Mozilla Fights for Net Neutrality This May (and Always)

Post by hinkley » Sat, May 12, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #133

forapurpose wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds a bit challenging: They'd still need to pay the corporate ISPs to carry or to not completely deprioritize traffic from hackerISP, or else nobody else could reach the hackers' great websites, services, ideas, etc. If hackerISP carried things the corporates didn't like, they could still throttle or kill access to it or to individual domains, protocols, etc. And how will hackerISP pay for nationwide infrastr…

> "And how will hackerISP pay for nationwide infrastructure?" Depending on where you live, ISPs do not need to own their own infrastructure. For a bit more information into how this can work, I'd recommend taking a look at local loop unbundling: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling Also, GP is alluding to things that have already happened in the past, in the wild west days of the Internet it was more…

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC » Sat, May 12, 2018, 4:40 PM UTC

ghba66 wrote: post #124

Jonnax wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They are just virtue signalling. They've filed court cases against the FCC. They're activly trying to change legislation. If that's virtue signalling then it's a stupid phrase that means nothing. >I am from a country in the EU. I don't support NN because I want to have access to zero-rated services. As a consumer, they make my life easier and my bill lower. I want to have the freedom of choosing whether I want NN in…

>They've filed court cases against the FCC. They're activly trying to change legislation. Of course... they have to spend the donations on something. Anything but improving Firefox or Thunderbird, lol >An ISP zero rating facebook, Netflix or Spotify just entrenches a big player in their dominant position. No because in the EU by legislation ISPs are forced to zero-rate all services in the same category. If they zero-…

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC » Sat, May 12, 2018, 4:45 PM UTC

dingo_bat wrote: post #99

StavrosK wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this. Can someone explain to me the argument of "ISPs in the US are monopolies, so more regulation is worse for the customer"? If your ISP is a monopoly, they can do whatever they want if left unregulated. They can literally charge you whatever they want. Zero-rated services are zero-rated because you pay for them indirectly. I guess losing access to them would be a downside, and would prevent Face…

As you rightly pointed out, ISPs are monopolies in the US. That's the issue. Break them up, force them to compete, remove the monopolies. Trying to fix the monopoly problem, that arose due to government interference, with more government regulation is not right. PS: an advice: If you cannot think of a single argument against your own position you're not ready to have a dialog.

Post by Mononokay » Sat, May 12, 2018, 5:49 PM UTC

ghba66 wrote: post #76

Mononokay wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reminds me of the Tor project calling themselves a "human rights project" It fundamentally is a human rights project.

It was a technical project with the goal of proxifying your stuff via the onion network. They made it about human rights. Accessing forbidden websites is just one of all the things you could ever use Tor for. You could also use it to buy drugs or hire a hitman or troll online or watch child pornography. Why not call it a "hitmen for everybody" project?

Post by reitanqild » Sat, May 12, 2018, 8:12 PM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #127

ttoinou wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they need to find a better business model

What business model would you suggest against Microsoft funding their product without expectation of making a profit?