Net Neutrality --- For Once, Everyone Wins

That really sucks.

Not over quite yet -- it has to be approved by congress.Several states are already moving to replace federal requirements with state ones, and several states are suing the FCC.In addition, there are cities that have set up their own internet serviceChattanooga's super-fast, publicly-owned Internet Page not found | The Nation :

quote:

---

Even in places where private companies provide high-speed service, a public Internet option may prove increasingly vital to low-income residents. Internet inequality is a growing issue in the United States: Internet connections are often required for job applications, and seven in 10 teachers assign homework that requires broadband access, according to FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel; yet about one-third of low-income families don’t have high-speed access to the Internet in their homes. Part of the problem is geography: Private Internet companies have little incentive to lay cable to sparsely populated areas. But even bigger cities usually only have one or two options for private Internet access, and so companies like Comcast have little competition and therefore little incentive to make their services affordable for low-income families.

​

Most municipalities don’t have official mandates to make Internet access more equitable, but it seems that equity is nonetheless a central concern of many municipal providers. In Wilson, North Carolina (population: 50,000), the city began laying fiber-optic cables between government buildings in order to better share information, and decided it could expand the service to others. The city now offers free WiFi downtown and has teamed up with two nonprofit after-school programs to provide the Internet to low-income kids. The small city of Sandy, Oregon, doesn’t have discounted plans, but its municipal service nonetheless is cheaper than corporate providers100 megabits costs only $40 a month.

​

Just like we provide parks and trails and other amenities, we also feel likehaving great Internet is a reason to live here, Seth Atkinson, Sandy’s city manager, said.

​

Laying fiber-optic cable can be expensive, so it’s unlikely that big cities will jump on the municipal Internet bandwagon anytime soon, but leaders are nonetheless beginning to see equitable Internet access as a major issue. In San Francisco, the city teamed up with the nonprofit Internet Archive to provide free high-speed Internet access to thousands of public-housing residents. New York City too is beginning to offer free Internet access in public-housing projects.

---

Public non-profit co-op utilities -- another socialist solution to capitalist greed.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

If we want to call local public efforts to provide internet access socialist, a point that I don't concede, then what should we call state government laws that to prevent voters from providing public assess for their communities. Surely those kind of laws are something other than free market capitalism.Who voted for this shite again?

The New York Times has run an article describing how it thinks the repeal of net neutrality will affect the average Internet user: What’s Next After the Repeal of Net NeutralityBut though I posted it I don't think the article is worth reading because I think it is wrong. I can summarize it's basic message: basically, nothing will change in the near term, maybe in a year.Naturally the article is more detailed than that, but that's the basic message, and that is where they're right. Where they're wrong is that they sound no alarm about how drastic the changes will be later on.Because of promises ISP's have made and because of legal challenges, it will be roughly a year before the ISPs, citing things like costs and competitive pressures and a changing competitive environment and so forth, begin providing tiered services where the quality of your access to sites will depend upon how much you're willing to pay, plus there will be shenanigans and arguments. Remember how Dish refused to carry CBS for about a week last month? You can expect rubbish like that to begin on the Internet within about a year.--Percy

Well, I keep hitting the  Do Nothing Button  in the hopes that it will stall the Trump agenda, but it doesn't seem to have much effect.

What happens when you hit the Do Nothing Button, and what browser are you using?--Percy

Nothing on screen, but then Trump does something outrageous again. (you do realize I was making joke?) Firefox 57.0.2 (64 bit).

Well I liken them to sewers and watermains, electrical utilities and the like: services provided by local government through taxation and/or fees, with no profit built in. The people agree through their elected officials to have these services provided. Internet should be no different.We also have police and fire protection provided with no profit built in (though that was tried), and roads and sidewalks.They are certainly more socialistic/cooperative services provided through democratic processes than they are capitalistic. Not sure how to parse that. But laws that suppress democratic processes are totalitarian or fascist in my opinion. They certainly are not (democratic) socialism either. The corrupt politicians that are bought by the oligarchs?Enjoy

It's all adding up to an attempt to control information by the Trump Fascist Administration.See Trump thread... we should be very concerned...... because this is the way the world ends, not with a scream, but a whimper

The "Do Nothing Button" does have a bug and does malfunction (does something) for some browsers. Firefox is not effected by this bug.Moose

Interesting. I was just bemoaning that it isn't stopping Trumps march to Armageddon.But this also got me thinking about a new button:  Your Threads  that could replace the DNB ...... and that would take you to the list of threads you are active in (same as clicking on your name)Enjoy

I was thinking of those folks who voted in those politicians. Although democrats seem to be no less corruptible than republicans, we've always known how the republicans felt about net neutrality, and we've known for a long time that we were one vote away from the loss of net neutrality. The current outcome was entirely predictable, and folks should have taken it into account at the last election.Even more serious is the silent overhaul of the justice system. In addition to not allowing Obama to pick a Supreme Court justice, the republicans held open countless federal judge openings for Trump that should have been filled by Obama. Those positions are being filled with ideologues who in at least a few cases are not even legally competent.Damage is being to our country on a daily basis and the loss of net neutrality is just one example of that. We get another attempt to put brakes on this stuff in 2018. And there are plenty of new faces out there freshly energized by after this year's inauguration and subsequent protests.

And were gullible enough to believe the campaign slogans rather than look at actual actions. Sadly I doubt many people think of the consequences of voting or not voting in regard to things like FCC and especially the Supreme Court. Indeed, but there must be some means to remove someone who is incompetent, one would hope.Can justices be impeached?

Refresh your page, then try the Do Nothing Button again. Should work on Mozilla now. It was only supposed to be a joke originally, so I never checked it on anything but Chrome, but I kind of like it now.--Percy

I thought the issue was about restricting access based on what the owners of sites are willing to pay, rather than the end consumer. They can already restrict the quality of your access based on what you're willing to pay. Or so I assume - it's perfectly legal to offer a tiered service to consumers over here; where cheaper subscriptions are offered which have caps on speeds or on the amount of data that can be downloaded. Data limits seem to be going out of fashion except on mobile phones, but offering different maximum speeds for different costs is still standard market practice for ISPs here. Isn't that the case in the US?