63

this.rant == "long";
This is something I feel strongly about, I hope you do too...

I fucking hate it when I hear that people don't care about net neutrality (and I've heard people say it). There is little in this world untouched by shitty corporations encroaching on the little good that is left in this world.

Yes the internet is full of edgy teenagers, incompetent Seniors (both old people and Devs) and god knows what else. But you know what? I pay my money to copy and paste code from SO (we ALL do let's not lie to ourselves) and I'm not paying a special fee to look at this content or that or send this type of text to that kind of person.

Now then to the point... On 14th December 2017 the FCC will vote on whether or not to allow companies like Verizon and - dare I say it - Comcast to charge more to access certain sites or block you access altogether and otherwise control what you say and do.

I for one, say FUCK OFF and I hope you do to. If you can, call or otherwise contact your Congressperson - you can do that here: https://house.gov/representatives/... . If you're not from the US, you can still help! https://www.battleforthenet.com has lots of information on what you can do to help.

I hope you'll all join me in shouting as loud as we can and preventing this moronic idea from going through.

Peace.

this.rant.end();

Comments
  • 10
    Actually im a little upset at the tactics of using a holiday to hide this vote.
  • 0
    @skprog Damn right! This is an old article but it shows who received what from Telco's http:///www.theverge.com/platform/... . It's terrifying how little some people were brought for.
  • 1
    Isn't it just the FCC board voting for this rule? If that is the case, it will carry regardless of what we do. Since they're appointed by the czar and chief, I don't foresee any resistance. But, with all that pessimism said, I applaud your efforts.
  • 0
    I don't think it will change much. Internet providers in my country don't have the restriction. They don't charge you per click but instead give free access to sites like itunes, steam or netflix.
  • 2
    @spacem There actually have been problems with this, that's why they made the rule. If you look up the speed tests from Netflix when Comcast was having a dispute with them, they cut their speed down dramatically. There's a lot of back story to it though that I won't bore you with. It's worth a Google.
  • 0
    Na fuck net neutrality, but also fuck the towns that fuck over new isp's
  • 0
    @Condor They're not talking about not counting data in a cap the gist of it is they can't block or slow traffic to some sites instead of others. As you're paying for a connection, they shouldn't be able to do this. Especially when data is so expensive in the US. It's around 60-100 USD / month for internet service and you don't have choice in which provider you get because the providers don't compete with each other. So oftentimes you'll only have one provider in your town or neighborhood. That's why they made the rule. Some places it doesn't matter but here it does.
  • 0
    @Condor Cool. Well you have the background of why is matters here, now. Here we have like 5 or 6 companies that cover a third of a billion people, it's just regional monopolies. They coordinate so they don't have to compete with each other. We have fast speeds here too for the most part. I have 300 Mbps over coax but my bill is 140 USD / month only for internet. If they screw with anything at all, though, what so ever, I will go to a WISP which is a slower connection provided by a smaller company over wireless.

    The funny thing is that everyone you ask viscerally hates their internet provider here because they randomly up their prices substantially and lobby Congress for ways to hurt their customers. When fixed wireless internet is an option, they will all go out of business because no one likes these companies at all. I hate giving them money and so does every person you'll ever meet.
  • 0
    @Condor There is a ton of back story to it. The cable companies have exclusive use of utility polls so if any new company tries to compete, they sue that company with baseless lawsuits until they go out of business. So there's no other option really. Cities can't provide internet in general because any time they do, the cable companies sue them. It's a whole messed up system and I really hope anyone involved making it this way gets ass cancer.

    As for the VPN , it's a good idea, in theory until the cable company slows traffic to vpn servers. It is their switches, so they can put whatever rules on it they want.

    Ideally, 5g lte should be fast enough for home use. When that comes out and if it had high data caps, it'd be worth exploring that. Then the cable companies would just be irrelevant and everyone could get any company they want for an ISP.
  • 0
    NO-ONE ELSE ++! This rant has the perfect number of ++'s
Add Comment