We always rather arrogantly assumed the internet plumbing was free for all, but it's largely a US asset, so they can do what they want with it. And now they are.
Exactly what right do we have to complain?
Despite more than a million comments opposing it, tomorrow at around 12:00pm Eastern time, the three FCC commissioners will vote 2-1 to approve a so-called "notice of proposed rulemaking" and start on the rocky path to rescinding net neutrality rules. Just as it was three years ago, it is going to be a long and tortuous …
Internet is owned by the U.S.? What the hell was the point of Brexit, then?
Draft your own damn net neutrality rules you limey bastards. Uncle Sam can't tell you how to manage your infrastructure. They couldn't even convince the NHS to patch their XP boxen.
The repeal of net neutrality balances on the shoulders of a single moron lawyer for Verizon, a company which doesn't even have a consumer brand presence in the UK. Most of America already opposes Pai, and we're expecting to see riots if he doubles down on this decision.
Man the fuck up, and maybe this time things will turn out differently.
> "Internet is owned by the U.S.? What the hell was the point of Brexit, then?"
> Good point. However, the people who voted for Brexit weren't the ones who use the internet much.
Well, no, bad point. Firstly the Brexit vote didn't actually have much of an IT angle; it was just a bunch of people believing lies and fantasies. I dare say some of them also believed the fantasy that the Internet was invented by an Englishman, too. But secondly, that's a cheap shot, lots of OAPs use the Internet.
But on the point, let's focus on the good news: at least the FCC have now made it clear that fair treatment of Internet users in the US is a fair trade issue, which it always has been. Whether the FTC can fix it under a Republican congress is another question, but the real debate can actually start now.
Um... The 'Internet'* is not 'owned' by any one organization or country. That is sort of the whole point of the internet.
*As the name suggests, it is an INTERconnection of discrete NETworks, each independently owned but cooperating to work together for their common good. (Bunch of socialists!)
The US defence department developed many of the protocols that allow this to happen, on top of a lot of, I believe, British technology, with Australia contributing a good chunk of the technology allowing the wireless bits.
The US is, of course, entitled to do what they like with the pieces they do own, just as the rest of the world is entitled to rout their own pieces around the damage as best as they are able.
"We always rather arrogantly assumed the internet plumbing was free for all"
No, you self sanctimonious clown I didn't assume it was free, I pay a fee to access it and I'm glad I'm not in America.
Now you have to pay a double fee for the same service even though they were making money anyway and before anyone says that they will charge the service provider you can be sure they will pass that cost onto the user.
The right to complain is the fact your subscription cost up to now has been paying for that internet plumbing so no it was not free.
There are two factors at play here:
1. President Trump has decided that the US should no longer be an international charity, and should instead concentrate on fixing its own problems. Would that more countries did the same. Being pious and liberal hasn't worked too well for Germany, France and Sweden recently has it? Being proud of your country doesn't mean being racist.
2. The chattering liberal classes, who provide nothing but empty words and spite, are waking up to the fact that people have stopped listening to them a long time ago. And the one thing guaranteed to enrage a liberal is to ignore them.
Me? I've got my popcorn, I've got my sofa. This is going to be fun.
You mean a country without the enormous US debt, a strong manufacturing industry, good wages, a good welfare system, and a big export surplus, again, unlike US?
Or do you mean the terrorist attacks sparked by the badly planned and ineffective US actions in Middle East, not European ones?
And still Trump looked enthusiast of Erdogan, an Islamic authoritarian leader Europe is quite critical about.
France still preferred the liberal Macron to Le Pen.... probably after seeing Trump in action they understood the risks <G>.
Whatever FCC does impacts only US people. US ISP will be able to milk their customers to get more money, but that won't impact people outside US at all - unless of course we copy those silly decisions, but EU at least looks to be on the opposite side.
Internet plumbing is no longer "largely made" of US assets,
the only parts of the intarwebs owned by the USA are in the USA. And most of that is privately owned anyway, so "owned by the USA" is somewhat misleading. And gummint regulates it, just like anything else. Outside of the USA, it's covered by ICANN, Internic, W3C, and others.
and those organizations are slowly becoming independent.
So every time I heard a politician or corporate bastard lying I could set their pants on fire.
"Nope, that was obvious bullshit. *FWOOMPH* Liar Liar Pants On Fire. Better luck next time."
Mister Ashit Pie & the carrot headed Hitler wanna-be would both have been hospitalized with 3rd degree burns by now. And every corporate "We value our customer's-" style weasel word bullshit spewing bastards would find themselves immolated by their own attire.
*Wanders off muttering like Milton from Office Space*
"So every time I heard a politician or corporate bastard lying I could set their pants on fire."
extend that to 'fake news' organizations like CBS, ABS, NBS, CNNBS, MSNBS, etc. and I'm with ya.
(yes the network names ending in 'BS' are, of course, a joke, and require no spelling corrections)
these changes will either sound like a terrific application of free market policies, or an open invitation to large US corporations to rip off their tens of millions of users.
Well, we know who will take advantage of these policies don't we? I doubt anyone will see "free market" at work with pricing, etc. that benefits consumers since there really isn't any competition among internet providers in most of the US. I'm getting some popcorn for this... I'll get enough to share.
Och, aye laddies; bend o'er and kiss the foot* tha' promises ye dreams an' riches. Idjit Pie an' his owners do intend to gie ye wha' his owners desire. And then some. Remain in the position of receivership and ye'll get what ye deserve.
*said body part may be changed as necessary.
Take them to court!
In the same way that some US corporates have use investor state resolution to sue other governments for restricting their trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement, perhaps a plucky non-US internet upstart might sue the US for similarly disadvantaging any traffic that they might wish to send to customers in the US.
IIRC there was to be an expansion of this principle in various trade treaties being negotiated although I think they've run into some trouble recently.
as I understand, the e-mail and comment "flood" campaign was determined to be (yet another) astro-turfing attempt, probably by paid activists. again. just like the paid anti-Trump demonstrators. It represents a small fraction of the people. Pai knows this. That's why he's ignoring it.
Dear George Soros (the most likely financier of these kinds of things): you are being a pain in our butts. you do NOT represent the majority. You only represent your own self-interests. You are a former Nazi collaborator. You broke the bank of England (and others) doing currency manipulation. In short, you're evil. Just go away.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019