5 ms·

"this decision leads to an internet that benefits Internet Service Providers" I would correct this to: "this decision leads to an American internet that benefi

"this decision leads to an internet that benefits Internet Service Providers" I would correct this to: "this decision leads to an American internet that benefits Internet Service Providers" The FCC can really only screw up the Internet for Americans. If you're an Internet user not in North America there's very little reason for you to care about the decision the FCC made today.

TJ-14 9y ago
American decisions can set precedents which other countries follow, and are often pushed by their trade policies. They also affect American IT companies, which are used by people all over the world. There's good reason for non-Americans to care about the American Internet.
- pasbesoin 9y ago
  I'm going to take this a step further. Years ago -- a decade or more -- I was saying that "China is the prototype." Early days of The Great Firewall. Initially built, by the way, with U.S. and "Western" technology and consulting. As for the Net. It was a frontier. Now, it's settled. And those who've taken up residence are busy turning it and sealing it up, for their own purposes. As for open, free as in speech communication. Start looking for the next, next-generation physical layer. One that is not in the hands of established and self-serving interests. Yet. Rinse and repeat...
- chpmrc 9y ago
  Well not in the EU https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-internet-net-neutrality https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-internet-... .
  - tangent128 9y ago
    That law can be repealed if Europeans aren't vigilant; nothing makes the EU naturally immune to right-wing, pro-corporate swings.
    - xpaqui 9y ago
      Yes but no. One of the reasons the UK left EU because it was not allowed to have different laws for EU immigrants and locals - for benefits for example. Europe choose values over money. They - Merkel - may not be the best people in the world but some moves are very commendable.
- a2decrow 9y ago
  If this forces non-US Americans to use US IT company services less, there are less angles the US government can use to spy on the rest of the world. Plus, data protection laws in other countries (especially European ones) are far more restrictive. I don't think there's any reason for us non-US-Americans to care at all about the US internet. Just like we don't care about pretty much anything else that's happening in the US.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    Well, at least at currently, the "US Internet" includes IANA, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, Verisign and a majority of the root DNS servers... Changes made to the "US Internet" are going to absolutely affect the wider world right now.
    - a2decrow 9y ago
      I fail to see how this affects IANA or root DNS servers in any way (not to mention that IANA can be replaced by a non-US entity if it really comes down to that). As for those companies, they'll work the same way as before outside the US internet. Regrettably, because the world would be a better place without them.
      - falcolas 9y ago
        This was a direct response to the commennt "I don't think there's any reason for us non-US-Americans to care at all about the US internet." This change doesn't directly affect IANA, etc, but it will likely have knock-on effects which hurt everyone. "IANA can be replaced by a non-US entity" - This would, IMO, signal the end of the internet. "Look up www.google.com" "which one?"
        a2decrow 9y ago
        > This would, IMO, signal the end of the internet. "Look up www.google.com" "which one?" I'm not entirely sure if you know how DNS works.
  - 9y ago
awalton 9y ago
Yeah, it sure would be a shame if all of those American companies everyone else in the world depends on were suddenly out of business because they couldn't afford the extortion fees charged by whichever ISP wants to clone their service.
bogomipz 9y ago
>"If you're an Internet user not in North America there's very little reason for you to care about the decision the FCC made today." From the post: "The result: ISPs would be able to once again prioritize, block and throttle with impunity. This means fewer opportunities for startups and entrepreneurs, and a chilling effect on innovation, free expression and choice online" Do you not believe that the global internet has benefitted from North American tech companies that were able to innovate in part because they did't have to contend with gatekeepers and paid prioritization of traffic? Would Youtube have been possible under such a regime? Don't people from all over the globe consume Youtube content? Additionally Ajat Pai is an ex Verizon lawyer. Verizon being half of the broadband duopoly in the US. Most countries have some similar former PTT(post telephone telgraph) monopoly/duopoly. This action sets a precedent for any other countries where the monopoly/duopoly is seeking to enact a similar gatekeeper/pay to play regime where there now stands an open internet.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  > Would Youtube have been possible under such a regime? Assuming youtube is something desirable, let's not forget that it has been created for the sole purpose of selling to a giant company too big to be able to innovate and too slow to conquer users while youtube purposely used pirated content for its growth. Nowadays years after youtube has been bought to be the frontend UI of googlevideo.com youtube is considered to be an example of internet centralization, users tracking and spying, automated censorship, geolocalized blocking, among others criticisms. Maybe consider a better suited example next time you want to take a stance for net neutrality, maybe peer-to-peer.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    That's a total straw man. It does't matter whether or not you think its ethical in its current incarnation. Youtube was a startup that became one of the most popular sites on the internet[1] and were acquired by Google. If they had to pay a gatekeeper to deliver those bits it might not have been a viable idea. The examples are not the point but rather the environment that those were produced in - i.e an environment of an open internet. >"Maybe consider a better suited example next time you want to take a stance for net neutrality, maybe peer-to-peer." Maybe consider not createing straw man fallacies the next time you want to be critical of other people's comments. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube
Kholo 9y ago
True. Good to remember the American Internet is not the Internet. It's fascinating how this debate plays out in other countries with a certain class of citizenry that don't have the capacity to think for themselves. Even if the ISP landscape is hyper competitive people who spend their time on American tech sites, actually believe they are under threat. They express it via the media, social media etc. The Americans anti net neutrality activists totally ignorant of local conditions show up in full support. It's like watching cascading exploding ignorance in real time.
nickthemagicman 9y ago
It will affect you almost immediately when they stop allowing traffic that competes with their voice arms. Facetime, Messenger, Skype, all going to get brutalized.
tangent128 9y ago
If it succeeds in America, ISPs in other countries will try to replicate the policy.

