Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   RIP net neutrality: 1969-2014   (motherjones.com) divider line 130
    More: Sad, net neutrality  
•       •       •

7067 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Apr 2014 at 5:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-23 11:53:20 PM  
Separate but equal data.  Seems legit.
 
2014-04-23 11:58:43 PM  
A low-cost, minimal-service Internet service provided by the government would be a nice way to provide Internet to poorer communities as well as provide a venue for the government to enact, in some small way, the policies it would prefer to see in the market without explicitly forcing the private sector to follow those policies under penalty of law.

It would also give the Feds the ability to snoop all they want on packets, so there's another benefit from the government's point of view.
 
2014-04-24 12:02:30 AM  
i27.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-24 12:03:18 AM  
The problem with the net neutrality debate is really exemplified by the fact that this article used the phrase "faster pipes".  That's one step away from Ted Stevens's "series of tubes" rant.

Hiring a CDN or setting up your own is business as usual on the Internet.  It reduces the effective distance between your content and your customers, but yes it costs money.  And some of that money goes to the ISPs you're collaborating with.  Deal with it.
 
2014-04-24 12:09:39 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: A low-cost, minimal-service Internet service provided by the government would be a nice way to provide Internet to poorer communities as well as provide a venue for the government to enact, in some small way, the policies it would prefer to see in the market without explicitly forcing the private sector to follow those policies under penalty of law.

It would also give the Feds the ability to snoop all they want on packets, so there's another benefit from the government's point of view.


I mentioned this in a previous thread that went red, but a great idea would be to just get rid of broadcast television all-together (with the requirement that the networks provide free streams of the same content via the Internet for those without cable) and have the government take a big chunk of that reclaimed spectrum to set up a nationwide LTE broadband network.

Offer the service for a reasonable rate, with it being free for those under a certain income level, with no data caps or other traffic shaping.  It would help solve the rural broadband issue, the digital divide, and provide some great infrastructure work to set up all of the towers.
 
2014-04-24 12:23:20 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: AverageAmericanGuy: A low-cost, minimal-service Internet service provided by the government would be a nice way to provide Internet to poorer communities as well as provide a venue for the government to enact, in some small way, the policies it would prefer to see in the market without explicitly forcing the private sector to follow those policies under penalty of law.

It would also give the Feds the ability to snoop all they want on packets, so there's another benefit from the government's point of view.

I mentioned this in a previous thread that went red, but a great idea would be to just get rid of broadcast television all-together (with the requirement that the networks provide free streams of the same content via the Internet for those without cable) and have the government take a big chunk of that reclaimed spectrum to set up a nationwide LTE broadband network.

Offer the service for a reasonable rate, with it being free for those under a certain income level, with no data caps or other traffic shaping.  It would help solve the rural broadband issue, the digital divide, and provide some great infrastructure work to set up all of the towers.


How are you defining "the networks" in this scenario?  ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox for sure.  What about The CW?  PBS?  Univision?  France 24?  The Minnesota Channel?
Seems like it might be an undue burden on some of those smaller guys.

Maybe we could set up some sort of network that's accessible to all, where content providers are able to pay a "commercially reasonable" fee to publish their data.
 
2014-04-24 12:31:52 AM  
would allow broadband providers to give some traffic preferential treatment, so long as such arrangements are available on "commercially reasonable"

Because the cable companies have such a great track record of being commercially reasonable.
 
2014-04-24 12:32:12 AM  
I seem to recall a certain presidential candidate in 2007 promising to enforce net neutrality and oppose lobbyists attempting to do exactly this sort of thing. So strange that the exact opposite occurred, beginning with the appointment of a former cable industry lobbyist as head of the FCC and ending with the gutting of net neutrality itself...

http://www.cnet.com/news/obama-pledges-net-neutrality-laws-if-electe d- president/
 
2014-04-24 12:38:08 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: A low-cost, minimal-service Internet service provided by the government would be a nice way to provide Internet to poorer communities as well as provide a venue for the government to enact, in some small way, the policies it would prefer to see in the market without explicitly forcing the private sector to follow those policies under penalty of law.

It would also give the Feds the ability to snoop all they want on packets, so there's another benefit from the government's point of view.


Socialist.
 
