If anything the FCC rejecting net neutrality may be a boon for investment in EU startups and might actually benefit the EU tech sector. So go right ahead and take a crap on yourself America.
But let's be clear that the FCC has nothing to do with "The Internet". They're strictly an American affliction.
You can't be more wrong. Since Netflix, Amazon, youporn, imgur, reddit will be affected by this and they will have to pay more to keep their bandwidth on the same level as now, or slower by only 10% (hey, they could slow down their network links by 60%, but since they pay 20M per year, its slower by only 10%!) you as the end, you the end consumer will have to pay for this more. It doesn't matter where you live, as long as you use any of US internet services, you will pay for this more, sooner or later.
They might. Of course. Vendors will raise prices where they think the market will bear it. But it seems strange to assume that by default, vendors will respond to raised costs in one market by raising prices in another.
Move them to another jurisdiction without them.
Investment into the EU (in the form of datacenters, locating jobs to prove the work is done there, and the transit costs in the new location).
That being said, the cynic in me agrees that broadly you're right, and whatever the companies do to mitigate the effects of it by moving hosting/transfer elsewhere, they'll use this as an excuse to jack the prices up regardless.
> You can't be more wrong. Since Netflix, Amazon, youporn, imgur, reddit will be affected by this
The same Netflix that reportedly has very poor show selection outside US? The same Amazon that has its data centers all over the world? And the three sites that are a pastime of little use and importance?
You need to do much better job at selecting examples to make your point compelling.
The Internet is not just Facebook, reddit, google, youporn and Netflix or the dozen or so popular companies.
What this non-Net Neutrality does is largely saying "if you want to build an internet-based startup the US may not be the place for you".
The thing is, that if that would happen, a lot of people who got onto Netflix/Amazon for streaming content because it's a good convenience/price ratio, will simply revert to illegal downloads from local servers if the prices go up much. I recommended Netflix to people here in my poor farmer village and they got off it again and went back to illegal download simply because they did not want to pay the same price Americans pay while getting much less (quality) content.
I hope we don't even have to _start_ the net neutrality fight in the EU, by winning it outside.
Countries with free and universal healthcare: 117. Countries with free (but not universal) healthcare: 39. Countries with universal (but not free) healthcare: 2. Countries who copied the USA in having neither free nor universal healthcare: 42. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_univers...
Countries who voted in favour of the United Nations resolution “Combating glorification of Nazism, Neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”: 131. Countries who abstained from voting: 48. Countries who copied the USA and voted against the resolution: 2. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-un-nazi-...
Number of countries who copy the USA and spend more than more than 4.1% if their budgets on military expenditures: China, who spends 13.0%. USA spends 36.0% https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/04/24/the-to...
Number of countries who copy the US policy of not guaranteeing paid maternal leave: 2. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0211webwco...
In other words: the US is not an empire. It's something that needs a different term.
Contrary to a sibling comment, NN paves the way for the government to regulate what a private company can do with their IT assets, and therefore a great firewall situation.
USA is first by Nominal GDP, but second by PPP GDP (or third if you count the EU). I wouldn't declare a definitive winner based on that. And it's better to leave population out of that, because per capita the US is far behind countries like Norway or Switzerland, and at only half the GDP of Luxembourg (both nominal and PPP).
The great firewall and net neutrality are both examples of the government regulating the internet.
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm sure we all agree that our ISPs should offer neutral transmission of packets without deference to source/destination or protocol/port.
Net neutrality is the default state of computer networks (a packet is a packet), and protecting it forbids discrimination by source, destination or contents.
The great firewall discriminates by source, destination or contents.
One of the main arguments against net neutrality is disallowing offering different speed or latency depending on the type of service (VoIP, gaming, downloads), but that's false, because you can do that without looking at the source, destination or contents; you just have to compare them with other packets (as opposed to comparing them to a pre-made list).
By what criteria is the USA "most successful country on earth"?
Also, by "most countries" you mean "countries with legal codes even vaguely compatible with Westminster-derived legal concepts" which is in no way "most countries" in a global sense, right?
Power, influence, GDP. Things that matter to politicians, which are the ones that get to choose these matters.
These ISPs are insanely jealous of FANG.
