Isn’t this what Google was trying to do, and they went so far and just… stopped. I think asking for another to try is like asking for lightning to strike twice, and again, it was only big metros they targeted anyway.
Wireless is really starting to catch on in the third world because the infrastructure for wired Internet is (relatively) so much more expensive . Maybe that will ultimately be our fate as well. The number of ISPs would still be limited, but the number would be a lot greater than just one cable or DSL provider.
Maybe one day there will also be another Carnegie who will donate a bunch of uplinks.
Yeah, which is sort of why I just trailed off there in my post, as I realized just what you said. Not much hope at all.
There’s a lot of talk here about ISP’s and yes, they will be able to find new ways to screw people once net neutrality is gone but, as someone who has worked in the industry for 22 years, I can tell you that the real fuckery will be at the back-bone level. Your ISP is your gateway to the Internet and while some of the bigger providers are also providing backbone services, your ability to reach any given site, or for any given site’s traffic to get back to you, is entirely dependent on a vast network of backbone providers. (If you run trace routes to some of the larger sites you’ll likely end up on a relatively local Akamai server but try some lesser sites and you’ll see just how many carriers are involved in getting your packets from point A to point B.)
The number of ways traffic can be manipulated to competitive advantage are endless and, even if the majority of carriers are playing nice, one bad apple can fuck everything up for a given site.
As an aside, I keep thinking of MySpace for some reason. Who was it that bought MySpace and rapidly turned it from the social media platform that people wanted to the social media platform some corporate marketing geniuses thought people wanted so fast that the site died within months? I worry that model will soon be applied to the Internet as a whole.
Pai, a Republican commissioner appointed to head the agency by President Trump, specifically called out Twitter for appearing to have a "double standard when it comes to suspending or de-verifying conservative users’ accounts as opposed to those of liberal users.
He did not specify which conservative accounts he was referring to. Twitter recently removed the verification from several prominent users, including controversial conservative commentator Laura Loomer and white nationalists like Richard Spencer and Jason Kessler.
How does twitter being biased have anything to do with net neutrality, other than strengthening the case for it by showing how private corporations may censor stuff?
Listen, sites that silence conservative (cough white nationalist cough) voices must be held to account! And Net Neutrality is going to make that possible, holding the Twitters of the world accountable and banishing them to some 64k backwater with the rest of the fake news so that the real Voices of Truth can finally be heard.
What tier do I have to pay for to get away from the Nazis?
That’s not an option. But Comcast will shield you from the evil antifa for free.
The ironic thing is that i would bet small to medium sized conservative sites are going to be hit just as hard as liberal ones, which is of course why even most republicans dont support this action.
Comcast might bribe politicians to get regulations and tax breaks that favor them (which tends to favor Republicans), but they are not political. If you can’t pay, you won’t play, no matter what your political leaning is.
I mean… like no one really supports it. The populace is 83% opposed or something like that.
It could destroy places like Breitbart and Infowars, which is probably the only upside of the thing.
Ajit Pi wants it.
Well, sure. Or at least his bank account does.
I don’t agree. I don’t think becoming “political” is that big of a step. If enough people are put in the right places of government, just about anything can happen. Comcast is certainly not going to take a stand on our behalf.
If the 700 Club or Hobby Lobby became ISPs, I think they would choose very carefully who they provide service to. And if there’s a good argument that this is unconstitutional… Judges ultimately decide what is constitutional and what is not, and they are appointed by other politicians.
Oh good, another drive-by link from the same shitty website.
Kindly fuck off with that bullshit.
Yeah and maybe @Klaatu could actually participate in the discussion instead of just dropping random links like some sort of bot.
Klaatu, I’m being serious here, is this something you have any interest in discussing? Because I read your link. I have a lot of disagreements with… well, many of the statements they made.
To me, the article was kind of summed up by this statement:
I pretty strongly disagree with the above statement, which I’d be more than happy to get into if you would like to discuss and/or argue, but the reason that quote summed up the article because that’s how it’s mostly written. A lot of strongly worded opinion (which is fine), presented as fact nothing to back up or corroborate the statement.
The statement above is patently false, because just like discussions of healthcare reform – and what you or I think of the specifics of the ACA is irrelevant here – the debates and call to action weren’t birthed from a vacuum. They were seeking to address issues that we are experiencing right now.
Is Title II / Net Neutrality the wrong solution? Please discuss why or how it’s not a problem, because your article certainly did not. It just stated an opinion as fact.
EDIT: Aside from arguments I could make about entities like Comcast leveraging their near-monopoly on broadband to push their television and streaming services over competitors, here’s some stuff that already happened:
Verizon and others block Google Wallet, which was a competitor to the Isis service they had (along with others) developed.
ATT announced it would disable FaceTime on iPhones unless customers subscribed to their more expensive plans.
That’s just a small sample, going back to 2011+. These are the things they were already pulling, which led to lawsuits and Net Neutrality discussions and eventually the classification under Title II. So again, I have to go back to the article’s (and presumably your) position:
And say that’s B.S. If you think otherwise, by all means back it up. Lets have a discussion.
I have found that those who are not in favor of net neutrality lack much of an understanding of how it will actually impact their own lives, and are instead viewing it merely as a “regulation” that should be removed, because all regulations should be removed.
I am in a weird spot that I hate the fact that we have to have Net Neutrality. If we had enough choice in the ISP space (which is possible) then I would be 100% against NN. That being said, since the active climate is ensuring that will never happen NN is the next best thing.