2014-04-24 12:39:24 AM  

serial_crusher: The problem with the net neutrality debate is really exemplified by the fact that this article used the phrase "faster pipes".  That's one step away from Ted Stevens's "series of tubes" rant.


It is faster pipes, and that's common terminology.

And it's probably where Stevens got the "series of tubes" idea.
 
2014-04-24 12:41:08 AM  

opaqueluminosity: I seem to recall a certain presidential candidate in 2007 promising to enforce net neutrality and oppose lobbyists attempting to do exactly this sort of thing. So strange that the exact opposite occurred, beginning with the appointment of a former cable industry lobbyist as head of the FCC and ending with the gutting of net neutrality itself...

http://www.cnet.com/news/obama-pledges-net-neutrality-laws-if-electe d- president/


I seem to remember the Supreme Court doing this.
 
2014-04-24 12:44:34 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-24 01:06:38 AM  

impaler: opaqueluminosity: I seem to recall a certain presidential candidate in 2007 promising to enforce net neutrality and oppose lobbyists attempting to do exactly this sort of thing. So strange that the exact opposite occurred, beginning with the appointment of a former cable industry lobbyist as head of the FCC and ending with the gutting of net neutrality itself...

http://www.cnet.com/news/obama-pledges-net-neutrality-laws-if-electe d- president/

I seem to remember the Supreme Court doing this.


No. The "Open Internet" rule was struck down due to, essentially, a technicality that could have easily been fixed by the FCC itself.

From the opinion in question:

"Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the commission from nonetheless regulating them as such."

All the FCC needed to do was reclassify ISPs and reinstate the rule. Problem is, that's not what they want to do. Wheeler is "against regulating broadband Internet in the same manner [as] the landline phone system", for reasons that should be quite obvious.


But don't take my word for it, here's the Google cache a very good WSJ article:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fvLb8WztTuUJ:on li ne.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462+& cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 
2014-04-24 01:46:00 AM  
Strangely, I'm okay with this idea. If everyone will be allowed a basic level. They won't be able to slow someone down.

However, if they want to pay more for faster abilities, then that will encourage companies to upgrade their services.
 
2014-04-24 02:21:42 AM  
I like the way so, so many of the MSM articles about this were headlined, "FCC proposes changes to Net Neutrality."

If it's no longer "neutral," the term "net neutrality" no longer applies.
 
2014-04-24 02:42:00 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Strangely, I'm okay with this idea. If everyone will be allowed a basic level. They won't be able to slow someone down.


Counterpoint - most ISPs already have bandwidth caps (IIRC, Comcast is at 200-250 GB/month). If you're paying for a certain amount of data, why should it be okay to charge people based on how they use it?
 
2014-04-24 02:55:31 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Strangely, I'm okay with this idea. If everyone will be allowed a basic level. They won't be able to slow someone down.

However, if they want to pay more for faster abilities, then that will encourage companies to upgrade their services.


Bandwidth is finite. To make someone faster, someone has to go slower.
 
2014-04-24 03:35:03 AM  

Gig103: Counterpoint - most ISPs already have bandwidth caps (IIRC, Comcast is at 200-250 GB/month). If you're paying for a certain amount of data, why should it be okay to charge people based on how they use it?

They aren't charging the customers, they are charging the web sites.

impaler:

Bandwidth is finite. To make someone faster, someone has to go slower.


Is it possible with the money, they could increase the bandwith? Actually improve the infrastructure of the Network? As long as each site has a minimum level.
 
2014-04-24 03:36:38 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Is it possible with the money, they could increase the bandwith? Actually improve the infrastructure of the Network?


BWAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2014-04-24 03:42:05 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Gig103: Counterpoint - most ISPs already have bandwidth caps (IIRC, Comcast is at 200-250 GB/month). If you're paying for a certain amount of data, why should it be okay to charge people based on how they use it? They aren't charging the customers, they are charging the web sites.

impaler:

Bandwidth is finite. To make someone faster, someone has to go slower.

Is it possible with the money, they could increase the bandwith? Actually improve the infrastructure of the Network? As long as each site has a minimum level.



