SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Today Sept 10, 2014 you may find that a number of sites are "featuring" notices and links to "Battle for the Net".
Aside from being a US concern - as this question is currently in front of the FCC - these sites, and this organization are looking to swell the grass roots effort to maintain the internet as it currently exists - without a slow lane or corporate interference when you go out and retrieve websites.
If you are in the US please take the time to visit the effort; reach out to the FCC and your representatives. If we bring enough voices to this fight we can get the FCC to back away from the corporate interference like we did for SOPA.
Also covered at:
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Internet Slowdown Day Sept 10 - The Fight for Net Neutrality
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 31 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I feel like I'm in a Toilet Bowl with a thumbtack in my forehead!!
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Wednesday September 10 2014, @06:42PM
This is probably representative of ISPs like mine dragging ass on upgrading and maintaining their stuff with the gigantic profit margin they have but apparently there is a large throttle being enacted by some of the participating sites. I haven't noticed. I know it's happening in some places but I still have seen 0 difference. My connection is just as shoddy and 3rd world quality as ever and yes I'm in the US. I don't know what kind of point they're going for here or if it's even going to do anything besides showing ISPs that the most they have to worry about are sites passive aggressively saving bandwidth in a roundabout way but I do think that for people like myself it does show how bad the problem is at the client side.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Blackmoore on Wednesday September 10 2014, @06:49PM
These bastards want both the consumers (you and i) AND the providers to pay them. Even tho we already pay for X amount of bandwidth.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday September 10 2014, @06:59PM
Exactly, also there is no intention of creating a "fast lane" as they're trying to spin it. What they want to do, as you said, is create a slow. Lane everyone that does pay continues using the existing system, anyone that doesn't pay gets bumped to the slow lane. On top of that, Netflix already came to an agreement to pay Comcast and Verizon extra and Comcast and Verizon are STILL throttling them. So it seems even if you are paying to use their pipes they can still stick you in the slow lane. That alone shows the system they're proposing isn't going to work in anyone except the ISP's interest.
They definitely need to be classified as common carries so they can't F with the flow of information or services everyone's already paying for.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:04PM
They have not spent money "upgrading" those pipes. They may have spent money on the servers that handle billing; and tracking; and then pay the employees poor wages to give us substandard support.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:10PM
I'm pretty sure the people at Level 3 (and many others) would disagree with your statement that recent bandwidth increases are still paid by the government.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Blackmoore on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:30PM
I'll just add a quote I found on FARK.
<blockquote>
Actually, we have already paid for them to upgrade their infrastructure. Twice. But, the big boys didn't do what they promised to do with the monies they were given. Under the Telecom Act, the were given Federal monies with the provision that they use those monies to build, expand and improve their infrastucture into rural and low population urban areas. Instead, they took the monies given and said "Well, those people in the outlying areas won't be able to take advantage of all these nifty neat new technologies if we don't have them in our high density areas first. We'll just use this money to 'build up' our already existing infrastructures." And of course, the best way for them to "build up" their existing infrastructures was to use the monies they were given to increase corporate payroll, lobby for less oversight and regulation and pressure cities into giving them near unbreakable monopolies. Not one cent was used towards actually building new rural and low pop. urban infrastructure. So, when all those monies ran out, they lobbied and said "We need more to finish what we promised we'd do with the money you already gave us!" Guess what they did with that new money. Go ahead. I'll wait.
</blockquote>
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @10:46PM
> Well it would be more accurate to say that we PAID for upgrades, but that money was redirected.
For more specifics, try this: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen. [pbs.org]
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Wednesday September 10 2014, @08:20PM
I don't know who originally paid for the fiber, but Level 3 bought an awful lot of their network at fire-sale prices from other failing networks.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @11:49PM
I think GP was referring to this: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen. [pbs.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:08PM
I'm waiting for a cable-style inversion of the power dynamic. In the full not-neutral Net, the content providers will have the ability to pull off their services from specific ISPs unless they get cash.
Try to imagine the power that Apple, Facebook and Google wield, as they serve all Verizon customers with a black "sorry, we're in fees negotiations, talk to your ISP about giving us [your] cash" page for a few days. (think about that one for a minute)
All in all, the end of net neutrality would be a fantastic thing ... for lawyers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @10:51PM
> These bastards want both the consumers (you and i) AND the providers to pay them.
Think of them like the entertainment industry. They want to be the middlemen between the audience and the performers in order to extract tolls from both sides. And we all know just great a boon those guys have been.