Acevil said:
superchunk said:
Acevil said:
Kasz216 said:
Apparently nobody explained to the appeals court that people don't really have choice in ISP providers because of the cable infrastructure needed for high speed internet. |
Since I consider you an educated user, even if sometimes I feel you lean a bit more right compared to me, can you explain to me what exactly has happened. I'm at work, and I just need a summary of the issue.
|
Internet providers have wanted, for years, to monetize internet. They want to change it from being a simple provided utility service, like water or electricity, to being more like cable and satellite.
They want to sell it as tiers instead of one giant on/off switch.
Basically, just as you have basic cable, expanded cable, premium channels, etc... they want to provide the internet in a similar fashion with some websites only available for premium prices.
Its absolultely anti-consumer and something FCC was trying to block as it would restrict web interaction (new sites would have to sign deals with ISPs to be visible, just as a new channel in cable) as well as create easy and simple censorship that currently is non-existant in US.
Obvsiously the courts are now listening to government and corporations to F people.
|
Wow that is scary, borderline leading to censorship of the internet... and if that becomes true, USA truly isn't free as they like to claim. The sounds of it as you described can lead to a gap between information for those less fortunate.
Given I have no idea on the topic, and hopefully it does not effect me.
|
Or at least thats one way. The other way is that they will charge netflix etc fees to be on the internet/get good service etc.
Still terrible, but less notieable to the public.