Given we're talking about the Internet. How about ARPANET?
Which in turn doesn't affect my outlook or my agreement with GP. I don't want to convince you either, I just want to route around you.
This "call to arms" happens every year or two. Basically that's a short term solution, and sooner or later a law will manage to get the votes it needs and it's game over (will be very tough to reverse).
And even the demonstrations after the Trump election did not achieve anything, by the way, so I doubt this is a good analogy.
Step 2: Call your members of Congress and tell them to enshrine NN into law.
Step 3: Vote your Rep out next year if they refuse to do what you ask for.
Step 4: Vote out the President in 2020 if he vetoes NN.
Pretty straightforward, imho.
Americans cast one single vote (in presidential elections) for one of two candidates, on a myriad of issues of every level of seriousness. Leaving aside the fight to convince a majority of americans, just deciding to vote against someone for NN is anything but straightforward.
I don't see why the criticisms on the idea discussed in the article. We can try both routes, give them all the flak we can for this and also try alternative paths to NN. This is an extremely uphill battle, we should be looking for every remotely-viable path.
But if you're a liberal in a blue district, then you should write your rep and let them know that 1) you will vote in the primary, and 2) having a firm public position on this issue will be your litmus test for who gets your vote.
They won't get money from their big $$$ donors if they don't pass the tax cut bill. They won't survive a primary if they're seen as being 'soft' on the ACA by the true believers in their party.
They don't have any idea how they're going to make it through the general election, but that's a fight for another day. They have other priorities first.
I think the GOP knows they are going to get one bite at this apple, and they are taking advantage of it. Hello tax reform and good bye NN.
The ones that are on shaky ground are those in areas that previously voted Republican primarily for economic rather than social reasons (i.e. for the sake of low taxes, not because they wanted to ban abortion etc), and are now flipping to blue because Republican social policies became intolerable. This is many suburban districts. And Republicans there are listening; for example, in my district (WA-8), Dave Reichert voted against AHCA.
The catch is, Republicans in those districts know that even if they pander to the new electorate somewhat, there are still enough reasons why their Democrat opponent will likely get their vote. They'd basically need to be liberal on everything except taxes (and given the nature of the tax proposal that Republicans unveiled, not even on that, since it hurts the suburban mid/high-middle class dwellers most!), at which point they might as well just switch parties. So you see a bunch of guys saying they won't run for re-election at all, and then they treat their remaining term as a means to squeeze the few last things in while they can.
If you mean who I'd vote for, it would be the Dem candidate, no question. The parties are far enough now that I don't foresee a situation where a Republican candidate would be more closely aligned with me on the issues than a Democrat, even a particularly disagreeable one. But, more importantly and urgently, I think that this administration must have some counterbalance in the Congress to check it. But this is a moot question, anyway, because I'm not a citizen and cannot vote.
Millions of people who are registered to vote simply didn't turn out last November because they thought their vote wouldn't matter, that the candidates would be about the same, or...who knows what else. If just a few tens of thousands of them happened to have voted for Clinton last November, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.
And for the record, I think the President should be voted out for a couple dozen things, one of which is NN.
Simply make some rule that to the average person looks like Net-Neutrality but in reality isn't. Or go only half way.
And with that all the average people will simply tell you "but they did bring back net neutrality!" and you'll have to update the outrage.
It's a much more efficient way to deal with outrage, currently employed by EA.
Luckily some communities are setting up their own broadband services, but the telecom monopolies are doing their best to make it illegal for communities to do this.
However, there are a few Democrats who have voted against NN in the past, or have indicated that they do not support it.
From this vote in 2016: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll152.xml
You have:
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
If you live in their districts, call up their office and tell them that you want them to change their tune on NN. Go to their town halls and tell them there.
There are also four Democratic Senators who listed as being part of 'Team Cable' according to this: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2017-10-04-democrats-...
Again, if you live in their states (MI, MO, MT, or WV) call them up and tell their staffers that you want them to change their mind on NN and tell them why. Go to their town halls and tell them there.
Bemoaning your elected officials' choices without ever trying to influence them will not change anything.
The solution is not "give up and let this pass, and then quietly try to work around it." It's "make the people in power pay DEARLY for their transgressions."