The Net Neutrality Sellout: Still Bad, But What's Next?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

The Net Neutrality Sellout: Still Bad, But What's Next?

It's likely FCC Chairman Wheeler will obstinately continue trying to kill the Internet. But it's far from too late to do something about it.

Read Full Article

I wonder if people will go for Ted Cruz's idea of gutting the FCC from any power over the internet and giving it to Congress.

Might be better, might be worse. But at least the FCC wouldn't be in the mix.

Ultratwinkie:
I wonder if people will go for Ted Cruz's idea of gutting the FCC from any power over the internet and giving it to Congress.

Might be better, might be worse. But at least the FCC wouldn't be in the mix.

The problem there is that the Internet would be so much more fucked. Congress, especially people like Cruz, oppose regulation on principle and tend to support policies that, to put it politely, encourage the formation of entrenched monopolies (it isn't a single party problem incidentally, but it is rather... concentrated.)

Congress being what it is now would almost certainly vote to end even the pathetic version of net neutrality we have now. I don't hate the idea of an FCC, I hate the corrupt people who get put in charge of it. But we won't solve that problem by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Not to be exceptionally critical of this, but this article puts way too much of the blame on the FCC, which originally required net neutrality, and not on the ]DC Circuit ruling that struck down those rules, starting this whole thing.[1] Since the FCC cannot force net neutrality (although it's not necessarily a given that the US congress can't), the FCC has to figure out a way of regulating internet providers without requiring net neutrality. You're effectively demonizing the FCC for actions they are trying to make in order to preserve at least a semblence of this policy.

This also grossly recharacterizes the nature of that vote you mention (recreated below):

Interestingly, the Republicans, opposed to any regulation of the Internet (we can save the discussion of whether or not a hands-off approach would even work for another time), voted against moving the proposal to public comment. This suggests they will likely also vote down any final proposal. Meanwhile, Wheeler's fellow Democrats - Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel - voted with him. That's disappointing on the surface, but examining what they've said about the proposed rules is heartening.

In other words, you claim that the Republican members of the FCC were fighting for net neutrality, when their actions in preventing rulemaking would let the circuit ruling stand, thus meaning Net Neutrality is dead.

[1] Yes, the FCC could have attempted to appeal it to the US supreme court, but given the current make-up of the bench, it would be highly unlikely to have a different result

The Gentleman:
Not to be exceptionally critical of this, but this article puts way too much of the blame on the FCC, which originally required net neutrality, and not on the ]DC Circuit ruling that struck down those rules, starting this whole thing.[1] Since the FCC cannot force net neutrality (although it's not necessarily a given that the US congress can't), the FCC has to figure out a way of regulating internet providers without requiring net neutrality. You're effectively demonizing the FCC for actions they are trying to make in order to preserve at least a semblence of this policy.

This also grossly recharacterizes the nature of that vote you mention (recreated below):

Interestingly, the Republicans, opposed to any regulation of the Internet (we can save the discussion of whether or not a hands-off approach would even work for another time), voted against moving the proposal to public comment. This suggests they will likely also vote down any final proposal. Meanwhile, Wheeler's fellow Democrats - Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel - voted with him. That's disappointing on the surface, but examining what they've said about the proposed rules is heartening.

In other words, you claim that the Republican members of the FCC were fighting for net neutrality, when their actions in preventing rulemaking would let the circuit ruling stand, thus meaning Net Neutrality is dead.

Actually, the FCC is to blame, because as I state elsewhere, and elaborated on in a previous article, the FCC tied its own hands for no good reason in 2002, when it classified the Internet like cable instead of like a utility. That decision meant it removed its own power to do what it tried to do in 2010 with the rules struck down earlier this year. The ruling doesn't say it has no power, ever, to try and regulate net neutrality, the ruling says it has no power to regulate under the classification system it chose. It has the power to reclassify as a utility which would easily solve the problem. As for thinking that opposing all regulation means they support net neutrality, I'd like to introduce you to people who think pollution regulations are wrong. No rules means anarchy, and not the cooperative kind.

Anyway, because I clearly did invite some confusion, I'm making a slight change so it'll be clearer why the FCC is to blame.

[1] Yes, the FCC could have attempted to appeal it to the US supreme court, but given the current make-up of the bench, it would be highly unlikely to have a different result

Once again, I implore every American citizen on this site to stand up and speak out about this. Don't whine about Wheeler and how corrupt everything is. Don't moan about how things have already been decided and there being no point to speaking out. Just do it, and tell everyone you know to do it too.

