- but somehow that logic only seems to apply to politicians we don't like these days and all so-called businessmen get a pass because "it's what businessmen are supposed to do."
If we want to strip away powers from the current groups that can regulate, then we need another regulatory force. Capitalism isn't that force because there's insufficient competition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09 2017, @06:07PM
Well, since you asked, I don't want some bureaucrat deciding that no other ISPs, especially municipal projects by the people and for the people, may operate in my area, you
fucking cocksucking toolinsensitive clod....(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday June 09 2017, @09:34AM (5 children)
So..
Enemies:
Google
Netflix
ComCast? (usual suspect)
Verizon ? (usual suspect)
Friends:
Amazon
Reddit
Etsy
ACLU
California ISP Sonic
Mozilla
Kickstarter
BitTorrent
Github
Vimeo
What will Wikipedia do?
Apple?
Displaying a page of round-robin sorted phone numbers to all responsible congress and senate critters maybe will have some impact? Lot's of calls considering how many visitors there are to these sites.
The game theory says that if the community can punish offenders. They will be able to keep the behavior beneficial for all. So what's needed is a negative feedback channel. Do bad - suffer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Friday June 09 2017, @10:21AM (3 children)
I don't think Google and Netflix are so much enemies as just not fighting either way as they're big enough to throw their weight around even without neutrality. It's very short-sighted (and really, anti-consumer of them). Apple will probably come out for it for marketing purposes, which is a little weird as their iOS platform is certainly not the OS equivalent of 'neutral'. Or, they may just keep their mouth shut as they're big enough to throw their weight around as well. Who knows. Unless these companies are bribing the right people it probably makes little difference.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 09 2017, @06:38PM (2 children)
And I disagree with Netflix's opinion. As soon as a few major US providers put low caps on any video service they don't provide, Netflix will die.
Netflix is acting as if those guys might play fair and accept payments, but killing Netflix will ensure much more revenue from cord-cutters coerced into coming back.
If I was a soulless entity like the major cablecos, day 1 of the non-neutral internet would see Netflix value plummet, and soon they'll come begging to sell me their assets.
Sure, some customers will grumble, let them go try their only other option: dial-up!
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Saturday June 10 2017, @10:25AM (1 child)
I think they're hoping that people will dump an ISP if they don't provide NetFlix properly, which is probably a decent bet.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Sunday June 11 2017, @06:05AM
I did point out that for many people, dumping an ISP means going to dial-up.
When ISPs refuse to compete, then merge based on their lack of overlap, you have no alternatives when they decide to kill Netflix.
I'm sure they'll take a Netflix offer of $2/mo/subscriber as a replacement to their ability to charge $50/mo for cable packages...
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday June 09 2017, @09:07PM
At the time (I can't find the reference), I read that the biggest factor in making SOPA a bad word in Congress was the Wikipedia front-page SOPA blackout, even more so than Google. If Wikipedia doesn't/weigh in on this, I suspect that would make or break the effort.
(Score: 4, Informative) by canopic jug on Friday June 09 2017, @09:36AM
Here's some more coverage
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.