Crap, I hope America doesn't set the precedent for this crap.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just follow John Oliver...he continually updates on this. Had a full discussion on it two or three weeks back.
Comment has been collapsed.
Same here, and it had grown in size by the time I finished reading. They should all get Pepe the Frog avatars to save me some effort.
Comment has been collapsed.
You know, it's funny, but I'd mind a lot less if they quit trotting out any talk of "freedom" or "liberty" in reference to opposing net neutrality. Consumers gain absolutely no 'freedom" from its abolishment. None. Nothing. Absolute zero. Nadda. Zip. Zilch. Nowhere in any of this onanism over "freedom" do net neutrality opponents ever even ATTEMPT to explain how it benefits the average person. It's like they just saw that people were using "freedom" as an argument in favor of net neutrality and went "Gosh shucks, we wanna use that argument too!" and never thought it through.
It's not even like anyone on either side has any illusions about it either. When you've got a lie that every party involves recognizes as such, it's just exhausting to see it continue to be trotted out. ISPs, if you want another avenue to squeeze money out of people, at least have the dignity to be honest about it instead of screeching "FREEDOM!" and flinging a handful of pocket sand.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's a simple misunderstanding - the GOP doesn't stand for personal freedom, they stand for economic freedom. Specifically, the freedom for corporations and the wealthy to make as much money as they possibly can. Did I mention that the Congressional salary is 3 times the median family income, and they can vote to give themselves a raise whenever they want to, and that pales in comparison to the money they can make in addition to their salary? It makes their support for tax cuts that greatly favor the wealthy crystal clear.
Consumers, meanwhile, gain the "freedom" to pay more for existing services or to cancel their internet and start living under a rock. But don't worry, I'm sure the extra fees will go towards making the service better, and not into the pockets of the executives and major shareholders.
Comment has been collapsed.
These fuckers. Here we go, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-repeal-net-neutrality.html
Ajit Pai, the chairman of the F.C.C., plans to reveal a sweeping proposal to scrap the net neutrality rules on Tuesday, according to two people familiar with the plan, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the details are not public. The rules, created during the Obama administration, prohibit broadband providers from blocking, slowing down or charging more for the delivery of certain internet content. The proposal will be presented in a December meeting of F.C.C. commissioners and is expected to pass in a 3-to-2 vote along party lines.
Things to do: https://resistbot.news/save-our-net-f94a2d34479d
Also, Fyantastic's last thread on the topic has a lot of great info.
Comment has been collapsed.
you can try that resist crap all you want, Ajit Pai made it clear from day one that he was going to get rid of net neutrality.
Then, when his commission is over, he'll go back to his former employer, Verizon, with a significant paybump as a reward
Comment has been collapsed.
The only thing we can do is contact our local representatives who supported the end of net nutrality and bluntly tell them we will refuse to vote for you and fight your reelection as hard as possible
Comment has been collapsed.
Tom Nikl
🤔 @Tom_Nikl
Let me explain net neutrality in the most horrific way:
if FCC dismantles it, and you get internet from Verizon, they may force you to use YAHOO as your search engine (because they own it), but PAY to use GOOGLE.
Would you like that? If not, you SUPPORT #NetNeutrality.
Comment has been collapsed.
And of course, it's not limited to Verizon.
If you have Comcast, they could slow down Netflix and Amazon Video and HBO GO in favor of their own cable streaming service and limit them to 480p streams.
They already charge you an additional $10 a month to be able to watch their cable in HD, now they could charge you $10 a month to watch Netflix in HD, and $10 to watch Amazon in HD, and $10 to watch HBO GO in HD...
You want to use Gmail instead of a comcast email address? $10 a month.
This picture captures it perfectly:
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm from portugal and this is picture is a lie this is only for phone users.There is a option to buy 1 5 10 20 gb if you don't want to spend on these packages.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it's still a good illustration of what is possible, if internet service providers are able to split out parts of the internet and charge for them separately.