StriderShinryu:
Once again, I implore every American citizen on this site to stand up and speak out about this. Don't whine about Wheeler and how corrupt everything is. Don't moan about how things have already been decided and there being no point to speaking out. Just do it, and tell everyone you know to do it too.

The point of my article, summed up succinctly. Thanks.

And as a foreigner, what can we do? Granted, we can throw /some/ weight against it, but as you've mentioned this is an American issue which, by the very way the world seems to think, will affect the entirety of the planet. So, what can we do.

Ninmecu:
And as a foreigner, what can we do? Granted, we can throw /some/ weight against it, but as you've mentioned this is an American issue which, by the very way the world seems to think, will affect the entirety of the planet. So, what can we do.

Simple. You can do the same thing US citizens can: Prepare some strongly worded letters to send to Washington so they can be ignored after the telecom companies decide that democracy isn't working for them and that they need to start making "campaign contributions" until they get what they want.

That's usually how American politics work nowadays at least.
---

In all seriousness, there really isn't much anyone from another country can do, beyond calling anyone you know from the US and convincing them to act in your stead. The best you could hope for directly is to organize a movement that would convince your government to level sanctions or embargoes or somesuch against the US if the FCC continues to fail to do their job, and that might, depending on your country of origin and its relation to the US, be able to influence the outcome. Maybe. Assuming your government doesn't cave like most do when the US decides it doesn't care.

Agayek:

Ninmecu:
And as a foreigner, what can we do? Granted, we can throw /some/ weight against it, but as you've mentioned this is an American issue which, by the very way the world seems to think, will affect the entirety of the planet. So, what can we do.

Simple. You can do the same thing US citizens can: Prepare some strongly worded letters to send to Washington so they can be ignored after the telecom companies decide that democracy isn't working for them and that they need to start making "campaign contributions" until they get what they want.

That's usually how American politics work nowadays at least.
---

In all seriousness, there really isn't much anyone from another country can do, beyond calling anyone you know from the US and convincing them to act in your stead. The best you could hope for directly is to organize a movement that would convince your government to level sanctions or embargoes or somesuch against the US if the FCC continues to fail to do their job, and that might, depending on your country of origin and its relation to the US, be able to influence the outcome. Maybe. Assuming your government doesn't cave like most do when the US decides it doesn't care.

The Canadian Government has it's proverbial head up America's Ass. So, yeah, it's not going to quickly cave in and follow suite. Because fuck independent thought and the reality that a strongly created Internet Infrastructure means a strengthened Economy. Sigh.

RossaLincoln:

The Gentleman:
Not to be exceptionally critical of this, but this article puts way too much of the blame on the FCC, which originally required net neutrality, and not on the ]DC Circuit ruling that struck down those rules, starting this whole thing.[1] Since the FCC cannot force net neutrality (although it's not necessarily a given that the US congress can't), the FCC has to figure out a way of regulating internet providers without requiring net neutrality. You're effectively demonizing the FCC for actions they are trying to make in order to preserve at least a semblence of this policy.

This also grossly recharacterizes the nature of that vote you mention (recreated below):

Interestingly, the Republicans, opposed to any regulation of the Internet (we can save the discussion of whether or not a hands-off approach would even work for another time), voted against moving the proposal to public comment. This suggests they will likely also vote down any final proposal. Meanwhile, Wheeler's fellow Democrats - Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel - voted with him. That's disappointing on the surface, but examining what they've said about the proposed rules is heartening.

In other words, you claim that the Republican members of the FCC were fighting for net neutrality, when their actions in preventing rulemaking would let the circuit ruling stand, thus meaning Net Neutrality is dead.

Actually, the FCC is to blame, because as I state elsewhere, and elaborated on in a previous article, the FCC tied its own hands for no good reason in 2002, when it classified the Internet like cable instead of like a utility. That decision meant it removed its own power to do what it tried to do in 2010 with the rules struck down earlier this year. The ruling doesn't say it has no power, ever, to try and regulate net neutrality, the ruling says it has no power to regulate under the classification system it chose. It has the power to reclassify as a utility which would easily solve the problem. As for thinking that opposing all regulation means they support net neutrality, I'd like to introduce you to people who think pollution regulations are wrong. No rules means anarchy, and not the cooperative kind.

That was my point: You were equating opposing the rules with supporting net neutrality when the result couldn't be farther from the truth. Even if that isn't what you meant, through your initial omission, you ended up framing it as that from the perspective of a reader.

