Amazon, Reddit and Netflix to choke their own services Wednesday 12 July as a warning

[goldenequity]

Amazon, Reddit and Netflix preparing to choke their own services Wednesday 12 July as a warning



Some of the world's largest internet companies are preparing to throttle their own websites in a day of protest against the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The 170 organisations involved - including Amazon, Reddit and Netflix - are preparing to choke their own services on Wednesday 12 July as a warning against FCC proposals for deregulating how internet service providers (ISPs) treat customers.

They allege the proposed deregulation would "destroy net neutrality and give big cable companies control over what we see and do online" - but what exactly is net neutrality?

Net neutrality is a term coined in 2003 to describe the principle that ISPs should treat all of the data they're providing to customers equally, and not to use their own infrastructure to block out competitors.

In a fairly classical regulatory brouhaha, most of the big cable companies which the protest movement think would be at liberty to act maliciously have come forward in support of the FCC's proposals.

However, all of those companies state that they are supporters of net neutrality and that the protest movement is mistaken in its opposition to the FCC's plans.

[goldenequity]

China moves to block VPNs from 2018, US and UK governments watch with admiration

[timosman]

Kinda like U-Haul sending thousands of trucks everywhere and insisting the roads should be free for everyone.

[sparebulb]

It would be funny if Amazon, Reddit, and Netflix succeeded to the extent that people could learn to live without them completely.

[shakey1]

I suspect the whole net neutrality issue is a lose-lose for Joe Lunchpail.

[sparebulb]

Hey Bezos and your clown pals...........

[kahless]

Maybe the anti-neutrality folks here can explain why it is a good thing for telco monopolies to regulate internet traffic in favor of their preferred monopoly customers over everyone else (including sites like ronpaulforums.com)?

I could easily see a scenario of RPF, various pro-Paul websites and Rand's Presidential campaign website being effectively blacked out by these telco monopolies (particularly AT&T which they have been vocally in favor of a tiered internet)

[dannno]

Maybe the anti-neutrality folks here can explain why it is a good thing for telco monopolies to regulate internet traffic in favor of their preferred monopoly customers over everyone else (including sites like ronpaulforums.com)?

I could easily see a scenario of RPF, various pro-Paul websites and Rand's Presidential campaign website being effectively blacked out by these telco monopolies (particularly AT&T which they have been vocally in favor of a tiered internet)

Start an ISP called NetNeutral and become a billionaire if you think it is such a great idea.

[angelatc]

Maybe the anti-neutrality folks here can explain why it is a good thing for telco monopolies to regulate internet traffic in favor of their preferred monopoly customers over everyone else (including sites like ronpaulforums.com)?

I could easily see a scenario of RPF, various pro-Paul websites and Rand's Presidential campaign website being effectively blacked out by these telco monopolies (particularly AT&T which they have been vocally in favor of a tiered internet)

Clearly the government regulations will make things better. And fair. God knows everything has to be fair. I have a right to Netflix!

Monopolies created by government, protected by government, subsidised by government. I love Big Brother.


I'm in favor of a tiered internet. One size never fits all.

[EBounding]

Net Neutrality is just a backdoor way to subsidize "content" providers (Google, Netflix, Twitter, Facebook, etc.).

But any ISP that tries to hide content and severely limit connection speeds will not last very long. The only reason people value internet access is because of its generally unrestricted nature. I'll just cancel my internet subscription if my ISP tries to box me in with the ISP's content, a la 1990's AOL.

[angelatc]

Here's an example, circa 2013:

News broke today that ESPN is in negotiations with at least one major wireless carrier to pay to exempt ESPN content from data caps. This type of structure, where content providers who pay get better access to customers, is exactly what net neutrality is designed to prevent.

So your provider is not allowed to develop a package of content specifically designed to deliver specialized services to a particular segment. Because the government says so.

Remember, Obama couldn't get this passed as a law. So he just made it a rule.

And people here on RPFs are cheering on the FedGov. SMDH. So much for freedom being popular.

[kahless]

Start an ISP called NetNeutral and become a billionaire if you think it is such a great idea.

Like the monopolies that own the federal, state and local governments would allow an outsider to compete in their markets. Especially not an outsider to the preferred Oligarchs that would allow an open internet to access Libertarian or Conservative media - or sites like RPF.

We are headed back to the pre 1996 Telecommunications Act days where people like me only had access to the government approved monopoly that kept out competition. Hosting over their service was forbidden unless I wanted to spend 45k a month for a direct circuit. That was if they would approve of you and you were not in a red lined area. Even after it was passed the monopolies still disallowed small business hosting. After awhile of competition as a result of the telecom act that provided an open internet at reasonable cost they finally caved.

Libertarian's that are against competition through advocacy of large government monopolies that were funded through taxpayer dollars are just another reason why the movement continues to be a failure. It is again a demonstrated example of failure to think strategically. You are not going to be able to expand your base if the monopolies suppress your ability to get out your message.

