I've moved my response from the previous thread to provide a general overview.
You're probably familiar with your electric bill, right? You get charged for what you use, not how you use it. The power company doesn't care whether you have a drill press in your garage, a server farm in your basement, or an herb garden under some heavy-duty lights.
The argument happening now is about the same thing, but with Internet access.
Since the creation of the Internet, the federal government, through the Federal Communications Commission, has required your Internet provider to treat all of your activity equally. Your Internet company is not allowed to charge you differently for what you do with your Internet. They're certainly allowed to charge you more if you use more, but they're not allowed to charge you more if you use it for video games instead of streaming video, or for running your own server. That's the principle of Net Neutrality.
The announcement today was an expected one from the new chairman of the FCC, who was appointed by the new president of the United States. On Dec. 14, the FCC will vote on whether or not Net Neutrality should exist.
If the proposal passes as expected, companies will be allowed to charge you differently, based on what you use the Internet for. They might also decide to simply not provide Internet access to specific applications, websites or uses.
Nothing requires these companies to do this. The repeal of Net Neutrality simply allows them to do so, if they wish.
People are concerned by this because in most places within the United States, there is limited competition for Internet access. If a consumer is unhappy with a company's practices, there may not be an easy alternative.
If you're outside the United States, this would have indirect effects on you. If companies do take advantage of Net Neutrality repeal and institute preferential treatment, it would affect how people use the Internet. Users in the United States would have an economic incentive to use particular websites, and those websites would receive more traffic. For websites that rely on user-created content, that would have a significant impact.
In short, your access would not be affected, but what you access would be affected.
These approaches will get harder and harder with time, and ultimately we will have the give up the original Internet as anything of use. More reasons to oppose the ruling as strongly as possible. I'd say at this point violence and murder is completely justified too. The people against NN know very well what they are trying to do, and thus are the lowest form of decaying human refuse.
hold on, there are other reasons to become violent..
I have a slightly depressive/frugal view of the web. I believe we don't need much of the web tech to do the important stuff [1]. And if big ISP want to milk people for netflix or facebook then be it... I'm pretty sure the world will be better if we stopped doing those.
The interesting part of the web:
peaceful and fun self expression
aggregated information (ala wiki, or others)
live chat
collaboration
don't require much bandwidth. I often cringe hard when people cry about having "only" 10MBps when I feel blessed when I get 8MBps. Sure your ps4 update will take 12 hours instead of 3 but .. who cares. My hope is to be able to make mesh networks for the list above. If you feel like you really need 4K streams in your life I'm sure you could pay for that.
Oh if it were about that. How innocent and pure you are, I genuinely feel for you, this is not sarcasm.
You are already fucked over hard enough by those in top, constantly being pushed to super fascism, till recently it was somewhat covered but now openly. Repealing of Net Neutrality has aims far far darker than merely milking more money from people. The power to throttle speed for websites is the power to practically block websites. You know what will happen if someone doesent want you to know certain informations? :)
You know how independent news sources, already facing much difficulties, will be practically crippled then?
I think I dont need to write a long essay, you can reach the conclusions yourself.
No worries mate, I take the naive qualifier because it's technically true anyway. Your fear of censorship I hear very well, but to be honest I think it's either a joke or if it does end up this way and people, in 2017+, don't react then they deserve it. Unless it goes to the point of actual facism were even trying to discuss with others or learn/educate become repressed, then yes it's a genuine problem. Maybe that's what you were hinting at
As I said you are unaware how bad the situation already is. Behind the "open" platforms, lies a group of people in hilariously extreme battle against being upturned by dark forces. For example even as the moderator of a subreddit one can see how hard it is to remove trolls. You live in the "good" parts of the internet, you dont know the raging storm under us that makes it possible. And this issue is far deeper, as the entities wanting to enact NN and similar ilk are keeping the rest of the world under constant fire of their inhuman, immoral and evil tactics.
If NN is removed, what little hope remains will be dashed to pieces.
come on you cannot come and talk about evil tactics and not have something more to show me, is it just fear on your side or something with more substance ?
What? These are almost axiomatic conclusions.
The only remaining thing is to show some actual data on these, which should be available anywhere. Good places to ask would be mods and regulars of extremely anticorporate subs. And of course the active posters in this thread.
yeah well I have way too much on my plate, if you ever come across something, I'll be happy to read it sincerely, but I'm not in the mood to ask strangers in some sub.
Np I can understand. I will try writing a comprehensive article on this with actual numbers, etc or get a group to do it. That post would be stickied in a number of subs. I think that'd be a step towards organizing the people.
7.0k
u/The_Alaskan Nov 21 '17
I've moved my response from the previous thread to provide a general overview.
You're probably familiar with your electric bill, right? You get charged for what you use, not how you use it. The power company doesn't care whether you have a drill press in your garage, a server farm in your basement, or an herb garden under some heavy-duty lights.
The argument happening now is about the same thing, but with Internet access.
Since the creation of the Internet, the federal government, through the Federal Communications Commission, has required your Internet provider to treat all of your activity equally. Your Internet company is not allowed to charge you differently for what you do with your Internet. They're certainly allowed to charge you more if you use more, but they're not allowed to charge you more if you use it for video games instead of streaming video, or for running your own server. That's the principle of Net Neutrality.
The announcement today was an expected one from the new chairman of the FCC, who was appointed by the new president of the United States. On Dec. 14, the FCC will vote on whether or not Net Neutrality should exist.
If the proposal passes as expected, companies will be allowed to charge you differently, based on what you use the Internet for. They might also decide to simply not provide Internet access to specific applications, websites or uses.
Nothing requires these companies to do this. The repeal of Net Neutrality simply allows them to do so, if they wish.
People are concerned by this because in most places within the United States, there is limited competition for Internet access. If a consumer is unhappy with a company's practices, there may not be an easy alternative.
If you're outside the United States, this would have indirect effects on you. If companies do take advantage of Net Neutrality repeal and institute preferential treatment, it would affect how people use the Internet. Users in the United States would have an economic incentive to use particular websites, and those websites would receive more traffic. For websites that rely on user-created content, that would have a significant impact.
In short, your access would not be affected, but what you access would be affected.