fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3979 ]

[ SECRET POST #3979 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3979 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 51 secrets from Secret Submission Post #570.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Can someone explain Net Neutrality? What's going on? What will happen if it goes away? Can we ever get it back if it does go away? What makes this time different from all the other times the FCC floated the idea?

And why does the FCC - I know they're behind this - want to get rid of it if practically the entire userbase of the Internet thinks it's a horrible idea and says so every time these idiots raise the issue?

(Ignore my thread at the bottom, I posted it there by mistake)

https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

SUPER SHORT ANSWERS.

NN keeps internet providers from charging you more money to get features (like pay $10 more to access social media sites, $10 more to access video streaming sites).

The FCC is trying to get rid of protections that were put in place by Obama. We could probably get it back when Democrats are back in charge.

Why does the FCC want to get rid of it? Ajit Pai (head of the FCC) sucks the cocks of internet providers and getting rid of NN will give them more money. So, he wants to get rid of it so he can continue to suck the cocks of Verizon/ATT/Comcast so he can get bukkaked with the money that will shoot out when he brings them to completion.

Net neutrality preserves a system where if you pay your ISP, you go online and look at any site you want, and your ISP doesn’t censor the content you look at, and the price for access is a flat fee. Without net neutrality, your ISP could charge you the same price you pay now to access only sites and domains they own, or block you from being able to view sites that are critical of their products, or charge you extra to visit sites owned by their competitors, or just censor content they don’t like, and they wouldn’t even have to tell you they were censoring or blocking stuff; blocked sites might just never load.

Big companies could probably just bargain so their customers could access competitor’s websites and pass the cost onto their customers. Small companies or independently run websites would be stuck in molasses-slow, no one wants to pay for access hell, and eventually die.

The current chairman of the FCC is being paid big bucks to make net neutrality go poof so companies like Time Warner and Comcast and AT&T (and Verizon, who Pai used to be a lawyer for) can make more money and censor what their customers see. On December 14, Chairman Alit Pai and the other four members of some FCC commission will vote to keep or ditch net neutrality. Pai and two other men are anti-net neutrality Republicans, the two women on the committee are Democrats who’ve pledged to vote against repeal. But that’s three against two.

And why does the FCC - I know they're behind this - want to get rid of it if practically the entire userbase of the Internet thinks it's a horrible idea and says so every time these idiots raise the issue?

$

This is incredibly naive, but why are these companies so willing to take the risk of seriously pissing off the people who use their products/services? How can they still make money while alienating consumers?

Because they know the people who use their services don't have a choice. The VAST majority of people in the US only have 1-2 internet providers to choose from (including me). And most of those are the 3-4 huge companies that provide it.

Yeah this. I have a choice between AT&T and Comcast. And most consumers don't read the fine print.

People aren't going to stop buying Internet access, though. And I think they're willing to accept customer anger in return for enormously fat stacks of cash. I mean that's kind of how the whole thing works, isn't it? They screw us as hard as they can, same as always.

People don't really have a realistic choice to nut use the internet anymore, though. It'd be almost as hard as giving up running water or electricity. And most people only have two choices of ISP at most, a lot of people don't have a choice, if there's only one ISP in their area. And over 20 states have laws on the books to make it hard or illegal for local municipalities to set up government run utility-type ISPs. The big telecomm companies want to fuck us over, and they've bought 3 of the 5 seats on the FCC Commission to make sure they vote to let them screw us.

What can we realistically do to fight this?

Vote better.

Write and or call the members of the committee and ask them to vote to keep net neutrality because it's important for small businesses/schooling/whatever you use it for? Write and or call your own congresscritters?

The current members of the FCC commission are Ajit Pai, Mignon Clyburn, Brendan Carr, Michael O'Rielly, and Jessica Rosenworcel. Clyburn and Rosenworcel are Democrats who've said they'll be voting to keep net neutrality. Pai, Carr, and O'Rielly are Republicans, and I don't know how much good bugging Pai would do since he's been jerking off at the idea of repealing net neutrality for awhile now. Maybe concentrate on O'Rielly and Carr?

... Or hope Trump gets impeached and a bunch of his administration goes with him and whoever his successor is doesn't think torpedoing the internet is a great idea.

Apparently Ajit Pai has said that they're disregarding online comments because so many emails/faxes etc were form letters, which is hilarious, horrifying, and disgusting because a) a lot of legit objectors used apps that sent form letters, but there was a big scandal where some person or persons unknown (like, say, a corporation cough cough) made tons of comments in favor of repealing net neutrality using stolen identities, but Pai was totally against investigating who might've been behind it (hmm I wonder...) because it wasn't important.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak

Are there any ISPs with a good track record? I’m specifically interested in Charter Spectrum.

I don't entirely know all of the issues involved - but I have mixed feelings about it. Yes, I believe that net neutrality is a good thing. I don't think that corporations should be greedily taking extra money from people, and keeping people from accessing stuff they'd normally be accessing. Especially in re: piracy. I'm quite pro piracy.

But also, I wonder if the world might be better off if we were literally forced to spend less time online? It's not as if the way we're currently doing things - with constantly feeling obliged to be on social media and whatnot - is heading anywhere good, either.

Getting to known piracy hubs will be next to impossible since ISPs will be able to slow your connection down to nothing, censor what you’re allowed to see, and just straight up make accessing some content impossible.

Will it affect the entire world's internet though, or just America's? I keep seeing things about "call your reps" and it's all US based.

New Anon:

I don't know what the global effect would be or to what extent it could be a negative effect. I could imagine if a website primarily has an American audience, it might die or change into something less desirable if it looses the biggest part of its audience/customer base (not sure how likely that would be for pirate sites, but I could imagine it happening for smaller US-based merchants or gaming sites or something).

Do you really think people will spend less time on social media? They'll probably be forced to because they'll pay the extra $10 a month for it, they might as well get their money's worth. Meanwhile, how much time does the average joe really spend on factcheck and snopes?

Ugh. I was hoping there would be a bright side. Society moving to a better place and all.

I hope this net neutrality thing doesn't mess with cryptocurrency. That thing is like regulate bandwidth and stuff.

I hope there is no idiot messing with it.

If AT&T starts charging me more for internet, I'm dropping cable, which is by far the majority of my monthly internet/cable bill, so they would have to charge a LOT more to get more money out of me than they already get. I don't even use streaming services, so I would just go back to getting DVDs from the library.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3979 ]

Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Here, watch John Oliver explains it

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality

Re: Net Neutrality