It's only going to be here for today. The fact that it is incredibly obnoxious is the point. It should infuriate you to know that that is how the internet could be if title II is repealed.
Cloudflare is doing it, not SDN. It is meant to represent just how annoying the internet will be in a post-net neutrality world, however. There is literally no benefit whatsoever for consumers if net neutrality is done away with. I actually think the best way to demonstrate it next year would be for websites to band together and create three packages of websites, and force consumers to choose one while listing access to the others for a day. You can have the sports package, but kiss the productivity package and the gaming package goodbye. That's how it will be in a post-neutrality world.
You could also punch everyone in the face to raise awareness about assault victims, but it's debatable how effective a tactic it is to garner support
It's actually caused by govt municipalities signing exclusive agreements and enabling monopolies, but net neutrality is more about allowing govt to interfere in private bandwidth and content decisions
What good could possibly come of ending net neutrality? Cable companies will do as they have always done- package and commodify the internet as they currently do with television. That's the only way they know how to operate, and it's why they've wanted to end net neutrality for so long. I'd say my internet is pretty okay, what with the whole 60 bucks a month for unlimited everything I could ever want at really solid speeds.
corporations are WAAAAY better at giving us what we want than govt......and there are more than 1 corporation so if one sucks, you pick a different one or start your own. Govts aren't as easy to work around
There is ONE internet service provider in my area. Cox. If Cox decides that they want 200, 300, 400 bucks a month out of me, I have to pay if I want the internet. Net neutrality reduces their ability to extort money by forcing me to pay extra for services that I'm already getting. If I decide I don't want Cox, I get nothing. Government regulation created the monopolies that exist today (only one provider is allowed in each district in my state, because they didn't want redundant networks built on the federal and state government's dime- people forget that almost all telecom infrastructure was government funded) so we can't let them have those monopolies that were built with our tax dollars if we're not getting some preferential treatment of data out of the bargain. They can't have their monopoly that was built with our cash and also use said monopoly to extort people upstream and downstream that have no choice but to pay up because regulation gave them said monopoly in the first place.
The answer is less govt, not more
Which I believe his last sentence covered.
It gives power based off monopoly fears that then get applied everywhere. For instance, mobile phones have a lot of competition....why do we need net neutrality there?
What's sad is that ten to fifteen years ago, this was all pretty obvious to people. It's amazing how effective corporate propaganda can be. Deregulation only works when it is possible for a little guy to compete, and the cable industry is not such a market at the moment. If we come up with a new way to distribute the internet (say, ultra-fast wireless) that has a lower buy-in price, then I'm all for partial deregulation. But as things stand now, only 2% of the country has the option of more than one cable company, and there is no service that is anywhere close to the speed of cable save for fiber, which is available in all of a few dozen communities in the nation.
Because mobile costs far less to start up, and doesn't have the same regulatory barriers in place to prevent competition. It costs literally hundreds of billions to lay new cable or fiber to start a cable company from scratch, and results in significant disruption of traffic and other key infrastructure as lines are laid down, so many jurisdictions just said, "screw this, you lay down the lines and we'll promise you a monopoly." That's what led to the monopolies in my state, anyway, and the only thing protecting consumers is net neutrality, because those promises were a long term contract on the part of the government that were made by regulators in exchange for millions of dollars of campaign funds, and thus likely aren't going away any time soon.
I get the history, but what you are saying is......the govt messing with it created this, I sure do trust the govt to make better by fiddling with it more
I'm saying you can't get rid of net neutrality without getting rid of literally every other regulation at the same time. Just getting rid of it alone creates a monopoly with free reign due to the structure of existing regulations. It lets telecoms have their cake and eat it too, essentially, benefiting from regulation with no counterregulation to keep them in check.
But there are already more options than landlines and removing govt from the position of creating monopolies would allow more to enter the market there
Yeah, I would obviously prefer all the regulations to be scrapped. But scrapping the only one that protects consumers while leaving all the ones in place that protect the monopoly is a bad move. As to "other options," there are no current technologies that provide landline speed wirelessly, not even close. For many, if not most, internet users they are not a viable alternative to cable and they'd still be trapped in the 'ol cable deal.
Who is in favor of abolishing net neutrality, aside from ISPs and investors? Oh right, ****ing no one. Because the only people that stand to be enriched are the cable monopolies and the people that hold their stock. The ACLU just happens to be on the side of "literally everyone that isn't a service provider or investor in a service provider."
Wireless is enough for there to be competition. And "price gouging" is just a price you don't really want to pay, it means nothing
This is one of those things where he's right though. The reason we have ****ter cellular service than Africa is because of government meddling. The same is true here. Look at my state, where Tesla can't sell cars direct to consumer because the dealerships have made the laws disallow it. Deregulating the power companies was good or not for you? I mean, allowing other companies to use the lines works in cellular and power, why wouldn't it in cable/fiber? Oh right, because people want the government to keep it good for them.
LMAO oh really? Just like people dont want to pay 600 bucks for 2 epipens when they initially sold for 100? Just like people dont want to pay 150K for a hep c cure when its sold for 900 in India and Egypt?
Internet=/=epinephrine or Hep C treatments. I promise you can live without one of them. You pick.
Most of the largest sites on the internet had a protest pro-net neutrality yesterday. They're all gone now.
Literally not even close.
Got it. You're from the government and you're here to help. Is your electricity that much worse since deregulation? You conveniently skipped that part.
Define wealthy. If I stop working, my house will get taken away in a few months. Guess I can ask my other doctors in my family for assistance. Except there aren't any. In fact, I was the first generation to go to college. Sadly, my parents won the genetic lottery and only had their GEDs.
Did that have anything to do with the government? Was separate but equal a business decision, or a court one. Help me out here, I can't remember.
Show me any libertarian who says that. Privacy invasions were up way more over the previous presidency than any other one, or even the current one.
