One Day Left To Comment on the FCC's Plan To Kill Net Neutrality (theverge.com) 99
An anonymous reader quote The Verge: After four months of debate, the FCC is nearly ready to stop accepting feedback on its proposal to kill net neutrality. Final comments are due this Wednesday, August 30th, by end-of-day Eastern time. Once the comment period closes, the FCC will review the feedback it received and use it as guidance to revise its proposal, which if passed, would reverse the Title II classification that guaranteed net neutrality just two years ago. The commission is supposed to factor in all of the feedback it received when writing its final draft, so if you do have strong feelings on the matter, it's worth leaving a comment...
To leave a comment, you'll have to go to this site, click "+ Express," and then fill out the form it opens up to. Make sure you leave the proceeding number "17-108" in place, as that's what ties it to the net neutrality proposal. Also, be aware that everything filed is public, so others will be able to see your name and address.
"ISPs shouldn't be gatekeepers," wrote the EFF in a tweet sharing tips on the way to write effective comments. The number of comments matter because "the commission will very likely have to defend its changes in court," according to the article. And the commission has now received a record 22 million filings -- nearly six times the previous record of 3.7 million comments (when the net neutrality rules were first implemented).
To leave a comment, you'll have to go to this site, click "+ Express," and then fill out the form it opens up to. Make sure you leave the proceeding number "17-108" in place, as that's what ties it to the net neutrality proposal. Also, be aware that everything filed is public, so others will be able to see your name and address.
"ISPs shouldn't be gatekeepers," wrote the EFF in a tweet sharing tips on the way to write effective comments. The number of comments matter because "the commission will very likely have to defend its changes in court," according to the article. And the commission has now received a record 22 million filings -- nearly six times the previous record of 3.7 million comments (when the net neutrality rules were first implemented).
Re: (Score:3)
... that everyone agreed were ineffective at actually enforcing net neutrality anyway.
Not everyone agreed with that.
Since I do not pay a surcharge to Comcast for Netflix and Amazon content, the current rules are working effectively for me.
I expect that to change.
The toll booths will be going up soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm currently subjected to having Comcast. If they start that bullshit of which you speak, I'll be hastily looking for a different ISP, and I'll be damned well telling them exactly WHY I'm dumping them, when I go in person to their customer service office with the cable modem in hand, demanding a receipt showing I returned it, and paperwork showing I no longer do business with them.
Sucks to be you. For high speed internet I've got Comcast, xfinity, and shipping a big pile of hard drives by usps.
Re: (Score:2)
Xfinity is Comcast...
Woosh
Re:And by kill Net Neutrality You Mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll be hastily looking for a different ISP
You are missing the point. Without NN, the ISPs will be able to charge arbitrary fees precisely because they are monopolies or near monopolies in most areas where they operate. If you are actually able to take your business to a competitor, then you are in a small minority.
Re: (Score:3)
If they reverse Net Neutrality, I saw we start a GoFund me to buy out all of the ISPs and then de-prioritize all government traffic as well as the personal traffic of Ajit Pai. Since it will then be legal to do, we might as well work it in our favor.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for this. Over and over again, people here made this charge that everyone was conspiring against Netflix when in fact Netflix was just trying to cut costs by deliberately seeking out companies that would load up settlement free links with Comcast.
Re: (Score:1)
Hillary showed no indication of killing it, and as someone one the progressive / centrist side she advocates for regulations which benefit Americans.
The problem is you hide behind smarmy nonsense like "both sides are screwing you", while you fail to vote for the candidate who would protect your interest, and thus empower the politicians that actually are harming you.
Worst of all, you empower America's traitors and enemies the most obnoxious, faux intellectual way possible.
Re: (Score:2)
If Clinton indeed didn't give a fuck about net neutrality, that means she was a better choice on that issue than Trump.
Re: (Score:1)
Let's see if you can tell the difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's positions on net Neutrality:
citation provided [gizmodo.com]
Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton has indicated support for net neutrality. She gave two thumbs up to FCC chairman Tom Wheelerâ(TM)s proposal for strong net neutrality rules, though admitted it was only a âoefoot in the door.â
Donald Trump
Donald Trump does not support net neutrality. Actually, he thinks it will lead to the censorship of conservative media. âoeObama
Re: (Score:1)
You are a fucking moron.
