Internet speeds and freedom-the cost is cheap as chips if we all chip in.

LDebravity on 09/01/2015 - 08:15

Hi ozbargainers, if you had a spare $$, would you pay that to help guarantee a free and neutral internet for everyone (including the poor who don't have a voice). It is so important. I just gave $25 to Mozilla and this mob.
http://demandprogress.org/?akid=2866.3091089._5DJ1b
It's for our kids, who haven't got a say as well. Please pass it on to anyone who values the internet. A little bit from a lot of people goes a long way…. This is a serious issue of the interests of the rich versus the rest. If we lose, the speeds of the net will only be fast for people paying top dollar, and a lot of fun sites will be shut down…

Here's a letter I wrote to the FCC about it, here: http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?a…

Dear Mr Wheeler,
I am writing to you as a concerned citizen. I am very concerned about lobbyists creating disparities on the internet, between the haves and have nots. One of my great concerns is for our great country's future. We have been the most innovative and productive country throughout history. Open dialectics; idea sharing; and discourse; conducted anywhere that free speech was possible has been a key driver of that innovation. It is where our country has forged the solutions to new problems, with new thinking.
The internet provides an even greater platform for free speech, and therefore, innovation. It allows all people, with all of their own idiosyncratic ideas, to come together in ways never seen before. The US, and indeed, the world faces new problems which demand the best of all of us. Our species survival depends on new thinking-new ideas.
Everyone, even the cash-blinded lobbyists, need the best ideas to solve our big problems, NO MATTER WHERE THEY COME FROM! Please vote to keep our internet free from the big corporations cash-hungry jaws.

Poll Options

  • 29
    Agree, and will do something about it.
  • 8
    Agree.
  • 40
    Disagree
Internet

Comments

  • Debravity on 09/01/2015 - 08:49
    +5

    To whoever disagrees (on the poll), would you mind explaining your position. I would really like to understand any other position out there. It seems so cut and dried, to me. But, I have a lot of respect for this community-it's collective intelligence and knowledge base. Please explain a differing point of view. I want to make the best choice on this matter. Thanks (to the person who has disagreed).

    • Debravity on 11/01/2015 - 11:23
      +1

      To all reading, at this point in the discussion, we have a number of people concerned about:
      1) say, a Netflix, being hit twice for their usage, and the fact that it would be passed on to us.
      2) concerns about corporate responsibility (especially in deregulated market places), leading mainly to the point that they WON'T be responsible.
      3) the side issue of deprioritising sites which don't wash with ISP or their affiliates (including politicians), a freedom of speech issue
      4) an equality issue on costs, and for rich and poor.

      Please kick in on any issue, particularly anything that can be cited from another source. If you have an expertise, please be upfront about it.
      This is ultimately going to be a fight in Oz, so we need to make sure we know as much as we can, before it happens. Thanks to all getting involved.

      • King Steuart on 12/01/2015 - 10:11

        I disagree solely because you made a new account to post this and I'm a Jerk.

        • Debravity on 12/01/2015 - 23:08
          -2

          You can believe what you want to believe, but the fact that you resort to digital schadenfreude to pass time and feel good about yourself, sees you identifying with the worst side of the key aspect that ozbargain epitomises. Cheapness.
          And, as follow up advice to my accusation, when you pull your digit out of your rectum, be sure to try to pull your head out with it. ;)

        • King Steuart on 13/01/2015 - 11:50

          My comment brought you digital misfortune? Did your dogecoin cheque bounce?

        • Debravity on 15/01/2015 - 10:56
          -1

          @Putnum:
          When do you and 'your guys' flush my head down the toilet? If I want to go round with you, should I pass a note, or get some intermediary to come and tell you that I like you?
          If this is actually your adult playground, it is very sad times for you, indeed. Please, please don't induct me into 'your gang', I'll be much happier on the 'outside'. Pfft!

        • King Steuart on 15/01/2015 - 12:31

          Are you a real person?

