Except none of them actually slow down, they just run an extra banner.
It takes more time to send you the banner, so they are slower to some extent.
this is negligible (the screen space it takes is probably more important)
From Reddit to Pornhub, Websites Slow Down for Net Neutrality on September 10
41–45 of 45 posts
Re: From Reddit to Pornhub, Websites Slow Down for Net Neutrality on September 10
#42Earlier 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?
Net neutrality is about ISPs being able to limit or slow other services, or force those services to pay more, for access to their customers. For example, Comcast throttling netflix, forcing Netflix to pay Comcast for unrestricted access to their customers, or forcing their customers to pay more for unrestricted access to Netflix (or some combination of the three).
This is only really an issue with American ISPs, as the US is one of the few (or the only?) jurisdictions where this sort of behaviour is allowed.
Re: From Reddit to Pornhub, Websites Slow Down for Net Neutrality on September 10
#43Earlier 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…
> The public can switch providers at any time, if they feel their current provider is acting against their interest
Most Americans don't have a real choice, and ISPs know that. Don't like Comcast? Go to Verizon! But they're doing the same thing. Don't like Verizon either? Well, give up on accessing the internet. In some areas, you can't even get real broadband service from other ISPs; it's Comcast or bust.
> The public also has the ability to elect decision makers who can assign or fire people from the FCC.
The problem here is lobbyists and the legal system. Most politicians are uninformed on most issues (as are most people); they get a lot of their information from people who have the time and energy to provide that information to them. For example, a Comcast lobbyist goes to a congressman and says 'Hey, my client has this problem, they're providing a service to all these people but Netflix is taking advantage of them, using more than half of my client's capacity, which is drowning out everyone else. If they could charge Netflix for making excessive use of their network, they could reinvest that money into growth…' and so on.
Now there are arguments to go both ways, but the politician has only heard one of them, and it honestly does make sense. 'Why should we have to pay millions more to upgrade our networks for one single company? Should cities have to upgrade their traffic if one shipping company flooded the roads with trucks?' So no one argues the other side.
Thus, lobbyists promote their clients' interests in the US political system, provide campaign contributions to politicians who 'appreciate' their points of view (and denying it to those who don't), and you're left with a system where, no matter who you elect, they're insufficiently informed to make a rational decision.
So now the FCC is involved, but who runs the FCC? Who appoints them? Well, it should be whoever understands the industry best, obviously. And who understands it more than someone who's worked in it and knows what it needs and what challenges it's faced? Like a former cable company executive.
The real problem in the US is that corporations are allowed so much power in government, which results in a political system which (statistically) rarely reflects the values, opinions, or issues facing the people who cast the votes in the first place.
The other problem is that public opinion is fickle. Everyone was up in arms about Ferguson, but now what? How long since you've heard any news? The ice bucket challenge was bigger news, and now the iPhone launch, the Mojang acquisition… no one cares about some stupid town anymore. What was even the problem? Who can remember.
The public might be completely livid about net neutrality, but when the next season of The Bachelor Chef or Celebrity Hobo comes on their interests will wane and the problem will be solved.