Regardless, I think you're also potentially approaching this in a way that isn't as direct as it should be (although approaching it that way could be just as effective). Instead of classifying just internet service as a utility, you should probably classify cable as one (thereby snagging both). It's more of a legislative lift, but both Democrats and Republicans have expressed significant interest in more substantive regulation over the cable television industry (which is getting dangerously close to a Comcast monopoly in the US). The US Congress can then frame Net Neutrality as a matter of statute, not simply agency guidance or regulations, which are much easier for a company to overturn in court under the nondelegation doctrine, and would thus provide a more permanent solution to the problem. It would also have a much more immediate effect on the industry, as unless they have fully captured the agency (like the financial sector has effectively done with the SEC), the regulatory guidance would be incredibly clear. However, they're are two big catches with this:

1) This would likely mean internet infrastructure (most notably bandwidth-expanding infrastructure) would have to be built by the government or heavily-controlled by the government (similar to power and water).

2) This would require pushing for legislation in the 5 1/2 months leading up to the 2014 mid-term elections. It could certainly be bipartisan, as the internet providers are the only companies that would really have something to loose from this while major internet companies, small business owners, and consumers would be the beneficiaries.[2] But legislation is no easy feat, and getting it to pass may require Tarintino-grade political theater to make sure it gets through.

Anyway, because I clearly did invite some confusion, I'm making a slight change so it'll be clearer why the FCC is to blame.

That is appreciated.

[1] Yes, the FCC could have attempted to appeal it to the US supreme court, but given the current make-up of the bench, it would be highly unlikely to have a different result
[2] I can see the financial sector being fence-sitters on this, as while they wouldn't mind a priority line for high-frequency trading, having to pay for it would probably negate their benefits.

StriderShinryu:
Once again, I implore every American citizen on this site to stand up and speak out about this. Don't whine about Wheeler and how corrupt everything is. Don't moan about how things have already been decided and there being no point to speaking out. Just do it, and tell everyone you know to do it too.

Yup, now is not the time to be cynical or defeatist, in fact they are counting on it. We have to focus on taking action and continuing to take action no matter the odds. Tell everyone.

RossaLincoln:
It's likely FCC Chairman Wheeler will obstinately continue trying to kill the Internet. But it's far from too late to do something about it.

I posted this http://www.broadbandforamerica.com/sites/default/files/CEOLettertoFCC-5.13.14.pdf in a topic a few days back, in it the ISPs are threatening some pretty severe action if they aren't allowed to do as they please. The short of it is, they are threatening to stop maintaining and investing in their networks. Eventually this would cause all Internet accessibility to stop.

And what of us who don't agree with the idea of net neutrality in the first place?

Nimcha:
And what of us who don't agree with the idea of net neutrality in the first place?

You're entitled to feel that way, and even contact your reps and the FCC to express your point of view. We will never see eye to eye of course, but last I checked we still live in a democratic country, so godspeed.

StriderShinryu:
Once again, I implore every American citizen on this site to stand up and speak out about this. Don't whine about Wheeler and how corrupt everything is. Don't moan about how things have already been decided and there being no point to speaking out. Just do it, and tell everyone you know to do it too.

I posted a comment on the public forum at fcc.gov. Took several paragraphs to calmly explain exactly how the death of Net Neutrality would screw me (and my employer) over personally. Good to make sure they're aware that their decision here affects real people in a very real way, I think.

Nimcha:
And what of us who don't agree with the idea of net neutrality in the first place?

If you don't mind me asking, why don't you agree with it?

To sincerely believe that the US government will make a stand for the sake democracy is a sad joke, your prescribed efforts are really tantamount to a fart in the wind. Our political system is a vacuous malleable twink capitulating for whoever has the biggest wad. Instead of pleading with some feeble flapping head to put on their lame song and dance to your tune, invoke your only real power. Vote with your dollar, it's the only way to effect any real meaningful change. If every person and business in this country canceled their internet and cable subscriptions for just one month it would send a message infinitely more powerful than any amount of yodeling the DC mouth-breathers could ever munster.

But we won't and that's how we got here. We did this to ourselves, we deserve this.

See the thing here that needs mentioning here is that this fiber optic axis of evil really doesn't have any ownership over the internet, they merely own the roads people commonly use to get around on the webs. Blaze new trails and you strip them of their power and worth.

Let this be your wakeup call, we need to take responsibility as consumers. The government signs the laws but the dollar runs this country.