        • Debravity on 15/01/2015 - 13:53
          -1

          @Putnum:
          Boring. Seriously, now. Why do you bother commenting on serious forums, frivolously? Further, why must it be in order to make someone else feel worse? What is the objective? What is usual outcome, munt up?

  • p1 ama on 09/01/2015 - 10:25
    +1

    I disagree. I'm controversial, I know, but here is what I think on the subject.

    There are certain things that can be fixed by laws and regulations. There are other things, however, that need to be fixed by market mechanisms. One of the benefits of living in a capitalist and liberal society is that most 'problems' can be fixed by market mechanisms if they truly are for the greater good.

    If certain ISPs want to violate internet neutrality by prioritising P2P traffic below other traffic, that's fine, but don't go giving them your money. For ISPs to do something like this is to just be shooting themselves in the foot - they're opening up new doors for competition, they're losing customers and eventually they'll be hit where it hurts most - the hip-pocket nerve.

    The problem with regulation is that there always seems to be ways around regulation. We can enforce internet neutrality all we want, but how do we actively police that ISPs are following those regulations to the strict letter of the law. What ends up happening is that we pay for lobby groups to get the government to impose the regulations, we pay for the regulations (through tax, of course) and then after all that, we pay for the enforcing and policing of such regulation.

    This whole issue on internet neutrality is a drummed up left-wing protest, it's simply a two-word slogan that really isn't as much of an issue as we've made it out to be. We've known for a long, long time that there are ISPs who shape P2P traffic, it's not like that is something new. What did people do? They just avoided the ISPs who did that. Plain and simple.

    • ESEMCE on 09/01/2015 - 10:43
      +9

      That's a great theory, if you have a choice.
      We're in a better situation than the US, solely because of ULL and the one ideal of NBN that has survived so far (separation of wholesale from retail), so at least we still have competition over the same wire.
      In America, many people have one wire running past their house owned by an ISP who isn't forced to offer wholesale access.. their "choice" is either pay money to that ISP or have no internet, which isn't much of a choice.

      The big problem is that the user pays twice for the same bandwidth..
      Subscriber pays the ISP to deliver them data and then the ISP has the gall to charge Netflix to send that data to the subscriber, as a result, Netflix subscription cost increases. The only winners are the ISP (and their shareholders) who have all of a sudden magically sold the same thing twice!

      • p1 ama on 09/01/2015 - 15:34
        -3

        I'm not too aware of the situation in the US, I've never lived or been to the US and don't really follow their affairs. But I was under the impression that their system would be similar to the Australian NBN.

        If what you've said is correct then this entire problem is due to the privatisation of the lines which should be public infrastructure.

        This sort of crap always happens when we hand over things that should be public assets over to private companies who care more about the bottom line.

        • ESEMCE on 09/01/2015 - 15:53
          +5

          It's currently mostly an American issue..
          But as the OP states, what happens in the US, will happen here (or at least will be attempted).

          The monoply dates back to Bell Telecom (Monopoly Private Telephone network across the US/Canada) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

        • p1 ama on 09/01/2015 - 15:56
          -3

          @scubacoles: I'll have a read of that tonight.

          I don't think that it's fair to say this will happen in Australia as well because our system is vastly different to what you've described the US system as.

          In Australia, at least when the NBN is rolled out, will have the lines as public infrastructure wholesaled to providers who will then provide retail services to end consumers. Whilst there is a certain fear of a similar thing happening in Australia, I doubt it, as most of us still have much choice when it comes to which ISP we choose.

        • ESEMCE on 09/01/2015 - 16:13
          +5

          @paulsterio:

          will have the lines as public infrastructure

          Until they're privatised which is the plan…

          Hopefully we (the government) learn from the mess made last time we owned the Copper Telephone network and sold it for a song!

        • Cheshire Cat on 10/01/2015 - 11:09

          @paulsterio:
          Except the NBN isn't happening. They have no intention in this model to take fibre from the new subdivisions that private companies put in. Those suburbs get locked to whoever owns the network. Only telstra currently has to share. The current NBN is a scam perpetrated to support current business interests.

