In a new proposal issued last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set out a plan to eliminate net neutrality protections, ignoring the voices of millions of Internet users who weighed in to support those protections. The new rule would reclassify high-speed broadband as an “information service” rather than a “telecommunications service” (remember, the FCC is forbidden from imposing neutrality obligations on information services). It would then eliminate the bright-line rules against blocking, throttling, and pay-to-play (as well as the more nebulous general conduct standard) in favor of a simplistic transparency requirement. In other words, your ISP would be free to set itself up as an Internet gatekeeper, as long as it is honest about it.
As long as there is a sticker on the ISP’s modem that is installed that clearly states “Warning: May contain Internets” then we will be all right.
Got to take care of them lowest common denominator-types…
I gutted a fish once.
Gutting Net Neutrality will leave a lot of blood on their hands.
I am starting to wonder if Net Neutrality isn’t free unlimited bandwidth for Google and Facebook at the expense of the rest of the economy.
Facebook and Google have a business plan to spy on you in all things. And now Microsoft with the spyware called “Windows 10”. Who pays for this?
It isn’t Facebook, Google and Microsoft paying for the bandwidth to spy on you.
And you didn’t give Facebook, Google and Microsoft authorization to spend your bandwidth on their spying.
Furthermore, sites chocked full of 53 ads with video and noise? Who is paying for that? It isn’t the advertiser. And you didn’t say “Hey advertisers, I give you permission to spend my bandwidth on 10 auto-play videos with loud audio.”
So let’s be clear here — part of this is Google, Facebook and Microsoft and advertisers getting a free lunch to use as much of your bandwidth as they like.
And they use tons and tons of it, like free candy.
You didn’t elect for those companies to spy on you and consume your bandwidth to do it. You didn’t elect for auto-play videos that consume your bandwidth to do it.
Just maybe Google, Facebook and Microsoft as heavy bandwidth users should get a bill. Perhaps they might optimize their spying.
Instead of Windows 10 deciding to download itself onto Windows 7 and Windows 8 computers by itself. How much free bandwidth were they using there? 30 GB? 100 GB?
If Net Neutrality goes away:
Those that will need to pay more are companies like:
1. Google – $64 billion in cash reserves. Known tax dodger/evader/off-shorer.
2. Facebook – $32 billion in offshore accounts.
3. Microsoft – $126 billion in offshore accounts.
If they have to spend some of those tax dodging billions if Net Neutrality disappears, “Boo fucking hoo!!”
I’m not going to cry for tax dodgers that are huge consumers of bandwidth having to pay some of their mega-billions.
“ignoring the voices of millions of Internet users who weighed in to support those protections”
1) How many of them had educated opinions on the matter?
2) How many were just parroting what Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook put in front of their faces?
And the $1 million dollar question.
Does Perkel know the pros and cons?
Or is he just repeating what Google and Facebook told him to think (like https everywhere, Let’s Encrypt).
I don’t claim to be an expert on this subject, but my thoughts on the subject run deeper than Facebook, Google and Amazon’s propaganda on the subject.
And as stated above, those companies all have untold several tens of billions in off shore accounts to prevent it from being taxed here.
I am thinking they do not need more free gratuities if they are not paying proper taxes in this country.
Thanks, Donald Trump..
Microsoft owns Skype.
What a great business! Steal AT&T phone customers and then sell those customers Skype phone service for $2.95 a month!
Now Microsoft gets the money and doesn’t need to maintain phone lines while using AT&T’s phone infrastructure to make calls!
Or how about Disney deciding to start their own streaming service?
Now they can compete with Comcast and Time Warner while using Comcast and Time Warner’s cable internet for free without maintaining the expensive infrastructure to deliver the internet to customers.
Why invest money in the internet infrastructure if it just means you are subsidizing a competitor to take away your customers?
Fun Windows 10 fact:
Did you know your Windows 10 PC is using lots of bandwidth helping update other PCs on the internet?
http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-silently-uses-your-bandwidth-to-send-updates-to-others/
https://thehackernews.com/2015/08/windows-10-update.html
Microsoft loves helping itself to your bandwidth.
Net Neutrality helps them do it for free!
Microsoft has volunteered your PC to basically be a Bit Torrent server, sharing updates with other other computers on the internet.
HM: I don’t know the subject well enough to conclude but your comments are on point. Also, not conclusive even if true, but on point.
My point: I like my internet experience and have a negative kneejerk about gubment “control” of any kind.
I don’t know what it fully means, but the criticism that strikes home to me is WE THE CONSUMERS pay for the broadband already and the deregulation is for COMCAST and other overly corpulent excessively profitable entities to “double charge” the content PROVIDERS for what we the CONSUMERS already pay for….with a good dose of censorship and increased commercialization (ie ads for Comcast Services).
……………and at base, I thought 90% of internet traffic was spam and porn?…….meaning any complaint about what is going on in the remaining 10% is really a dodge?
…………..but I don’t know. I’m leaving it to the majority will and democratic outcome. xxxxxx BUT INSTEAD: the future of the internet is being made by those paid to reach a particular outcome to favor those with the money to pay for it. IE: Comcast. HA, HA===>I just flashed on that old James Coburn picture with Ma Bell the central Villain. Same issues, same villainy, just a reborn Ma Bell.
See above about Windows 10 volunteering your bandwidth treating your computer as a file-sharing server to send updates to other computers. And you were never asked.
That should be illegal.
(I hate AT&T by the way, but I think a lot of truly evil bandwidth consumption is going on — that the consumer is not aware of and wouldn’t want.)
Follow the money. Google, Microsoft, Facebook are not innocent companies. What are they doing that they are not telling you?
Perhaps another point of view:
Would you prefer the bandwidth be paid for by …
1) Higher cable internet bills? (YOU)
2) GOOG, Facebook, MSFT and their tax dodging tens of billions.
Someone has to pay for the infrastructure.
I pick GOOG, Facebook, MSFT to pay their fair share.
My cable internet bill doesn’t need to go higher.
Consumers do not owe GOOG, Facebook, MSFT a free lunch. And while I love Netflix, their market value is $90 billion! I think they’ll be ok.
Besides Netflix just raised prices $2 per month, that is 18% price hike. I think Netflix will be just fine.
Here is something interesting …
“During the past two years, Facebook has used 5 percent of the Internet’s bandwidth; Google, 2.5 percent; Microsoft’s Windows Update, 3.2 percent”
http://leavcom.com/articles/ieee_oct10.php
Windows Update is using 3.2 percent of all the bandwidth.
Facebook is at 5%? How? How is Facebook using more bandwidth than Windows Updates — which would be an enormous amount of bandwidth.
I guess I don’t understand the “mechanics” of how the tubes are all connected and such. But it seems to me all of the issues you name have nothing to do with net neutrality.
If there is an easy explanation that shows I’m wrong, I’d like to hear it.
The main problem is that the masses dont care. As long as they have a cheap connection everything else doesnt matter.