Internet-Wide Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality

Why do they need MORE money, half the people in America are already poor and trying to sustain internet access but now they want to push those people off a cliff in terms of money? You can literally buy whatever you want you should think about everybody not just themselves
 
Why do they need MORE money, half the people in America are already poor and trying to sustain internet access but now they want to push those people off a cliff in terms of money? You can literally buy whatever you want you should think about everybody not just themselves
Not everyone supports egalitarianism. And a capitalist state is always going to have social strata.

That is not to say capitalism is bad or good. It's merely an ideology, and all ideologies have their boons and their flaws. But at the very least it is an expected (if not necessarily desirable) result.
 
So what you're saying is that the entirety of the internet is becoming like a school wifi? Blocking whatever because they don't like it? That's a load of bullfrick
 
Where I'm from, ISPs do something similar even though it's unlawful here. Thankfully it's only for mobile internet, and instead of it being throttling certain sites, instead it's making certain sites cheaper or even free to access. Luckily they don't increase the rate for other sites, but it's still clearly favouring certain sites at the expense of others. I hope our government puts an end to that practice, but given their incompetence, I doubt it.
 
Posted to the FCC, Long Live Net Neutrality!!

(seriously though, this stuff is insane and it is disgusting to think that the FCC, etc think this type of practice is acceptable. we need to maintain net neutrality because nepotism is and always will be a bad thing)
 
I did it!
[doublepost=1508325972,1508325920][/doublepost]I told them I would go to court if they took free internet away, but I didn't tell them that I can't do that yet because I'm only 14
 
1. Ajit Pai was nominated by Obama, and had served his 5 year term as FCC chair. Trump renominated him.

2. Who knows what's really behind it, but officially, the idea is to charge companies like NetFlix more if they don't want their customers to lag. Supposedly they plan to use the money to expand the backbone, which is a good thing. Probably will affect some high bandwidth online games, but why shouldn't it? No one seems to mind if delivery services charge more to haul heavy packages, or to be sure the package will be delivered by 10AM tomorrow.

3. Content should be unaffected, it's focusing on throughput. Even so, stuff is already filtered by content. Look at the demonetization of SOME channels on youtube based on politics, content filters on Facebook, Google admitting to prioritizing pages with the "correct" political slant, etc. To the extent Net Neutrality exists, it's not accomplishing what you say you want anyway.

Personally, I don''t see much of a downside. Lots of sites have become bloated with high-bandwidth fluff, 90% of which I don't want, let alone need. I'd rather have the option to have a lower-bandwidth page, ads and all, then click on whatever things I'm interested in rather than video popups of the Kardashians until I close the page, sometimes even close the browser. If sites have to start paying money to send me video updates on which stars are suffering from ED, I probably won't have to listen to it as much.
 
No, they are saying that ISPs can make sites pay just to show up on their internet, so small ones like this would never be seen by the public. If it's run by, say, a 14-15 year old, they don't have enough money to pay the money they want to allow you, so no-one can visit his site. That's the downside. Unfunded sites will never be seen, removing the 'level' out of the 'level playing field' that the internet currently has.
 
No. The question is whether an ISP is just a phone company or if it supplies additional services, specifically information services. Unquestionably many supply and have supplied emails. They all cache and buffer data streams to whatever your particular connection can handle. Many offer news services. Many block content based on copyright and "family friendly" criteria. It's hard to argue that they are no more than a wire connecting you to this site.

There's nothing in the filing to suggest that small sites will be excluded if they don't pay up. That's not to say it won't end up that way. Lord knows lawyers twist words every which way till they mean the exact opposite thing.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-60A1_Rcd.pdf
 
Specifically, the rules under consideration start on page 28 of the PDF. There's the No-Blocking Rule (that I think you are talking about), the No-Throttling Rule, the No-Paid Prioritization Rule, and the Transparency Rule. As mentioned therein, these rules are applied differently to mobile devices. Do you find that the cell companies are blocking sites like this one? According to the filing, they can legally do so. Why do you think your ISP is any more likely to expend the resources to block it?
 
No. The question is whether an ISP is just a phone company or if it supplies additional services, specifically information services. Unquestionably many supply and have supplied emails. They all cache and buffer data streams to whatever your particular connection can handle. Many offer news services. Many block content based on copyright and "family friendly" criteria. It's hard to argue that they are no more than a wire connecting you to this site.

There's nothing in the filing to suggest that small sites will be excluded if they don't pay up. That's not to say it won't end up that way. Lord knows lawyers twist words every which way till they mean the exact opposite thing.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-60A1_Rcd.pdf
Really what I'm saying is that removing these rules allows the ISPs to do this. No one said they would, but they might. That is the potential downside.
 
Back
Top Bottom