    • Cheshire Cat on 10/01/2015 - 11:03
      +5

      Market mechanisms completely fail where the barriers for entry into a market are too high (like major infrastructure markets, airlines etc) the prohibitive costs make competition little more than a pipe dream and even then whenever it does occur the bigger fish will swallow any successful new players to maintain their dominance (banking and coms are both perfect examples of this).

      We live in a socialist society not a capitalist one. Where the vast majority value cheap or free basic essentials like healthcare, education, strong social security and equal access to basic needs like water, coms, power etc.

      There would be some argument that market forces 'could' work if the NBN had gone ahead…it hasn't…due to a desire to let market forces decide and look where that got us? Telstra deciding they wouldn't do an NBN back when it would have cost them $3B. Whole suburbs locked to some weird random ISP as they own the lines etc.

      • Debravity on 10/01/2015 - 11:42
        +1

        Market mechanisms completely fail where the barriers for entry into a market are too high (like major infrastructure markets, airlines etc) the prohibitive costs make competition little more than a pipe dream and even then whenever it does occur the bigger fish will swallow any successful new players to maintain their dominance (banking and coms are both perfect examples of this).

        I totally agree with this statement. Paulsterio is talking about a capitalist idealism, a totally free-market doesn't exist, anyway. There are so many current examples of government imposed, one-sided externalities, such as: tariffs, subsidies and embargoes etc. This array of anti-competitive, anti-capitalist measure is also complemented by extensive corruption within tendering processes, and everywhere else commerce related. How Paulsterio can speak of the existence of a 'true market mechanism', given this proven forces, I am yet to hear.
        Sadly, he sounds like he believes in capitalism, without allowing for the science of econometrics and economic history to temper his 'truth'. I say this without meaning to offend him. He is right, that in the pure sense of it, capitalism WOULD have solved this problem. But things are way past that now. It is so much more political than purely economics. Still, I can't help feeling I have little idea of what is really going on in this battle. Wheeler still has to bring down a fin decision. Then the next government can just tear it up, presumably?

  • Debravity on 09/01/2015 - 11:57

    I must clarify a couple of points.
    1) paulsterio has identified a weakness in my argument, which needs rectifying. This is a US campaign. It is a bit different in Australia, currently.
    However, because we (in oz) are gradually becoming little America (it hurts me so muthaf#*kin' much to say so ;p):
    what, with the mysterious TPPP gradually seeping into our sovereignty during 'Free Trade' discussions at US behest; globalisation, in general, at the hand of cultural imperialism; and,
    the majority of servers/corporations (give me a little license here for arguments sake) residing in the US;
    then, to my mind, we are ostensibly American, for internet purposes, at least to a significant degree. Mozilla claim that the worst case scenario will see "a world where someone else chooses what you should (and shouldn't) see on the internet." So, it can be our fight, too.
    2) we have just been witnessing the greatest failure of regulation, in history. Thanks to the deregulation 'cowboys' in the bush era (and prior to), we had the GFC with derivatives and bad loans ruining the housing market, allowing an asset grab for the rich, using worthless paper which was made by endless debt reselling. ….
    The market failed. Please argue to that, regarding internet freedom, paulsterio., or anyone else.

    • Debravity on 09/01/2015 - 13:31

      Sorry, that should read "greatest failure of DEREGULATION" .. Stupid fat opposable digit. :) and, thanks for writing back, Paul.

    • p1 ama on 09/01/2015 - 14:21
      +2

      The problem I see is that people tend to relate everything back to this concept of "freedom of speech", which, whilst important, isn't really the issue at stake here.

      From my point of view, what net neutrality is all about is ensuring that all packages sent over the network are non-discriminated. For example, not prioritising access to certain websites over other ones, or not giving less preference to P2P or FTP traffic, for example. This isn't about preventing access to anything nor is it about any form of censorship.

