Steve Wozniak: Net Neutrality Rollback 'Will End the Internet As We Know It' (siliconbeat.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Silicon Beat: Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak penned an op-ed on Friday with a former Federal Communications Commission chairman, urging the current FCC to stop its proposed rollback of Obama-era net neutrality regulations. In the op-ed published by USA Today, Wozniak and Michael Copps, who led the FCC from 2001 to 2011, argued the rollback will threaten freedom for internet users and may corrode democracy... "Sometimes there's a nugget of truth to the adage that Washington policymakers are disconnected from the people they purport to represent," they wrote. "It is a stirring example of democracy in action. With the Internet's future as a platform for innovation and democratic discourse on the line, a coalition of grassroots and diverse groups joined with technology firms to insist that the FCC maintain its 2015 open internet (or 'net neutrality') rules."
In the joint letter, Wozniak and Copps write that "We come from different walks of life, but each of us recognizes that the FCC is considering action that could end the internet as we know it -- a dynamic platform for entrepreneurship, jobs, education, and free expression."

"Will consumers and citizens control their online experiences, or will a few gigantic gatekeepers take this dynamic technology down the road of centralized control, toll booths and constantly rising prices for consumers? At stake is the nature of the internet and its capacity to transform our lives even more than it already has."

Comments

30 years

[Orgasmatron]

30+ years without "net neutrality" regulations, 2 years with. Who here really thinks that the internet is more free today than it was just a few years ago, before Facebook, Google and Twitter flexed the muscle that their de facto monopolies gave them?

Sorry Woz, you need to get back to your real talents - building hardware. Outside of your realm, you can't resist the temptation to speak as if your personal politics are universal truths.

Re: 30 years

[Dripdry]

It's only in the last few years that companies have created totally vertical integration with content creation to delivery. That is a major difference, in my mind; hence the need for laws.

Re:30 years

[coastwalker]

Lets face it, American internet users are just cattle who need to be fed and exploited by a few walled garden corporations farming income for their billionaire owners. The idea that the internet is useful for anything but extorting money from its users is laughably left wing. Enjoy your slavery cattle!

Re: 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like copyright laws that continually are extended into foreverity, and DRM?

Re:30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you weren't born at the time, but it used to be that you could pick any ISP you wanted...by simply dialing a phone number with your modem. Since those days, technology has advanced, but policy has regressed. I should be able to connect to an ISP of my choice...over a high-speed broadband connection. That is what the FCC mandated for 'long distance' providers. The Internet should be no different.

Re:30 years

[ikedasquid]

"30+ years without "net neutrality" regulations, 2 years with" - bzzzzzzt. Wrong.

For the 1990's to mid 2000's ISPs and telecoms were typically separate entities. Telecom access was dialup or DSL - both regulated by Title II. Since the ISPs weren't in the telecom business they didn't require regulation - they had no reason to block/throttle based on service/source/destination/whatever.

From then until 2014 various FCC rules and regulations (including the "Open Internet Order") governed ISPs. In 2014 Verizon "ruined it for everyone" by challenging the OIO and taking the FCC to court. They won, but the judge suggested that if the FCC was going to police ISPs it would have to classify them as common carriers. So the FCC did.

Re:30 years

[PPH]

I can still use the Internet without touching Facebook or Google. For the time being. The Net Neutrality laws were put in place to maintain the status quo in the face of possible breaking the 'net into walled gardens. 'But we would never block or restrict access to the Internet' many ISPs say. Fine. Then Net Neutrality rules won't affect the way you do business, so shut up.

Yeah, these rules are a prior restriction on certain business models. Which isn't really the American way. We'd rather leave the market open, allow businesses to develop their own products and structures and apply rules and legislation once some harm to consumers has been identified. But the Internet is a natural monopoly of sorts. There isn't another one that I could choose should the current one prove to be unsatisfactory. Even if I have multiple ISPs serving me, should Google, Sourceforge or the GOP fundraising websites end up on the other network, that would pretty much destroy the utility of the single interconnected network.

Re:30 years

[svanheulen]

Your argument is quite flawed. Firstly, you're implying that just because the regulation wasn't needed before means it wont be needed now or in the future. And if it wasn't needed because everyone is already playing nice then there should be no harm in having it, since the only way it would effect anything is if they decided not to play nice. Secondly you're trying to deflect to a different issue with a "two wrongs make a right" sentiment. Just because Facebook, Google and Twitter are bad for the health for internet doesn't mean it's OK for Comcast, Verizon and AT&T to screw over the internet even further.

Re: 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the biggest advantage of net neutrality would be ISPs not putting in buggy filters/overhead to detect and slow down certain streams but end up bogging down their whole network.

However the internet experience doesn't seem overly neutral already.

Re:30 years

[Anubis IV]

Uhh...we actually did have net neutrality for most of the time that we had the Internet. Remember: the Internet operated over telephone lines for most of its existence, and those lines were regulated under the same Title II classification that Obama’s FCC simply extended to cable ISPs. It’s a matter of bringing Internet-over-cable in line with the regulations that have existed for Internet-over-anything-else for the duration of the Internet’s history.

Re:30 years

[Stephen Battleware]

That,or one could actively support - both morally and financially - those who are fighting for 'Net neutrality.

Re:30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Found the Trump cockholder

Re:30 years

[PopeRatzo]

30+ years without "net neutrality" regulations, 2 years with. Who here really thinks that the internet is more free today than it was just a few years ago, before Facebook, Google and Twitter flexed the muscle that their de facto monopolies gave them?

For the first half of that, the Internet was not widely commercialized. Was it more free before it was commercialized or after?

Will you join me in condemning commerce on the Internet?

Re: 30 years

[doctorvo]

It's only in the last few years that companies have created totally vertical integration with content creation to delivery. That is a major difference, in my mind; hence the need for laws.

Nonsense; we've had those kinds of companies since the earliest days of the Internet.

Re:30 years

[gweihir]

Most stupid comment already at the beginning. You probably do not realize that there is a dynamic to the behavior of anti net-neutrality entities as well.

Re:30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that the internet is useful for anything but extorting money from its users is laughably left wing.

This makes absolutely no sense.

It's leftist individuals and organizations (including corporations) who are pushing advertising all over the Internet.

It's leftist individuals and organizations (including corporations) who are pushing political correctness and censorship all over the Internet.

It's leftist individuals and organizations (including corporations) who are denying Internet services such as domain registrations, web hosting, and content distribution to anyone who isn't expressing a leftist narrative.

Many of these leftist individuals and organizations (including corporations) are based in or around San Francisco, California. San Francisco and the neighboring areas are by far the most left-leaning in the United States, if not the entire world. And they're located in California, the most left-leaning of all of the American states.

Those on the left are the ones who want to make the Internet about exactly 2 things:
1) Making money off of advertising.
2) Strictly controlling the content that is made available on the Internet to ensure that only leftist narratives are presented.

Everyone else, including those in the political center and those on the political right, typically just want to be left alone. They're more interested in using the Internet to communicate with friends and family, or to build and grow their businesses, rather than forcing "social justice" and other leftist ideology on everybody else.

Re:30 years

[Known Nutter]

30+ years without "net neutrality" regulations, 2 years with. Who here really thinks that the internet is more free today than it was just a few years ago, before Facebook, Google and Twitter flexed the muscle that their de facto monopolies gave them?

Sorry Woz, you need to get back to your real talents - building hardware. Outside of your realm, you can't resist the temptation to speak as if your personal politics are universal truths.

Not sure why this is modded Troll. Agree or disagree with the his point, sure. But This is a perfect example of "Troll is not a replacement for "I disagree".

Re: 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

The companies might have existed but the software sophistication of those companies wasn't at the level it is now, they were trying to make it work.

Today, they are trying to only make the experience good if you consume their content, and worsen the experience if you don't - with crap like zero rating and intentional congestion to competing content providers.

Re:30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

I can still use the Internet without touching Facebook or Google.

Facebook, barely, Google, hahaha, no. You do any web browsing whatsoever, you're loading fonts, API shit, libraries, et cetera from Google.

And Facebook's closing in on the same level of pervasiveness.

Of course, you could be one of those retards who thinks that by using a text-based browser with no functionality, you're successfully avoiding tracking. Protip: You're still falling afoul of analytics which you can do _nothing_ about, and your ISP is likely selling information to the big boys on top of it.

Re: 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

We didn't need the regulations for 30 plus years. They put the regulations on place to keep the internet as it is. Not to change it.

Re: 30 years

[K. S. Kyosuke]

foreverity

I think the word you're looking for is eterness or something like that.

Re:30 years

[Stephen Battleware]

Both FB and Google have their little widget snitches all over the Internet. But the domains of these widget snitches are generally known and can be deadsunk in your hosts file. I have a lot of Google spying deadsunk, and on some of my computers all of Facebook deadsunk. The only reason I haven't complete deadsunk Google's divers domains is that I like YouTube and need some Google stuff to work to enjoy YouTube. If there was anything that could be considered competition to YouTube I'd use it, but as it is, websites like DailyMotion et al. are markedly limited when compared to YouTube. Facebook, I use on one computer merely to log into then promptly out of my FB account. All the other computers here do not even know facebook.com and all the other snitchy FB domains even exist.

Re:30 years

[Stephen Battleware]

Yeah, you can do what you want with your own website, that is a almost a completely separate issue from 'Net neutrality. So if Google decided their website would be bright purple on Tuesdays, every Tuesday, with loud blaring embedded audio screams to boot, that's Google's business .. and has nothing to do with the issue of 'Net neutrality.

Re:30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument that it was needed now is the one that is flawed. Turning it into a regulated utility essentially damns it to stay exactly where it is frozen in time. With Google and Facebook at the helm.

Don't believe me. Look at regulated electric utilities. Still running 40+ year old coal and nuclear plants and not planning to shut them down for another few decades. Why? Because nothing you can do about it, cost is sunk, and their profit is guaranteed.

Essentially this regulation is about handing the reins over to large multinational corporations, who WILL decide what you can and cannot see.

But please keep espousing the benefits of net neutrality while they steal the internet right out from under you, regulated all to hell and permanently. Another Obama era piece of shit that will never go away.

Re:30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

I really like Woz, but all of this bullshit about "hurr durr repealing net neutrality is going to destroy the internet as we've known it" is such absurd hyperbolic bullshit. These rules didn't even exist until a year or so ago and I don't believe they ever actually were *implemented* before the repeal.

So nothing has changed. Legislatively and legally and as far as regulations, the internet is the same today as it was a year ago and five years ago and fifteen years ago.

Re: 30 years

[dougdonovan]

steve, you are not bill gates, steve jobs or linus torvalds. nobody has the status to say when or if the Internet will end.

Re: 30 years

[I'm New Around Here]

They'be both perfectly cromulent words.

Re: 30 years

[Archtech]

Very true indeed. We don't need laws until people seek to do things that are unfair and unacceptable - then we have to make laws to forbid those acts. However, any societies that has to make laws against X is likely already to be saturated with X; the existence of the laws strongly suggests that they are being broken wholesale.

The following extract from the Tao Te Ching is relevant, especially the final part about "thieves and brigands".

"The more prohibitions that are imposed on people,
The poorer the people become.
The more sharp weapons the people possess,
The greater is the chaos in the country.
The more clever and crafty the people become,
The more unusual affairs occur.
The more laws and regulations that exist,
The more thieves and brigands appear".

- Tao Te Ching

Re:30 years

[John Jorsett]

I can still use the Internet without touching Facebook or Google. For the time being. The Net Neutrality laws were put in place to maintain the status quo in the face of possible breaking the 'net into walled gardens. 'But we would never block or restrict access to the Internet' many ISPs say. Fine. Then Net Neutrality rules won't affect the way you do business, so shut up.

Uh uh. The way to regulate is to wait until anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior manifests, THEN start rolling out the rules. Prospective regulation is a recipe for stifling innovation and locking in the status quo. Saying, "You won't be hurt so shut up" is not sufficient reason for slapping rules on people.

Re:30 years

[mschuyler]

Mod parent up.

Re:30 years

[Stephen Battleware]

That's why the Internet wire should be - and should be kept - open, fair, and neutral for everyone who wants to make use of it.

Re:30 years

[Stephen Battleware]

Well then, the regulators should put out a statement outlining what exactly is considered a free, open and fair Internet and mail or email it to those who operate the wires so they are well aware of expected behaviour. And should any unfair, censorial and/ or anti-competitive practice(s) arise at the wire level there would be cause legitimate to regulate according to that statement.

Re: 30 years

[Stephen Battleware]

'And he has no one to answer to but his creator either, which frees him up to speak his mind honestly.

Re: 30 years

[DontBeAMoran]

Infinitysimum?

Re:30 years

[thegarbz]

I know right? Why do we even have speed limits on the road. It's not like a horse drawn carriage can do any more than 20km/h. Nothing ever changes. We as a species are in a perfectly stable equilibrium. We certainly don't need any regulations, every regulation anyone could ever need already exists.

Or maybe... and just hear me out... Maybe the world has changed, corporate interests have changed, and the reason the regulations were brought in to begin with was that the first 28+ years of the internet was actively under threat from corporate actors.

If I sound like I'm mocking you condescendingly, I am.

Re:30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

He was talented in hardware 30 years ago. He is now a living relic and his opinions have been shit for some time.

Re:30 years

[AutodidactLabrat]

Who here really thinks that the internet is more free today than it was just a few years ago, ...

Everyone who thinks that the net was MORE FREE after the corporate takeover of independent providers of Cable services, raise your hand to your ass and insert.

Re: 30 years

[Aighearach]

Naw, in the old days before the mainstream media content was online, everything was already vertically integrated. They create their giant silos of crap, but you can't even smell it from someplace decent.

They're way less integrated than AOL or Delphi were.

The reason it can't "end the internet as we know it" is because the internet is not only proprietary video services. Those are what will be harmed, but that was always a shit show. In the old days you had to pay bribes to RealMedia if you wanted your content to be full speed.

The problem is competition in the last mile, not the rules. Net neutrality is a great concept, but the only reason to make it a rule instead of a selling point is the lack of competition. That won't last forever; places that are freed and get competition don't tend to go back. It will slowly go away.

Re: 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Blindly mod parent up because it follows your ideology and has nothing to do with NN. Nice.

Re:30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you expect from a country who's laws do apply to the wealthy who's behavior would be considered treason in a civilized country.
The wealthy have controlled and limited public education for over a 100 years and you blame your masses for being uneducated, all of America is working as intended divided and conquered by shit leaders who work against them and shit media who lie to them about everything.

Re: 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait until your ISP screws you over. When that day comes(it will be soon, if not already) then I'll link you back to this thread.

Re:30 years

[Stephen Battleware]

:o) Trading, prospering, being productive and the like is part of freedom. I have no issue with people working with the Internet, so long as it's on fair, open honest grounds. Moreover, just because an event occurs on the Internet is no excuse should it be some sort of defrauding or theft. So things being on the up and up, no one really should have issue either way, and you are free to do as you please, and you shouldn't need suffer fear of legitimate authorities. If not, if you act criminally towards your neighbour virtual or no, Internet or no, you should fear the authorities.

Re:30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

funny you managed to stir discussion over a utterly moot point, you better stick to write lousy php code or whatever your real talents allow you

Re:30 years

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Remember: the Internet operated over telephone lines for most of its existence

This is a gross oversimplification that elides the entire point of the Net Neut debate: Yes, the user's connection to the ISP was over a telephone line and was regulated by Title II. But so what? There was zero regulation of (1) the rate at which the ISP decided to send any particular piece of data over that telephone line; and (2) the rate at which the ISP decided to allow its customers access to the Internet at large. All that was handled by big scary market forces.

Net Neut regulations truly paralleling Title II would mean that the ISP (e.g., CableCo) has to send all data between itself and its customers down at the same rates, but that's not what anyone really cares about. As I've said before, this entire battle is generally a proxy for "stream as much as I want to without paying more," which involves not just data flow from the ISP to the customer but data flow to the ISP from the outside world. This puts ISPs in a position of having to set all-you-can-eat prices without any reasonable expectation of what a given customer can and will actually "eat." That's an unsustainable business model. Just because the FCC temporarily pretended there was a free lunch doesn't mean that there really is one.

Re:30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

But with all this talk of mandatory social media contact information being tracked and monitored, given away at the border, our free Internet is already shitting itself.

Get ready for real cancer with Trumpies and their vatnik-minded cronies trying their luck at regulation.

Re: 30 years

[Serge_Tomiko]

Net neutrality is irrelevant today. Google, Facebook, and domain providers are engaged in far worse and nefarious activities.

Re: 30 years

[hackwrench]

Bifurcation. Everything is both fair and unfair. acceptable and unacceptable, right and wrong. Property is theft.

Re:30 years

[Neuronwelder]

I'm wondering what you use besides Google. For me, it has answers I just can't find anywhere else.

Re:30 years

[srmalloy]

'But we would never block or restrict access to the Internet' many ISPs say. Fine. Then Net Neutrality rules won't affect the way you do business, so shut up.

Exactly. I wonder why no one has bearded Ajit Pai on the record -- preferably on camera -- and asked him outright, "Mr. Pai, if the Internet corporations say they're not violating net neutrality now, and they have no intentions of violating net neutrality, then the existence of net neutrality regulations has no effect on them. Why would you want to waste the FCC's resources in the repeal of something which won't affect them unless they want to engage in practices that are prohibited under its provisions? This creates the appearance of your acting solely for the benefit of the corporations, rather than for the citizens of the United States."

Re:30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is a gross oversimplification"

No, it's not. You just don't think hard enough.

"Yes, the user's connection to the ISP was over a telephone line"

Yup.

" There was zero regulation of (1) the rate at which the ISP decided to send any particular piece of data over that telephone line"

Because we had 56k modems or 128Kb ISDN. The rate was 56k or 128Kb. Or the big, awesome T1-5 cables. Nerds at home dreamed of having their own dedicated T1.

"the rate at which the ISP decided to allow its customers access to the Internet at large"

See above.

" All that was handled by big scary market forces."

Except not, it was tech.

"would mean that the ISP (e.g., CableCo) has to send all data between itself and its customers down at the same rates"

Customers being the wholesale customers, not the consumers of the 'prodcut' of the connection service. Seems like a great idea, should apply to ISPs.

"As I've said before, this entire battle is generally a proxy for "stream as much as I want to without paying more," "

Uh, yeah. Just like business and people 'won't pay any more taxes than they have to' and would be foolish to do so.

" involves not just data flow from the ISP to the customer but data flow to the ISP from the outside world. This puts ISPs in a position of having to set all-you-can-eat prices without any reasonable expectation of what a given customer can and will actually "eat." That's an unsustainable business model. Just because the FCC temporarily pretended there was a free lunch doesn't mean that there really is one."

I don't even know what you're getting at here. You set up a cynical strawman in the preceding sentence and then take it down here, I guess. The whole above paragraph has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

Re: 30 years

[Bartles]

perpetuanium

Re:30 years

[Bartles]

But of course, some will be more neutral than others.

Re: 30 years

[sound vision]

A continuum exists between "trolling" and "serious, thoughtful discussion". The provocative language of the post is clearly further to one side of the continuum. Besides, if there were any thought put into the post, it wouldn't have glaring inconsistencies like attributing the rise of Facebook and Google to regulations that weren't in place until 2 years ago. Whatever argument he might have been trying to make has been totally thrashed repeatedly in this thread.

These days, we have genuine trolls who use "freedom of thought/expression" in the manner that a terrorist uses a human shield. Some of them don't even know they're trolling. Some have just been reading other troll posts and web sites and think this is the thing to do. There has been a lot of funny business surrounding the net neutrality issue, beyond the usual Telecom lobbying. like the flood of automated comments against net neutrality on the FCC's web site and their refusal to investigate it. Come to think of it, there's been a lot of similar funny business around the FCC chairman himself, and the man who appointed him.

You won't know a deceptive actor by his name or face or UID, but you will know him by his actions.

Re: 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

They certainly are and they obviously keep it as hush hush as possible.

Still both issues are vital to the internet at large. The restrictions posed by the EU are every bit as bad too.

Re: 30 years

[Archtech]

In case it was not already glaringly obvious, consider how amazingly applicable the extract from the Tao Te Ching is to today's USA.

More and more prohibitions... and the people (except for the 1%) have become steadily poorer.
The more "sharp weapons" (nowadays mostly guns, although knives are also common), the greater the chaos (mass shootings..., police brutality...)
The more clever and crafty the people become (in response to the cleverness and craftiness of politicians, Wall Street, and their pet lawyers), the more "unusual affairs" occur (Enron, Bernie Madoff, pretty much everyone on Wall Street, the Democratic Party, the Republicn Party, the CIA...)
The more laws and regulations, the more thieves and brigands. Well, just look at them!

Re: 30 years

[oldguy-tls]

I would agree with you....except there have been various blocking mechanisms in place and the net neutrality regulations only when some large ISPs began demanding payments so as to not throttle back speeds.

Re: 30 years

[nasch]

There were large content creators that were also large nationwide ISPs in the 1980s? Because that's what we're dealing with now.

Re:30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

We absolutely need more regulation. I have no issue with regulating your speech, your requirement to purchase health insurance, the regulation of your guns, any of it. Bring it on!

Re: 30 years

[Thomas Charron]

Yea, I mean, if years ago, imagine how the net would be destroyed if a company like Time Warner and America Online had merged to become a mega.... Oh, wait...

Re:30 years

[PPH]

The way to regulate is to wait until anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior manifests, THEN start rolling out the rules.

Too late. And very difficult to do once a company has monetized some particular behavior. You'll get shareholders to come crying to their legislators to lay off, lest the proposed rules harm profits and their holdings value.

Prospective regulation is a recipe for stifling innovation and locking in the status quo.

Fine. I want to buy a product that meets some consistent and repeatable standards. Innovation can be provided by new entrants into new markets, selling their products as enhancements to the current baseline. I'd be really pissed if my power company started delivering 48 Vdc or 400 Hz power to my house tomorrow.

Re:30 years

[Thomas Charron]

I'm not sure why you'd say it wasn't commercialized. It was open and blossomed commercially from like, 1993 on.

Re: 30 years

[doctorvo]

Yes, there were.

In any case, whatever problem you delude yourself into thinking exist in the marketplace, regulation by the FCC is not the answer.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

If the internet was supposed to be free and open then Steve Jobs would have built it that way to begin with instead of with a single holy app store. Keep things simple, not neutral.

Re:No

[Stephen Battleware]

That's one company's set up, that's not the Internet. You can run your company, website, forum etc., however which way you want, the Internet, on the other hand, should be open and fair. 'And it is worth fighting for to have it that way.

What bugs me

[Stephen Battleware]

What bugs me is that there so many enemies of freedom and so many enemies of 'Net neutrality. On one hand, every dictatorship wants to censor the Internet, and on the other, there are a few corporatists who want to kill it and turn it into a corporate media distribution system. Everyone else on the planet wants a free and open Internet. Yet we seem to have to be fighting these anti-freedom forces endlessly. Well, I'm staying - not breaking - staying - and will be donating - yet again - to a pro 'Net neutrality group.

Re:What bugs me

[Anonymous Coward]

"Everyone else on the planet"? Who says so? Have you talked to "everyone else on the planet"? I have a feeling the vast majority of people have more pressing concerns than what happens to the internet. Most people have not enough to eat and for those the "free and open internet" is not even half a thought. Other have to struggle with low income and high cost of living, and they would gladly give away your precious "internet" if it meant a better life for them. The rest... The rest jumped on the Facebook boat, which pretty much killed the "free and open internet". What a couple of social misfits think does not matter. Donate all you want, in the end it will have been a waste of money and more disappointment for you. Don't say I have not warned you.

How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Anonymous Coward]

How the heck can anyone believe that there's currently "net neutrality" when we've so recently seen certain videos being demonetized, certain subreddits being banned, certain domain registrations being dropped, certain web hosting services being cancelled, and certain CDN services being denied, all because this content or web sites affected didn't express a far-left political viewpoint? Anyone who thinks there's "net neutrality" now is a fool.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Stephen Battleware]

"..videos being demonetized, certain subreddits being banned.." Those two things have to do with the operation of specific websites. If you do not like how YouTube handles streaming video, try your hand at your own streaming video website. 'Net neutrality enables you to give it an honest shot. But take away 'Net neutrality, then Google/YouTube pays the ISPs and those who own the wires to throttle your upstart, yet provide even more bandwidth for YouTube. That's would be the problem. 'Net neutrality means everyone works on a level playing field i.e. fairness, whereas the corporatists would like to see their own stuff have access to speedy lanes while innovators get throttled. What do you think would happen to a bunch of innovators' efforts if YouTube fully loaded in a millisecond while their new website took thirty seconds. They wouldn't stand a chance. That's the issue - and that's why you should morally support and financially support those fighting for 'Net neutrality.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Anonymous Coward]

How the heck can anyone believe that there's currently "net neutrality" when we've so recently seen certain videos being demonetized, certain subreddits being banned, certain domain registrations being dropped, certain web hosting services being cancelled, and certain CDN services being denied, all because this content or web sites affected didn't express a far-left political viewpoint? Anyone who thinks there's "net neutrality" now is a fool.

The lesson that nearly every generation has to learn again and again: popular speech doesn't need protection.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Stephen Battleware]

So true. There's ground with blood soaked into from people who fought so that we can speak, text and write freely.

Re: How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your idea of 'neutrality' sure includes a lot of asterisks and fine text!

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[hey!]

How? By site policies being neither here nor there with respect to net neutrality.

The whole point of net neutrality is to create a kind of unfettered competition between information sources, not to compel every information source to have a policy for its content that you approve of. The solution to your not liking Yourtube's monetization policy is to turn to a different site, something you'll be hampered from doing under a non-neutral Internet.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like Comcast/AT&T/Verizon, you can can use another ISP. It might be dial up...or even satellite, but it is available. Sure the bandwidth will be 900 baud tier and/or pings will be awful but it is always an option. Just like you know, starting your own no name video streaming website running on the server stashed in your closet.

If you want neutrality, train your ire at the entities that are currently, as in right now, trampling on it. Not the ones that theoretically might at some future point. At least be consistent. The current hoopla around net-neutrality is just a giant gift for the biggest abusers of neutrality on the internet these days.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Stephen Battleware]

Well, at this point I'm invested somewhat in Rogers Cable Internet. Here the lines are run either by Bell or Rogers. There are other providers, but they are tied into these two. Bell also built the telephone system. So they could even throttle that, not that they'd need to. So sure there are third party providers, but they basically piggy back, and I think you miss the point of 'Net neutrality. It's not just for the resource rich and super capable - it's for everyone who uses the Internet. If an innovative startup is throttled on all the main lines, in all reasonable practicality, they do not stand a chance. It's like saying if you do not like the electric company, build your own power grid. And while true, some folks might be in a position to throw up a power generating windmill, most are not. Moreover, in some regions legislation would prevent even that because the big providers have made sure. So it behooves major providers of basic and near basic services to act in fairness .. I get the idea of a free market place .. and for most things where there's open fair competition - and where there's nothing blocking startups - that's the best thing. But telecommunications is already highly regulated. So the regulations should be keeping the systems fair for everyone if they are going to allow the divers companies - big, medium and small - to do business on those systems.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[jez9999]

I notice you conspicuously ignored the "domains registrations being seized" part of the post. Why would that be?

Re: How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost as if there were a level of nuance and complexity on the issue, dummy.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn’t about Canada.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Stephen Battleware]

You're right, it's not .. it's about 'Net neutality.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Kohath]

The US FCC doesn’t control Canada's Net Neutrality rules, does it?

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[DontBeAMoran]

Given that some U.S.A. companies are too lazy/cheap to have servers in Canada for their Canadian users, the FCC does control some part of our internet usage.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is, the suggestion to "just promote yourself on another search engine, or social media platform, or video hosting service" is no better than saying just use another ISP. Both cases are technically possible, but in practice a non-starter.

I think I could see myself supporting net-neutrality if big centralized internet services such as Google and Facebook were forced to fairly host content even if it did not like it, or received social pressure to censure/throttle it. Especially if they still want to consider themselves "common-carrier" and not be held liable for user/client posted content.

As it stands however, net-neutrality initiatives do absolutely nothing to protect neutrality on the internet where it actually matters today.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[thegarbz]

I know. This is a clear sign that gay marriage laws aren't working. Wait what? What were we talking about? I mean none of the things you mentioned are related to net neutrality, so I assume you're talking about repealing the 9th amendment. Wait what?

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Stephen Battleware]

The Internet is trans-national. When the mainland China's communist gov't censors my article, it affects me, my feedback, perhaps even the proper formation of my opinion, not just those who are blocked from reading it.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[HornWumpus]

Why would you put your servers in reach of Canadian human rights commissions? That's just stupid. Pseudo courts with no presumption of innocence, no free speech defense. Not just no. FUCK NO!

I'm not putting up a version of my site in broken incorrect frog for the quebecees either.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Kohath]

What does that have to do with US Net Neutrality rules? The US FCC has no authority over Rogers Cable.

Re: How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Neutrality is an extraordinarily simple concept: 'all are treated the same'. If your definition of 'neutrality' is more complex than that, then you're not thinking about neutrality. You're probably thinking about disguised tyranny instead.

Re: How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could say the same for free speech, chief, as it's FAR more nuanced and there's more than a fair share of asterisks involved - BECAUSE shit isn't always that cut and dry, nor does it need to be when government is involved (see: fighting words, incitement, obscenity, etc.). They're in charge of the nuclear fucking arsenal, and you're crying tyranny when we state that net neutrality needs some caveats? Top. Fucking. Keks.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Stephen Battleware]

LOL I'm not entirely contrary to your sentiment. However, when it comes to the Internet - so far - the de facto gov't in Ottawa has been relatively good about it vis a vis human rights. Most judicial decisions have favoured free speech, unfettered use etc. Poor people aren't sued millions for their daughter's downloading of a few tunes. But it is important to note - and in line with your sentiment - there have been folks who've suffered 'commissions' and 'tribunals' here. You'd have to have strength to stand up to them and tell them to go jump in a Great lake.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Stephen Battleware]

It was an analogy. What affects the Internet in the U.S. can affect folks elsewhere. So, for example, if the rules or lack thereof in the U.S. prevent an American innovator from succeeding, for instance, it could affect someone in Canada, for instance.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Anonymous Coward]

You literally don't know what net neutrality is, it has fuck all to do with any of that.

FWIW, there's no point in fighting about it now. The vote that put the Trumpanzee in power killed NN. Now you can decide whether you want the Hulu Package or the Netflix/Facebook combo! Enjoy, dickheads.

Re: How is there "net neutrality" now?

[UnknowingFool]

YouTube is the best example of how Net Neutrality is supposed to work. For those that don't remember, YouTube competed against Google and Google didn't make any headway. So Google bought them out. Without equal treatment of packets, that would never have happened.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[lsatenstein]

How? By site policies being neither here nor there with respect to net neutrality.

The whole point of net neutrality is to create a kind of unfettered competition between information sources, not to compel every information source to have a policy for its content that you approve of. The solution to your not liking Yourtube's monetization policy is to turn to a different site, something you'll be hampered from doing under a non-neutral Internet.

If you take away net neutrality, do you open the door to competition? Why can't your city do what is being planned for my city, that is free everywhere wifi. Our big cross-Canada ISP is rolling out fibre to remote villages, and to new subdivisions. It is fibre to the home. The interface is fibre to modem-router.

Re:How is there "net neutrality" now?

[Thomas Charron]

However, people in Canada are free to set up their own alternatives. US doesn't like Chinas policies, and as such, don't use their services. No different. Being an open environment means, anyone can wake up tomorrow and provide something new and better then the alternatives.

I love the Woz

[SlaveToTheGrind]

But he's really gone over the top on this one. The Net Neut rules have barely been in place for a year and a half. For him and the vast majority of the rest of us, "the Internet as we know it" is the Internet that existed before these rules were put into place.

Re:I love the Woz

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet as we know it abode by unwritten rules that had to be turned into law because corporations were starting to violate those unwritten rules, using their monopoly positions to get away with it. The net neutrality legislation is an attempt to maintain the open internet.

Re:I love the Woz

[ikedasquid]

Similar rules have always been in place, it's just that the rules have only applied to the telecom provider. ISPs today are both the telecom company, the internet provider, and in many cases also a content source. Prior to about 2005 your ISP was just the internet provider - other companies did the telecommunications and still others provided content. The telecom companies have always been regulated by Title II, this regulation is "new" for the vertically integrated ISPs...who are undoubtedly providing a telecommunications service in addition to being an internet provider.

Re:I love the Woz

[Stephen Battleware]

But that's because they've been wary of regulators, not just in the U.S., who have indicated they are pro 'Net neutrality. Take that away though, and Google and the very few mega-corp companies that own 90% of the media will use their vast supply of cash to crush all competition and throttle every innovator. Some innovators look like they are doing well? Either sell out to the mega-corp (if the mega-corps are even interested in the innovation) or have their web traffic throttled so slow even a turtle wouldn't wait for the site to load.

Re:I love the Woz

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Similar rules have always been in place, it's just that the rules have only applied to the telecom provider. . . . Prior to about 2005 your ISP was just the internet provider - other companies did the telecommunications and still others provided content.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my original point. We all experienced "the Internet as we know it" through those unregulated ISPs (including those such as AOL that offered their own content in addition to raw Internet access), and the world kept turning just fine.

IMO the real elephant in the Net Neut room is streaming. People want to be able to watch Netflix all day and yet pay their ISP at a rate that was sized more for sporadic web browsing. That simply can't work as a matter of basic math, and this entire battle is little more than a tug-of-war over whether the heavy streamers pay for their own use, or whether the rest of us subsidize them. And that phenomenon is only a few years old itself, and thus has little to nothing to do with "the Internet as we know it."

Re:I love the Woz

[Anonymous Coward]

How does net-neutrality stop Google from burying/hiding search results, demonetizing/removing YouTube videos, etc. It doesn't. Why would Google even bother bribing ISP's to throttle content that they don't like when they already have far more effective means to vanish content on the internet. Means they are using right now.

Re:I love the Woz

[Kohath]

This isn’t about what anyone has experienced. This is a contest to dream up the scariest story about the future, then trick angry, easily manipulated internet followers into believing it and forming an online lynch mob.

For politics, for power, for contributions, for Google and Netflix corporate convenience.

I wonder why Woz is involved. Does he really believe the stories? Is he easy to manipulate?

Re:I love the Woz

[Stephen Battleware]

'Net neutrality keeps open the possibility that competition could rise as alternative to Google. If Google were able use its untold billions to pay the companies that operate the Internet wires to throttle any upstart (i.e. slow access to the upstart's websites down while speeding access to google dot com up), then we have a not so good situation. The idea supporting 'Net neutrality is to keep the playing field level so that should some group decided to compete against Google, they'd have an honest shot at it. Let's say you had a great idea. How would you like it if you found that the Internet wire companies deliberately slowed down access to your new site so that it took 30 seconds before it even started loading, and in turn used the saved bandwidth to speed up access to Google? Because Google paid them out of its billions and billions and billions and billions to crush any prospective competitor. It would be not good for healthy competition, not good for innovation, and not fair. A neutral 'Net is what we need for innovation, freedom, and healthy competition online.

Re:I love the Woz

[Kohath]

The internet is worldwide. US net neutrality only affects one country.

Re:I love the Woz

[Anonymous Coward]

So if Google pays your ISP to throttle content they don't like, switch to another ISP, even if you have to settle with dial up or satellite, they are available. Or use a VPN to access the content you want. Whatever. Both options suck, just like being blacklisted by Google sucks. Alternate search engines/video hosting sites/whatever have about just as much of an honest shot of competing with the big boys in their realm as tiny ISP's do in theirs. A lot of this has to do with infrastructure, be it servers or wires.

The point is, simply, net-neutrality does nothing to safeguard the internet against the biggest abusers of neutrality today. And it will still do nothing even if a competitor to Google manages to get traction, as that competitor is still free to do all the censoring/throttling of their competition. When there are many competing more-or-less equal services available, this is not a problem, but the way things are now guarantees there will always be 1 or 2 powerful highly centralized services, even if Google/Facebook at some point in the future is not one of them.

It didn't take government regulation to vanquish Microsoft from their dominance of everything computing, it happened naturally, but what we're left with is arguably a worse situation. Big players might (and often do) lose their clout over time, but the bad situation always remains. One monopolistic abusive company is replaced by another; wait a decade-or-so, rinse and repeat.

You could seek government regulation of huge centralized internet services such as Google and Facebook, but that's no better as the government is just as evil/incompetent (and by definition monopolistic) as any big company.

The only real solution is a fundamentally decentralized and accessible internet. Whether that will ever happen, well, check back in 20-30 years.

Re:I love the Woz

[Stephen Battleware]

:o) I beg to differ. The ISPs have long figured out data rates. If you want 'unlimited' you pay a handsome monthly fee, at least here. Otherwise, there are caps past which one is charged per GB. So I doubt that is the issue. If the wire isn't filled, it's under utilized. Once the capacity is built, it's no skin off their noses whether a bit flows down the wire or not save a comparative minuscule cost in electricity.

Re:I love the Woz

[SlaveToTheGrind]

If the wire isn't filled, it's under utilized. Once the capacity is built, it's no skin off their noses whether a bit flows down the wire or not save a comparative minuscule cost in electricity.

It matters which wire you're talking about. For wires the ISP owns (e.g., cable infrastructure and internal networks), that's absolutely true. For upstream wires receiving data from the world at large, more data flow due to the ISP's customer demands will cost the ISP more. That's at least one reason why ISPs want to offer their own content since the distribution cost to them is low and it reduces the collective demand for external bandwidth, which allows them to better predict their costs and keep customer prices stable.

The ISPs have long figured out data rates. If you want 'unlimited' you pay a handsome monthly fee, at least here. Otherwise, there are caps past which one is charged per GB.

I presume "here" is across the pond, and if so I agree that the concept of metered data is a lot more mature there than it is in the U.S. (Unsurprisingly, as far as I can tell Netflix et al. usage is a lot lower there as well.) Caps and pricing in the U.S. are very fluid right now as streaming services become more of a viable alternative to conventional TV and as content resolution increases.

Re:I love the Woz

[Stephen Battleware]

"Here" is across the Lakes and the St. Lawrence. Thanks for the reply and 'have a nice weekend.

Re:I love the Woz

[Stephen Battleware]

"switch to another ISP": impossible for the weak and the government is obliged to uphold the rights of the weak. Moreover, it doesn't protect the rights and website of, say, the young innovator. If the innovator's website is throttled behind the scenes because a jealous Google has, out of their billions and billions and billions, paid the wire operators to do so, and it take 30 seconds for the innovator's website to even begin loading? The innovator's chances are close to NIL besides divine intervention. Your other points are interesting. I especially like the decentralized business as the Internet was designed to operate decentralized to begin with instead of "piped". 'Have a nice weekend.

Re:I love the Woz

[Uberbah]

People want to be able to watch Netflix all day and yet pay their ISP at a rate that was sized more for sporadic web browsing. That simply can't work as a matter of basic math, and this entire battle is little more than a tug-of-war over whether the heavy streamers pay for their own use, or whether the rest of us subsidize them.

Nonsense. Streaming video is part and parcel of modern web usage. ISP's are fully aware of the fact that people aren't just using their connections to read news and email anymore. Equally well known is that the larger oligopolies would rather impose rate caps to go on overselling connections (to pocket the profits) than invest in new hardware to allow for more bandwidth.

Re:I love the Woz

[Anonymous Coward]

Net Neutrality isn't about per-usage billing; it's about per-source billing.

If someone is a "heavy streamer" and uses more bandwidth, their ISP charging them more is perfectly reasonable, and nothing to do with net neutrality at all. What ISN'T reasonable is ISPs charging more per GB for netflix than hulu, or worse artificially throttling netflix or blocking it all together, because hulu paid them a lot of money, or vice-versa. That's basically racketeering, and they want it made legal.

Content providers ALREADY pay to get their content to the ISP. Consumers ALREADY pay to get content from the ISP. The government has already paid ISPs billions of dollars to upgrade their infrastructure so that they can efficiently hand off data from one to the other, but the ISPs spent it all on hookers and blow, so now want to be able to bill both sides twice to provide the same service they currently do, using the excuse that they need the money to improve their infrastructure.

Re: I love the Woz

[Rujiel]

Dream? Do you mean the fear of ISPs throttling competing video services, which comcast and verizon have been caught doing several times?

Re: I love the Woz

[Kohath]

And the internet ended forever when that happened? Or was it merely an annoying problem that got solved in a few months?

Re:I love the Woz

[Anonymous Coward]

the bandwidth I pay for is and always has been paid for by me. the internet has never been a free government program. Everybody involved with bandwidth has been making money since the inception. the problem with telecom providers is they sell more than they have and want to regulate usage to mask that fact. shade it any way you want these company's are using legislation to line there pockets. just as they receive money from the government to upgrade the backbone of the internet and take it as profits. so since the relationship with my internet provider is business we should prosecute them deceptive trade practice not supplying the connection they promised.

Re:I love the Woz

[Thomas Charron]

Umm, they weren't turned into law, they where turned into rules. Rules which have been enforced like, once? Much better to spend the governments time and money establishing rules so people in public restrooms are legally obligated to flush. Yes, I'm being a smart ass. Regulation isn't required until something bad is happening.

Re:I love the Woz

[Thomas Charron]

That would be anti competative behavior, and there are already laws in place to prevent that. Laws, not arbitrary rules made up by a committee.

Re:I love the Woz

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK there is extensive competition for providing Internet access.
Living in a rural area in Scotland I get 68-74 Mbps download ,17 -19 Mbps upload , unlimited for a monthly fee of approx equivalent US$38.
The relevant ISP buys access wholesale from BritishTelecom-Openreach who maintains the network .
If a fault develops the ISP first looks into its own servers and customer's modem ; if OK Openreach is responsible to clear the fault on customer's site at no additional cost to the customer.
The Scottish Government has made a commitment to part funding access to all premises in the country by 2021.
Customers have a choice from more than 10 providers . Good policy !

Re: I love the Woz

[Rujiel]

Is a problem "solved" in your book when it is still ongoing? https://www.engadget.com/2017/...
Realistically the problem isn't that it would happen, but that our ISPs WANT it to happen, which means it is going to wind up mysteriously occurring. The will of the ISPs is the actual problem here, not the symptoms of throttling.

So yes, this does make the internet worse. "But that's just mobile traffic!" nope it aint:
https://arstechnica.com/inform...

You still like that imperial Presidency?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that Trump has his pen and his phone, do you still like that imperial Presidency?

Where laws don't matter?

If Obama can implement net neutrality without Congressional action, Trump can unimplement it.

Re:You still like that imperial Presidency?

[Stephen Battleware]

Making the issue a left / right or Dem / Rep issue, or an Obama / Trump issue doesn't help. 'Net neutrality helps everyone: i.e. a fair playing field. Take it away and innovators and dissenting opinion (left, right or otherwise) gets throttled into oblivion. 'Net neutrality is worth fighting for, both morally, and with dollars.

Re:You still like that imperial Presidency?

[Anonymous Coward]

Making the issue a left / right or Dem / Rep issue, or an Obama / Trump issue doesn't help.

'Net neutrality helps everyone: i.e. a fair playing field. Take it away and innovators and dissenting opinion (left, right or otherwise) gets throttled into oblivion.

'Net neutrality is worth fighting for, both morally, and with dollars.

Yeah, sure it's going to help everyone.

Suuuure it will.

Everyone.

Another 20,000 pages of government regulations only helps entrenched players with the resources to hire enough lawyers and lobbyists to engage in regulatory capture.

Because for some reason you think a government that fucks up something simple like school lunch programs is going to "help everyone" by improving the internet.

Re:You still like that imperial Presidency?

[Stephen Battleware]

You make a valid point -- I'm not necessary supporting regulation rather law making. And not even law making if the companies behave themselves (which doesn't seem to be the case). Making it unlawful to substantively throttle one website's content over another's. No need for regulation, merely the power to prevent it if need be. So if Google should ever ask the wire operators to throttle another company's website, despite the billions and billions they have to pay for such a thing, the wire operators would have to refuse and continue to give all content and traffic a fair shake.

Re:You still like that imperial Presidency?

[Thomas Charron]

So, call your representatives, and make it a law, now an arbitrary rule.

And who's freedom is that?

[PopeRatface]

In the joint letter, Wozniak and Copps write that "We come from different walks of life, but each of us recognizes that the FCC is considering action that could end the internet as we know it -- a dynamic platform for entrepreneurship, jobs, education, and free expression."

Who's freedom would that be? The freedom of companies like Google and Cloudfare to ban websites and confiscate domains they don't like? I sure hope it's the end of that internet! I liked the one we had before.

Re:And who's freedom is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't have what has been. That is gone forever. If you want an internet that is still open, like the internet you knew, support net neutrality. You can choose a different hosting service. There are many out there, so if Google and Cloudfare don't want to host your content, you can choose another. But you can rarely choose from more than two different access providers. If they throttle what you want to see, your SOL.

Re:And who's freedom is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't have what has been. That is gone forever. If you want an internet that is still open, like the internet you knew, support net neutrality....

Riiiight.

Because the government is here to help us.

Net neutrality won't end up like the telephone or airline regulation of ages past. Oh no!

Net neutrality is going to escape regulatory capture, and it won't become a de facto barrier to competition for entrenched players like Google and Verizon.

Oh, no.

This time will be different.

This time, when we give the US government more power, it won't be used against us. It won't be like warrantless wiretaps, it won't be like ubiquitous surveillance, it won't be like civil asset forfeiture! Oh no, it will work just fine!

Because NET NEUTRALITY! WE WANTS IT! MY PRECIOUS!!!

Yeah, right.

What color's the fucking sky on your planet?

Re:And who's freedom is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your mature and well-considered comment.

Re:And who's freedom is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's probably still a raft of dial up and/or satellite ISP's available to you right now if are sick of Comcast/Verizon/AT&T. Sure you'll have 1990's bandwidth and half second pings but you'll still be on the internet. What, no? That's not acceptable? Fine, but you might then have to admit being banished from Google or Facebook (or ddos protection, domain registrars, hosting etc.) to search engines/social media that few have ever heard of/use is just as much SOL as theoretical bandwidth throttling by major ISP's

Re:And who's freedom is that?

[Stephen Battleware]

If what's brought about is truly 'Net neutrality, then yes there would be no issue. There shouldn't be any need for legislation to begin with. Just like there shouldn't be any need for a law that says 'don't steal' or 'don't defraud'. It's obvious. So if the Internet wire companies operate on the up 'n up, special requests and pay outs to favour the huge mega corps but throttle the innovators to death will be ignored and won't be an issue. But the mega corps would try to throttle the smaller innovator and entrench their own positions by paying the wire operators. Some play both sides, e.g. Bell who both operate the wires and stream content. And Bell has moved hard - using the regulators - when it has suited Bell. My phone call has always been a clear and instant as Her Majesty's phone call. No one interrupted it, not one made me wait. What the mega corps of today would want is for Google's phone calls to go through .. and the hard working innovator's call to be blocked.

Consumers are part of the problem.

[Zombie Ryushu]

Part of the problem is that while yes, there are many users of the Internet who want it to stay open and free, there is a segment of the Consumer population that wants it to be Cable TV, and Perhaps Gaming Distribution 2.0

The idea behind DRM, and video rental systems over the internet is just asinine. But you have to look at where a particular segment of the Computer using public is going: Android Tablets, which is Linux turned against iteslf, and iPads. What do both of these things look like? Portable Televisions. They don't have keyboards, they don't have mice. They are tools of Content consumption.

Steve Jobs, Woz's partner, was a huge part of this. Openness on the Apple Platforms ended with the Apple II GS series, and the Macs were all largely closed to the outside world until the advent of OSX. Many Pre-OSX Macs, had proprietary EVERYTHING, and even the speaker Jack was proprietary. OSX opened the Mac world up some by giving us a MacOS running on BSD.

This allowed Mac to Survive and gve us the Trusted Computing Nightmare that was iOS. All the sudden you have what the DRM Corps want: A Computing platform where everything is a Rental transaction, and consumers money can be funneled from their wallets constantly. Thats what is happening now with iDevice owners.

Apple should have died off back in the 90s. They should have gone out of business completely. Consumers should have resisted the introduction of DRM into computers and rejected networks like NetFlix.

Re:Consumers are part of the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumers are the same people who elected a mentally retarded person as president. So I think the problem is bigger than net neutrality.

Re:Consumers are part of the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. Are you retarded or simply stupid? The look of a device has little to do with its functionality. Tablets do not have keyboards (but you can hook one up easily enough via bluetooth) but they have virtual keyboards. They do not need mice because they have a touchscreen. Consumers chose what they liked and what was good for them. People do not put computers at the center of their lives, only computer nerds do that. And do you want to know a little secret? Nobody cares about what computer nerds want. You want your kit computer? There are arduinos and raspberry boards at very low prices. They are great for hobbyists. The field has changed, and for the better: computers and embedded computing devices are more productive and less expensive than ever. Computing is now for everyone. You don't like proprietary? Your problem. The vast majority of consumers are fine and they decided what was best for them. Apple hardware is expensive, if it's so successful it means it's good. You don't like it? Tough luck. Get over it or kill yourself.

Re:Consumers are part of the problem.

[GrumpySteen]

You should probably have taken the time to find out what net neutrality actually refers to before spending all that time typing. Net neutrality has nothing to do with DRM or video rental systems beyond making sure your ISP can't dictate what you use with selective bandwidth throttling.

Re:Consumers are part of the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have this false notion of choice where people get to decide exactly what they want, rather than the reality where our choice is almost on par with voting, where we get a few somewhat different but also very similar choices, versus choices that are much better but not otherwise viable for a host of reasons. Most people get what works 90% of the time, not what is ideologically agreeable, this has been the motivating factor for capitalism forever, which is why the idea of the free market doesn't really square with customer rights most of the time, because it simply requires one option to be slightly better overall in a handful of ways to win out, even if the underlying aspects actually make things worse in the long run or are anti-consumer.

The internet has become galvanized with corporate and government ideals overlayed with uninspired swaths of humanity through Facebook and Reddit all agreeing with each other and influenced with untold numbers of bots and machine algorithms pumping out special interest opinions, hitpieces, and fake comments all directing people to specific narratives and opinions. Likewise so has hardware and software, the age of nerds, free flow of information with actual humans, and the cyberpunk is over, at least for now.

Re:Consumers are part of the problem.

[Kohath]

Yeah, no one likes Netflix or anything from Apple out there on the extreme ideological fringe.

Re:Consumers are part of the problem.

[Stephen Battleware]

Yeah, but Obama is out of office now. Besides, 'Net neutrality isn't all about commerce. It's also about freedom, speech writing and text, fairness, openess, not just in the U.S., but everywhere there's the Internet.

Re:Consumers are part of the problem.

[HornWumpus]

Net neutrality does not ban QoS. It can't without breaking the net.

Putting the definition of QoS into the hands of the federal government? What could go wrong?

Re:Consumers are part of the problem.

[mea2214]

All the sudden you have what the DRM Corps want: A Computing platform where everything is a Rental transaction, and consumers money can be funneled from their wallets constantly. Thats what is happening now with iDevice owners.

Windows 10 is moving towards this as well.

Re:Consumers are part of the problem.

[GrumpySteen]

The net neutrality rules didn't ban QoS or put the definition of it into the hands of the government. They did require that companies show technical, rather than financial, justifications for managing traffic.

People arguing that rules should be repealed based on hearsay without taking the time to find out what the rules actually say? What could go wrong?

Re:Consumers are part of the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the 90s my mac would run for days without crashing or needing reboots or anything. I had an 8500 powermac that ran for like 192 days straight in a dorm room, only app that ever needed to be restarted was Netscape from time to time. I got a lot done. Things were completely different with the PCs.

For Apple computers, things Just Worked. It may be difficult to believe that consumers might find value in it, but seriously, if you can't believe that, then no one can have a conversation with you.

Most of the "but PCs work great too" feelings we have today are looking back through rose-tinted glasses of Windows 7 and Windows XP. It just simply wasn't the same.

I had a friend that worked in a computer resources department at the university, which was able to sell products from Apple, Dell, and a few others at education-level prices to students. For a seven month period in 1998, all of the consumer-level computers from Dell had a 57% DOA rate. That'd be Dead On Arrival. Mind-boggling why Apple computers had a reputation at all, isn't it?

Re:Consumers are part of the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

USERS have no rights.

CUSTOMERS do.

Net neutrality is no longer in favor of the users. It's time to be customers.

Re:Consumers are part of the problem.

[antdude]

Apple might die off in the future with the issues they're having. And no Steve Jobs to fix them!

Re:Consumers are part of the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the invariable refrain of everyone in every business that "they could run it so much better, if only it weren't for the stupid customers". Your complaint is exactly the same.

It's consumers' money that pays your paycheck, one way or another. So let's see a little respect please.

Re:Consumers are part of the problem.

[HornWumpus]

You don't know how laws work. Who decides what is and isn't a 'technical justification for managing traffic'? The feds, specifically clueless bought lawyers working for the feds, who will decide what is QoS and what isn't.

Complete exageration

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe for the USA, but the rest of us will move on and leave the USA further and further behind.

Re:Complete exageration

[volodymyrbiryuk]

Exactly. Say whatever you want about the EU but at least the don't fuck the common people in the arse like US corporations do.

Re:Complete exageration

[HornWumpus]

Fuck them in the knife wound instead. EUrocrates want a fresh hole.

Whoa

[Anonymous Coward]

At some point in time, a complete "hardware" - reboot.

1990s rollout of the Internet

[jabberw0k]

Did not CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL, and many other internet providers have this same vertical integration?

Re:1990s rollout of the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Did not CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL, and many other internet providers have this same vertical integration?

Sure, but the difference between AOL lusers and people who had a clue was vast, and the latter never took the former seriously. Some still remember Eternal September...

Re:1990s rollout of the Internet

[ikedasquid]

Nope. None of those companies were telecommunication providers.

Re:1990s rollout of the Internet

[HornWumpus]

Just like twats (twitter users) today. You're making the GP's point better than anyone.

Re:1990s rollout of the Internet

[aaarrrgggh]

Yes, but they did not control the physical backbone as well.

Re: 1990s rollout of the Internet

[UnknowingFool]

The difference is choice. While AOL tried to lock you in to their ecosystem, you were a month away from a different provider if you chose. There hundreds of different dialup companies back when AOL was its peak.

How many viable broadband does the average American actually have? At the city level, my city has two fiber companies, three cable companies, and two DSL companies; however, at the neighborhood level, the choices are quite limited. Most people in my neighborhood have 1 cable and 1 DSL. Fiber is a mile away and had been "Coming soon" for 5 years.

Re:1990s rollout of the Internet

[Thomas Charron]

There is no such thing as a 'physical backbone'. Such is the nature of the internet, and why Netflix can trunk direct to say, Comcast, and yet my internet (not comcast) is unaffected..

Re: 1990s rollout of the Internet

[Thomas Charron]

But it's all gated by demand. If, for example, an area desperately desires an alternative, and alternative can then present itself.

Re: 1990s rollout of the Internet

[UnknowingFool]

Is that sarcasm because demand has been wanting fiber for 5 years now when it first started rolling out in the city. There were even mailing lists, polls, etc. I had hoped that Google Fiber rolling out to different cities would have spurned fiber here. Sadly no. Without Google directly threatening competition, there will be no fiber.

Re: 1990s rollout of the Internet

[Thomas Charron]

Obviously not enough that a company was willing to step in and invest in the infrastructure. Ironically enough mostly because they can't get to your house because local contracts are granted two things like cable companies because they're considered essential infrastructure. Funny what happens when you regulate things as utilities. Your granted localized monopolies.

Re: 1990s rollout of the Internet

[UnknowingFool]

Uh what? I find it peculiar that you speak as if you lived in my neighborhood and that you've been here for all the neighborhood and city meetings about this subject. Where you also here for the multiple petitions and complaints that have been made? There IS a lot of demand. And yet we have 1 cable company in the neighborhood. It's not a monopoly as it is an oligarchy. Other cable companies won't come in. Other DSL companies won't come in. No fiber companies will come in.

Just a European comment passing by

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet spans the whole world, not just the United States. Just pointing it out, don't mind me.

Re:Just a European comment passing by

[DontBeAMoran]

I guess the title "Net neutrality rollback will end the internet in the U.S.A. as we know it" makes it sound as if other countries could possibly be better, which is something you cannot tell to people living in that country. They'll either won't believe you or think you're lying to them.

Re:Just a European comment passing by

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. The reality that America is turning into a third-world shit-hole is too much to grasp for the average American. How fortunate to some of them that they're not even aware of the outside world!

toll lanes vs. free lanes

[Anonymous Coward]

Free lanes were recently converted to toll lanes here, and what was the result: Gridlock for the regular folks, and those in the Teslas, Porsches, BMWs made it home on time while everyone else waited...this will be no different.

you mean..

[Anonymous Coward]

He means, the regulation that we've had for 2 years of the internet's 48 year history? Is that the control grab that the internet is doomed without?

The internet did fine for all of its history so far without increasing government regulation. Now, we're seeing more and more grabs for control by repressive governments all around the world who want to have the final say over what happens on it.

Re:you mean..

[GrumpySteen]

And the human race did fine for tens of thousands of years without any sort of regulation on nuclear weapons, so clearly we need to stop regulating them and let everyone have access to them... right?

Re:you mean..

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, you're gonna be right there defending government intrusion and control over the net when middle eastern govts want to stop all criticism of the prophet Mohammad on the entire internet.

No... the answer is to keep govts AWAY from the internet. You're begging for something you aren't thinking through.

Re:you mean..

[DontBeAMoran]

This is not about letting the government control the internet.

This is about giving the government power to stop companies from trying to control the internet.

Re:you mean..

[Anonymous Coward]

You can stop that just by not doing business with those companies. But when the govt gets its claws in, there's literally nothing you can do.

Think VERY carefully about what you're wishing for. I know it seems good right at this moment, but you have to consider the future. All of it. With all govts that are going to want to put their claws in.

Re:you mean..

[Stephen Battleware]

"Think VERY carefully about what you're wishing for." Good point. It is certainly an issue that should be thought right through before any legislation - or no - is decided upon. Quick whips of the pen - Rep or Dem or otherwise - are probably not prudent enough for an issue that affects freedom, lives, fairness, prosperity, conscience, politics, religion etc. etc.

Re:you mean..

[Stephen Battleware]

P.S. if you will: 'Net neutrality' as I think of it may or may not entail governments legislating, but it does mean fairness for those who put up websites. That no one web domain is preferred over another when it comes to the wires. That a big established company with its billions cannot pay the line operators to throttle out an innovator who is perceived as a potential competitor. Somewhat like the road system. Your new innovative company, say, puts its trucks on the same road as Fed Ex does, with the same speeds and rules (and so on) as everyone else. Fed Ex can't use it's well established position and its collected billions to pay the road operator to have your trucks slowed or blocked. Moreover, both your new innovative company's trucks and Fed Ex's trucks have to respect the road rights of Ronnie Republican when he takes in his car on the road to go get a coffee at the BLM Leftist Cafe. The road's regulated, but it treats all comers the same way. That's my notion of 'Net neutrality. I'm not keen on the regulation part, if it can stay neutral without that, good. But it should be fair, open, even etc. etc. neutral. Then everyone is free to innovate, think, prosper etc. on the thing without fear of being throttled by some paranoid jealous perhaps even greedy mega-corp.

Re:you mean..

[Thomas Charron]

And with that, it also means that we need to regulate how you wipe your bum in the toilet. I mean, we haven't regulated it so far, but nuclear weapons are regulated, so obviously.........

Call a spade a spade

[fyngyrz]

...all because this content or web sites affected didn't express a far-left political viewpoint

Um... no.

...all because this content or web sites affected expressed a far-right political viewpoint

FTFY

Not saying it's a good thing, one party impeding another party's freedom to express themselves basically isn't a good idea, even if for no other reason than it's far better to know what's actually going on around you than not, but your case is always better if you're accurate about describing what's actually going on.

Re: Call a spade a spade

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're missing the GP's point. It isn't about political parties or the 'far-right'. We've seen moderate leftists and centrists affected, too. It's everybody-but-the-extreme-left who is at risk of being targeted.

Re: Call a spade a spade

[HornWumpus]

Which will hurt the far left in the long run. Right now they are still throwing a tantrum. They'll cry themselves out.

Woz: more irrelevant that ever

[Anonymous Coward]

So rolling back something that was never actually implemented in the first place (the policy was due to go into effect in March, I think) is going to spell doom for the ENTIRE Internet as if US policy has any bearing on the rest of world.

Re:Woz: more irrelevant that ever

[Stephen Battleware]

Good point; but particular mega-corps aren't sitting idly. They are actively attempting to slice up the Internet, not to improve it (although speeds for their own particular sites and products might increase) but to ruin it and transform it into their own narrow vision, with fairness, openness, freedom, 'net neutrality and any potential innovative competition kicked to the curb, censored, and throttled to oblivion.

Not very likely

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Wozniak is vastly overestimating the influence of the United States here. It may have some consequences elsewhere because a number of big Internet service companies are based in the US, but in general I think nobody outside the US will notice.

Re:Not very likely

[Stephen Battleware]

IMHO, the people living in America are important.

Re:Not very likely

[DontBeAMoran]

We sure as hell will notice. Imagine not being able to have news about all their pointless political debates, the hollow bickering of hollywood stars, the religious zealots, the anti-science morons, the multiple failed reboots from J.J. Abrams...

Hum...

On second thought, let them close their internet borders.

Re:Not very likely

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they are and the Americans should do something about it for their own sake, but that doesn't make Wozniak's claim any less overstated. It's a local problem.

Sounds great

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like good news. I'd welcome an end to the internet as we know it where everyone connects everything from trafficlights to nuclear powerplants onto some global network. Insane.

Consumers are the foundation of everything

[fyngyrz]

and consumers money can be funneled from their wallets constantly.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, the other side of that coin is that goods and services can be funneled to the consumer constantly as well. That's sort of the whole idea of a consumer. It's not a one-way street. When it is, consumers aren't consumers any longer, and their willingness to let the funneling of their resources away will also go away.

At the most basic level, either you consume, or you die. Next step up, you consume and your life / lifestyle can be enhanced. These are all desirable to some degree. There are legitimate issues about reasonable and unreasonable levels and kinds of consumption, but what makes that really tricky is that it almost always varies from person to person.

Re:Consumers are the foundation of everything

[Stephen Battleware]

But everyone already has pretty much equal access to the roads though. If my new company wants to truck boxes to my new customers, I can get on the road just as sure and fairly as Fed Ex can. What the mega-corps want is for the road people to put up blocks that say only the big established companies can get though, while the upstarts still looking to make their first profits will either be grossly slowed or blocked. So the consumer, even as you seem to be suggesting, would not be well served should the particular mega-corps get their way here, as competition, variety and lower prices would be stifled.

Is Wozniak lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is he just uninformed? 5G rolls out in a couple years. When it does, most people in the US will get 2 or 3 or 4 more competing providers offering them broadband service over fixed wireless. Add that to the 1 or 2 or 3 broadband choices most of us have now (I have at least 3) and that’s more than enough to prevent most of the problems you people like to fantasize about.

Re:Is Wozniak lying?

[DontBeAMoran]

That's a couple of years away.

Governments are slow to react and even slower to change and put regulations in place.

Except when it puts them in power, in which case laws are quickly scribbled, pushed and passed via expansive bribes in only a few weeks.

"We are from the government and we are here to help you."

"Trust no one".

Nope, it was a troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

AT BEST it means that the poster has never used or looked into the internet previous to the current administration, and therefore would be lying about the claim of 30+ years. There's no "-1 lying their ass off" mod, so troll mod is closest, since the only non-liar way the OP could make the claim is if they knew it was wrong but wanted to rile people up by their asinine and ridiculous statement.

See the other posters with their presentation of reality.

But being a zombie argument,there IS no argument against the OP, and, again, it needs to be buried, like any zombie. And since there's no "-1 zombie argument" mod, Troll mod is again the only valid option.

Re:Nope, it was a troll.

[Orgasmatron]

Yeah, solid logic. The guy with a 4 digit UID just got on the internet yesterday. Couldn't possibly be that I understand the difference between "network neutrality" and "Network Neutrality(TM) Inc, A Google Enterprise".

Re:Nope, it was a troll.

[Thomas Charron]

As someone who's been on 'The Internet' since 1992 via a dialup account at standard tool and die, I can say the conversation on both sides has merits, and it's not trolling. Personally, I happen to disagree, and think net neutrality is a power grab by the FCC to legislate something that the government should have no roll in.

The internet was created, NOT by the us government, but by the whole over time. Yes, the groundwork was founded, however, it was rightfully relinquished years ago. Why should the US government legislate something which has no legal definition.

How does it feel, liberals?

[jez9999]

How does it feel to have big companies refusing to transmit your bits because they don't like the content? Maybe you're getting a feeling of what the alt right has to put up with now. Don't worry though - they are private companies and they can do what they like. It's not the same as government censorship.

Re:How does it feel, liberals?

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is, right now the same companies that are bemoaning the failure of net neutrality regulation / legislation, are the same companies now collaborating on how to identify and silence "Russian" speech on the internet. They believe in net neutrality, except in how they run /their/ business. In other words, net neutrality as it was, never addressed real issues, because the main proponents are simply big government, big corporate types, that only want to keep power to themselves. And they are still going to do whatever they can get away with, with or without the regulations.

Had net neutrality passed, it probably would have led to greater censorship on free speech, because... well we have to keep the internet "fair". But google, facebook, twitter, are going to do it anyway without the current white house and congress. They'll just do it among themselves and the former government administration behind the scenes calling the shots.

Re:How does it feel, liberals?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lighten-up snowflake. The alt-right is getting a taste of what it has been like to not be a white male for centuries. Once private companies are given the right to discriminate the alt-right will really get a chance to find out what it has historicaly been like to not be white and male. #MAGA

Re:How does it feel, liberals?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? Breitbart.com and Infowars.com are not only accessible and uncensored, they're thriving.

Snowflake.

Actually, bullshit is the problem.

[SIGBUS]

Since most people don't really understand how the net work, let alone how computers work, it's ridiculously easy to bullshit the masses. You can see this every day with phishing scams, "Your PC/phone/tablet is INFECTED!" scamware, social media hoaxes, and on and on. Unfortunately, this also gives big ISPs (and Hollywood for that matter) plenty of room to sling their own bullshit as well.

Same problem with health care.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so god damn fucking tired of this net neutrality bullshit.

STOP FIGHTING THE WRONG THING.

It's like the issue of health care. Sorry, but most of the people fighting for universal coverage and all this bullshit are FUCKING IDIOTS. I agree with the need to do something about health care, but they are FIGHTING TO ADDRESS IT IN THE WORST WAY POSSIBLE.

With health care, they simply want to take the fucking INSANE costs of health care and spread them across *everyone* so that everyone has to pay for everyone, period. And the health care industry still makes out like fucking bandits. The REAL fight that should be happening is to address the costs in the first fucking place, so that an individual can be responsible for their OWN fucking health insurance the same way they are for their own fucking auto insurance.

With the internet, they simply want to force shit legislatively to prevent over-reaching corporate interests and censorship. They're addressing a failure in regulation with more regulation which will also fail. We all get fucked. The REAL fight that should be happening is to address the lack of competition and the granting of regional monopolies by internet providers. OPEN IT UP and all of these issues will resolve themselves. Comcast gets to fuck me in the ass because they're the only player in any given area that they do business. That's fucking BULLSHIT.

Re:Same problem with health care.

[DontBeAMoran]

Universal health care is about being decent human beings. Most first-world countries have it.

You guys have insane costs caused by letting corporations run your health care system so that needs to be fixed, but even lower costs could not be afforded by everyone. Your taxes are also wasted on the military, so fix that too and you'll have universal health care, universal income, ten times the budget for NASA, etc.

Re:Same problem with health care.

[Stephen Battleware]

Hm .. you are bringing up the issue of why doesn't any and everyone get to set up their own grid. I think that is a different issue from the one of neutrality on the one existing grid that everyone has access to. Not that there aren't other network grids. There's Internet 2 etc., but most people can't hook into those. Most of us have only one inter-network which we can access. 'Net neutrality is about making sure that one grid operates in a fair, even, open, neutral manner and serves everyone, not just a few particular mega-corps.

Re:Same problem with health care.

[TheZeitgeist]

You guys have insane costs caused by letting corporations run your health care system so that needs to be fixed, but even lower costs could not be afforded by everyone.

The biggest corporation of them all IS the government. Always wonder how people can look at a bunch of characters with profit motives and think they're somehow a worse or less moral gang than a bunch of characters with political motives.

Re:Same problem with health care.

[Anonymous Coward]

In most cases, large corporations and their profit motives are always against the best interests of regular people, while government is sometimes against the best interests of regular people, generally when it sides with the aforementioned large corporations. In addition, people actually have a say in who governs them when they want to--see the recent presidential election. I think the one thing everyone can agree on is that the outcome of that election was decidedly not what the political establishment of either side had in mind.

On the other hand, say I can't stand a particular large corporation. I can't stand most of them so it's easy to pick one. I have no say in who runs it, who makes policies, who does anything. I have no say in it existing or in what markets it operates. Sure I can buy stock, but since voting rights is proportional to stock ownership, I have no effective say there. Every single individual who owns shares in most major corporations' stock can turn out, all vote the same direction, and still lose because large institutions own more. Government does not work that way. This actually annoys corporate types who don't understand why they shouldn't be able to run government just like a business, which is a massively stupid notion.

Now, government can go too far as well. The tyranny of the majority is a real problem. I don't smoke and never have, but the massive bullshit that smokers have to put up with in the name of public health policy has gone off the deep end and is now way past what is needed to protect the health of non-smokers. The problem is that non-smokers have always outnumbered smokers and so nobody wants to fix it. Private health insurers and private employers pile on and cause them great inconvenience on top of all the legal idiocies. The single biggest danger with a single payer medical program is when health nuts decide to start tweaking the rules to try to force people into whatever behavior they think needs improving this week. Those people already have a haven in private insurance companies now, so it would not take long for them to find opportunity elsewhere. Anything implementing a public health insurance system has got to come with guarantees that these idiots will be kept in check and throttled severely. It would be nice if we could do that to the private sector as well.

I deliberately chose smoking for that example because it's something we can all agree has scientifically provable negative consequences. I figure that one knee-jerk response to all this will be a flood of comments that smoking is a dirty disgusting habit and smokers deserve whatever they get. What about people who like to drink soda? Who don't run 5 miles a day? Who eat meat if you're a vegetarian? Who refuse to cut down on fat? Remember that one, when dietary fat was the devil and had to be eliminated at all costs? It sure got that way--by cutting fat and increasing sugar and now we have an obesity epidemic. Health policy run amok, and wrongly on top of it. Of course, doctors now define "obese" as pretty much any excess weight at all no matter how much so the term is pretty much meaningless, in the same fashion that private corporations have got cholesterol numbers driven lower and lower to the point where pretty much every single American qualifies to take their medicines now. Go figure.

The only health coverage that's acceptable goes like this: cover illnesses that happen. Cover preventative care. Go away otherwise.

Solution - Small Neighborhood ISP's

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how about this overly-simplified concept:

Get a bunch of neighbors together. Buy a commercial internet connection. Use open source WiFi mesh to connect everyone together.

It won't work everywhere, but it would in many US neighborhoods.

  -D

Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix and a host of other companies disagrees with you.

But as a consumer, fuck'em. They need to be treated as a utility if they want to keep their local monopolies.

It's 2017 and I'm still on 1.5 Mbps/.25Mbps connection for $50/month. Or it's get an overprices shit package from the Comca$t crooks.

Because AT&T and Conca$t bribed my mostly Republican legislature.

Google wants to come into my area but the other assholes sue to stop them.

Re: Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

" Because AT&T and Conca$t bribed my mostly Republican legislature. "

Am curious how amazing your internet was when the legislature was dominated by Democrats.

My guess is, it was much the same.

At some point you'll realize that the two parties differ in name only. They exist to present the illusion of choice only. Neither of them give two shits about " the people ".

Re: Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not on a .25 connection, you fucking twat.

Re:Netflix

[Orgasmatron]

I've said this dozens of times: Find the local impediment that keeps competitive cable companies from moving into your area, and fix it. Your state government, state public utilities commission (government), county government or city government is keeping competition out. Figure it out and fix it.

Re: Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

"Am curious how amazing your internet was when the legislature was dominated by Democrats."

He probably lives in an area that hasn't had Democratic representation in at least 30 years. Back then, the very few lay people who had access to the Internet were doing it through 1200 baud modems.

"At some point you'll realize that the two parties differ in name only. They exist to present the illusion of choice only. Neither of them give two shits about " the people "."

Trump proves that wrong every day, and yet we still have people believe that crap. Yes, there are huge, cavernous differences between the parties, and if you can't see it, you are deliberately blinding yourself to it.

Re:Netflix

[Thomas Charron]

If I had mod points, this would get bumped up. People assume that there is no options, and as such, much be legislated all to hell. Fostering new ways to connect, and removing impediments to competition, is the true answer, so people can speak with their $$.

Again, are you looking in a mirror?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you complain about the left doing is what the right are doing right now. Look at the orange Tantrum In Chief.

Re:Again, are you looking in a mirror?

[HornWumpus]

I only dream the Ds nominate a full tilt loony lefty. Four more years!

That's at least somewhat fair

[fyngyrz]

If my new company wants to truck boxes to my new customers, I can get on the road just as sure and fairly as Fed Ex can.

Can you, though? I just sent a gift to a friend on the opposite coast. The package weighed 52 lbs. I paid about $70 to get it there. Can you do that? I don't think you could even do it for fuel costs, much less pay the driver and the wear and tear on the transport vehicle(s.)

What the mega-corps want is for the road people to put up blocks that say only the big established companies can get though, while the upstarts still looking to make their first profits will either be grossly slowed or blocked.

Yes, there's a lot of truth to this, especially since we now have a bought-and-paid for legislature. Net neutrality is definitely very high up on the list of things like this, too.

So the consumer, even as you seem to be suggesting, would not be well served should the particular mega-corps get their way here, as competition, variety and lower prices would be stifled.

I'm not really suggesting that. I'm more suggesting that the consumers aren't the problem. IMHO, the regulators are the problem. The people that are supposed to be watching out for the best interests of the consumers. The post which I replied to was proposing that consumers were a significant part of the problem - I don't see it that way.

Still a spade. A rightist spade.

[fyngyrz]

I think you're missing the GP's point. It isn't about political parties or the 'far-right'.

Yeah, mostly at this point in time, it is about the far right. Because they're very active right now. The nail that sticks up the furthest is the nail that gets hammered down.

Either way, it's bad to repress anyone's speech. Anyone's speech, IMHO. But what's going on right now is a flare-up being caused by some very prominent far, far-right-wing talk. Moderate ideas don't tend to lead to repression of speech. Extreme ones do, and right now, the extremists are mostly evident on the right facet of the spectrum. They're pissing people off not just on the left, but in the middle as well. This leads to muttering of the form "someone oughta shut those people up" because, to be blunt, it's irritating and people tend to want to scratch the itch without really thinking about the scab and scar that will result.

QoS isn't being put in the hands of government.

[Anonymous Coward]

Net Neutrality does not put the definition of QoS in the hands of the federal government, so how CAN something go wrong with putting QoS in the hands of the government?

PLEASE stop swallowing the bilgewater from the anti-NN propaganda sites. If you're not swallowing bilgewater, stop producing it you deceptive retard.

Already formulating my Internet Exit Strategy

[Rick Schumann]

If they totally de-regulate ISPs and the Internet in America turns into something more like AOL than a free and open Internet, then I'm likely bailing out, getting a library card, and likely having a slightly smaller electric bill every month from not having a computer and networking equipment powered up all the time. Got no interest in what ISPs want to do with the Internet, given their druthers.

Re:Already formulating my Internet Exit Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how you gave yourself an easy out: "well it wasn't total, so I don't have to do any of that stupid shit I posted."

Re:Already formulating my Internet Exit Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, faggot. You'd let them fuck you in the ass, so long as you can keep fapping to free porn on the Internet.

Re:America?

[hackwrench]

Hate to break it to you, but the whole world is that way.

HOW gross?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it as gross a "simplification" as the claim that there's been 30+ years of no NN laws and the internet has been fine?

No.

But here you are whining about a meaninglessly different quibble on detail instead of the honking big lie of the OP.

Wonder why?

Re:Expected behavior

[hackwrench]

Expected behavior is a shifting target. Parts of the internet are like party lines carrying traffic for different groups of users. Should the Internet company provide QoS on some packets for you or not?

Good riddance.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, end it. Alphabet, Apple, FB, M$ have corrupted the original purpose to the point of breaking it anyway. Good riddance.