You elect your representatives with your purchases.

gianttalkingpickle:

Nimcha:
And what of us who don't agree with the idea of net neutrality in the first place?

If you don't mind me asking, why don't you agree with it?

Long story. Suffice it to say it's telling that this article seems to think to speak for the 'internet' as a whole without taking into account that it doesn't exist.

I wish i could appreciate the irony more...

But 'MERICA, you know, "Land of the Free" became one of the biggest threat to freedom.
"Personal Freedom" that is, like in my freedom to access content made by americans. For now.

I'm scared shitless about this. Over here in germany, we have some rural areas where you have very limited choice in ISPs, sometimes there's two.
We had this one minister of domestics, one Wolfgang Schäuble, who acted like a nutcase, as in i'd like to see him get professional help. The big fat panic after a certain September the 11th was a formidable outlet for his mental problems and eventually he went on to say that operatives shouldn't face any persecution by the law if they saw and shot Osama bin Laden. When asked later what would happen if there was a guy who looked like Osama bin laden he replied that such a person wouldn't be entirely without fault in his demise.
That was three days after cops in a london subway station shot and killed a man for attempting to run away.
Cops saw an arabian looking man with a backpack. Cops yell "Freeze!" and he takes off. Cops shoot him four times.

They never found out why he tried to run, was kinda hard to ask him.

Let's say we get another nutcase like Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble. He merely needs to look over to the americans to see just how far you need to go. All the talking points, all the arguments lead against them on a silver platter. I reckon cutting german network speeds would be a "Sacrifice needed to be made to finance _____.". Maybe we'll continue to not catch a single terrorist with even more expensive and restrictive measures.

Before someone reminds me that bowing to comcast has little to do with terrorism; changes come easier when disguised by fear. See calloused feet after standing for hours because TSA has to stick their hands up someone's ass for reference.

TL;DR U.S.A. is now the biggest threat to freedom.

evilnancyreagan:
To sincerely believe that the US government will make a stand for the sake democracy is a sad joke, your prescribed efforts are really tantamount to a fart in the wind. Our political system is a vacuous malleable twink capitulating for whoever has the biggest wad. Instead of pleading with some feeble flapping head to put on their lame song and dance to your tune, invoke your only real power. Vote with your dollar, it's the only way to effect any real meaningful change. If every person and business in this country canceled their internet and cable subscriptions for just one month it would send a message infinitely more powerful than any amount of yodeling the DC mouth-breathers could ever munster.

But we won't and that's how we got here. We did this to ourselves, we deserve this.

Let this be your wakeup call, we need to take responsibility as consumers. The government signs the laws but the dollar runs this country.

You elect your representatives with your purchases.

This post sums up the Libertarian ideology perfectly. "Yup. Goverment is corrupt, corporations run your lives and money is the only thing that matters in the world. Just give up, accept it and try and buy your way to happiness from now on."

This shit is why I identify as progressive. Because I'd rather try and limit this sort of shit as much as possible, instead of just accepting an oligarchy. Make votes actually mean something instead of dollars. Sadly, any attempt to try and limit the effects of money in politics is demonized and declared "SOCIALISM!!1!!" by just about any other political ideology, especially the libertarian fuckwits.

But hey. Maybe if Net Neutrality does die, and "the market" gets to fuck with the internet, all those idiots who identify as Libertarian can get to see just how much their "utopia" fucking blows. In the mean time, I'm going to do what little I can.

The more I learn about this stuff the more I want to believe that maybe we're blowing this way too far out of proportion. For instance, while a "fast lane" is an absolutely terrible idea and should never be allowed it still stands that the FCC can't really prevent it from happening as it is now with companies being classified as things other than utilites so instead of doing that they decide to pass a ruling saying "we'll allow this" because they want to regulate it and ensure it isn't unfair. I absolutely don't trust that this will actually go down like that and will still lead to horrible things in the future if they allow fast lanes to exist, but at least they're doing something to help prevent absolute shit from happening.

Still, this would all be fixed by reclassifying ISPs as utilites. Makes me wonder if something is actually preventing them from doing so.

Nimcha:

gianttalkingpickle:

Nimcha:
And what of us who don't agree with the idea of net neutrality in the first place?

If you don't mind me asking, why don't you agree with it?

Long story. Suffice it to say it's telling that this article seems to think to speak for the 'internet' as a whole without taking into account that it doesn't exist.

The internet doesn't exist? You're going to have to elaborate on that, lest I begin to believe that we're actually communicating via telepathy.