      However, to say that this is an attack on free speech and to even extend this to say that we will see "a world where someone else chooses what you should and shouldn't see on the internet" is a very big stretch. I don't see how this affects what we see on the internet and don't see.

      We know who this will affect the most, it is going to affect P2P downloaders and others who use massive amounts of data, e.g. streaming services, which are costing ISPs more. For goodness sake, these ISPs are businesses trying to maximise their revenue, not terrorist organisations trying to limit free speech. I doubt any ISP would care what we see and don't see on the internet.

      Now, I completely agree that this is an issue. ISPs shouldn't be prioritising different packets for various reasons, you can read about all of those reasons on the internet. However, this is not an attack on "freedom on speech" and to claim anything more is simply just typical left-wing protest action.

      If anything, this is the fault of the government for allowing private profit-maximising corporations to own the lines, which should really be public infrastructure.

      • Debravity on 09/01/2015 - 14:46

        Whilst I agree with many of your points, I'm surprised to hear Mozilla labelled a 'left wing' organisation. Could you provide me with any evidence to support that? What is in it for Mozilla?

        • p1 ama on 09/01/2015 - 15:32
          -2

          I'm not saying that Mozilla is a left-wing organisation. I said that what they are doing, i.e. to imply that this is more than what it is, is a typical left-wing protest action.

          What's in it for Mozilla? Well they're raising donation revenue, they're getting publicity, they're getting support from around the internet, that will all increase their profile and browser share and make them seem like great guys.

        • Debravity on 09/01/2015 - 16:46
          -1

          @paulsterio:
          Great debate. So, you're saying that Mozilla are ostensibly using this situation, and their promised actions, as a rouse to just make money and gain publicity from (in many ways)?
          Wow, I thought they were a bit more careful about their image than to beat up potential outcomes and use fear to gain money??
          Aren't they if higher integrity than that as a non-profit?

        • Debravity on 09/01/2015 - 16:50
          -1

          @Debravity:
          Hi scuba,
          Do you think more is at stake than the potential defeat of a 'left-wing' side show, in the US, and for the greater US (the world)?

        • p1 ama on 09/01/2015 - 18:02
          +1

          @Debravity: I'm not saying that at all, I'm just saying that there coule potentially be things in it to benefit Mozilla. Whether it is their intention to get into this situation for those reasons, well, I don't know.

          But, you have to consider that it would make sense that Mozilla would want more publicity. Their market share has been steadily decreasing since 2011 because of Google Chrome and given the way they're going, it won't be long until they become marginalised like Opera.

          http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-browser-ww-monthly-200807…

        • Debravity on 09/01/2015 - 19:16
          +1

          @paulsterio: @paulsterio: @paulsterio: @paulsterio:
          Paul, if we are to have a proper dialectic, then we need to rule out possibilities using logic, and reason. So, going back to Mozilla. If they we presume that they AREN'T in it for easy cash and PR, what would be the reasons you would think that they ARE using such doomsday language about net 'freedom', presuming that you are right about the fact that they can't be truly worried about sites being blocked, filtered or closed down by a further weakening of section 702 of the act, in the US? Surely, accuracy and integrity are of utmost importance to an organisation founded on the premise of a free and open internet. Just want to get a sense of what they could be worried about?

        • BobD on 10/01/2015 - 07:28
          +1

          @paulsterio:

          "What's in it for Mozilla? Well they're raising donation revenue"

          Google have been funding Mozilla for a while but this year they closed the purse. Mozilla is after money or they close.

        • Debravity on 10/01/2015 - 14:02

          @BobD: are you sure? Haven't they just formed an affiliation with Yahoo? Won't they just need to refuse their wet increasing expenditure for a couple of years? And how much can a donation drive really generate at the cost of their all important reputation? Interesting..

      • ESEMCE on 09/01/2015 - 15:48
        +3

        which are costing ISPs more.

        "Oh no, customers want to buy more stuff from us, it's going to cost us more money" said no company ever, except ISP's!

