Stop the Slow Lane
feld.com
feld.com
The difference being that I'd not be holding anyone to ransom for money, which is what those calling for an end to what neutrality still exists essentially want, I'm instead suggesting that we give the people who aren't doing that a "thankyou for not being a dick".
Un-dismissable twenty second delays to people reading your website will only serve to upset your audience, and in my opinion, shows a lack of respect for your readers time.
Theoretically a new company could try to compete but the major companies tend to choose not to start price wars and it's a very expensive proposition to run competing cable out to houses, particularly since the incumbent will usually lower prices to make it more expensive for the new entrant. Around here, in the areas which have competition both Verizon and Comcast will cut and remove the other company's cables when they do a new install to maximize the cost and inconvenience of switching providers.
I have no idea where you heard this fairy tale. Comcast and Verizon sub out almost all their installs and line work to local contractors -- and most of these contractors have contracts with multiple telcos and cable companies. If the contractors are maliciously cutting wires, it's to get more work for themselves.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2007-0...
http://www.cnet.com/news/cutting-the-copper-on-fios/
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/352765.page
Note, however, that there also do appear to be a significant number of anecdotal cases of 'vandalism' that are exactly as described (competitors getting their lines cut), especially in the case of multi-unit dwellings with different subs.
I have both DSL and cable modem at my house. There was no cutting of the first when the second was installed. The installer has no way to tell if that phone line is running DSL or if I'm still getting cable TV over that coax. That would not be tolerated for a second.
4 friends and coworkers who had it happen, mentioned separately and on several occasions this happened in a group setting and was immediately confirmed by other people who had the same experience.
You'll forgive me for finding them more convincing than your argument from incredulity. It's entirely possible that this a grassroots thing but the people affected spanned ~100 miles and multiple states.
And, it does serve to make a point for people who may not take the issue seriously otherwise.
Still, absolutely annoying.
Edit: http://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-tom-wheeler-remarks-nct...
It's rhetorical. Slow lanes aren't being proposed, fast lanes are being proposed. It's exactly the same thing, but there's no proposal on the table that explicitly allows ISPs to have the power to leave people who fail to broker a deal with them in a special, non-prioritized "slow lane."
>"Let me be clear. If someone acts to divide the Internet between 'haves' and 'have-nots,'[...]"
This literally means nothing.
"we will use every power at our disposal to stop it". Great Tom. Why don't you do so now, rather than playing wack-a-mole later?
Common Carrier is the answer.
Sometimes the conspiracist in me wonders if this really isn't about regaining some measure of control over what people can look.
So take the ridiculous dramaticized slow speeds away and the silly modal you're still left with an incorrect premise. The threat is not that consumers will have to pay for faster internet, it's that that website companies will have to pay the consumer's ISP. The consumer will have no recourse to improve speeds for slow loading new video startups that don't have deals with their ISP for example.
>I doubt anyone will see dial up speeds.
I'm not reassured in any way by your doubts.
Should be more like "We value your experience on this website".
I tweeted yesterday: [You must be subscribed to Twitter with your internet provider to read this tweet.] #FCCNetNeutrality
There should be a fast lane, it should also be the only lane.