[W]hat might the American internet look like without net neutrality? Just look at Portugal. The country's wireless carrier Meo offers a package that's very different from those available in the US. Users pay for traditional "data" -- and on top of that, they pay for additional packages based on the kind of data and apps they want to use. ... Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California originally shared the Meo example on Twitter in October. "In Portugal, with no net neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages," he wrote. "A huge advantage for entrenched companies, but it totally ices out startups trying to get in front of people which stifles innovation. This is what's at stake, and that's why we have to save net neutrality."
The Portugal model:
💩 Really into messaging? Then pay 4.99 ($5.86 or £4.43) a month and get more data for apps like WhatsApp, Skype, and FaceTime.I wonder what the extra charge for accessing the Drudge Retort will be.
💩 Prefer social networks like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Messenger, and so on? That'll be another 4.99 a month.
💩 Video apps like Netflix and YouTube are available as another add-on, while music (Spotify, SoundCloud, Google Play Music, etc.) is another, as is email and cloud (Gmail, Yahoo Mail, iCloud, etc.).
It's America. Everything is for sale and half the electorate is dumb enough to keep selling our collective resources on their own whims.
--Everyone should refuse to use the internet in retaliation.
#5 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER
You should do that.
The FCC didn't read the letters we wrote them either.
#5 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2017-11-22 02:26 PM | FLAG:
You study in a difficult scientific discipline. How could you be so dumb as to think they would?
I wonder what the extra charge for accessing the Drudge Retort will be.
No charge if it stops condemning Trump and starts praising him.
I was expecting changes more in line with bandwidth consumption.
The first question that needs to be answered is if "the internet" is a utility? The second question is "who owns it?" If it is a utility, then there is an argument dor it to be regulated by the government. If it is not a utility, then it is up to the company to determine their business plan.
With that said, if it is determined to be a utility, who thinks service will improve and cost will go down or that start ups and tweeks to it will be easier? What will it cost to license and get a new APP through the approval process? How long will it take to start taxing high volume users? How about regulating content? And who determines what is apropriate for public consumption?
#9 | Posted by Ray
Except there are already caps on that and no need to end net neutrality to get that. Cellular companies have had more tiers and prices for net access than "cable" and they have had them for years. Net neutrality is much more about access as illustrated by the article.
ehh Internet is a luxury for me. If my company is not willing to pay for it, then I don't need it.
So go ahead and kill the goose laying the golden eggs.
I can live without it.
Went back to using cash at Wal-Mart - love to watch cashiers go thru gyrations trying to cash a $100 bill.
Called the cops on me when I tried to pay for some gum with a 2 dollar bill.
I'll never use a credit card again. Just too much entertainment value in using cash. Amazing no one left on the planet that knows how to make change.
Just too much entertainment value in using cash.
#12 | POSTED BY PEGASUS AT 2017-11-25 01:30 AM | REPLY
This is one of the most depressing things I've ever read on this forum.
@#5 ... The FCC didn't read the letters we wrote them either. ...
More than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments were Likely Faked
...NY Attorney General Schneiderman estimated that hundreds of thousands of Americans' identities were stolen and used in spam campaigns that support repealing net neutrality. My research found at least 1.3 million fake pro-repeal comments, with suspicions about many more. In fact, the sum of fake pro-repeal comments in the proceeding may number in the millions....
And what of the less than 800,000 comments submitted that were not a duplicate or clustered as part of a comment category? Does the trend of comments turning in favor of net neutrality continue in the long tail?
It turns out old-school statistics allows us to take a representative sample and get a pretty good approximation of the population proportion and a confidence interval. After taking a 1000 comment random sample of the 800,000 organic comments and scanning through them, I was only able to find three comments that were clearly pro-repeal.¹⁶ That results in an estimate of the population proportion at 99.7%. In fact, we are so near 100% pro net neutrality that the confidence interval goes outside of 100%.¹⁷ At the very minimum, we can conclude that the vast preponderance of individuals passionate enough about the issue to write up their own comment are for keeping net neutrality....
So it appears that nearly all of the non-computer-generated letters to the FCC were in favor of maintaining net neutrality.
No wonder the FCC does not want to investigate the apparent ballot-stuffing and identity theft.
...The federal agency weighing whether to kill a basic internet freedom wants to hear from you first.
But it probably thinks your real voice is worth the same as that of a faked comment pretending to come from a real person....
Drudge Retort Headlines
Bloomberg: Food Stamps Should Be Spent on Food (178 comments)
Trump Tweet Blows Up GOP Strategy to Avoid Shutdown (58 comments)
$100,000 to Charity If Trump Steps on Accurate Scale (46 comments)
Feds Plot Massive NoCal Immigration Sweep (38 comments)
World's Belief in U.S. Leadership Hits New Low (37 comments)
Bannon Thinks He Can Defy Congress (37 comments)
Trump's Year 1 Approval 18% Below Obama's (30 comments)
Trump: Terror Attack Could Save GOP in 2018 (29 comments)
Wisconsin's FoxConn Bribe Rises to $4.5 Billion (29 comments)