        If market forces were functionaing correctly, ISP's ought to be jumping over each other to provide better service. Instead, ISP's are reducing the service level to their customers to blackmail the content providers! They've brought this situation down on themselves.. They need to be regulated cause they have abused the privilege they were gifted (in the form of monopoly Intfrastructure).

        • p1 ama on 09/01/2015 - 15:58

          "Oh no, customers want to buy more stuff from us, it's going to cost us more money"

          Not really, it's more like saying you're providing an all-you-can-eat buffet and you're now choosing to charge fat people more money because they eat more. Whether that's right or not is open to debate, but they're in this to increase their bottom line, after all.

          They need to be regulated cause they have abused the privilege they were gifted (in the form of monopoly Intfrastructure).

          They should have never been gifted this priviledge. That's the problem.

        • ESEMCE on 09/01/2015 - 16:29
          +3

          @paulsterio:

          charge fat people more money because they eat more

          Nope, bad example.. if that were the case, it would translate to the ISP charging for usage per mb (kinda like here)..
          To use your exapmle,
          This is like the Hotel billing their Prawn supplier for serving the Buffet Customers Prawns, despite the fact that the Prawns are one of the main reasons people pay to eat at the buffet!

          They should have never been gifted this priviledge. That's the problem.

          Yes, and Title II is the way to take back some of that privilege without being spectacularly stupid and buying back the decrepit network… (Hi Malcolm, yes, that's directed at you)

        • p1 ama on 09/01/2015 - 18:04

          @scubacoles:

          This is like the Hotel billing their Prawn supplier for serving the Buffet Customers Prawns, despite the fact that the Prawns are one of the main reasons people pay to eat at the buffet!

          But that's stupid. Why wouldn't there be a stand-off?

          For example, if AT&T want to charge NetFlix, why would NetFlix pay up? If they don't AT&T would lose revenue from people paying more for data to use NetFlix, so they would be worse off than they are now?

        • mattyman on 10/01/2015 - 13:19
          +3

          @paulsterio:
          Because customers don't really know whats going on. Their internet is working fine but their Netflix isn't. "Oh Netflix must be broken." Blame gets directed towards Netflix.

        • Debravity on 10/01/2015 - 22:00

          @mattyman:
          Why do you think people blame Netflix? Shouldn't it be obvious that the speeds are predominantly bandwidth, determined by ISPs?

        • ESEMCE on 11/01/2015 - 11:09
          +4

          @Debravity: 3
          Cause everything else works fine.. therefore it must be Netflix's problem.

  • ESEMCE on 09/01/2015 - 16:43
    +1

    Signs point to the FCC declaring Title II
    http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/on-net-neutrality-in…

    • Debravity on 10/01/2015 - 22:00

      Thanks. Great to read. :)

  • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2015 - 19:43
    -1

    "Our species survival depends on new thinking-new ideas" Huh?

    • Debravity on 10/01/2015 - 20:04
      -1

      I can't tell if you are being ironic, or not. But, if you think about it, possibly hard, you realise that it is a derivation of an Einsteinian quote. If that doesn't resonate with you, then I say, from my humble self, 'yes'.
      If you are struggling with just taking my word, think the environmental catastrophe that the human race is sinking quickly into. If you can't see where I'm going (with this) from there, then I think it may be a mindset issue. You are likely, then, a global warming skeptic (euphemism for denier) and, with all due respect, probably don't use reasoning and logic to its full potential, and therefore critical thinking and it's application to today's problems doesn't occur to you.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2015 - 21:02
        -1

        Huh!

        • Debravity on 10/01/2015 - 22:03

          Well, you put up a strong argument-too strong for me. I concede. ;) man/woman, I don't know what you are saying by typing 'huh' each time. Sorry.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2015 - 23:04
          -1

          @Debravity: Ah Huh

  • Daedalus on 10/01/2015 - 21:17

    I wish my isp would split up their plans into 2 price segments. a cheaper plan with p2p disabled/deprioritised and a more expensive one with full bandwidth allocated to p2p

    right now by having an average price ppl who do not use p2p are subsidising p2p users

    • Debravity on 10/01/2015 - 22:04

      Do you think that they will? Would it be profitable for them, do you reckon?

