So long Open Internet, and thanks for all the packets

[Capitalist Pig]

FCC Responds to Critics of Net Neutrality Proposal—FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says reports of end of net neutrality are "flat out wrong" exclaims the headline of an article I read today on Maximum PC.

The problem? Tom Wheeler and the FCC are full of shit, not that I expected anything less from a bullshit alphabet agency. What I really enjoyed were the pithy and accurate observations by the commenter MaximumMike. Seriously, if you read the [first] article, keep scrolling through the comments and read his. He concisely summarizes all of the main points I've been harping about for years to anyone willing to listen.

Anyway. . . apart from an earnest attempt at initiating open discussion of the clear and present danger to net neutrality in the United States, the real purpose of this thread is to get more exposure for my rambling monologue on the subject from the shoutbox earlier today. Hope you like transcripts!

> eh, i figured the internet's days were numbered in the US
> not that it's going away
> but it won't be the internet as i remembered it
> and it's not because of evolving web standards either
> granting cable companies micromonopolies in broad regional markets was the first sign of the apocalypse
> because without the competition, aside from the usual complaints of any monopolized industry (exponentially higher prices corresponding to noticeable downgrades in service quality and support), when filesharing became big ISPs saw this as a threat to their fragile infrastructure and decided throttling and data caps were perfectly reasonable practices in "punishing" the most bandwidth-hungry users and bandwidth intensive activities (as opposed to implementing long-term solutions to meet evolving demands)
> many of which will soon affect legitimate services (e.g., Netflix) that are patronized by millions of users who are, at least in this case, enjoying a perfectly legal activity
> so by destroying net neutrality, it gives ISPs another weapon that affects not only their subscribers but content providers as well
> because it means that ISPs are no longer obligated to treat all internet traffic as equal
> the packets we send and receive over the internet have no special privilege over those of our neighbors
> extending to businesses as well
> but the FCC's new proposal will change all that
> "but why does an ISP like Comcast want to disenfranchise Netflix subscribers?" one might ask
> who knows
> maybe because nobody watches cable TV anymore
> and Comcast is also a digital television provider
> and since most US markets have only 1 cable provider to a region, and since hybrid fiber-coaxial infrastructures (HFCs) like those used by CABLE PROVIDERS are presently the fastest technologies we have implemented for transferring mass quantities of data over vast distances through the series of tubes that is the internet
> Cable internet is the no-shit winner that appeals to every kind of "internet consumer" -- be they online gamers, file sharers, or media streamers
> I'm sure there's plenty more angles to this than what I can imagine
> What I've just said is only a thin slice of the big picture
> but I think this is a line of reasoning that most people can readily assimilate and gain an understanding of how it affects them

Oh, and one more thing; I normally shun petitions and flatly refuse to sign any (even if their ostensible cause seems agreeable), but in this case I've made an exception. This is a petition telling the FCC where they can stick their new proposal. Please sign it if you use the internet, especially if you are using the internet at this very moment. Thanks.