How? Well, a simple statement saying "any ISP who abuses net neutrality will have their customers cut off from Google products". No Google search, no YouTube, no Gmail. Have those requests instead redirect to a website telling the customer what their ISP is doing, why Google won't work with them, and how to call to complain to the ISP. Make the site list competitors in the user's area that don't play stupid games.
Is this an insane idea? Yep. Would Google come under scrutiny because of their now-obvious market power? Oh definitely. And Google would probably lose money over it. But it would certainly work.
People don't get internet, and then decide to use Google. They want Google and then get internet for that purpose.
edit: an hour later, fixing an autocorrect word
Why doesn't Twitter flex its muscle and cause a national crisis by tweeting "watch out China, nukes are coming" from Donald Trump's Twitter? That ruins trust in the platform, but what if they just banned the US president's account for TOS or something? Enormous amount of power.
What if Musk's first ship to Mars had a hidden Railgun on it? "Anybody else that wants to come to Mars must pay equivalent US 100,000 million per vehicle." Alternatively, "I now own mars, who can come as well is up to my whim."
What if Microsoft issued a malicious patch that gave it access to the NSA's servers? What if Comcast slurped up FBI traffic?
In the internet and space age, corporations are getting enough real power that government power can be outright stepped over. Sure, say Comcast slurps data somehow from CIA and FBI, goes to prez, and says "give us x or we sell this to Russia," the US gov can turn around and threaten to arrest the CEO, or fine them, or kick down doors and start tearing apart infrastructure with the US military, but Comcast could easily say "do any of the above and the data is given to Russia, for free."
Musk has weaponised Mars, a state actor says "unweaponise it or be hanged," Musk can say "well, the cannon is automated, has 300 rounds of ammunition, and will not deactivate unless my secret passcode and the secret passcode of another person who I will not name, are provided. Per detected vehicle."
Exciting, fun, terrifying. It can go fantastic for us (Google and Netflix telling telecoms to suck it), or absolutely horrifying (Comcast holding the US government hostage).
I can tell you for certain that there are dozens of safeguards. That scenario not only isn't possible, it's not plausible. Yes the President has the "codes" but those codes don't launch the missiles . The scenario described is one in which there are literally nuclear warheads on a ballistic trajectory headed to the US with a verified source of origin.
I think the trope stays around because people, despite what they say publicly, like the idea of an emperor style president with supreme power.
Alex Wellerstein is a academic researcher on the history of nuclear weapons, and he describes the situation thus:
>>Are there any checks in place to keep the US President from starting a nuclear war?
What's amazing about this question, really, is how seriously it misunderstands the logic of the US command and control system. It gets it exactly backwards.
The entire point of the US command and control system is to guarantee that the President and _only_ the President is capable of authorizing nuclear war whenever he needs to. It is about enabling the President's power, not checking or restricting him.
The entire point of the US command and control system is to guarantee that the President and only the President is capable of authorizing nuclear war whenever he needs to.
Yes, legally and formally. Informally though, as I said, it won't go down like that, especially if it's not completely unambiguous that there is a nuclear attack on the US.
The captain and some fixed number of executive officers. Possibly with redundancy for one or two crew being dead. The auth codes would cause a safe to unlock or message to de-crypt.
Presumably the instructions would be delivered to each authenticating member so that all could receive the orders simultaneously.
In practice however I'd certainly be surprised to learn that there were absolutely zero checks on the process as suggested in the article.
Are there verified nuclear warheads on verified trajectories from verified origins?
Does the US President need to retaliated?
They interview ex-Secretary of Defense William Perry asking him what controls there are, if any, on a crazy president just willy-nilly deciding to nuke something.
He says there's absolutely none, even if the president is in a room full of people who vehemently disagree with him he alone makes the call to launch.
The President can make the call to launch and everyone in the room can ignore him, arrest him, tape his mouth shut.
Or just shoot him.
Edit: fixed a word
There's an argument to be made for checks on presidential power to wage nuclear war at a pin drop. President Trump pulling us back from the joint establishment Democrat and establishment Republican push for worldwide nuclear armageddon is not it.
but I did learn the word "Verisimilitude" the other day.
The only check currently seems to be people disobeying his orders, and even that is accounted for to some extent (see "mutiny is unlikely" in the article you cited).
It remains possible that ranking members of the executive branch and military might cooperate to make sure the president is isolated and unable to execute the protocol, and perhaps even conceivable (if unlikely) that enough of the military would refuse to participate. But that's the only real check, and it extralegal rather than any part of the system.
If you've ever been suspicious of "the deep state", think about that for a minute here, because it's really just another catchy term for the one of a half-handful of checks on the power under discussion here.
> I think the trope stays around because people, despite what they say publicly, like the idea of an emperor style president with supreme power.
I suspect that people really want to believe the system works, it can't be that messed up, someone else thought of this, some one else is paying attention, and they want things to be better, not worse, and they will take care of it for you.
But the system will fail if "the whole chain is stupid." This is why it's so dangerous to have a President obsessed with loyalty.
A recent radiolab episode (http://www.radiolab.org/story/nukes/) made a pretty convincing argument that any US president could on a whim destroy the world. It goes into the whole history of why that power was given to a civilian, and not the military.
Don't forget about this lad!
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
I.e. he must convince the Vice President et al. that ending all human life on Earth is a good idea.
Which is to say, the orders may not be followed by the persons at the switch. I make no claim that they will, or will not, be followed. I merely point out that rules aren't always followed.
They absolutely have the real authority (ability) to refuse the order, and then the real authority to prevent the nuke from being launched (by eating their key, shooting anybody else that comes into the room, shooting the key/console, etc).
The Twitter nukes one wouldn't even have to ruin trust in the platform that badly. They could say the president's account got hacked. Hell, blame the hack on China if you're already trying to start a war there.
If a corporation succeeds in building General AI with enough hooks into basic infrastructure, and a loyal enough employee base, then they will have a more powerful weapon than any nuclear bomb. They can then build their own drone army that no conventional military could stand up against.
Second, what about an AI would give them an advantage over cyborgs in building drone battalions? Aren't conventional human cyborgs doing that right now?
Yes, it's annoying to me that people who believe AI to be extremely dangerous forget that people themselves can already do all that nasty stuff.
Not much that suggests it's impossible either.
> What if Musk's first ship to Mars had a hidden Railgun on it?
"oh god... don't stop!"
> ... the secret passcode of another person ...
yeah... we (in the US) gave AI/meta-cognative-entities/"corporations" a type of inalienable right with the Citizens United ruling. and now the gov't is going to find out what happens when those entities start testing the boundaries of their container. (plot twist: the container walls are permeable)
Except that's not true. Corporations have always had personhood. See 1 U.S.C. §1:
> In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
> the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
Corporations being people is what allows them to own property, use the judicial system (to sue), etc. Basically anything corporations are able to do is because they are people. The speech of a corporation is protected under the First Amendment. Donating your money to a non-profit is a form of speech, no? If I donate $25 to the EFF, I'm agreeing with what the EFF does. That's a form of expression that is protected under the First Amendment. All Citizens United v. FEC did was affirm that money can be a form of speech.
Citizens United didn't establish any president of corporate personhood anymore than Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US 394 (1886) did back in 1886.
Always? You cite the U.S. Code, which was first published when? 1926.
>Donating your money to a non-profit is a form of speech, no?
It's a hell of a lot different when it comes to influencing people during elections. Bad analogy, and an insincere play to the audience here with the EFF.
If we allow money to be speech, we allow outsized influence on governance by a few. Corporations have much more money to spend on campaigns which works against the public interest.
> Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
The precedent of corporate personhood didn't even come from arguments in the case, it came from an oral remark by the Chief Justice Morrison Waite, who earlier worked as a lawyer for railroads. It was recorded by the court recorder J.C. Bancroft Davis, who earlier was a president of a railroad. The precedent and its house of cards should be thrown out.
And now there's precedent.
Holy shit I hadn't even considered this, this is awesome. New story idea.
I'll contribute that this is a good way to explain to someone why corporations inherently care about their employees only to the extent of their usefulness.
Can you recommend some novels ? (I'm also a cyberpunk nerd)
Thanks in advance
For me there's a lot of crossover between Cyberpunk/scifi, the only difference being time period, so I'd throw in the Culture series and the Revelation Space series.
The Stars my Destination (grunge as fuck)
Neuromancer, though I'm sure you've already read it.
Just wanted to chime in and say that this is one of the great SF books. Alfred Bester at the height of his powers. Gritty, fantastic, political, emotional, psychedelic, and epic. A truly astounding work, especially when you consider it was written in the early 1950s.
If you like science fiction: READ THIS BOOK.