    • Thaal Sinestro on 10/01/2015 - 23:48
      +1

      I disagree. If people pay for 100 GB/mont, they have a right to use that bandwidth in any way they want to, whether by torrenting, YouTube, Steam (some games are over 30 GB now), NetFlicks, FileLockers, Usenet, … it doesn't matter if what they are using the bandwidth for is predominantly legal or not. Not all torrents contain illegal content. I have downloaded some free mods via torrents, for instance.

      • Debravity on 11/01/2015 - 06:27

        I agree, but why do you object? Do u think it will cost more? Couldn't there be an off-peak usage?

  • Thaal Sinestro on 10/01/2015 - 23:44
    +2

    Governments, and especially the LNP, hate the internet because they cannot control and regulate it. The Libtards seem to think that all people use the Internet for is to pirate and acquire pornography.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/01/2015 - 04:53

    I'm not going to donate $25 to some random website.

    • Debravity on 11/01/2015 - 06:22
      -1

      Ok. Whilst Mozilla ain't random (gave them $20 for using Firefox over many years), just write a quick note to the FCC. That's action. It will help. The worst of our democratic society is people who whinge about problems, but can't even be bothered to write a letter. They actually work. I write heaps of letters to banks, the gov, etc. I rang 3 ministers over the super trawler a couple years back.

      • [Deactivated] on 11/01/2015 - 15:35
        +2

        Wrong government. Our opinion doesn't count for shit

        • Debravity on 11/01/2015 - 16:24
          -1

          Do you mean that because it's the us gov? I was saying I write to our government, and call our ministers, over issues. Are you saying that our opinion doesn't count for shit over here?

  • jimborino on 11/01/2015 - 10:17
    +1

    I would say that the easier question is:
    Where does the net sit in the spectrum between need and want. If it is towards a need, it should be treated and regulated as such. Can you imagine paid prioritization of food? Paid prioritization of the net is moving towards propaganda. Btw, no comparison is perfect…
    Generally, corporations do not act in the common good, they act for the good of their shareholders. We can only hope that the common good and the shareholder goals align. I doubt corporations are that responsible.

    • Debravity on 11/01/2015 - 11:15

      Corporations are notoriously NOT responsible, except an appearance on the surface. See this link in 'greenwashing' etc.
      en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing

  • kaos on 11/01/2015 - 10:56
    +3

    let's use a real life example. Company names picked to make sense to Australians, not because they are actually committing the actions I describe.

    I have a Netflix account. I also have Telstra cable and it all works quite nicely. One day Telstra figures out that a lot of my traffic comes from Netflix and figures that they can squeeze a bit more out of Netflix because they are generating a significant part of the traffic in and out of their network. Please bear in mind that Telstra are ALREADY getting paid for this traffic by me in my monthly fee.

    So Telstra start shaping my Netflix traffic. My experience become worse and worse. I complain to Netflix, and they figure out that it's Telstras fault. Telstra complain that it's costing them heaps because they constantly have to upgrade their gear just to support the traffic generated by Netflix. Eventually Netflix agree to pay Telstra for the traffic.

    Net neutrality has just been violated because they are treating traffic from different sources differently, ie. not in a neutral manner. This increases Netflix' cost and guess what? They increase my monthly fee, and so I'm now paying FOR THE SAME DATA TWICE.

    This is why net neutrality should be important to you. And guess what? This is already happening in the US. Plenty of examples where legitimate commercial traffic has been shaped in order to force companies to pay extra for it. It's a BIG deal.

    • Debravity on 11/01/2015 - 11:10

      Thanks Kaos, for your brevity. That is one concern. The other is in the weakening of regulations to the point where 'unpalatable' sites, sites 'deemed' to be seditious or offensive etc, become so de-prioritised tht they barely exist, isn't it?

