Le Bump.

It's definitely a problem, especially if the rest of the world follows

This is terrible. This can literally kill internet as we know and love, and turn it in an orwellian nightmare

Come on, this can't happen... That's why I'm spreading the word from now on!
BUMP!!!

Super important bump for a super important cause!

Bumps in the trunk

Bump!

Bump!

Bump!

SteamWorld Heist - NOT trash. Real good game on PC, on PS4, on PS Vita.

Way ahead of you, since I freak out about everything already

My ISP tried to charge me extra for this bump....

What exactly can I do from Brazil?

This is an important message, and needs to be bumped!

While I in overall agree that communications network shouldn't be treated as if completely private railroad connections, which is arguably already a quite broad topic itself, the problematic about it all is broader. By that not meaning specifically the legalese part, but meaning the reality on the ground. And what is that reality in the U.S.? Well, apparently most "last mile" (tier 3) connections are still on copper wires, with free market competition taking place only in wealthy and densely populated areas, which arguably also e.g. New York is.

Or to put that into an example, let's say there is rural town XY somewhere in the U.S. with 1.500 persons living in it, mostly in individual houses of which there are 400. That rural town is "merely" 50 miles away from city XX, population 150.000, which has two 100 Gbps (tier 2) connections to the world. In that example the issues are:

a) Costs of laying a connection to XY, where perhaps only 100 households actually want broadband and want the the connection installed in their homes (and modem). 100 times 30 is 3.000 per month or 36.000 per year received as only income from that connection to XY.

b) Let's say e.g. John Oliver as CEO of "Internet for everyone"-company perhaps has no issue that a return of investment may take decades while he perhaps speculates on falling costs for maintenance or speculates that the worth of the wires may rise, such as due to industry-boom of XY, as for him to be able to sell that connection at a higher price or simply have more of it due to more end-customers. He is probably not going to give XY a 100 Gbps connection tho even if XX were directly on tier 1, more like 100 Mbps perhaps (tho just naming it as an example, not exactly sure about the price differences of various cables etc.).

c) As you probably already noticed, there are in the described already several bottle-necks. 200 Gbps isn't really that much to begin with, and e.g. 100 Mbps shared between 100 households is at full use running at a speed of merely around 20x the speed of dial-up. And in that there are various demands. Some may perhaps want to watch real-time stream of Colbert in HD (and at the same time download that 9 GB patch from Steam) while others were perhaps just hoping for being able to connect to an email server and send a friend a picture. (And both are probably likely to call John Oliver to complain.)

Now, in the small frame of that John Oliver shouldn't be like "ohh, let's give the guy wanting to watch Colbert 10 Mbps of the 100 and let's slow it more to anyone else... after all, Colbert promised to give me a hug", I certainly agree about that issue as such. But that doesn't anyhow solve the actual problem many are having in regard to quite miserable internet connection, and that is not even talking about issue in regard to demands of commercial business of which some do quite rely on fast connectivity, such as even merely a hotel wanting to be able to communicate per email with clients and customers or update server offer and so on.

And in that I am not saying that wild capitalism is the solution, especially since the actual problem is in connection with that wild capitalism. But while democrat voters, of who not few seem to themselves sit in city lofts and mansions, seem to some mostly worried about that billions of profits, sites such as Facebook are having, may take a hit, many of the republican voters sit in towns such as mentioned XY and are not all that wealthy as to be able to spend as if a bit of spare change for a tier 1 connection to their neighbourhood. And what they see is that government has no money, they have no money, but e.g. Zuckerberg has plenty of money, largely thanks to all them networks he didn't spend really anything on in terms of investment or through taxes (as many of them were not financed by taxes, unlike e.g. roads many a drive-in restaurant relies on to draw in business).

Therefore... well, at least in my view, even tho there are surely more issues, such as about corporate ethics, the issue in regard to physical internet infrastructure and what it is capable to provide comes quite down to questions such as "And what about XY? Does John Oliver say they should all move in with him merely for sake of being in an area where there is some internet connectivity, or does he say that it isn't his concern since he already has an internet connection and that they should go FCC themselves even tho FCC in decades did not really do anything to bring them some internet connectivity, or what?".

After all, even in a democracy surely it can't be that just because the majority has e.g. a place to live that who is homeless may as well just die already.

