FCC kills Net Neutrality
 

Now that the FCC has killed Net Neutrality, will us peasants be forced to hobble together our own decentralized "mesh network" ISPs out of living room routers and roof-mounted antennas?

Because sooner or later, it's going to be either that, or an Internet that's divided up into fast and slow lanes. The FCC’s proposed internet rules present two gaping obstacles to neutrality:

#1 - They would allow the telecom companies to block any apps and services they want from the mobile internet (except ones that compete with their services, because that would qualify as anti-trust behavior).

#2 - For the non-mobile web, it would allow telecoms to charge sites a fee for decent load times, relegating non-paying sites to ‘slow lanes’ which would make it harder for readers to access them.

Both are serious blows to the whole idea of “neutrality.” So, get ready for a future of pay-per-service, pay-per-page internet fees. The new, "freer" internet will look something like paying $0.02 per MB to use Facebook, $6.00 a month to use Skype and $0.50 monthly for a speed-limited version of Youtube.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/5702/newinternet.jpg

The above image is taken directly from a PowerPoint presentation by Allot Communications and Openet - suppliers to large wireless companies including AT&T and Verizon - that was sent to Wired by a source from within the industry. It's all in there, making it possible for your wireless provider to monitor everything you do online and charge you extra for using Facebook, Skype of Netflix. Check the seventh slide.

Of course, Obama championed true net neutrality in his campaign, promising to “take a back seat to no one in [his] commitment to Net Neutrality.” but his administration is now praising the FCC’s new proposal.

Hmm, could that be because of WikiLeaks?

This is total bullshit. I've been so pist at this administration bowing out on a fuck load of issues but this one really takes the cake for me. Net neutrality should not be an option and shit like this goes against the very premise of the open internet.

I would say it has more to do with the inordinate amounts of lobbying the RIAA, MPAA, etc. are doing.

No one has enough money to compete with that shit.

Buh bye torrents, video streaming, VOIP competition, etc.

P.S. Welcome to fascism, too.

Don't like a political party's site? Cause it to load slow as a crawl.

Luckily for you, it'll likely be challenged.

I'm unhappy with this too, but I want to play devil's advocate for a minute.

Whats wrong with paying for the amount of bandwidth you use? Right now, people who use less bandwidth are subsidizing the people who use more. I realize it would suck for me and most people here who use the internet a lot, but I'm having trouble seeing how it isn't fair to charge for what you use.

We're not the only government that uses the internet, either. That's got to present some sort of problems.

Rules and Regulations for the internet and providers should be handled by something like the UN, not individual countries' governments.

That is already in place as a BUSINESS plan.

Comcast for instance has the right to charge you more for higher data usage per month, and only 10% of the users are even coming close to that "amount".

That comes nowhere near as dangerous as, "We're going to control data flow when and where we wish to, because we can. You're free to pay us extra to remove these artificially created blocks on bandwidth."

Shit im agreeing with Harrison on 2 posts on the same page, somebody pinch me

I'll quit the internet and go back to doing things outside and socializing with socialists.