SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the would-you-like-YouTube^WNetflix^WFacebook^WAmazon-with-that? dept.
Michael Hiltzik at the Los Angeles Times writes about Portugal's Internet which shows us a world without net neutrality, and it's ugly. Basically, tiered services get in there through a loophole for zero-rating.
After paying a fee for basic service, subscribers can add any of five further options for about $6 per month, allowing an additional 10GB data allotment for the apps within the options: a "messaging" tier, which covers such services as instant messaging, Apple FaceTime, and Skype; "social," with liberal access to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, and so on; "video" (youTube, Netflix, etc.); "email and cloud" (Gmail, Apple's iCloud); or "music" (Spotify, Pandora).
Portugal isn't the only country allowing tiering of internet services. In Britain, the internet service provider Vodaphone charges about $33 a month for basic service but offers several "passes" allowing unlimited video or music streaming, social media usage, or chat, at additional tariffs of up to $9.30 per month. [Ed's Note: This is not entirely accurate - Vodaphone's ISP home broadband offering (17Mbps) is £24/month unlimited usage, the additional figures quoted are for faster fiber connections (38 and 76 Mbps) where available. How you use your connection is irrelevant. This is the same for many European ISPs. Smart phone costs are entirely separate.]
Although both countries are part of the European Union, which has an explicit commitment to network neutrality, these arrangements are allowed under provisions giving national regulators some flexibility. These regulators can open loopholes permitting "zero-rating," through which ISPs can exclude certain services from data caps. That's what the Portuguese and British ISPs essentially are doing.
If the vote on the 14th of December repeals Net Neutrality then consumer options will be greatly reduced while increasing greatly in prices as we can see from Portugal's example.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday November 28 2017, @07:46PM (8 children)
This is what the Electoral College voted for, not the American People.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday November 28 2017, @08:05PM (5 children)
Wrong, the American people support the Electoral College system. If they didn't like it, they would have demanded a change by now.
The EC system benefits people in certain states, so they certainly don't want to change the voting system.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 28 2017, @08:28PM (4 children)
It goes a bit deeper.
The EC is a patch to the problem that people in less populous states would otherwise be flat stomped (in political terms) by the more populous states. In order to prevent it from becoming the US of California, New York and Fuck You, we have the EC system.
Why this matters is that the states would be a lot less united if the middle of the country looked around, determined that they were irretrievably the whipping boys of coastal elites, and simply took their toys and went home. You see, something rather like that happened about a century and a half ago (the lines were a little different at the time, and some of the points at issue, but mutatis mutandis it was broadly similar), and while there were redeeming features, the outcome had certain compellingly unfortunate elements.
Every time a bunch of angry people in blue cities complain about how everyone else is wrong and shouldn't be allowed to choose a president, this is basically what they're wishing for: balkanisation.
But you know what? It's cool. If folks want to live in truly interesting times, that's one way to assure it. #calexit
(Score: 3, Informative) by GlennC on Tuesday November 28 2017, @11:00PM
FTFY
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 28 2017, @11:04PM (2 children)
The real problem is that we don't have instant runoff voting or range voting at all levels of government. The EC should be proportional if it is to exist at all, and all states should have the same number of electors.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday November 29 2017, @08:55PM
No, the real problem is that the government works "good enough" for most people, and working to make even small changes is perceived to be too complicated for mere mortals. We have electoral processes (primaries, local elections, and direct access to representatives) that have worked for over 200 years to bring us where we are today. The only way they could ever have failed is by people failing to participate.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday December 01 2017, @12:11PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 28 2017, @08:10PM (1 child)
Elections are not single issue. And when it comes to many issues, people will vote for the most important issue, because worrying if Clinton cabal sells out the future of my country is a tad more important to me then say my internet bill. I fix the latter, or just live without it, I somewhat cannot fix the former.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 28 2017, @11:08PM
Yeah, because Trump definitely won't sell out the future of the US. Oh, wait, he appointed countless establishment warmongering hacks and Goldman Sachs goons into his administration and is generally doing things that favor large corporations and the rich. He also has most of the same problems as Clinton, such as supporting the NSA's unconstitutional mass surveillance and not being willing to pull us out of all the foreign interventions we're in (7+). I didn't vote for either of these scumbags because I didn't want to become an accomplice to evil.