A democrat enacted net neutrality in the first place!
Now you want to throw out a bunch of smarmy bullshit about how democrats are just like republicans, when a republican is repealing the net neutrality protections that a democrat passed.
How can you be so fucking blind, that you seriously can't even see the obvious reality of democrats supporting and enacting protections for your interests like net neutrality?
America believed the smarmy bullshit that you are selling here (enough for
Re: (Score:2)
It's called the Spoiler effect. It's why we need to scrap first-past-the-post and replace it with instant runoff voting. Then people are not punished in the way you describe by voting for a 3rd party candidate.
When approval ratings are historically low but the incumbency rate is historically high... something is seriously wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Really anything other than FTTP would be good. At this point one can make a pretty serious argument for choosing leaders by random lottery: at least it would "drain the swamp", right? Personally I think I would rather have range voting or approval voting. A five-star rating or a YouTube-style thumbs-up thumbs-down ballot would hopefully be familiar enough from daily use to be palatable to voters.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we could all take it in turns to act as a sort of... executive officer of the week? But all the decisions of that officer must be approved at bi-weekly meetings; by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major affairs.
Or we just base our system of government on strange women lying in ponds distributing swords. Gotta be better than what we've got now.
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary Clinton panders to her base, but when the money rolled in and her position secured, what would she have really done?
She wouldn't be able to risk losing part of her base on an issue like that. And I don't think Net Neutrality is an issue that really gets conservatives to the polls, in general. So it wouldn't be like she was going to win over any moderates by scrapping it anyway.
While you could say that she would do it for the campaign donations... well she had more money than Trump but still lost, so how would more campaign contributions in the next election really help her? Especially if she's not going up against the on
Re: (Score:3)
Can't stop it. We have limited choices on who to elect, and they're all corrupt.
That is Bullcrap. No politician is 100% pure, but it is absurd to say they are all equally corrupt. Denmark is not as corrupt as Nigeria, and Minnesota is not as corrupt as Louisiana. We can do better, and by just giving up and apathetically saying we "Can't stop it" you are part of the problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have enough time in any case. The next election cycle is next year.
I need more information on Net Neutrality. All I've been able to come up with is a jumbled mess about false choice: in theory, you just vote with your dollars and go to an ISP who doesn't throttle Netflix or whatever; in practice, Verizon and Comcast do it, and the other small players are either not carrying big enough pipes to make Netflix useful or not carrying enough customers to make Netflix profitable. Net Neutrality pre
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, he pissed YOU off enough to de-anonymize yourself unwittingly, so I don't think it can be fairly said he's evidently done NOTHING today. Just food for thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Fucking cowards like you make me sick. Yellow-bellied cowards like you don't deserve to live in the United States, why don't you renounce your citizenship and go live in China or something, since you seem to have no use for CHOICE in how things are where you live. Then we can give your job to someone who actually deserves to live here, who appreciates the right to actually speak up about things that matter and expects something to be done about it.
But the emails! What about the Clinton's emails! We have to vote agaisn't our own self interests as those guys on AM radio and Fox make seem voting for anyone who favors us as pretty scary. If we give them some more free money they will be nice to us.
We're doing it (Score:2)
We have to vote agaisn't our own self interests as those guys on AM radio and Fox make seem voting for anyone who favors us as pretty scary. If we give them some more free money they will be nice to us.
Our side has been actually doing something about it.
Lots of Republican congress seats are coming up in 2018, and many of them realize that if they don't get off their butts and do something, they're going to be voted out [breitbart.com]. There's a mood running through the population right now to that specific effect: people are saying "do something or we'll kick your butt to the curb in next year's elections".
Many Republicans are worried that they'll lose to a challenger in the upcoming primary if they don't start doing th
Re: (Score:2)
"A Better Deal" is just the same Democrat talking points rehashed with a hash tag: $15 minimum wage, tax businesses, healthcare, blahblahblah. There's a plan, and it's everything they've been saying with new paint.
