Internet-Wide Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality

Just think about it, people who have worked super hard for a website for people (like all of us) can get their crations blocked off from the public. Which is unfair for everyone! It's unfair for the creators to work so hard on a website, then to just get it blocked off. As well, it's unfair for the people because we all get upset because our favorite website, heck we can't even get on it!
 
Arezael said:
Doesn't phaze me in the slightest due to the fact I don't live in the US
Click to expand...
Might want to read he entire thread. This will affect everyone, not just the US. Many major websites and especially gaming servers are located here and would be subject to the loss of Net Neutrality.
Also, the US is, unfortunately, a global leader. Others may follow our example.
 
Arezael said:
Doesn't phaze me in the slightest due to the fact I don't live in the US
Click to expand...
Unfortunately you will be affected regardless. Imagine this thing happening and many websites in the US, including this one, have their bandwidth reduced to nothing.
It wouldn't be a nice forum experience when every page needs a minute to load. It doesn't matter where you live, any US website you visit might be affected, and thus you are affected.

And what The Eye of Horus said fears me the most: What is stopping the EU for doing the same? They're a bunch of rich people with no interest in the little people, so when they see the dollar signs approaching on the horizon you can bet they'll be trying the same thing here in Europe. But if this thing would be stomped into the ground right now then our 'leaders' would likely think twice about it.
 
Gotcha! said:
And what The Eye of Horus said fears me the most: What is stopping the EU for doing the same? They're a bunch of rich people with no interest in the little people, so when they see the dollar signs approaching on the horizon you can bet they'll be trying the same thing here in Europe. But if this thing would be stomped into the ground right now then our 'leaders' would likely think twice about it.
Click to expand...
The EU and its members actively support net neutrality, so you shouldn't worry too much about that. The main problem right now is that if American ISPs get too much power, they get influence over sites, which will also affect European internet users trying to use those. The chance of any EU nation adopting similar policies in the foreseeable future however, even if the American ones do pass, is very slim indeed.

If you are still concerned, you can always contact your MEP. That's what they're for, after all (assuming you did vote, of course).
 
Last edited:
Kazzymodus said:
If you are still concerned...
Click to expand...
I always am, people with power can be quick to change their minds, especially when there's money to be had. And with things like TTIP and CETA still being discussed (afaik), it's clear to me the EU doesn't have the people's best interests in mind, or they'd throw those agreements right into the trash can.

But thanks, it's good to know that for now we're safe from this. And now to hope the Americans wisen up and wipe their butt with this raw deal.
 
I'll have to agree with Gotcha here, even though the EU has expressed enmity towards this, they still can't be trusted. They still have been dumb/evil enough to support the wars in the Middle East, all the trade agreements, and whatnot. They're all in the same pocket, and will change their mind on a whim.
 
Feaw said:
I'll have to agree with Gotcha here, even though the EU has expressed enmity towards this, they still can't be trusted. They still have been dumb/evil enough to support the wars in the Middle East, all the trade agreements, and whatnot. They're all in the same pocket, and will change their mind on a whim.
Click to expand...
What you have to understand here is that these decisions aren't made out of malice, or because the powers that be think that normal citizens aren't important. Rather, this is a conflict of interests, and when a conflict of interest arises, one side has to come out on top.

See, the reason why these changes are on the table in the first place is to make the ISPs market more competitive, because competition, in general, is good for the consumer. And while it would be good for the consumer in general in some ways, the benefits of these changes are hugely outweighed by the detriments. Then again, that largely depends on the person: for anyone who regularly uses the internet (e.g. us, and dare I say, the majority of the population), these changes would be disastrous. For people who barely use the internet, and/or only use them for very specific things, these changes might actually be beneficial in the long run. And while I'm the last person who will say that that justifies these changes in any way, you do have to realise that different people, whether as individuals, groups, or organisations, have different interest, and those interest have to be evenly balanced. It would be lovely if we all had shared interests, but that's simply not how the world works. Someone has to get the short end of the stick, and in this particular story, that someone is us.

In summation, I don't think that society in general benefits from these changes in any way you slice it; it's detrimental, if anything. And there's nothing with being pissed at the people who are trying to damage your interest (or, in my personal case, trying to damage your interest across 3000 miles of water). But if you want to actively fight this, then assuming malice isn't going to help. So (and this is not specifically directed to you, but to anyone who wants to combat this), if you send a comment to the FCC, explain why you are against these changes in a rational and civilised manner, because in any area of life, that's the key to getting something done: proper communication. These people are genuinely trying to do what they think is best, their vision of what is best is just flawed, unfortunately. Make them see a better way.
 
@Kazzymodus

I'm aware of the economic side of it, that it creates more competition; it /would/ create more ways to differentiate the ISPs, yes, however, the gutting of Net Neutrality will give tremendous power to the already big ISPs, since they can just drown out any competition by hindering their advertizing and so forth.
Not to mention it would be suicide for some of them if their "packages" aren't broad enough, let alone the possibility of boycotting altogether (and I think with an issue as big as this, it would actually have more impact than silly boycots you see all the time).

IMO, the current "competition" is enough, namely, overall speed, bandwidth, and price (there might be more, but those alone are enough imo).
And another silly opinion of mine is that it's not the smartest idea to build up an ISP company anyway, there are far more lucrative fields out there, but that's not really relevant, but wanted to add it anyway.