Because the US Government has terrifying amounts of power and can be very spiteful.
Their ability to easily intimidate corporations has been demonstrated time and time again. See: NSA v tech, Qwest, broad anti-trust powers (which have nothing to do with monopoly and everything to do with subjective definitions), SEC, FTC, FCC, national security powers, executive orders, and the list goes for days.
It wasn't about one specific, small example but the big picture. Since these companies care about profit and the people running the companies likely care about their lives I'd imagine much of this wouldn't ever happen but it's all technically possible which, compared to where we were say 20 years ago, is just absolutely amazing in every sense of the word.
I understand and that's a fantasy at best, which was my point. The US Government is radically more powerful than any corporation inside of its domain. It's not even remotely close. They're more powerful than every corporation in the US combined.
The moment they send federal agents to shut down Google HQ (even if it's just for a day) and begin arresting people on terrorism charges (doesn't matter if any of it sticks, they never have to stop coming), specifically targeting management, and then walking them through & out of the buildings in handcuffs - Google instantly capitulates as their stock collapses by 20% in one day. And that's the easiest of moves the Feds can make, that's a trivial demonstration of their power to intimidate.
Then the IRS begins pursuing any exec they want to. They can do horrific things to anyone at any time, even if it doesn't stick long-term it still makes your life hell - and they never have to stop coming.
Then x y z, forever, paying their bills with your tax dollars and the infinite fiat machine.
Their initial efforts don't work? They change the laws tomorrow to give themselves a new sharp stick. They only really need one really nasty stick, and they have dozens already.
Google has the kind of power that staves off that from even happening in the first place. The US government isn't a singular entity, it is comprised of several hundred individually powerful people. Three branches, plus several military branches, each with their own branches of authority and people of power. Then you have states with their own 3 branches and national guards, police. You have a national police equivalent (NSA, CIA, FBI, ATF, Border Control).
That's a lot of people google can go to and say "Interesting that you are into midget porn, I wonder what would happen if the whole world knew that?"
That's a lot of people google can go to and say "Did you know that your neighboring state's governor is having an affair with a man? Give us this land grant for server space and we'll give you the proof."
"Give us guaranteed protection from the Fed and we'll give you the entire query history from all whitehouse IP addresses."
"Do not fuck with us or we will DDOS every single DNS server in the world with our absurdly massive server infrastructure."
"Do not fuck with us or we will turn the public against you by messaging the 63,000 people using our site per second"
"Do not fuck with us or we will make your very existence invisible to 80% of the people on the internet."
That's how wars happen, and why it's a bad idea to make ultimatums to the US government.
Like the King's head Surgeon - he could never take on the King in hand to hand combat, but he can certainly poison him slowly, over time and invisibly, in return for more consolidated power or money or some other such thing from the King's son.
1. Order ISPS to switch off access to Google's servers and CDNs. Most internet traffic stops working as any website using a google CDN breaks, all analytics stops working, internet advertising breaks almost entirely, the internet is suddenly a less profitable and very scary, mostly unusable place. Google releases as its death-throes the fact that the ISPs are entirely to blame for this, gives coordinates of ISP offices and pitchfork emporiums. Customers revolt, UN issues a missive reminding the world that access to the internet is a human right.
2. Order power regulators to cut off their power - Pretty similar to above. Internet stops working very well, except Google continues to work in other countries, and suddenly it doesn't really make sense to do business in the USA. Google employees flee abroad where they can. Opportunistic countries take advantage of this and grant asylum.
3. Freeze their bank accounts - best idea yet, I think, except for I'm not sure how it would be implemented. Government order comes through declaring "Alphabet, Inc" to be entirely comprised of terrorists? Not sure. Either way, Google goes the way of Pablo Escobar and talks directly to bank VPs - "give us some of the money / give us a warning you get a freeze order / whatever, or we tell the world about your midget porn / location of all your private estates / your tax fraud." Alternatively, google uses its near total access to civilian populations to cast the US government as a totalitarian dictatorship issuing a coup against the American people's access to free information and fosters a revolution.
The scenario is insurrection. Communications going down while people are arrested is perfectly acceptable.
> Google goes the way of Pablo Escobar and talks directly to bank VPs
Bank VPs have no control over dollar clearing and settlement. In any case, violating an OFAC freeze is automatic jail time for lots of people. Nobody messes around with this.
For sure, that was never in dispute. No one pretended there wouldn't be consequences, either. That was never the point of my post or parent's. Take a look at the examples for what was being referred to.
Let's not kid ourselves - well before that happens there would be "Guys with guns" to see them which would stop all possible posturing.
Are you serious? That would cause actual people to die. And Twitter will end up with a huge lawsuit.
This theoretically gives a company power to shut the government if they really wanted to.
Also, the belief that there would be "competitors in the user's area that don't play stupid games" that offer comparable services (eg, within a factor of 5x bandwidth-per-dollar value) seems to be a misunderstanding of the utility/monopoly/duopoly economics in play in many regions of the USA.
But I agree that it wouldn't work because the ISP monopolies are more entrenched than the web service monopolies.
Exactly the point I'm trying to make. If Google turns around and says "Fine, you don't like net neutrality? Let me show you how this works both ways".
The ISPs do not make the product, they sell the access to the product. If the product goes away, then they aren't selling anything at all- and their customers will stop paying them.
For some people, their tolerance for bullshit is less than others. For those people, perhaps charging a dollar extra for YouTube access is enough. It only takes a fairly small percentage of customers to put a lot of pressure on service providers. Monopoly or not.
What you're describing is a substitute good. When the "choice" is to not purchase said product/service and look to alternatives, you're literally describing the effect of a monopoly.
My point is simply that a monopoly isn't some sort of God-emperor who can do anything without consequence. Even monopolies have to bow to customer pressure, they're just less sensitive to it than companies in more competitive industries. Supply and demand applies to monopolies, too, that's why their prices might be higher than they would be in a competitive environment, but their prices aren't infinite. "Going without" is always a choice, even if there are no competitors.
You can always put money on the lottery several times, win, buy your own satellite and have your own DTH service. Or kill yourself, so that you no longer need internet.
So no, there isn't always a choice in broadband service. And most times, there isn't a choice at all.
So I doubt Google would ever do anything at this point.
If ISPs don't see the point in it then they can't complain when other don't follow it (and they get the shaft)
the culture employs special circumstances when the situation exceeds the moral capacity of contact.
or to put it differently, sometimes outside forces are so strong that you either let your ethics... be flexible for while or just disappear in the annals of history.
whether OP's particular action would be effective is a different question - bing, ddg or baidu would gladly jump at the opportunity if this wasn't coordinated.
That's how you start thinking it's okay to drop napalm and nuclear bombs on cities since "it'll end the war faster"
Anyone who doesn't subscribe absolutely to radical honesty or to a morality handed down by an all powerful being has to make these kinds of decisions in their personal life all the time and rarely do those decisions have as much impact as net neutrality. Large companies are made up of people and they shouldn't get a pass when they stand by and watch as when the very foundations of their industries are destroyed by extreme rent seeking just because they have shareholders to answer to, most of whom are in a far better position than the employees of the companies to jump ship when their investments don't behave like they'd like them to.
1. I pay an ISP to provide me with internet service
2. Google cuts off services from my ISP I've already paid.
3. I call my ISP and say "google told me to complain to you," they say, "thank you for your feedback."
4. I look for a competitor. There aren't any, or the competitors don't suit my needs. Which is why this problem happens in the first place. If I could go to a competitor, I would. This is the key assumption that the whole scheme is based on and from what I understand, for most Americans, it is flat wrong.
5. I don't use my ISP's bandwidth cause Google is blocking it. I've paid them money. My continual complaints tie up a cheap call center which inconveniences them very slightly, if at all. They still have my money, plus the costs for the services they're offering me just plummeted cause I'm not using any bandwidth cause I can't access the internet. They win, I lose.
Unfortunately, they (we) are a minority.
Also, it's double expense, especially if you do something like Netflix.
Or buy internet from phone company instead of cable company.
Cell phone data is usually much more expensive and often people don't have a lot of choice on what connection options they have.
What is the net result of this? People call up and complain to their ISP? Complaining hasn't worked yet and that's the problem. You can complain all you want but when there's no competition it doesn't matter.
A far better idea in my opinion would be for Google to spend money and muscle in partnering to provide municipal broadband.
If people had a choice between a municipal broadband provider that preserved net-neutrality or choosing the existing duopoly that wants to "rent seek" then I think the net-neutrality issue might finally be able to be put to rest.
There are some case studies in successful municipal broadband deployments here:
Google is already partnering with NYC via Sidewalk Labs. See:
and LinkNYC is already up and running, so its not much of a stretch:
What's one way that could change? Google stops working for millions of people, so they start using another product.
Essentially, what i'm saying is they are not, and have not been for a very long time, about search
The money is mostly coming from advertising across these services and especially adwords and adsense
Sometimes it seems easier to communicate something by stating the opposite and let people work out themselves why this is a bad idea.
If you've ever experienced the not too occasional fighting between cable companies and some of the networks they carry, it can get ugly. With both sides claiming they're in the right. Sometimes the channels even go off the air because the cable company won't pay what the networks want.
The only problem is if say google pulls YouTube from comcast, its not like customers have a plethora of other internet providers to choose from, so they suffer.
If you're blocked, you'll only see the message once. If you have to watch a video before instead, you'll get angrier and angrier each time.
First: this is pushing the onus on the consumers. Not just pushing---forcing, even. My grandmother, my wife even, doesn't care about net neutrality---they want to use the Internet. I've seen suggestions of using a VPN, and I use Tor for all of my Internet traffic, but this is an even _greater_ onus on consumers. It's a far bigger impact than the abolishment of net neutrality itself.
Perhaps more importantly, this is subverting the legal/regulatory system by using your market dominance to essentially declare your own law. The system is failing us (those who support net neutrality, at least) right now, but it's there for a reason, and it's a slippery slope to try to reverse legislative and regulatory decisions by force.
Civil uprising is fine. Campaigns to raise awareness (like the blackout for SOPA), okay. Many other things are okay. But leave innocent people out of the crossfire. They should care, yes, but it's up to _us_ to make change---those of us who understand the issue and why it's important. It's up to us to raise awareness. I'm not going to go hold people hostage over my ideals. What if Google weren't on your side? What if they did _not_ support net neutrality? Would you be okay with them using their dominance to push an agenda you didn't like? I'd think not.
"""You seem to be using <x> which is a lousy internet provider for reasons x, y and z.
Feel free to call them now at <phone number> or send a mail to <email> and let them know what you think.
Also here are other known providers in your area: <list>
You can also sign <here> and <here> to show your interest to other sane providers that are considering offering fiber in your area."""
At this point I dislike chrome for exactly the same reasons I disliked IE: it is not good enough for me and its sheer dominance makes web creators lazy and triggers bean counters to skimp on cross browser compatibility checks.
But this time they could actually use it for good.
: yep. You would hear the same thing back then: You are the only one wanting to use another browser. Just get over it and use IE.
Well, I am curious: what makes other browsers better for you? The other day I posed this question in a thread, and the main answer was "a good feeling inside".
Then the news that Mozilla forces you into being tracked by Google Analytics comes out, and that good feeling is gone, so what's your use case?
Real extensions? Yeah I know they will be less useful than they used to be but still way better than anything else it seems.
The fact that it handles my browsing habits like a few hundred open tabs?
Oh, and by now using almost any other browser than chrome give me a happy feeling. The limit goes somewhere between Edge and IE it seems :-P
I didn't see that and didn't find anything when I searched now. Do you have any pointers?
Additionally, from the link "legal contract with Google" on that page:
> Mozilla went through a year long legal discussion with GA before we would ever implement it on our websites. GA had to provide how and what they stored and we would only sign a contract with them if they allowed Mozilla to opt-out of Google using the data for mining and 3rd parties.
> We now have two check boxes in our GA premium account that allows us to opt-out of additional usage of our data. Because Mozilla pushed Google so hard, those two check boxes are available to every other GA user in the world regardless if they have a premium account like we do.
When and where Mozilla caves to pressures they always stood against, I will not hold it against them more than against the ones putting them under pressure -- or against those trying to muddy the waters even more in these already trying times, for that matter.
Editors: David Dorwin, Google Inc.Jerry Smith, Microsoft CorporationMark Watson, Netflix Inc.Adrian Bateman, Microsoft Corporation (Until May 2014)
So in this way we can save the net neutrality?
So you are suggesting that they harm their own business interests? For how long exactly?
It's not even that insane. MTV did exactly this to gain an edge when negotiating with cable companies. They ran ads telling people to call their cable companies and say, "I want my MTV!" The campaigns were largely successful, and MTV quickly became a standard offering on cable TV.
Google has far more negotiating power than MTV did. If Google actually cut off ISPs and told people to call their ISP and say, "I want my net neutrality!" it would have a good chance of working.
One of the arguments against Net Neutrality is it would help break up the Google marketing monopoly (yes this logic is shockingly what the cable companies have provided for the government as a pro).
In some sense Google is not much different than the cable companies except that the only entity that can out leverage the cable companies is the government that owns the poles and airways.
(If you don't think google is a monopoly or at least extremely unfair it is impossible to make a competitor to google as you would have to do your marketing of a such a product through them).
Frankly I'm already concerned that 99% of the marketing is controlled already by two entities: Google and Facebook. If google were to do what your proposing it would probably make far more people aware of the monopoly.
They could change their banner, though, and I'm sad they aren't serious enough about this issue to do that.
They should be redirected to a page saying - your ISP is against Net Neutrality. Contact them and tell them how you feel about this...or find a new ISP. Your access will be restored on Tuesday. If you don't like this, get used to it-it's the way a net neutrality-less internet works.
Those same ISP's will be begging to bring back net neutrality in a month or two.
That would really send a statement that they were serious about network neutrality.
Is this a mistake? Am I missing something?
Edit: I also checked for the parent company "Alphabet", which also is not listed.
To be fair, Apple is pro-NN but not vocal about it.
> Is this an insane idea? Yep.
It sounds like we're in agreement on the latter, as for the former; the way it would play out is that Google Search, YouTube and Gmail would fade and successful competitors would replace them overnight.
Suddenly Google is facing a fine 10x larger than what the EU just threw at them (after all, look at the business % ratio regarding markets over the last decade, the majority of their business has been in the US), and a dozen agencies begin pursuing them on a variety of issues.
The government can do anything it wants to to Google at any time it wants to do it. They have enough methods, they can make Google's existence absolute hell.
It discusses the use of faster lanes that only companies with money would have access to. At first this seems fair that companies should be able to purchase better technology to improve their speed. The question then becomes what happens to traffic on the slower lanes? I could argue this both ways. At the end of the day, the history of most ISP companies makes me not trust them.
Here's an article about Comcast trying to find loop holes https://www.wired.com/2015/11/comcast-may-have-found-a-major...
I think that's why they won't.you are asking them to do something where they have a deep conflict of interest not to.
Where as an ISP is unaware of any specific relationship and therefore isn't attempting to interfere.
IANAL but that's my interpretation of this specific tort law.
It could however work if they throttle priority isp traffic to counterbalance.
How? Google is a private individual/company; they can deny anyone service, so long as the reason is not discriminating against a protected class.
Unless my history is wrong, and please correct me if that is the case, until the Title II decision in 2015, there were no regulations preventing an ISP from discriminating network traffic. So to say that Net Neutrality has been key to an open internet from 1980-2015 seems without merit.
I think the argument here is the same for any argument of nationalization: To turn a private good into a public one.
Businesses, local and federal governments, have all contributed to the infrastructure that is the internet. So the private company can't say, "well it was all our investment" and equally the Government can't say "This is a public good."
There's considerable reason to believe that even without enforceable rules, the attention and active policy activity directed at enforceable rules inhibited non-neutral action by ISPs compared to what it would have been without that activity.
> So to say that Net Neutrality has been key to an open internet from 1980-2015 seems without merit.
To say net neutrality regulations have been would be without merit, sure. To say net neutrality has been, OTOH, is factually true.
Starting in the early 2000s however some groups started breaking that informal contract and the goal in the early 2000s was to codify that into law.
So "net neutrality" in this case is trying to make a formal system out of what would be considered common law.
Makes sense holistically. Thanks.
Maybe it's also a matter of competition with cable TV - if Comcast reduces Internet service prices and takes the money from Netflix instead, Netflix will have to rise their prices and be less competitive?
AT that time, we were comfortable because we didn't think DPI was possible.
But eventually some coder cooked it up, iirc it was to "protect the children", while being desperately sought after by the MPAA/RIAA.
From then on its just been a long slug fest to today.
Is that what was happening, because if so it was never made clear to me. The first I remember this coming up was with the internet "lanes." AFAIK, again tell me where I'm wrong here please, there was nothing preventing an ISP from creating a "fast lane" before 2015.
I'm very shaky on the details there, so don't take my word for it.
Before 2015, there was really nothing stopping them from doing it aside from consumer outrage. But as time goes on, large ISPs have been making more and more noise about "internet fast lanes". There have been several incidents of them throttling sites like Netflix in secret. So while they previously adhered to defacto-net-neutrality via informal gentlemen's agreement, the likes of Comcast are no longer acting like gentlemen.
Without net neutrality, it will get worse. Especially since ISPs are also cable and phone companies who are justifiably worried about how the internet is increasingly affecting their cable and phone revenue.
The net neutrality was not necessary early on because it was not feasible in the past to control it on such large scale.
So between 1980-2015 net neutrality (did not exist as a law) but was there indirectly in forms of:
- the technology at the time did not allow for deep packet inspection
- net neutrality was indirectly present due to telecom regulations. For example telecom could not just block calls as they wished. So during dial-up times anyone could enter that market and provide service and cost was low. During the time of DSL there was a regulation that required telecom companies to lease their lines so again cost to enter and be DSL ISP was relatively low. There's no such thing with cable companies.
> Businesses, local and federal governments, have all contributed to the infrastructure that is the internet. So the private company can't say, "well it was all our investment" and equally the Government can't say "This is a public good."
I think you're misunderstanding it. This has nothing to do with Internet being a public good or not. It's all about controlling access to it.
What net neutrality does in a nutshell is preventing the ISPs (which provide Internet access) from being able to censor at their whim what you can access.
In normal scenario, free market would solve this issue. No one would use ISPs that place restrictions on their service and would move the competitors.
The problem is that we don't have a normal scenario, we have regional monopolies, and if you don't like your ISP, tough luck.
It's also nearly impossible to enter this market anymore, for example Google was attempting to deploy Google Fiber, but even they failed.
We need net neutrality now more than ever, because a single company essentially now will be able to control what content you can access. It would be a smaller issue if each region had its own separate company, but in reality the only companies that benefit on this you probably can count on your one hand.
Seems like breaking the local monopolies would solve all of these problems. Even with Title II it's still a huge problem and local ecosystems don't really benefit.
Although whenever city wanted to start providing internet access existing ISPs were fighting in courts to prevent that.
Another solution would be to do something similar to DSL that the cable companies are required to lease their fiber at reasonable price. The problem would be to determine what reasonable price is, and I'm sure the cable companies would fight against that.
But even then I still think net neutrality should be there. ISPs should just provide access to the Internet with parameters I agreed to paid for. They have no business to control what I can access (or even monitor my activity).
It's similar to electrical or water companies, they don't care what appliances you plug in, they won't charge you extra because you want to use 50" TV a dishwasher or add a water filter. All they care is how much electricity/water you consume, that's how it supposed to be.
 ok, with electricity there's thing called power factor (https://www.bchydro.com/accounts-billing/rates-energy-use/el...), which you should strive to be 1 (or 100% on the mentioned site) otherwise you might get charged extra if you're big consumer of electricity, but this is there to not waste energy
It's like nobody remembers the internet of the 90s and how blatantly over the top siloed it was for the average AOL style user. I mean I remember my paid dial up internet service came on a floppy and had it's own browser and pop-up ads.
The "free" services required that you click on header links every few minutes.
This is the neutral net that I recall and so wish I still had.
I never once dipped my toes into the AOL muck.
Instead you're just giving the bad apples your money. Oh how awful for them... and they will put data caps and raise prices, because as long as the laws gives them monopolies you can't do nothing about it.
So yes you are wrong.
Actions such as what? I'm talking specifically about regulations that prevent a company from throttling traffic in a discriminatory way.
Went to reddit.com...where's the Net Neutrality protest? Oh I just realized they made their logo a gif that looks like it loads slow...and they made a post...
Went to google.com...the doodle is unrelated and I saw nothing about net neutrality on the site...
Went to mozilla.org and I see absolutely nothing about it. I feel like I must be missing something here.
Hackernews...looks the same but slightly grayed. Oh the black bar is a link, didn't realize that. But no messages or anything obvious.
LinkedIn.com maybe? Nothing
Twitter? They have a hashtag that's trending...that's it.
Facebook? I see nothing. Not even a trending topic.
This is a very luke warm day of technology companies protesting net neutrality. I expected at least a tiny blurb on a homepage SOMEWHERE. So far Netflix and DuckDuckGo are the only large sites that I've notice actually put something on their homepage.
I remember Wikipedia doing a "black out" day, along with several other websites years back. If you visited the web page, all you saw was a black page and a quick explanation that the web could be censored if legislation were to pass.
I've visited several participants' sites to see nothing. GitHub didn't have a single thing, Wikipedia: nothing, and Google (or Alphabet) isn't even listed on the list of participants .
Worth noting that Wikipedia Zero  exists, and has been taking flak for not being the most NN-friendly initiative.
I would be curious if users even look at those on mobile since it requires more effort to see.
Sorry about your Internet today, but they're doing it for your Internet tomorrow.
Common Joe just doesn't get it or know what we're talking about.
He instantly gets "death panel" or "fake news." But net neutrality sounds like something fuzzy almost benign.
Add network neutrality legislation and it would be very easy to lobby against: "Turnbull wants you to pay more for Facebook and Twitter"
Most people don't have an understanding of what Quality of Service is.
At least it has a negative connotation to it, while "net neutrality" has not.
I'm guessing it is easier for people to oppose something, than to support something. Opposing something feels more urgent.
For example, Comcast will simply say "we support Open Internet" with the implication that "Open" in this context means "We can do whatever we want with our own lines.", i.e. complete corporate freedom. This deliberately promotes confusion, and then whoever has the most money wins.
In my opinion, the biggest problem is that this topic is relatively more technical than most people are used to understanding, which makes it very difficult to convey the various ramifications without over-simplifying.
Or perhaps they're all secretly looking forward to fast lanes they can buy...
I don't think the people pushing to dismantle net neutrality are stupid. They know that removing it is bad for innovation and consumers but they'd rather help the ISPs make more money than help keep America's economy healthy overall.
Probably because they directly receive benefits from the ISPs.
So since we are all being ignored, why will yelling louder make a difference?
I thought that this will be the one issue where hacker news crowd will be united.
Google has so much private peering around the world that they just don't really care, it will not affect them too much. People will change their ISP to have fast youtube access rather than stop to use youtube or google.
oh I tought it is way more than 40%. well the problem is the other providers are not (that) better options either.
Also, isn't it likely that the largest companies would benefit most if they were in a position to pay for priority over small upstart competitors?
Hacker News -> Noticed the black/grey bar, but assumed it was a variant of the "someone notable has died" black bar so didn't pay it much attention.
Reddit -> Didn't even see the altered logo until probably the tenth page I was on, and just though "Oh, the logo didn't load in all the way, weird" (by the time it gets to the "Bandwidth exceeded" message it's probably off the page, and even that's hardly a call to (user) action).
Google/Twitter/Facebook -> Didn't notice anything.
That's perhaps the intention. Raise awareness first, then come together to do something. It's gonna take lots of days of action over the years to gain momentum..
Seriously, I'm disgusted by what counts as "action" these days. This reeks of lip service, nothing more.
;TLDR I don't support Net Neutrality.
My position is that: We don't need big pipes (or millions of hours of television piped to us every month), we need the interfaces and hardware for connecting with each other.
promo ends -> cancel plan -> new roommate signs on.
It is similar to price controls, limiting the price a service can be offered at. Like price controls, it causes shortages by making the service too cheap for some users, increasing demand for them to use it even more, and making it too expensive for other users, who don't use it very much.
Let's say you're a company like Netflix, and you and/or your customers use 30% of an ISP's bandwidth. Why shouldn't you and/or your customers pay more for using more bandwidth? If Net Neutrality forces everyone to pay the same, then the costs of the extra bandwidth used by some customers will have to be paid by other customers, raising everyone's prices.
The idea of offering different levels of service at difference prices should be welcome, because it allows low-income people to afford the internet, and it ensures that enough resources are allocated for heavy-duty users. If Net Neutrality says that all internet services should be offered at the same bandwidth and same price, then it will raise the price for all customers, and it will make heavy users of the internet overuse it, making ISPs use throttling to avoid the inevitable overuse which occurs when prices are too low for some customers.
(Think of the 1970s gas shortages when Nixon instituted price controls -- the result was that customers had to be "throttled" by only being allowed to buy gas on certain days based on their license plate number. If this "throttling" wasn't done, there would be worst gas shortages and empty tanks because the heavy users would use up all of the gas because their demand for it is more than the price-controlled price indicates.)
As for blocking or throttling certain protocols/ports, this is wrong, but I think it's a symptom of other issues, such as security vulnerabilities, or overuse of a given level of service because it's priced too low.
I'm against it because it as an idea has failed in both its proposal and implementation. If people are going to whine and rally for a "fix", they should at least propose an action that will actually fix things instead of complaining. Proposing new legislation (which I'm not fully in favor of) or expanding rules would be doing something.