"So just start your own, compete". Where is this competition against the Progressives that dominate everything? Small websites like this with a very small market share is all there is. No one has come forward to compete against the Progressive behemoths. Once these small sites are taken out through a tiered internet they can completely control the message.

[dannno]

Like the monopolies that own the federal, state and local governments would allow an outsider to compete in their markets. Especially not an outsider to the preferred Oligarchs that would allow an open internet to access Libertarian or Conservative media - or sites like RPF.

We are headed back to the pre 1996 Telecommunications Act days where people like me only had access to the government approved monopoly that kept out competition. Hosting over their service was forbidden unless I wanted to spend 45k a month for a direct circuit. That was if they would approve of you and you were not in a red lined area. Even after it was passed the monopolies still disallowed small business hosting. After awhile of competition as a result of the telecom act that provided an open internet at reasonable cost they finally caved.

Libertarian's that are against competition through advocacy of large government monopolies that were funded through taxpayer dollars are just another reason why the movement continues to be a failure. It is again a demonstrated example of failure to think strategically. You are not going to be able to expand your base if the monopolies suppress your ability to get out your message.

"So just start your own, compete". Where is this competition against the Progressives that dominate everything? Small websites like this with a very small market share is all there is. No one has come forward to compete against the Progressive behemoths. Once these small sites are taken out through a tiered internet they can completely control the message.

Well, that's kinda my point.

Right now there are essentially monopolies on affordable internet providers.

Because of net neutrality, most people are comfortable with using those ISPs.

I would like to see those ISPs piss people off enough that another type of internet access or ISP rises up, possibly one that doesn't exist or hasn't even been imagined yet (maybe sorta like a distributed open source ISP or something).

[angelatc]

"So just start your own, compete". Where is this competition against the Progressives that dominate everything? Small websites like this with a very small market share is all there is. No one has come forward to compete against the Progressive behemoths. Once these small sites are taken out through a tiered internet they can completely control the message.

Uh, get off your butt and make it happen! NPR had an interview this morning with an entrepreneur that is working on providing high speed internet to underserved communities. His model does not contain any government funding or subsidies. He was crabbing because the mega-providers get FCC subsidies via the renamed "Universal Fund" which does nothing but make them provide the least amount of service possible.

The host made noises about how small companies like his should be able to access some of those funds, and he balked at that.

But what are you waiting for! Go out there and get that started! Of course, Big Brother has already decreed exactly what you can and can't do, so good luck with finding creative solutions.

[nikcers]

Libertarian's that are against competition through advocacy of large government monopolies that were funded through taxpayer dollars are just another reason why the movement continues to be a failure. It is again a demonstrated example of failure to think strategically. You are not going to be able to expand your base if the monopolies suppress your ability to get out your message..

This is something progressives say because a lot of ISPS got a lot of tax breaks, libertarians tend to think when the government doesn't take your money that's not a handout. The fact is if you came out with an innovative way to deliver last mile service at a cheaper cost then you could corner the industry.

Most people don't pay a contract with their internet provider and would gladly switch to a better option if one was available. Ellon Musk recently submitted a plan to launch low earth orbit sattelites that would deliver low latency internet world wide. The government will never be able to censor everything, China might have a goal to block all VPN connections by the end of 2017 but I bet you dollars to donuts that a currency crash will hit either them or the UK first.

[EBounding]

I doubt the ISPs would completely block all websites they don't like. Generally unrestricted internet is the main value proposition of having an internet connection for a lot of people. People would just cancel their subscriptions if they're boxed into "Comcastland Only Conent", even if that means no internet. But others might care to only access a few websites in exchange for paying a much lower rate. Or maybe an ISP would want to offer much faster speeds for certain sites. How are these bad things?

But let's get real. Net neutrality isn't about protecting "edge" content creators like Ron Paul Forums. It's all about protecting the big content providers--Google, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, etc.--from paying premiums to ISPs for data use through their connections. They want maximum speed to get as many users/ad dollars as possible and they want to use the heavy hand of the government to protect them.

[timosman]

But let's get real. Net neutrality isn't about protecting "edge" content creators like Ron Paul Forums. It's all about protecting the big content providers--Google, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, etc.--from paying premiums to ISPs for data use through their connections. They want maximum speed to get as many users/ad dollars as possible and they want to use the heavy hand of the government to protect them.

RPF data transfers are less than 1/1,000,000 of the big players where some of them account for over 30% of the Internet bandwidth. We are not in the same boat.

[juleswin]

Net Neutrality is just a backdoor way to subsidize "content" providers (Google, Netflix, Twitter, Facebook, etc.).

