21–30 of 45 posts
Websites are only putting banners up with a loading spinner to help illustrate the issue[0], not throttling their upload speeds. Wouldn't it be better to actually slow down their content? I suppose that hurts the bottom-line so it can't even be considered. =/ [0] A quote from a TechHive.com article on the subject: " Note: The slowdown will only be simulated, not actual—the spinning “loading” icons you’ll see on those…
The reason I'm against actually slowing down is because they probably won't bother to geo-target it. Net neutrality isn't a problem where I live, there's nothing I can do to help people in the US, so I don't want my day disrupted. A spinner I'm ok with.
"Don’t worry—Pornhub promises it won’t actually load pages more slowly." Nice click bait title.
> We’ve already made a huge impact. The Sunlight Foundation recently analyzed over 800,000 comments submitted to the FCC about net neutrality– and found that more than 99% of them supported stronger protections for neutrality. 99% of the comments support net neutrality? AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast must be freaking out.
They would freak out if the public comments actually mattered. Unless you know otherwise, I'm guessing the FCC doesn't much care what the riff-raff think is a good idea. They're more interested in maintaining relationships with big business and keeping that revolving door spinning.
I disagree with your point that public comments don't matter, since they reflect public opinion. The public are paying the bills of the telcos, and the FCC for that matter. The public can switch providers at any time, if they feel their current provider is acting against their interest. The public also has the ability to elect decision makers who can assign or fire people from the FCC. What are your thoughts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason I'm against actually slowing down is because they probably won't bother to geo-target it. Net neutrality isn't a problem where I live, there's nothing I can do to help people in the US, so I don't want my day disrupted. A spinner I'm ok with.
Please elaborate. Net neutrality affects the whole web no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason I'm against actually slowing down is because they probably won't bother to geo-target it. Net neutrality isn't a problem where I live, there's nothing I can do to help people in the US, so I don't want my day disrupted. A spinner I'm ok with.
Do you have friends & family in the USA? Please urge them to speak out in support of NN
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They would freak out if the public comments actually mattered. Unless you know otherwise, I'm guessing the FCC doesn't much care what the riff-raff think is a good idea. They're more interested in maintaining relationships with big business and keeping that revolving door spinning.
> They would freak out if the public comments actually mattered. I disagree with your point that public comments don't matter, since they reflect public opinion. The public are paying the bills of the telcos, and the FCC for that matter. The public can switch providers at any time, if they feel their current provider is acting against their interest. The public also has the ability to elect decision makers who can as…
But, in reality, how many Americans have any real choices in ISP/telco? I have a choice of two mega-telcos (Cox and Verizon), neither of which provides good value (when compared to plans in Europe).
As for the FCC, the revolving door is very real incentive for regulators to do what existing corporate interests tell them. Why would they care if they're removed from the FCC when they have a corner office waiting on K St?
I hope many other big companies will join them. Google, Cloudflare, Rackspace, Digitalocean, Linode, and many others, I'm looking at you