I'm going to be the black sheep of the party if I somehow manage to get elected (hoping Elijah goes to senate; would hate to see him bail out this round due to his health issues, even if I can't beat him in the primaries). My core platform is a Universal Social Security plan, which hits every
Re: (Score:2)
Nazis are not a protected class (Score:2)
You don't have to wonder, if you realize those are orthogonal issues. You see, hosting content on the Internet costs money, and it's not one of those universal government services. Therefore you are paying some private individual for this. Private individuals can generally conduct business as they choose within the bounds of the law. Businesses typically are able to refuse service for any reason, with the exception being if this decision is based on the customer's race, religion, sex, nationality, etc. So f
Re: (Score:1)
This has got to be the best summarized version of my thoughts I've seen yet.
I'm going to use this later. Unless you opt out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think your central confusion may be conflating "refusing service" with "providing inferior service". The business may accept or refuse customers for any non-discriminatory reason, but (in this case) they have to give all their customers the same service. And we would not necessarily make these rules if there were not direct financial incentives for abuse, and (perhaps arguably) a history of that actually happening. ISPs are not all monopolies, but the ISP markets generally are not characterized by robust
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ISPs control whether you can access a resource. Hosters provide a place to host a resource.
If your host won't host you, you can find another host. There are lots of them.
If ISPs won't allow access, then you have the big one or two in an area who can actually carry something (e.g. Netflix) but refuse, and the small ISPs who are willing to carry something but don't have the capacity. Changing hosts doesn't work at the supplier end: you have to get your customers to change to an ISP who supports you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just the degree of monopolization, but the end-to-end impact. Even if you have 1,000 ISPs in a city and only one excludes your Web site, the customers of that one must face whatever special impact their ISP has on you. If you have one giant monopoly ISP today and exactly two equivalent Web hosts, one Web host excluding you just means you go to the next (who we assume doesn't exclude you), and the people using the monopoly ISP experience exactly the same end-user experience.
The ISP connection is not
Re: (Score:1)
Should the political winds shift, you'll still have your Netflix, but the "extremist" or fringe political websites you might visit will be given the stormfront treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, someone was bound to show up with a "slippery slope" argument. Your point is completely sound, but I don't often find myself advocating genocide, so this is an acceptable risk. Also, whether or not you dislike this idea, you have no legal argument for an alternative: one cannot be forced to provide a platform for arbitrary speech. If we nationalized the Internet infrastructure, or if Nazism were a protected class, this would become a more interesting question. As is, I gotta say I sleep pretty easy kno
Re: (Score:2)
Tenebrousedge, James P.: "Assholes Are Not a Protected Class", Harvard Ph.D. Programme Library, 2017.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Which probably isn't the best thing I could say about a congressional candidate. Good luck, by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Shrug. It wasn't a campaign statement and I haven't gotten the idea that it's always a campaign statement yet.
Either way, it's not funny if I have to explain it.
Wonder how many astroturfers (Score:3)
Meanwhile US bandwidth is going up... (Score:2)
Akamai State of the Internet Report 2017Q1 [akamai.com] has United States average (IPv4) home Internet connection speed at 18.7 Mbps, up 22% year-on-year.
Oh boy (Score:2)
One more day to be ignored by my government.
Oh, wait. That's just like any other day now.
He's gonna kill it (Score:3)
Net Neutrality is AWESOME!!! (Score:2, Troll)
Unless you're running a website that some people don't approve of.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
The people celebrating this don't seem to understand how bad this is for an open, free internet. They also seem to have dropped their opposition to "corporations controlling the internet".
Internet censorship is openly celebrated (Score:3, Insightful)
All this talk about open internet, ISPs not acting as gatekeepers, corporations not controlling the internet, etc. is a bit thin when people are openly celebrating corporations kicking websites off the internet with little notice for offensive (very offensive in these cases) content after having collected money from them for years.
You can abhor places like the dailystormer and stormfront, while also disagreeing with what happened to them, how it happened, and pointing out that this bodes very badly for an open, free internet.