<dfn class=:

RossaLincoln:
It's likely FCC Chairman Wheeler will obstinately continue trying to kill the Internet. But it's far from too late to do something about it.

I posted this http://www.broadbandforamerica.com/sites/default/files/CEOLettertoFCC-5.13.14.pdf in a topic a few days back, in it the ISPs are threatening some pretty severe action if they aren't allowed to do as they please. The short of it is, they are threatening to stop maintaining and investing in their networks. Eventually this would cause all Internet accessibility to stop.

It's a bluff. This is the equivalent of holding your breath if you don't get your way. Sure, let them shoot themselves in the foot, if they want. Not that they will, because the shareholders would boot any CEO dumb enough to try.

All it means is that they're threatening to leave a hole open for some new companies - or multinationals - to pop up and take their place. There's a whole host of telecoms in Europe that have been living under Net Neutrality for years. Do these CEO's really think that nobody would hop the pond to eat their lunches if they petulantly refuse to eat them? Do they really think their rivals in the content sector won't help them? This is a study in blind arrogance.

Veylon:
It's a bluff.

Pretty much is.

You know who didn't sign? Google. You know who's stock won't drop? Google. You know who's rolling out a fiber optic network that can maintain consistent speeds almost 10 times the current signatories speeds? Google.

Still, it shows just how much they think of the system.

008Zulu:

Veylon:
It's a bluff.

Pretty much is.

You know who didn't sign? Google. You know who's stock won't drop? Google. You know who's rolling out a fiber optic network that can maintain consistent speeds almost 10 times the current signatories speeds? Google.

Still, it shows just how much they think of the system.

also

the solar powered wifi drones

Oh my God, I just got the greatest idea ever:

Red Dead Redemption + Tron. Instead of the end of the Old West, it's the end of Net Neutrality. At the end, you (spoilers) get killed by a FCC firing squad.

The USA will simply fall behind in terms of innovation. Broadband speeds will, in terms of average use, actively drop because of this. It's inevitable. But markets like Europe will still be saddled with the massive American made monopolies but without the crushing hammer to have to use them. These services will stagnate and there will be a web enviroment in the EU and other parts of the world that evolves separately to that of the pretty crippled US.

US companies will not be able to create new, competitive data-heavy services and people will stop trying to break into he US market. This means that, overall, American companies, and even American content if they try and lock that into it, will become less and less relevant for the rest of the world.

If this comes to pass as it seems it is going to then the USA is done as the defacto leader of the internet age.

Scrumpmonkey:
The USA will simply fall behind in terms of innovation. Broadband speeds will, in terms of average use, actively drop because of this. It's inevitable. But markets like Europe will still be saddled with the massive American made monopolies but without the crushing hammer to have to use them. These services will stagnate and there will be a web enviroment in the EU and other parts of the world that evolves separately to that of the pretty crippled US.

US companies will not be able to create new, competitive data-heavy services and people will stop trying to break into he US market. This means that, overall, American companies, and even American content if they try and lock that into it, will become less and less relevant for the rest of the world.

If this comes to pass as it seems it is going to then the USA is done as the defacto leader of the internet age.

Except that the EU is currently dismantling its net neutrality in pretty much the same way.

I'd like to clarify something for my own peace of mind. This is only affecting the USA right? As in these rules specifically allow US ISP's to charge companies for the QoS guarantee and the rest of the world is unaffected.

That said, it still sucks. The bit I don't understand is how this arse in charge of the FCC can claim "Guarantees Net Neutrality" when the entire thing is the exact opposite of that. He claims it will protect the Open Net when the proposed regulation specifically lets different sites get preferential treatment. The ONLY people who benefit from this are the ISPs who will make money from it. That's all there is to it. It's detrimental to corporations who will have to pay for preferential treatment and it's detrimental to consumers whose favourite services will be capped and slow.

Why does the FCC have this burning need to grant ISPs this privilege? Why does it need to change anything at all? How can they outright lie like publicly and not get called on it? Why does Tom Wheeler think this is a good idea that needs to happen? Why does the Federal Communications Commission have any say over a service that's specifically NOT a communication service, but a cable utility? What's to stop consumer's abandoning any ISPs that practice this in favour of those who do not, therefore killing it in the water?

KingsGambit:
I'd like to clarify something for my own peace of mind. This is only affecting the USA right? As in these rules specifically allow US ISP's to charge companies for the QoS guarantee and the rest of the world is unaffected.