I get that they just want the best for their own company, but we can also call that greed, since they're looking after their own wallets only and ignore the rest of the population (and as you said, likely at least 98% of the population will experience this negatively).

The FCC has actually been willingly faking comments to them that expressed support for the removal of Net Neutrality, they're using vile tactics in order to try and get this passed. That is inexcusable. If it was a mere proposal, and they would truthfully listen to the population, it would be dead by now, and we wouldn't have an uphill battle.

I agree that "protesting" in a calm manner is always better, and I would advise anyone to do so, but that doesn't take away the enormous greed these companies have and the sheer disconnect they have from regular people. I see them as vile, because they are, and that's not based solely on this issue.
Looking after your own company is one thing, but screwing over the vast majority of the population as a result of it, is irresponsible and arrogant to say the least.

So I both agree and disagree; they're doing what THEY think is best, but what they consider best, is often inexcusable based on the consequences they'd create.

Also don't forget that this is also an attack on free speech, so that adds another layer of issues. They can easily silence opposition, and would make it much harder for political voices to be heard, and especially in a time like this, we need that badly.
 
I have some questions about filling this out

-What does it mean by names of filters? What do I put there?

-Since I live in Canada I selected the international box, so... "Address International" is my homes address?

-And brief comments would just be me saying how much we need to keep the internet free right?

If someone could answer these things for me that would be vary helpful. I, Griffin de Biff refuse to let these greedy porkers take my internet away. The internet is my secon-- well, third home! away from... homes.
 
Kazzymodus said:
These people are genuinely trying to do what they think is best, their vision of what is best is just flawed, unfortunately. Make them see a better way.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that's part of the problem: They're already familiar with the arguments for and against their position. They'd have to be phenomenally inattentive not to be, considering how long net neutrality has been an issue (at least 15 years). Despite this, and knowing that net neutrality is a net benefit (no pun intended) for everyone, they still choose to pursue doing away with it because not having net neutrality allows them to further entrench their already excessive political and monetary power. As I mentioned earlier, not having net neutrality and the regulation engendered by being classified as common carriers allows them to control traffic on their networks however they choose, up to and including outright blocking anything they don't agree with, whether that's blocking torrent traffic at the behest of massive media conglomerates (which, in some cases, also happen to be the ISPs) or cutting off social/political activism. There would be no consequences for their abuse of their monopoly power, and there is zero reason to trust they wouldn't do so, because they already have.

One of their talking points against net neutrality is they'd rather have actual laws passed outlining what is and is not allowable, but the problem there is any law that is proposed would be almost entirely written by these companies and would therefore contain any number of loopholes and dodgy phrasing that would still allow them to abuse their monopolies. For all practical purposes, there are no legislators in the government familiar enough with these technologies for them to write and propose effective legislation for this (and this also holds true for most other highly complex issues), so these companies take advantage of that through their lobbyists and write the legislation themselves. There have actually been cases where legislation written in this way has been passed almost verbatim.

And Ajit Pai? He used to work for Verizon, probably as the person who would be writing legislation for the legislators. (I'm fuzzy on the specifics of what his position at Verizon was, since I've seen several disparate descriptions.) He knows full well what he's doing and has already made up his mind on the issue, so it's likely that - regardless of the number of comments supporting net neutrality and continuing to classify ISPs as common carriers under Title II - he's going to go ahead with reversing that decision. It's possible he won't do that, but if he does, the issue goes back to the courts again, at which point the FCC will likely get slapped down for ignoring overwhelming public comment and the reversal won't stand.

But that's if we're lucky. With Trump and the insanity of the republicans being in charge, it's better to assume it's uphill all the way.
 
GriffdeBiff said:
I have some questions about filling this out

-What does it mean by names of filters? What do I put there?

-Since I live in Canada I selected the international box, so... "Address International" is my homes address?

-And brief comments would just be me saying how much we need to keep the internet free right?

If someone could answer these things for me that would be vary helpful. I, Griffin de Biff refuse to let these greedy porkers take my internet away. The internet is my secon-- well, third home! away from... homes.
Click to expand...

- *Name of Filers- This would be your name and all, if any, people you will be including in your form.

- Yes, your home address.

- Yes, pretty much just how important a free internet is for you, and also things you use/do on a regular basis that would be at risk of loss. Safeman posted a nice link to help you with the comments on the original post. (This is the link)


Hope this helps :dryadsmile:
 
So, I did my part in the vote to preserve Net Neutrality, is there any news on the voting going underway? Or is there a time and date when it'll take place?
 
I cant believe that people these days live on greed, and want money. Isn't money the thing that gave the real problems here? Like poverty, and all of that stuff? This world is getting messed up every nanosecond that passes!
 
BlueBeoWulf said:
-snerp-
Click to expand...

Sadly, some people want control and to make more money than what is necessary to keep a business going on a day to day basis, some people have special interests that might be corrupted and/or selfish.

Of course, the matter is more complex then that and would require in-depth analysis to best interpret this situation, and converse amongst one another the actual, factual reason(s) why people do it. (Example given: Money and control aren't inherently bad, but it can be used for bad if abused.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom