Is there anywhere a curated list of ISPs who have actively spoken in favour of net neutrality (AAISP in the UK is the only one that springs quickly to mind, but I assume they aren't the only ones) and those who are apparently working against it? Perhaps with the IP ranges those ISPs are assigned? That way those of us who don't rely on any income from our sites could give those using the good guys speedier access (I wouldn't block or directly slow down the others: some of them are getting screwed enough by an ISP they can't leave without me kicking them too, but giving "good guy" ISPs priority where possible feels OK especially in the UK where there is at least a smidgen of genuine competition in many areas).
The difference being that I'd not be holding anyone to ransom for money, which is what those calling for an end to what neutrality still exists essentially want, I'm instead suggesting that we give the people who aren't doing that a "thankyou for not being a dick".
If I saw this more than once (i.e, if it was on multiple websites) I would get quite angry at the webmasters, not at the FCC/Comcast/whoever you want me to be angry about.
Un-dismissable twenty second delays to people reading your website will only serve to upset your audience, and in my opinion, shows a lack of respect for your readers time.
I would be more angry if the government allows monopolies to throttle our Internet speeds and discriminate content delivery towards major players who can afford to pay extortion money.. To me it's worth a few annoyances over the next few days if it helps raise popular awareness of this important issue.
… and yet in practice many people live in an area where they have only one option either at all or for greater than DSL (or even ISDN) speed. I'm not talking about rural areas, either, but places like New Haven, CT or Washington, DC.
Theoretically a new company could try to compete but the major companies tend to choose not to start price wars and it's a very expensive proposition to run competing cable out to houses, particularly since the incumbent will usually lower prices to make it more expensive for the new entrant. Around here, in the areas which have competition both Verizon and Comcast will cut and remove the other company's cables when they do a new install to maximize the cost and inconvenience of switching providers.
> Theoretically a new company could try to compete but the major companies tend to choose not to start price wars and it's a very expensive proposition to run competing cable out to houses, particularly since the incumbent will usually lower prices to make it more expensive for the new entrant. Around here, in the areas which have competition both Verizon and Comcast will cut and remove the other company's cables when they do a new install to maximize the cost and inconvenience of switching providers.
I have no idea where you heard this fairy tale. Comcast and Verizon sub out almost all their installs and line work to local contractors -- and most of these contractors have contracts with multiple telcos and cable companies. If the contractors are maliciously cutting wires, it's to get more work for themselves.
Note, however, that there also do appear to be a significant number of anecdotal cases of 'vandalism' that are exactly as described (competitors getting their lines cut), especially in the case of multi-unit dwellings with different subs.
The worst experience I had with cutting wires was a condo separated into 4 units, all at 1 junction box, and when someone new would move in, it would be 50/50 on the phone company -- the same phone company servicing everyone -- botching the new person's installation by cutting off someone else's.
I have both DSL and cable modem at my house. There was no cutting of the first when the second was installed. The installer has no way to tell if that phone line is running DSL or if I'm still getting cable TV over that coax. That would not be tolerated for a second.
4 friends and coworkers who had it happen, mentioned separately and on several occasions this happened in a group setting and was immediately confirmed by other people who had the same experience.
You'll forgive me for finding them more convincing than your argument from incredulity. It's entirely possible that this a grassroots thing but the people affected spanned ~100 miles and multiple states.
I don't doubt that it happens; just not for the reasons you ascribe to it. It's probably just the fact that the wiring boxes are usually a complete mess and totally inconsistent from job to job. The contractors get paid by the job, so their attitude tends to be "fuck it, rip it all out and make it work so I can get to the next job".
Perhaps but they're doing it in a Comcast/Verizon truck, wearing their uniform, talking about that as their company with no mention of being a contractor, and in at least two of those cases they specifically went to extra work to remove the cable even though it didn't come in the same box / conduit as the new fiber. That was actually why I first heard about it: a coworker mentioned his surprise that the FIOS installer spent the extra time removing Comcast's cabling all the way out to the street after finishing their install.
the problem with this one is that the message is unclear. when I first read it 'we' sounded like the webmaster rather than Comcast. I got the point because I have context. they need clearer messaging. also on mobile chrome it is impossible to click the 'x'
I agree, I also do not think that automatically subscribing those who agree to future mailings ("Free Press will contact you about future campaigns.") is a good way to garner good will from the audience this banner would target.
We haven't had government mandated net "neutrality" for the past 20 years and I've yet to see anything like that pop up. Lets keep the government out of it and let the two sides duke it out. Seems like it would be a poor decision for the ISP to make, because they'd be purposefully pissing off their customers.
I've been seeing a lot of back and forth about this issue and it seems to me the one thing we should be concerned about is not so much the user experience, but the experience of those with new ideas, which rely on access to an open internet. Today we have these massive companies making enough money to buy the access they need/want to run their businesses, but small shops don't have that capital, and from what I have read/seen, this law does not help to level the playing field. Furthermore, as commentators have stated, as users, we already get changed more by the internet ISPs, for faster speeds, so exactly what else do they want, other than the users' $$? We are still discussing what this law does in a tech blog, so what makes anyone think the FCC actually knows that it is doing, long term?
Again, are we certain about the FCC's intentions? I dont know the gory details of this issue, and I dont want a slow lane, but I'm only seeing vague accusations and little evidence. OTOH, the FCC said clearly and explicitly, and directly to the face of big-ISP that slow lanes are not being proposed and will not under any circumstance be allowed. In the chairman's latest speech, to the NCTA, he said "Put away the party hats"... and "Let me be clear. If someone acts to divide the Internet between “haves” and “have-nots,” we will use every power at our disposal to stop it. I consider that to include Title II."
>I'm only seeing vague accusations and little evidence. OTOH, the FCC said clearly and explicitly, and directly to the face of big-ISP that slow lanes are not being proposed and will not under any circumstance be allowed.
It's rhetorical. Slow lanes aren't being proposed, fast lanes are being proposed. It's exactly the same thing, but there's no proposal on the table that explicitly allows ISPs to have the power to leave people who fail to broker a deal with them in a special, non-prioritized "slow lane."
>"Let me be clear. If someone acts to divide the Internet between 'haves' and 'have-nots,'[...]"
Stated more clearly, fast lanes and slow lanes are the same thing. If they both use the same scarce bandwidth resource, then whoever didn't pay for the fast lane by definition ends up in the slower lane. Prioritizing fast lane traffic is the same thing as deprioritizing slow lane traffic, it's a zero sum game if bandwidth is saturated.
I'm not sure if this is implied by the phrase "common carrier" - but does the presence of a "last lane" imply that the carrier is no longer able to claim "common carrier" status and is therefore liable for the content delivered over their infrastructure? Currently, US ISPs can claim they don't filter based on, eg, obscenity or content that may be illegal in some jurisdiction. If they give up net neutrality, can they be found liable for content?
One more point...
When Tom says "we will use every power at our disposal to stop it" he may be speaking technically the truth. But where is the assurance the FCC is planning on retaining the power to do so? Never mind the will. The risk is simply too large.
ISP already provide variable speed plans to consumers. You already have to pay more to get a faster connection, at least with Comcast. Very disingenuous and incorrect. I doubt anyone will see dial up speeds. They're not threatening to inject popups into web sites.
So take the ridiculous dramaticized slow speeds away and the silly modal you're still left with an incorrect premise. The threat is not that consumers will have to pay for faster internet, it's that that website companies will have to pay the consumer's ISP. The consumer will have no recourse to improve speeds for slow loading new video startups that don't have deals with their ISP for example.
Why wouldn't my peer-to-peer traffic be throttled down to dialup speeds? Or traffic from any site with less than a million dollars to spend, assuming that all of the top 100 sites sign up, and Wikipedia gets a discount or a pass?
A loooot of people are not going to understand what this means and just be annoyed and leave. I am for the general principle but this seems to miss the mark for non-savvy users.
Ironically, I would have contacted my representative/senator already if the "Contact Congress" button took me to a chart/table/list of senators by district - or other way for me to do the contacting myself. I don't need any correspondence from FreePress.
"Your website is important to us" is addressing the site owner, which is the point in some respects, but doesn't gel with the experience of opening the site and seeing this dialog.
Should be more like "We value your experience on this website".
This site is unusable on a mobile device. An overlay appears which is much wider than the screen, and the close button is (presumably) offscreen, but since scrolling is inhibited too, I can't get to it.