But any ISP that tries to hide content and severely limit connection speeds will not last very long. The only reason people value internet access is because of its generally unrestricted nature. I'll just cancel my internet subscription if my ISP tries to box me in with the ISP's content, a la 1990's AOL.

Or rather to prevent competition from coming into the market, why else would a tech giant like Netflix or google sign up for this $#@!? They all came about in a world where internet wasn't regulated. Why are they all of a sudden trying to change the environment that allowed them to exists.

I don't have any proof of anything but something stinks.

[timosman]

Or rather to prevent competition from coming into the market, why else would a tech giant like Netflix or google sign up for this $#@!? They all came about in a world where internet wasn't regulated. Why are they all of a sudden trying to change the environment that allowed them to exists.

I don't have any proof of anything but something stinks.

You can see the same pattern in conversations about removing the unconscious bias. Something that got everybody to where they are in the first place. Let's put an extra road block for the competition. I will sleep better at night. +rep

[Dr.3D]

Or rather to prevent competition from coming into the market, why else would a tech giant like Netflix or google sign up for this $#@!? They all came about in a world where internet wasn't regulated. Why are they all of a sudden trying to change the environment that allowed them to exists.

I don't have any proof of anything but something stinks.

/* sniffs for elephants */

[Keith and stuff]

Supporters of freedom are opposed to unneeded and counterproductive increased government control and regulation the Internet. Removing one of the worst things President Obama did will potentially help everyone not just in the United States, but the world.

[timosman]

Supporters of freedom are opposed to unneeded and counterproductive increased government control and regulation the Internet. Removing one of the worst things President Obama did will potentially help everyone not just in the United States, but the world.

This message does not sit well with the $9.95/month Netflix crowd. Netflix will have to pay more and it may affect the price of my subscription.

[kahless]

Where did we get to a point that Libertarian beliefs are supporting a handful of monopolies owning everything and shutting out any competition?

I think this thread demonstrates Libertarian's strictly viewing their philosophy to the point it is detrimental to it. No matter what your beliefs are you do not let your enemy destroy your means of communication because of a textbook beliefs about your philosophy.

[Brian4Liberty]

They are calling this the "Day of Action". Not sure why, but that sounds extremely SJW...

[Brian4Liberty]

All you can eat, or pay for what you want, that is the question. Obviously, the finest food and service comes from all you can eat restaurants (using that term loosely). /s

[dannno]

They are calling this the "Day of Action". Not sure why, but that sounds extremely SJW...

I even gotta tinder match from them.

[Swordsmyth]

Where did we get to a point that Libertarian beliefs are supporting a handful of monopolies owning everything and shutting out any competition?

I think this thread demonstrates Libertarian's strictly viewing their philosophy to the point it is detrimental to it. No matter what your beliefs are you do not let your enemy destroy your means of communication because of a textbook beliefs about your philosophy.

When did we get to a point that Libertarian beliefs are supporting THE GOVERNMENT TAKING OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL AS A SINGLE MONOPOLY?

[nikcers]

Where did we get to a point that Libertarian beliefs are supporting a handful of monopolies owning everything and shutting out any competition?

I think this thread demonstrates Libertarian's strictly viewing their philosophy to the point it is detrimental to it. No matter what your beliefs are you do not let your enemy destroy your means of communication because of a textbook beliefs about your philosophy.

Some of us are a little weary of the government protecting our speech or any thing else the government tells you is under threat from unrestrained capitalism.

[kahless]

When did we get to a point that Libertarian beliefs are supporting THE GOVERNMENT TAKING OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL AS A SINGLE MONOPOLY?

This is simply not true with net neutrality. If we already lived in the textbook functioning Libertarian society then I would oppose it.

If there was an Libertarian option and Libertarians had power within our government then I would agree with the comments here. But the fact is we do not and we are not even close. The telcos are effectively competing governments working with government to eliminate competition. In the meantime is it not wise to strategically compromise the textbook beliefs on this issue to ensure Libertarian modes of communication are not prevented from influence by competing?

It almost seems like the entire Libertarian movement is one big scam to protect big government due to the obvious fact so many Libertarians are conditioned against acting strategically in their own interest for the purpose of achieving a greater libertarian society long term.

[Swordsmyth]

This is simply not true with net neutrality. If we already lived in the textbook functioning Libertarian society then I would oppose it.

If there was an Libertarian option and Libertarians had power within our government then I would agree with the comments here. But the fact is we do not and we are not even close. The telcos are effectively competing governments working with government to eliminate competition. In the meantime is it not wise to strategically compromise the textbook beliefs on this issue to ensure Libertarian modes of communication are not prevented from influence by competing?

It almost seems like the entire Libertarian movement is one big scam to protect big government due to the obvious fact so many Libertarians are conditioned against acting strategically in their own interest for the purpose of achieving a greater libertarian society long term.

Your line of thinking ends with: I am voting for Romney because Dr. Paul can't win and we have to beat Obama.