Why would they do that? If you are going to offer a premium product, and you don't really have to worry about competition being often the only game in a given town in an industry with prohibitive costs of entry you would be pretty stupid to increase the quality of your cheaper product and risk cannibalizing sales of the product with a higher profit margin.
 
2014-04-24 05:19:21 AM  
shiatballs!
 
2014-04-24 05:31:54 AM  
Good thing other countries are working on internets of their own. Hopefully one of them gives a shiat about freedom.
 
2014-04-24 05:37:40 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Good thing other countries are working on internets of their own. Hopefully one of them gives a shiat about freedom.


Because you can't have freedom without a thousand pages of regulations dictating what you can or cannot do.
 
2014-04-24 05:42:42 AM  
I look forward to telling future younglings stories of the 90's-00's internet and watch them gasping in horror at how uncilvilized and uncontrolled by their masters it was. Truly, the glory days are nearly over.


/"T..t...trolls?!?"
 
2014-04-24 05:48:16 AM  

DrPainMD: J. Frank Parnell: Good thing other countries are working on internets of their own. Hopefully one of them gives a shiat about freedom.

Because you can't have freedom without a thousand pages of regulations dictating what you can or cannot do.


We hate government regulation! We want the ultra rich to make our decisions for us instead!
 
2014-04-24 05:48:18 AM  
What the FCC should be telling ISPs "You have three months to begin making fiber, of at least 250 Mbps, actual speed, available to all your customers. If you don't, kiss your licenses good bye. Permanently". Given AT&T would likely cry the hardest just go "Those were some nice cellular spectrum licenses you had. Were.".
 
2014-04-24 05:49:06 AM  

opaqueluminosity: I seem to recall a certain presidential candidate in 2007 promising to enforce net neutrality and oppose lobbyists attempting to do exactly this sort of thing. So strange that the exact opposite occurred, beginning with the appointment of a former cable industry lobbyist as head of the FCC and ending with the gutting of net neutrality itself...

http://www.cnet.com/news/obama-pledges-net-neutrality-laws-if-electe d- president/


Or you can watch this video where Senator Obama explains that we should elect him as president because the opposes exactly what the FCC chairman he appointed is proposing here.

He also explicitly promises to only appoint FCC members who will aggressively oppose the action his guy is now taking.
 
2014-04-24 05:50:36 AM  

DrPainMD: Because you can't have freedom without a thousand pages of regulations dictating what you can or cannot do.


Here's a very easy idea, provide the best network you can without being a dick. Not one ISP in America manages this. It is totally unforgivable that anyone in any area of more than 50,000 people can't pick up the phone and get a fiber connection in this day and age. The fact that isn't possible should have the FCC revoking licenses like crazy. The ISPs are utterly failing the American public. And if they choose to do that, they can just forget being ISPs.
 
2014-04-24 05:58:13 AM  

WhyteRaven74: What the FCC should be telling ISPs "You have three months to begin making fiber, of at least 250 Mbps, actual speed, available to all your customers. If you don't, kiss your licenses good bye. Permanently". Given AT&T would likely cry the hardest just go "Those were some nice cellular spectrum licenses you had. Were.".


In the very recent past, AT&T's pricing was highly regulated. They had to appear before public bodies and show cause before they were allowed to change their rates.

In the 90's, they telecom providers promised that if they were freed of price controls they would use the money to lay fiber to everyone's homes.

The price controls were removed, and extra money was thrown at them in the form of 'Universal Service Fees' and tax breaks.

Oddly, they seem to have failed to keep up their end of the bargain. I haven't noticed fiber to everyone's home. However they've done a bang up job of keeping the money.

Have you noticed fiber to everyone's homes?
 
2014-04-24 06:01:39 AM  

WhyteRaven74: DrPainMD: Because you can't have freedom without a thousand pages of regulations dictating what you can or cannot do.

Here's a very easy idea, provide the best network you can without being a dick. Not one ISP in America manages this. It is totally unforgivable that anyone in any area of more than 50,000 people can't pick up the phone and get a fiber connection in this day and age. The fact that isn't possible should have the FCC revoking licenses like crazy. The ISPs are utterly failing the American public. And if they choose to do that, they can just forget being ISPs.


The ISPs aren't failing the American public, the FCC is. Which means America's precious FedGov is.