For example, look at Cable TV in the US. If you want basic channels, it's $X. If you want more channels, it's $Y. If you want even more channels, it's $Z. If you want those channels to appear in HD, it's $Q. Not to mention the premium channels, which are each a separate charge.
We currently have one cost for the whole Internet, with maybe a data cap in certain areas. With Net Neutrality gone, I fear that single charge is going to go away too.
Comment has been collapsed.
Non-American sites might be affected in way of online traffic because Americans may not or cannot visit sites when Internet connection will become more restricted. Indiegala is Italy based. GOG from Poland. Even Steamgifts that is headquartered in Canada. No net neutrality opens up new opportunities for ISPs to enforce money making techniques on customers based on their Internet activity.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fight this shit please, I don't want america setting a precedent
Comment has been collapsed.
we tried emailing people what should we do kiddnap their kids unless they vote against the repael
Comment has been collapsed.
a real question this time is is against the constitution the block a website for political resons
Comment has been collapsed.
Censorship is on the rise without needing Net Neutrality. The Constitution apparently doesn't care if a website is blocked for any reason. The Dark Web has no problem with hosting censored sites.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bump!
Also see this reddit how to fight for Net Neutrality:
https://www.reddit.com/r/me_irl/comments/7eu92x/me_irl/?st=jacjnuhr&sh=e0998ebe
Comment has been collapsed.
This is great, thank you! I just emailed both of these guys and will add the info to OP.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am 100% for freedom and free access of information, but I'm against Net Neutrality. It hands over more power over to the FCC to control the internet, and the funny thing about power is that it tends to corrupt and be abused at some point even if the people asking for it have the best intentions. There's a reason all these large companies are pushing for it, Facebook, Google, etc and I tend to believe it's more the site of protectionism and crony capitalism rather than charity.
FEE: Net Neutrality Is about Government Control of the Internet
Comment has been collapsed.
Cui bono? Who benefits?
I don't trust the government, but the scenario you're describing doesn't exist. To release governmental barriers now would not be a "wild west, free market." It would literally be gobbled up in an instant by corporate powers that already endanger said government restrictions at their current breadth.
Truly, I understand where you're coming from. But to align with corporate interest and pray for parity, is wistful naivete at best.
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't trust the government, and yet you want to give them more power because it's framed as being in our best interest? I think that's the real naivete. To be fair, much of the online community is in agreement with you though I do question how "grassroots" the movement really is.
I agree that there are big problems with the telecoms industry, but most of that is crony capitalism (that is, collusion and favoritism between politicians and corporations creating artificial barriers to entry and competition). If this corruption has created the problem, the solution does not seem to me to increase their power because they've wrapped it up in a nice bow and promise only to use it for good.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course he's biased, 100% in Verizon's pocket and he's never been shy about it. That's why I didn't include his email info up there with the other two "Yes" voters, because his vote is obviously already bought and paid for.
Comment has been collapsed.
Choices as of now, keep Net Neutrality to remain static, or cease it and blindly trust companies not to exploit the system. At least the government has some semblance of appealing to voters.
Seriously, none of this is ideal, but releasing the tethers is the last thing that will foster competition. I'm all for revisiting the drawing board, but only with Net Neutrality existing as a placeholder.
I agree that there are big problems with the telecoms industry, but most of that is crony capitalism (that is, collusion and favoritism between politicians and corporations creating artificial barriers to entry and competition). If this corruption has created the problem, the solution does not seem to me to increase their power because they've wrapped it up in a nice bow and promise only to use it for good.
The last time we put all our eggs in one telecom basket, BellSouth ran off with $6 billion of taxpayer money.
You're asking me to put faith where none exists, while I'm simply campaigning for an extension of the existing status quo so that we may approach different solutions within a stable environment.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm all for revisiting the drawing board, but only with Net Neutrality existing as a placeholder.
