This imbecility is something which - as web producers - we should all be very concerned and do everything in our power to resist and reverse.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that - if it eventually does go into effect - it won’t affect you; it will!
Just one of the many stupid things which The Donald is doing at the moment.
We are living in a new world, led by sociopaths…
If you’re from the US Mozilla (Firefox) has had a campaign going to get Congress to make Net Neutrality the law, and not leave it up to the FCC and Chairman Ajit Pai to rule.
You can Add your name to the petition here
https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-us/net-neutrality/petition
aren’t there some positive things coming for this? It seems like it’s not all that bad after all, right?
I’d be very surprised if there were. Nothing that the Orange Moron has done so far can be considered even remotely neutral, let alone positive.
If it gets pass the Supreme Court, users all over the world may well have to pay tiered rates for their content because the smaller companies in the US are unlikely to be able to pay the premiums which the ISPs will charge to avoid throttling.
What’s more, progressive, dissenting sources (e.g. of news and opinion) would be censored by US ISPs entirely.
Nothing good comes from getting rid of Net Neutrality.
The internet was something the oligarchs, that are the actual power behind governments, could not foresee happening.
The sociopaths that want to own and control everything have had shutting down a free and open internet on their agenda for a long time.
The best way is to do it bit by bit. Using the excuse that we want to protect your security or it’s good for business.
Removing net neutrality is just the first step.
I’m sure it’ll be good for some shareholders and executives but I really haven’t seen any arguments for it, to be honest.
@devananda
What positive things are you referring to? Just want to check we both read the same article.
I read an article stating that ISPs must state in writing if they are blocking or throttling any content and that this could create more competition to provide good speed at lower costs.
To me, it still doesn’t clearly state the rationale for doing it in the first place. It’s a penalty (which may be minor - I don’t know how big the fines are for those who break the rules) to help soften the blow to consumers but I still havent seen what the benefit is purported to be.
There is no competition. Comcast is a monopoly. Where I live, if you want high speed cable, you have one “choice”. Comcast makes billions (with a B) of dollars every year. They don’t need any more money. They can afford to do all the innovations they wan right now. Comcast could lower the cost to consumers and still be billionaires.
Obama created “net neutrality” 2 years ago, and the objective was to institute government control over the Internet.
The government’s not much good at anything but breaking things and killing people in times of war. Under Obama’s net neutrality such innovations as the iPhone would have never been possible.
Prior to Obama’s net neutrality, he spent right at $1,000,000,000 to build healthcare.gov.
Obviously it wasn’t built with RapidWeaver.
See http://time.com/3060276/obamacare-affordable-care-act-cost/
Long article but worth a read as I think it clearly shows the argument on both sides of this issue:
https://therevolutionaryact.com/net-neutrality-government-private-sector/
Does anything good come from government? Protection is about the only good thing… (Military, Police, etc)
Leave all else to individualism please… that’s were greatness comes from. History shows and proves it.
Who do your trust? United States postal service… or FedEx? The IRS is supposed to be “neutral” too… but are they? I know they are not. Again… proven…
That is my political rant of the month…
ADDENDUM…
And next comes Automobile neutrality… doesn’t everyone deserve a car that has the same speed and capibilities? And then Home neutrality… Wow… I actually remember not having the internet. What was “neutral” about that?
This isn’t Donald doing. Blaming it on the president is like blaming it on McDonald CEO for every time you get a coke that tasted bad. Trump may had appointed Ajit but it doesn’t mean Trump knew of his agenda. He could had appointed him based on his experience of being Verizon attorney.
I started get involved with internet since early 1990’s, my first home ISP was IBM and second was Compserv using a phone line modem. Internet was wide open and fine for 20 years until Obama added the new regulation.
Every time government add a new regulation, it cost tax payer more money.
Regulation is not just rules written on a piece of paper. It a whole new department build within the government to monitor the data and enforce the rule which mean new building, hiring workers, buying new monitoring and analysis equipments, and contracting out services to analysis the data to make sure no companies are breaking the regulation.
My question would be this …
What causes Obama administration to feel the need for this regulation? Did they know something that we didn’t know or they just was simply throwing idea around to build more department within government to have more control over the internet in their favor. Did they get an inside source that one of the private companies was going to monopolized the internet?
Internet was fine for the last 20 years and then suddenly there is a need for this regulation.
I am all for Net Neutrality if government can show me that there were companies considering to monopolized the internet then a BIG YES!!! we need it to be regulated and I know that mean millions of dollars added to our taxpayer. But it will be money worth to protect us. But if it was just an idea thrown around in Obama administration to keep them looking busy then it a big waste of tax dollar since it was fine for the last 20 years before the regulation.
With respect, Bill, may I suggest that it’s a little naïve to attempt to unlink Ajit Pai from The Big Orange Moron.
It’s also a myth to frame this in terms of regulation<>deregulation.
What happened yesterday simply shifts regulation - in favour of the ISPs. It deregulates nothing. It ensures nothing and it offers less.
The point of Net Neutrality (which Obama did not actually introduce, but rather fought to maintain in the face of the last attempt by the Republicans to overturn) is to make the internet a public utility or public good.
Like water or gas, electricity or sewers.
If you think it’s legitimate to a few wealthy individuals to be able to control almost every aspect of those goods, then you’ll be happy with what the FCC tried to do yesterday. The majority of users and companies see through it.
I’ve heard lots of compelling arguments for it and tangible examples (small business friendliness, is an example) and the only one I’ve heard against it is a sort of nebulous stifling of innovation (or a government mistrust/incompetence). And while those hold water, generally, I don’t know of ‘innovators’ who are in support of this. It’s Comcast.