/torrenting a couple terabytes a day at the wife's hospital..google fibre, fools
 
2014-04-24 06:06:03 AM  
 
2014-04-24 06:14:20 AM  

DrPainMD: J. Frank Parnell: Good thing other countries are working on internets of their own. Hopefully one of them gives a shiat about freedom.

Because you can't have freedom without a thousand pages of regulations dictating what you can or cannot do.


Because tribal savages living in jungles enjoy so many "freedoms"?
Actually, in order for anybody to enjoy the freedoms we have, you DO need a highly evolved, complex civilization - one that will actually require complex rules and regulations to operate.
 
2014-04-24 06:17:13 AM  

WhyteRaven74: DrPainMD: Because you can't have freedom without a thousand pages of regulations dictating what you can or cannot do.

Here's a very easy idea, provide the best network you can without being a dick. Not one ISP in America manages this. It is totally unforgivable that anyone in any area of more than 50,000 people can't pick up the phone and get a fiber connection in this day and age. The fact that isn't possible should have the FCC revoking licenses like crazy. The ISPs are utterly failing the American public. And if they choose to do that, they can just forget being ISPs.


I've not only lived all over the country, but I've also been "online" since the days of the Wildcat BBS. If I have a complaint with my provider, I switch providers, and I've only had to do that once. Stop whining about how badly you're being treated by the big, bad companies THAT YOU CONTINUE TO DO BUSINESS WITH. If you can't get good service, then have your internet shut off... the human race got along fine without it for thousands of years.
 
2014-04-24 06:19:41 AM  

DrPainMD: WhyteRaven74: DrPainMD: Because you can't have freedom without a thousand pages of regulations dictating what you can or cannot do.

Here's a very easy idea, provide the best network you can without being a dick. Not one ISP in America manages this. It is totally unforgivable that anyone in any area of more than 50,000 people can't pick up the phone and get a fiber connection in this day and age. The fact that isn't possible should have the FCC revoking licenses like crazy. The ISPs are utterly failing the American public. And if they choose to do that, they can just forget being ISPs.

I've not only lived all over the country, but I've also been "online" since the days of the Wildcat BBS. If I have a complaint with my provider, I switch providers, and I've only had to do that once. Stop whining about how badly you're being treated by the big, bad companies THAT YOU CONTINUE TO DO BUSINESS WITH. If you can't get good service, then have your internet shut off... the human race got along fine without it for thousands of years.

-
B..b..but...high-speed wireless internet is now considered a basic human right in some ever-so enlightened European countries
 
2014-04-24 06:20:19 AM  

BullBearMS: The price controls were removed, and extra money was thrown at them in the form of 'Universal Service Fees' and tax breaks.


Yep they got billions of dollars with the promise of delivering something they've never even attempted to make good on.

DrPainMD: Stop whining about how badly you're being treated by the big, bad companies


Why should companies get to take advantage of the American public? Also why should they be exempted from certain things? The reason why most places only have one cable company is whatever cable company is in an area is given a municipal monopoly. That's hardly in the interest of the consumer.
 
2014-04-24 06:21:11 AM  

robohobo: B..b..but...high-speed wireless internet is now considered a basic human right in some ever-so enlightened European countries


It's today as easy to provide fiber to a home as it is cable TV or phone service. Let's not pretend expecting ISPs to provide up to date technology is some huge imposition.
 
2014-04-24 06:22:49 AM  

WhyteRaven74: robohobo: B..b..but...high-speed wireless internet is now considered a basic human right in some ever-so enlightened European countries

It's today as easy to provide fiber to a home as it is cable TV or phone service. Let's not pretend expecting ISPs to provide up to date technology is some huge imposition.


Sure, so long as said home-dwellers can afford to pay for it. Shouldn't be subsidized by the rest of us.
 
2014-04-24 06:29:19 AM  

robohobo: WhyteRaven74: robohobo: B..b..but...high-speed wireless internet is now considered a basic human right in some ever-so enlightened European countries

It's today as easy to provide fiber to a home as it is cable TV or phone service. Let's not pretend expecting ISPs to provide up to date technology is some huge imposition.

Sure, so long as said home-dwellers can afford to pay for it. Shouldn't be subsidized by the rest of us.