That sums up my stance perfectly. I'm not for the government having complete control and regulating, but it's something that is working for now while we look for a proper solution. Handing everything over to big business on the "honor system" doesn't appear to me to be a very wise decision.
Comment has been collapsed.
The thing is, the internet was already free and open before Net Neutrality laws were enacted in 2015. Sure, there were some issues with some ISPs such as Comcast and Verizon throttling traffic, but there was a big outcry and and they quit doing it if I recall correctly. This was before Net Neutrality laws were enforced. I'm not proposing we blindly trust anyone, corporate or politician alike. The government may have semblance of appealing to voters, but they have far less in keeping their promises or actually acting in their interest.
I'm also for more competition in the telecoms industry, and agree that the Bellsouth merger was a bad idea. However, many of the monopolies are actually government created barriers to entry rather than market barriers. Easing some of those regulations could allow more players in the market, and therefore more choices for consumers (and consequences for companies when they try to pull this garbage).
Unfortunately, I fear that enforcing Net Neutrality is only the beginning of the FCC's power grab, and we'll soon see censorship under the guise of blocking hate / extremist speech, enforcing copyrights, and protecting children. All which might sound okay at first, but end up being an insidious form of propaganda and control.
Anyhow, the last thing I would do is to ask you to put faith in any entity, organization or government. All I ask is that you remain skeptical of anyone claiming to have our best interests at heart. at the cost of just a little more power.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, there were some issues with some ISPs such as Comcast and Verizon throttling traffic, but there was a big outcry and and they quit doing it if I recall correctly.
The outcry you're talking about is the outlining of the exact net neutrality protections that are now on the table.
Easing some of those regulations could allow more players in the market
It could, but the reality is that it wouldn't.
Unfortunately, I fear that enforcing Net Neutrality is only the beginning of the FCC's power grab, and we'll soon see censorship under the guise of blocking hate / extremist speech, enforcing copyrights, and protecting children. All which might sound okay at first, but end up being an insidious form of propaganda and control.
Hypothetical musing.
Anyhow, the last thing I would do is to ask you to put faith in any entity, organization or government. All I ask is that you remain skeptical of anyone claiming to have our best interests at heart. at the cost of just a little more power.
And where exactly did I say I was doing that? You basically rephrased what I just said in my comment. I am extremely skeptical, which is why I believe we should thoroughly examine said protections instead of throwing them away haphazardly and simply trusting big companies to "do the right thing."
Comment has been collapsed.
@doctorofjournalism: Be sure to let people know they should be civil in their mails ;). Blow up their inboxses in a civil way. Really try to convince them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ajit Varadaraj Pai (born January 10, 1973) is an American attorney who serves as the Chairman of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). [...] He is the first Indian American to hold the office. In 2011, Pai was then nominated for a Republican Party position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Minority leader Mitch McConnell.
This was bound to happen in one way or another, since it came through
the front door, the knocking might be louder and less of a surprise.
Comment has been collapsed.
Seeing companies who already jack prices and limit bandwidth, burn in the government mandated market, is also a plus.
Comment has been collapsed.
Really there is no real market. There is no competition between ISPs. Most places only have 1 or 2 options and there are enough barriers that new ISPs popping up is rather unlikely. So if it no longer is a utility there is little to impede them raising the price, as people don't have much of an alternative.
As much as some might hate the idea, it's going to take government intervention to break up the monopolistic/oligopolistic state of the ISP "market".
Comment has been collapsed.
I wish the government would do its job of busting companies instead of supporting them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Governments are run greatly by companies through the lobbys and the like, In my opion it is just more clear in Amerika.
Because in Amerika there the companies support kandidates in the campaigns so far I understand the system.
Comment has been collapsed.
Update (Dec. 14 2017): https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16776154/fcc-net-neutrality-vote-results-rules-repealed
What to do? Urge Congress to use a “resolution of disapproval” to overturn the FCC’s decision to dismantle the Net Neutrality rules.
Comment has been collapsed.