NationStates

Thermodolia wrote:

Honeydewistania wrote:But the law is being threatened. We need to show we need the nET!

There is no law. So there's not law to threaten

That's the problem. People are unaware of the situation and how serious it is.

Thermodolia wrote:

Honeydewistania wrote:But the law is being threatened. We need to show we need the nET!

There is no law. So there's not law to threaten

Even if there is no law it can't be denied that the spirit of Net Neutrally is being threaten.

If this repeal passes meny sites will shut down

And some of those sites banned advertisements and rely on donations solely.

Net Neutrality should be a constitutional right

Naval Monte wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:There is no law. So there's not law to threaten

Even if there is no law it can't be denied that the spirit of Net Neutrally is being threaten.

Not really. Nothing is going to change for 90% of the Internet.

Entronium wrote:If this repeal passes meny sites will shut down

And some of those sites banned advertisements and rely on donations solely.

It's not a repeal because there is nothing to repeal, it's a rule change. Nothing is going to happen to 90% of the Internet

Thermodolia wrote:

Entronium wrote:If this repeal passes meny sites will shut down

And some of those sites banned advertisements and rely on donations solely.

It's not a repeal because there is nothing to repeal, it's a rule change. Nothing is going to happen to 90% of the Internet

If you visit more than 9 sites each day, it sounds as if you will be affected,

Thermodolia wrote:

Naval Monte wrote:
Even if there is no law it can't be denied that the spirit of Net Neutrally is being threaten.

Not really. Nothing is going to change for 90% of the Internet.

Honestly, a few key ISPs should band together to block Fox news' website on the grounds that it's bad for their customers and that being Title 1 means we get to do what we want.

You'll watch a complete net neutrality bill sail through Congress in record time.

The FCC is quietly about to announce a major change right before Thanksgiving

Not very quiet considering the internet is shitting itself over this.

Thermodolia wrote:

Entronium wrote:If this repeal passes meny sites will shut down

And some of those sites banned advertisements and rely on donations solely.

It's not a repeal because there is nothing to repeal, it's a rule change. Nothing is going to happen to 90% of the Internet

I am not crazy about the rule xhange, but this,

NSG topic is misleading, surprise

Thermodolia wrote:

Entronium wrote:If this repeal passes meny sites will shut down

And some of those sites banned advertisements and rely on donations solely.

It's not a repeal because there is nothing to repeal, it's a rule change. Nothing is going to happen to 90% of the Internet

"Nothing's going to happen" you say.... You poor deluded fool. Without governmental protection we'll be at the mercy of corporations, corporations who are not only not obligated in any way to listen or to respect its consumers, but actively profits from exploiting them. Net Neutrality's essentially the helmet you wear when riding a motor bike. Maybe you'll never crash and you'll be fine, but who are we kidding here. You are likely to crash, and without the helmet your brain is spreading over the pavement.

Naifon wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:It's not a repeal because there is nothing to repeal, it's a rule change. Nothing is going to happen to 90% of the Internet

If you visit more than 9 sites each day, it sounds as if you will be affected,

No you won't. If they are all text and image based sites you won't be. It's those sites that are video sites will be most effected and even then it will be still light years ahead of dial-up.

The Land of Home wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:It's not a repeal because there is nothing to repeal, it's a rule change. Nothing is going to happen to 90% of the Internet

"Nothing's going to happen" you say.... You poor deluded fool. Without governmental protection we'll be at the mercy of corporations, corporations who are not only not obligated in any way to listen or to respect its consumers, but actively profits from exploiting them. Net Neutrality's essentially the helmet you wear when riding a motor bike. Maybe you'll never crash and you'll be fine, but who are we kidding here. You are likely to crash, and without the helmet your brain is spreading over the pavement.

You think the government protects you now? That's cute.

The Land of Home wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:It's not a repeal because there is nothing to repeal, it's a rule change. Nothing is going to happen to 90% of the Internet

"Nothing's going to happen" you say.... You poor deluded fool. Without governmental protection we'll be at the mercy of corporations, corporations who are not only not obligated in any way to listen or to respect its consumers, but actively profits from exploiting them. Net Neutrality's essentially the helmet you wear when riding a motor bike. Maybe you'll never crash and you'll be fine, but who are we kidding here. You are likely to crash, and without the helmet your brain is spreading over the pavement.

Which is to say, you may end up paying more to get the same service you have now. Popular websites may be throttled if they don't make a deal with the ISP.

Not quite on the level of having your brain smeared across the road.

For those living in countries where you can easily switch providers and providers have to actually compete for your wallet, like the UK (the country where a department store chain provides broadband), Netherlands, Switzerland or Japan: it should be noted that the issue of Net Neutrality appears understandably a lot more serious within the US, because in many places there is no choice of a service provider.

There are many places in the US where it is either the big telco, the big cable, or nothing at all: with that kind of near-monopoly, any service provider can (if they have the will to do it, that is) easily throttle Internet access like AOL’s walled garden and the customers have to live with that.