TJ-14 9y ago

American decisions can set precedents which other countries follow, and are often pushed by their trade policies. They also affect American IT companies, which are used by people all over the world. There's good reason for non-Americans to care about the American Internet.

pasbesoin 9y ago
I'm going to take this a step further. Years ago -- a decade or more -- I was saying that "China is the prototype." Early days of The Great Firewall. Initially built, by the way, with U.S. and "Western" technology and consulting. As for the Net. It was a frontier. Now, it's settled. And those who've taken up residence are busy turning it and sealing it up, for their own purposes. As for open, free as in speech communication. Start looking for the next, next-generation physical layer. One that is not in the hands of established and self-serving interests. Yet. Rinse and repeat...
chpmrc 9y ago
Well not in the EU https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-internet-net-neutrality https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-internet-... .
- tangent128 9y ago
  That law can be repealed if Europeans aren't vigilant; nothing makes the EU naturally immune to right-wing, pro-corporate swings.
  - xpaqui 9y ago
    Yes but no. One of the reasons the UK left EU because it was not allowed to have different laws for EU immigrants and locals - for benefits for example. Europe choose values over money. They - Merkel - may not be the best people in the world but some moves are very commendable.
a2decrow 9y ago
If this forces non-US Americans to use US IT company services less, there are less angles the US government can use to spy on the rest of the world. Plus, data protection laws in other countries (especially European ones) are far more restrictive. I don't think there's any reason for us non-US-Americans to care at all about the US internet. Just like we don't care about pretty much anything else that's happening in the US.
- falcolas 9y ago
  Well, at least at currently, the "US Internet" includes IANA, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, Verisign and a majority of the root DNS servers... Changes made to the "US Internet" are going to absolutely affect the wider world right now.
  - a2decrow 9y ago
    I fail to see how this affects IANA or root DNS servers in any way (not to mention that IANA can be replaced by a non-US entity if it really comes down to that). As for those companies, they'll work the same way as before outside the US internet. Regrettably, because the world would be a better place without them.
    - falcolas 9y ago
      This was a direct response to the commennt "I don't think there's any reason for us non-US-Americans to care at all about the US internet." This change doesn't directly affect IANA, etc, but it will likely have knock-on effects which hurt everyone. "IANA can be replaced by a non-US entity" - This would, IMO, signal the end of the internet. "Look up www.google.com" "which one?"
      - a2decrow 9y ago
        > This would, IMO, signal the end of the internet. "Look up www.google.com" "which one?" I'm not entirely sure if you know how DNS works.
- 9y ago

awalton 9y ago

Yeah, it sure would be a shame if all of those American companies everyone else in the world depends on were suddenly out of business because they couldn't afford the extortion fees charged by whichever ISP wants to clone their service.

bogomipz 9y ago

>"If you're an Internet user not in North America there's very little reason for you to care about the decision the FCC made today." From the post: "The result: ISPs would be able to once again prioritize, block and throttle with impunity. This means fewer opportunities for startups and entrepreneurs, and a chilling effect on innovation, free expression and choice online" Do you not believe that the global internet has benefitted from North American tech companies that were able to innovate in part because they did't have to contend with gatekeepers and paid prioritization of traffic? Would Youtube have been possible under such a regime? Don't people from all over the globe consume Youtube content? Additionally Ajat Pai is an ex Verizon lawyer. Verizon being half of the broadband duopoly in the US. Most countries have some similar former PTT(post telephone telgraph) monopoly/duopoly. This action sets a precedent for any other countries where the monopoly/duopoly is seeking to enact a similar gatekeeper/pay to play regime where there now stands an open internet.

bigbugbag 9y ago
> Would Youtube have been possible under such a regime? Assuming youtube is something desirable, let's not forget that it has been created for the sole purpose of selling to a giant company too big to be able to innovate and too slow to conquer users while youtube purposely used pirated content for its growth. Nowadays years after youtube has been bought to be the frontend UI of googlevideo.com youtube is considered to be an example of internet centralization, users tracking and spying, automated censorship, geolocalized blocking, among others criticisms. Maybe consider a better suited example next time you want to take a stance for net neutrality, maybe peer-to-peer.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  That's a total straw man. It does't matter whether or not you think its ethical in its current incarnation. Youtube was a startup that became one of the most popular sites on the internet[1] and were acquired by Google. If they had to pay a gatekeeper to deliver those bits it might not have been a viable idea. The examples are not the point but rather the environment that those were produced in - i.e an environment of an open internet. >"Maybe consider a better suited example next time you want to take a stance for net neutrality, maybe peer-to-peer." Maybe consider not createing straw man fallacies the next time you want to be critical of other people's comments. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube

Kholo 9y ago

True. Good to remember the American Internet is not the Internet. It's fascinating how this debate plays out in other countries with a certain class of citizenry that don't have the capacity to think for themselves. Even if the ISP landscape is hyper competitive people who spend their time on American tech sites, actually believe they are under threat. They express it via the media, social media etc. The Americans anti net neutrality activists totally ignorant of local conditions show up in full support. It's like watching cascading exploding ignorance in real time.

nickthemagicman 9y ago

It will affect you almost immediately when they stop allowing traffic that competes with their voice arms. Facetime, Messenger, Skype, all going to get brutalized.

tangent128 9y ago

If it succeeds in America, ISPs in other countries will try to replicate the policy.