But not meaning to as if interfere in what White House perhaps perceives as internal matter of the U.S. Just meaning to point out what seems quite relevant in all that, and as a matter of fact myself quite in favour of that in Prussia even towns such as XY are part of proper internet infrastructure since it makes it that more easy for such towns to perhaps attract small business even in software sphere, which may perhaps enjoy way more having offices cheaper in the center of a town than more expensive in some back-street of a city. Something about which some may perhaps argue that the situation in U.S. is great since perhaps soon all of Silicon Valley may want to move abroad, but I myself see it rather beneficial if there is plenty of proper internet infrastructure since that small Prussian business may perhaps have clients in rural areas in U.S. or themselves be a client of a similar company there as they perhaps rely on a bit of outsourcing, such as e.g. English dabbing for a tycoon genre video game they make about providing internet connections in a wild capitalism environment and selling such to customers also in the U.S.

Bump!

Bump!

What do I care with or without this they could still do it.That is why they call it loop holes.

Without net neutrality, Internet Service Providers will be able to charge you for web packages the same way cable companies package television shows

They can do this now with or without that.

Net Neutrality is meant to stop say Time Warner from charging Netflix a higher fees to offer the best speed to those streaming netflix using Time Warner.This whoever will not stop an ISP from breaking off internet into package they already do that with pricing tiers.The same thing cable companies do now charge you set up for a set amount of channels and in tiers the more you pay the more channels you you get.

ISP do the same now the more you pay the more speed and data cap you get unless you're one of the lucky one in the who still get unlimited.

This really would not be an issue if they big boys were not allowed to swallow up competition at will. When Verizon was forced to bring back unlimited data plans that matched rivals it was not due to some law,it was not due to them being nice,it was not to fill a need.it was competition which took paying customers from them which in turn forced them to due the same or keep losing paying customers.

Point is if these companies had real competition we would not need things like this as Verizion thought they did not need unlimited data to keep paying people they where wrong.
They got to cocky for having such a strong hold on the market until others stepped up and they still ignored it thinking nobody really cared about unlimited data and would stick with them just based on a better network.If it was not for competition Verizion would be really sticking it to you for data.No Net Neutrality will stop this kind of tyranny.

Though even if this law stays I'm afraid we are so dependent now on Internet this will due little to stop such abuse as they find loops holes around it.

Like AT&T now offer free unlimited streaming of HBO if you get unlimited plus.So why even worry about Net Neutrality in the future when they will by pass it with stuff like this.At some point you will be paying extra to get access to these type of services while others will have to pay a fee to access the premium service on top of paying for wireless .The rest of us have to subscribe to said package on top of paying for wireless service.So AT&T just by passed Net Neutrality all together doing it that way and services like this could be spread over several services.

Imagine Sprint was to offer the same type of deal with Netflix they give it free to anyone who signups up for a premium wireless service meanwhile the rest who have other carriers have to pay for wireless and then Netflix or switch service that may or may not be in your area and may or may not be cheaper.

In short I see a future where wireless will be like cable service is where different tiers will get you different access to different content thus by passing Net Neutrality as they are not restricting access or blocking service.They are simply just giving you premium service if you so wish to pay and everyone else is welcome to still stream HBO without the plus but will have to pay for HBO.I also seem them offering different quality video streams with those premium like plus does now Plug gets higher quality stream and HBO while the lower package gets lower streams and no HOB but both offer the same data allowance and but one gets better speed while the other gets lower speed.

So much for Net Neutrality giving equal and fair access.

Bump

bump

Bump

bump

I like what EFF is proposing both in protest and as awareness... A widget for websites that give users a preview of what the internet will look like if the dismantling of Net Neutrality takes hold. This is something I would support SG if they decided to participate. Just saying! :)

And as I mentioned in another thread back in May, Get involved!

In addition to the Ways To Help posted by the OP, you can also help support the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and their efforts.

What is EFF?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) defends civil liberties in a digital world. See More...

How Humble Bundle users can help EFF
If Net Neutrality is important to you and believe digital communications should be free from censorship, surveillance and corruption, then log into the Humble Bundle store and select EFF as your supported charity.

Support EFF on AmazonSmile
While this does not make a big impact to donate to EFF - or any other charitable cause since Amazon only donates 0.5% of the purchase price (e.g. you would have to spend $100 for a $0.50 donation, $1,000 for $5 donation, $10,000 for a $50 donation, ad nauseam), it doesn't hurt to give to charity when buying off Amazon. Just log into AmazonSmile and click on Change Your Charity located under Your Account, then type Electronic Frontier Foundation Inc in the Search field and click Select when found.