We've already subsidized them for it.

What do you think the Universal Service Fee on your phone bill is for? It is a subsidy that they were supposed to use to provide fiber to the home.

Also, home owners already pay for the cost of their copper connection monthly as well. It shows up on the bill under the line item, "Federal Subscriber Line".
 
2014-04-24 06:36:05 AM  

WhyteRaven74: DrPainMD: Stop whining about how badly you're being treated by the big, bad companies

Why should companies get to take advantage of the American public? Also why should they be exempted from certain things? The reason why most places only have one cable company is whatever cable company is in an area is given a municipal monopoly. That's hardly in the interest of the consumer.


Don't look at me; I'm not the statist.
 
2014-04-24 06:39:09 AM  
Time to get the darknet up and running.
 
2014-04-24 06:44:08 AM  

DrPainMD: If I have a complaint with my provider, I switch providers, and I've only had to do that once.


...you realize that the ISPs are being taken over mainly by cable providers, who have had one of the biggest trust rackets going since the days of Ma Bell?  And they want to bring said racket to the internet, so that if you have a complaint with your provider, you can't switch providers? And in places where you can switch, the provider you just left will eventually scoop up the provider you went to, so you're back to square one? (Basically what's holding up the TWC-Comcast merger?) Do you really want the internet landscape to look like the cable landscape? "Don't like it, go to satellite! Oh, wait, you live in a satellite blind spot! Sucks to be you, then!"
 
2014-04-24 06:46:02 AM  

robohobo: WhyteRaven74: robohobo: B..b..but...high-speed wireless internet is now considered a basic human right in some ever-so enlightened European countries

It's today as easy to provide fiber to a home as it is cable TV or phone service. Let's not pretend expecting ISPs to provide up to date technology is some huge imposition.

Sure, so long as said home-dwellers can afford to pay for it. Shouldn't be subsidized by the rest of us.


...yes, yes it should. As all infrastructure should be.
 
2014-04-24 06:48:02 AM  

DrPainMD: WhyteRaven74: DrPainMD: Stop whining about how badly you're being treated by the big, bad companies

Why should companies get to take advantage of the American public? Also why should they be exempted from certain things? The reason why most places only have one cable company is whatever cable company is in an area is given a municipal monopoly. That's hardly in the interest of the consumer.

Don't look at me; I'm not the statist.


Traditionally, monopolies were only granted in return for strict price controls.

If we are going to allow the telecom industry that we broke up to merge back into one, then we need to reinstate those price controls.

Comcast made 1.9 Billion dollars in the last three months alone. They didn't need to be paid an enormous bribe by Netflix to allow Comcast customers to access an internet site they were already paying Comcast more than enough to visit.

If Comcast's network needs to be upgraded to provide their customers with the bandwidth they are paying for, then it's on Comcast to use some of their obscene profits to pay for the upgrades.

What other business claims that they should be allowed to leverage their monopoly position to forcibly pass on their costs of doing business to companies they compete with?
 
2014-04-24 06:51:00 AM  

DrPainMD: Stop whining about how badly you're being treated by the big, bad companies


...okay, as long as you stop whining about how badly you're being treated by the EEEEEEEEEBIL gubmint.
 
2014-04-24 06:57:33 AM  

DrPainMD: WhyteRaven74: DrPainMD: Stop whining about how badly you're being treated by the big, bad companies

Why should companies get to take advantage of the American public? Also why should they be exempted from certain things? The reason why most places only have one cable company is whatever cable company is in an area is given a municipal monopoly. That's hardly in the interest of the consumer.

Don't look at me; I'm not the statist.


No, you're the corporatist.
 
2014-04-24 07:18:42 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Strangely, I'm okay with this idea. If everyone will be allowed a basic level. They won't be able to slow someone down.

However, if they want to pay more for faster abilities, then that will encourage companies to upgrade their services.


urmmmmm not sure if that's how it works

in my experience   they just jack up the rates for poorer service
 
2014-04-24 07:23:45 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Strangely, I'm okay with this idea. If everyone will be allowed a basic level. They won't be able to slow someone down.

However, if they want to pay more for faster abilities, then that will encourage companies to upgrade their services.