The issue, as I see it, is that in many places the US is still considered the top dog in this sort of thing. If the US goes through with trampling Net Neutrality then other places (like us up in here Canada) are likely to follow suit, or at least see it as a totally viable option.

There's also the fact that if this does go through any US based internet related start ups are going to be crushed. It's easy to say "well, they should just happen in Europe then" but that sort of perspective just doesn't work in reality. Being that the internet is a global entity, those who find their success in/on it should be allowed to come from anywhere and should have the same chance at success regardless of their place of origin as long as what they bring to the table is a good idea.

In short, when dealing with something that impacts a global entity like the internet I see it as rather short sighted to view it purely as "an American thing."

Nimcha:
And what of us who don't agree with the idea of net neutrality in the first place?

Then you'll love these rules. Pray-tell what exactly don't you agree with about net neutrality?

KingsGambit:
I'd like to clarify something for my own peace of mind. This is only affecting the USA right? As in these rules specifically allow US ISP's to charge companies for the QoS guarantee and the rest of the world is unaffected.

The European Directive (article 22, I believe) states that all internet service providers must adhere to Mere Conduit principles (common carriers, as they are called in the US). Meaning Net Neutrality is preserved by law in the EU. The UK is a little trickier, since we have these censorship measures (or if you want the full propaganda term, "porn filters") in place. That means ISP's are legally obligated to perform stateful packet inspection on all traffic from homes that haven't opted out of the censorship measures, and block any packets that have a blacklisted website in their source header. This essentially destroys Net Neutrality, by not treating every packet on a network as equal.

Interestingly, under EU law, this makes all British ISP's very very vulnerable to court cases. Because they do not uphold net neutrality principles, they are responsible for every packet that goes through their network, because they have lost their Mere Conduit status under European Law, and thus lose certain protections. The main one in question is one that states that Mere Conduit providers are only obligated to provide a "best effort" service in an equal fashion to every packet on their network. If packets are lost, they aren't liable for them. Because British ISP's have lost Mere Conduit status, every single packet lost on their network is a viable court case. If people organised themselves, the likes of BT could literally be sued into oblivion.

To perhaps give a more clear answer to your question, this legislation is a US only thing, but will have repercussions outside it, too. Since America is the birthplace of the internet, and still holds the edge as the most interconnected of any country in the world.

Basically, I predict that the EU's response to this will be to strengthen our own infrastructure within the Economic Zone to avoid going through America as much as possible for our own traffic. Eventually, we will get ahead in web innovation, as the US stagnates due to incumbent players holding all the cards, never letting any new startup play the game fairly. What the US government and the big telecom corporations are doing right now will cripple the US' economy even further, with only those at the top gaining from this.

OT: It's still not too late to act if you're a US citizen. Call the FCC, call your representative.

I say everyone takes this advice and tries to voice their opinion. Even people outside the US should, since they may use US based services and the fall of net neutrality over here may get corporations in other countries brave enough to fight open internet in their home nation. Despite what media execs want, the internet isn't contained to one country.

And if all this public outcry against an obviously anti-consumer ruling goes ignored, I also say any customer of a company that either publicly opposed net neutrality or throttles their data should boycott that company as much as possible. If they must have internet (who doesn't today?) and their ISP provides cable or has a deal with a satellite company, cancel the TV package (or at least go down to the basic package and NEVER use on demand until this crisis is over) stating on the phone this very reason why your are canceling and would not have if the corporation didn't have more interest in slightly more profits instead of customer satisfaction. If enough people did this it would certainly send the message straight to the people causing this problem, but this is a last resort I'm sure will be organized only if the politicians and their cable buddies choose to plug their ears. It will hit them hard right in the division they thought they needed to protect from the evil internet when they really just needed to improve that service, lower prices or stop raising them every year, and improve their overall customer service. The "cable cutters" left for a reason.

Daaaah Whoosh:
Oh my God, I just got the greatest idea ever:

Red Dead Redemption + Tron. Instead of the end of the Old West, it's the end of Net Neutrality. At the end, you (spoilers) get killed by a FCC firing squad.

This is the single greatest idea I've ever seen. Rockstar, it must be done. Though I'd say a Comcast stand-in for the firing squad would be better, and having the FCC be the police you had been hoping would help you, only for them to stab you in the back because of bribery at the top.

I'm gonna be contrarian at flat out say I don't really care if net neutrality goes away, as it'll either work or completely destroy the current ISP model requiring it to be rebuilt into something better

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here