      Paulsterio claimed that this is being beaten up in to a 'freedom of speech' issue, I think, incorrectly. However, it is one of the lesser of the evils at play, here. It is fallacious to wrap everything up into one issue, thereby dismissing it all completely. What do reckon, people?

    • ESEMCE on 12/01/2015 - 07:58
      +1

      We alreay have a non-net neutral situation due to our data quotas.
      Some content is deemed "quota free" and sold to us as a positive, but there's nothing to stop ISP's from receiving payment from (in Telstra's case) Foxtel to make only Foxtel Go and Play quota free and all other catchup or VoD services charged data.
      This could lead to a situation where everyone signs up to their content provider not of choice, but of the ISP's selection, thereby making it even more difficult for a new startup to enter the market and change the way we consume content.
      The argument is that only a "free" (as in speech) internet can foster change and improvement. If we allow it to become a closed market like broadcast TV, it will stagnate and future society will suffer due to the reduced innovation.

      • Debravity on 12/01/2015 - 08:25

        This could lead to a situation where everyone signs up to their content provider not of choice, but of the ISP's selection..
        Scuba, thanks so much for all of your insights. Would you mind just clarifying the above for me. When you say 'everyone signs up…not of choice, but of the ISPs selection', what do you mean? Who is everyone and how does the ISP 'select' everyone, per se?
        Thanks

        • ESEMCE on 12/01/2015 - 08:49
          +1

          If my ISP is Telstra and they serve Foxtel content "quota free" (due to a financial arrangement with Foxtel), but Netflix, Quickflix and Stan "on quota". Telstra Customers are subsequently far more likely to subscribe to Foxtel than another provider (assuming subscription costs and content is roughly equivalent).
          "Why subscribe to Netflix, when Foxtel Play offers a similar level of content and I can connect on the lowest Quota Plan with my ISP?"
          To watch Netflix, I'd need to bump up to the next Quota Tier (+$10/month) to factor in all the "on quota" Netflix data, essentially making Netflix Subscriptiuon $10/month more than normal.
          Far better for me to pay $15/month to Foxtel and stay on my budget ISP plan, than pay $10 to Netflix, plus another $10 to Telstra to bump up the quota.

        • Debravity on 12/01/2015 - 08:59

          @scubacoles: got it! (I never watch TV or have any subscriptions so this part of the issue is a bit foreign to me). It all makes sense to me now. Thanks heaps for all of your time. :)

  • Lancerx on 11/01/2015 - 16:21

    So what are we actually donating to? To keep the campaign website running?

    • Debravity on 11/01/2015 - 16:33

      Hi skyl, if I understand your question, then:
      a) yes, a donation to 'demand progress' allows them to advertise and lobby, in the same way that bank-rolled lobbyists and political entities get to, although obviously on a much smaller scale.
      b) a donation to Mozilla is the subject of some conjecture. Whilst I would like to believe that the funds donated through the emails regarding the 'net neutrality' issue, would go directly toward funding powerful lobbying, by Mozilla, for better regulation in the US, I also note that some of the learned posters on here believe that it will do nothing more than bolster Mozillas non-for-profit coffers. They use that for development and education around their mission statement and products. I also use Firefox, so to me it is a win-win, and didn't mind parting with $20 after all the use I have had from their browser, etc.
      does this clear it up, Skyl?

  • John Dough on 12/01/2015 - 09:55
    +1

    There is free internet at Maccas!

  • Debravity on 15/01/2015 - 10:51

    Lifted from 'the daily kos'
    These lobby groups have launched a full scale attack on net neutrality. They are telling every member of Congress, the FCC, the President, and the public that Title II is bad and these rules should be stopped.

    Yet, they are telling Wall Street and investors an entirely different story. Cable CEOs have stated to investors that Title II won’t stifle investment or buildout. Additionally, the price of stock shares have remained stable under the threat of Title II and CTIA members have bid on nearly $45 billion in spectrum for wireless under the threat of Title II. All of these indicate that Big Cable is selling a pack of lies to the American public and members of Congress.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join