That is why many internet freedom advocates have to depend on the likes of the FCC to force the providers to care about their customers.

Minoa wrote:For those living in countries where you can easily switch providers and providers have to actually compete for your wallet, like the UK (the country where a department store chain provides broadband), Netherlands, Switzerland or Japan: it should be noted that the issue of Net Neutrality appears understandably a lot more serious within the US, because in many places there is no choice of a service provider.

There are many places in the US where it is either one big service provider, or nothing at all: with that kind of monopoly, any service provider can easily throttle Internet access like AOL’s walled garden and the customers have to live with that.

That is why many internet freedom advocates have to depend on the likes of the FCC to force the providers to care about their customers.

The vast majority of Americans have the option of at least 2 providers to the home. (The cable company and the telco). Now I have nothing nice to say about either charter or at&t). But there 8s a choice. Tbh, I would rather the fcc and doj focus on increasing competition in the local markets. (But tbf, that ain't going to happen either).

You know it's a bill is really bad when even its defenders can only say "well, it''s not that bad".

Thermodolia wrote:

Naval Monte wrote:
Even if there is no law it can't be denied that the spirit of Net Neutrally is being threaten.

Not really. Nothing is going to change for 90% of the Internet.

All right.

So, explain me why they are changing the bill, if it is not going to change a damn thing?

Ethel mermania wrote:

Minoa wrote:For those living in countries where you can easily switch providers and providers have to actually compete for your wallet, like the UK (the country where a department store chain provides broadband), Netherlands, Switzerland or Japan: it should be noted that the issue of Net Neutrality appears understandably a lot more serious within the US, because in many places there is no choice of a service provider.

There are many places in the US where it is either one big service provider, or nothing at all: with that kind of monopoly, any service provider can easily throttle Internet access like AOL’s walled garden and the customers have to live with that.

That is why many internet freedom advocates have to depend on the likes of the FCC to force the providers to care about their customers.

The vast majority of Americans have the option of at least 2 providers to the home. (The cable company and the telco). Now I have nothing nice to say about either charter or at&t). But there 8s a choice. Tbh, I would rather the fcc and doj focus on increasing competition in the local markets. (But tbf, that ain't going to happen either).

Yeah, duopolies though are not significant improvements over monopolies. They typically adopt the same shitty policies as each other, so there's no meaningful choice.

Increasing competition sounds good, but given the infrastructure requirements (and the limits of physics when it comes to wireless), that's hard.

Petrolheadia wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Not really. Nothing is going to change for 90% of the Internet.

All right.

So, explain me why they are changing the bill, if it is not going to change a damn thing?

To let the isp's make more money.

Galloism wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
The vast majority of Americans have the option of at least 2 providers to the home. (The cable company and the telco). Now I have nothing nice to say about either charter or at&t). But there 8s a choice. Tbh, I would rather the fcc and doj focus on increasing competition in the local markets. (But tbf, that ain't going to happen either).

Yeah, duopolies though are not significant improvements over monopolies. They typically adopt the same shitty policies as each other, so there's no meaningful choice.

Increasing competition sounds good, but given the infrastructure requirements (and the limits of physics when it comes to wireless), that's hard.

This, but also the state of the competition (or lack of thereof) in the US makes one feel that there is only one choice in the country, and with the internet becoming more prolific, it sometimes feels that it is “(big service provider) or else!”.

Petrolheadia wrote:You know it's a bill is really bad when even its defenders can only say "well, it''s not that bad".

I don't think anyone's defending it. Just pointing out that losing net neutrality will be bad, but not the end of the world.

Galloism wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
The vast majority of Americans have the option of at least 2 providers to the home. (The cable company and the telco). Now I have nothing nice to say about either charter or at&t). But there 8s a choice. Tbh, I would rather the fcc and doj focus on increasing competition in the local markets. (But tbf, that ain't going to happen either).

Yeah, duopolies though are not significant improvements over monopolies. They typically adopt the same shitty policies as each other, so there's no meaningful choice.

Increasing competition sounds good, but given the infrastructure requirements (and the limits of physics when it comes to wireless), that's hard.

Separate out the last mile to a local t3lco, take it away from the ISP., make THE local t3lco charges the ISP's the same amout of money for the line usage. (Isdn, pots, or fiher would be separate tiers).

It is the way it use to be during the early 2000's and it got knocked out for so stupid r3ason.

Minoa wrote:

Galloism wrote:Yeah, duopolies though are not significant improvements over monopolies. They typically adopt the same shitty policies as each other, so there's no meaningful choice.

Increasing competition sounds good, but given the infrastructure requirements (and the limits of physics when it comes to wireless), that's hard.

This, but also the state of the competition (or lack of thereof) in the US makes one feel that there is only one choice in the country, and with the internet becoming more prolific, it sometimes feels that it is “(big service provider) or else!”.

No, version and charter are big enough on their own to fight for their own customers.

https://i.imgur.com/VKPMxzq.png

This guys just wants to be the most hated man on the internet.