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.

Well not in the EU https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-internet-... .

That law can be repealed if Europeans aren't vigilant; nothing makes the EU naturally immune to right-wing, pro-corporate swings.

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.

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...

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.

>"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."

The "US internet" is the same internet that has allowed Google, Youtube, FB et al to flourish. Do you not use any those? Didn't all of those presuppose an open internet?

Can you really divorce Silicon Valley from you refer to as the "US internet"?

Heck even take a non-US tech company like Spotify. Do you think they would have been able to launch in the U.S 6 years ago if they had to pay ISPs not to de-prioritize their bits?

You say we don't really are about whats happening in the US, but presumably you do care what's happening in the US if you are interested in technology and read Hacker News where S.V. as well as other U.S tech company news features quite prominently.

You do realize that not all technology originates in the US, yeah? The US isn't the center of the world. You don't have a monopoly on technology or IT and in fact, most of it wasn't even conceived in the US or by US inventors.

You need to get off your high horse about "US-America being the greatest country in the world" because it's not.

And to answer your question, no, I don't use Google, nor Youtube and especially not Facebook. I go out of my way to explicitly block them all to protect my privacy.

I didn't say that all tech originate from the U.S, I even referenced a Swedish company in my comment.

I never said the U.S was the greatest country in the world or even implied that. You are projecting. You also seem to have a quite a chip on your shoulder. You have no idea what my nationality is.

That being said please tell me the country that has produced more successful tech companies than the US? Or what country has more available funding for tech startups and the appetite for risk? What country is that if it is not the US? I would like to know.

Let me ask a counter question.

How much innovation in other countries was stifled because of the way the US companies operate?

And to get back to Google and Facebook, these two companies are building walled gardens not unlike the way ISPs in the US operate. They either force the competition out or buy them. They do everything in their power to keep you inside their bubble. In a few years down the road, we may just end up with only the services those companies offer and no alternatives to go to, because everything that threatens their dominance will be suppressed with everything they got.

Just like the US ISPs are doing it and the US government is doing it.

The US getting some of their own medicine certainly isn't a bad thing. Maybe it'll wake them up.

You didn't answer the question, who produces the most successful/influential tech companies if not the US?

>"How much innovation in other countries was stifled because of the way the US companies operate?"

So the reason the US leads in tech is because they have stifled other countries tech development? Can you provide some concrete examples of that?

Maybe you aren't aware but foreign talent is a corner stone of U.S tech. More than a third of top US tech companies(Tesla, Qualcomm, Google, FB to name a few) have founders born born outside the US[1].

This has been discussed many times on HN. So why did those people go to the US and start tech companies? Were they prevented from leaving the U.S and starting companies in their native countries?

In terms of companies building walled-gardens and consolidating market share that is called capitalism and it wasn't invented in the U.S. Additionally nobody is forcing anybody to use any of those platforms. You yourself said you don't use them.

I get it, you are anti-American and your entitled to that. But your statements are really naive and seemed to be informed solely by anger. I find your sense of victimization quite sad.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/top-tech-companies-founded-by...

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.

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.

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?"

> 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.

>"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.

> 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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