Initially it would probably be fine, but "data inflation" would take it's toll.  As internet content gets more sophisticated and the amount of data grows, I could easily see that "basic level" remaining stagnant, leading to a net deterioration of the quality of that service compared to the content.
 
2014-04-24 07:31:50 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Strangely, I'm okay with this idea. If everyone will be allowed a basic level. They won't be able to slow someone down.

However, if they want to pay more for faster abilities, then that will encourage companies to upgrade their services.


Here's what you haven't thought about; who defines a "basic level"? And if the Corps can bribe the FCC into making this change, what's to stop them from bribing the FCC to set the "basic level" at an absurdly low point? If you want to know what's going to happen to the internet once fully privatized, you only need to look at our other privatized utilities; the endgame here is a slow stratification of the internet, with rich folks getting better, quicker service for relatively cheaper prices, while everyone else slowly gets squeezed.

And companies rarely upgrade their services out of their own pocket. Hell, the cable they're using right now was mostly laid by gov-backed citizen coops in the 70s and 80s. If you want better coverage, the right move is to have cable as a public utility and simply fund an expansion or upgrade. If you're going to make the mistake of privatizing it like we have, then the next best way to encourage it is to allow for competition so that bad service can actually lead to a loss of business, but of course, we "privatized" our cable utilities in a way that created vast regional monopolies outside of select urban markets, and colluding oligopolies within them. If you aren't going to have it be a utility or a competitive industry, then the next best way is to have it be semi-public, so that the gov can still mandate upgrades and certain levels of service, and police the providers to ensure they don't discriminate against certain customers, communities, or businesses; in other words, the model we just abandoned. What's going to end up happening is the worst possible result; isps running to state houses and local city councils to demand they be given tax breaks and subsidies if the community wants better services, then setting the access rates to keep the "wrong sorts" from being able to use the best services.

As it stands, ISPs now have zero reason to ever really upgrade their services sans taxpayers paying for it. If they want more profits, they can just increase their monthlies, or the access rates to those they now have the right to discriminate against because who are the discriminated going to go to? Their competitors that don't exist? The FCC that's in their pocket? Tax-payers will pay for their systems upgrades just like they paid for the systems they're already using, and the cable-providers will have the gall to tell us all how much they've sacrificed to provide us with the services we use as they increase service rates over and over and over again, because the cornerstones of US business ethics are laziness, impunity, and exploitation.
 
2014-04-24 07:39:29 AM  

serial_crusher: TuteTibiImperes: AverageAmericanGuy: A low-cost, minimal-service Internet service provided by the government would be a nice way to provide Internet to poorer communities as well as provide a venue for the government to enact, in some small way, the policies it would prefer to see in the market without explicitly forcing the private sector to follow those policies under penalty of law.

It would also give the Feds the ability to snoop all they want on packets, so there's another benefit from the government's point of view.

I mentioned this in a previous thread that went red, but a great idea would be to just get rid of broadcast television all-together (with the requirement that the networks provide free streams of the same content via the Internet for those without cable) and have the government take a big chunk of that reclaimed spectrum to set up a nationwide LTE broadband network.

Offer the service for a reasonable rate, with it being free for those under a certain income level, with no data caps or other traffic shaping.  It would help solve the rural broadband issue, the digital divide, and provide some great infrastructure work to set up all of the towers.

How are you defining "the networks" in this scenario?  ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox for sure.  What about The CW?  PBS?  Univision?  France 24?  The Minnesota Channel?
Seems like it might be an undue burden on some of those smaller guys.

Maybe we could set up some sort of network that's accessible to all, where content providers are able to pay a "commercially reasonable" fee to publish their data.


My city DID exactly that:  for $40/month, you can have 20/20 Mbps internet with no throttling or restrictions; that drops to $35/month if you add phone or cable.

But the state legislature is full of people that Slime-Warner and the other telecoms outright bribed into making it impossible for other cities to do this.  They looked at municipal fiber as unfair competition against their legal quasi-monopolies.

Why does the free market hate the free market?
 
2014-04-24 07:47:02 AM  
But according to the news here, it Wi will be creating an "internet express lane." How can that beer bad? Everyone loves an express lane.
 
Displayed 50 of 130 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report