This brings to my mind some Sony Music executive defending their malware-enabling CD DRM - - "Most people don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care?"
That brings to mind a (probably unimplementable) thought I had around the same time: disallow people that do not understand what things are to make choices about it that affect everyone.
Doesn't surprise me at all - the level of energy in the most recent protests around the repeal was optically quite a bit lower than previous efforts.
We were basically warned this would happen too, that Net Neutrality opponents just keep beating the drum until the general population got tired of resisting.
> We were basically warned this would happen too, that Net Neutrality opponents just keep beating the drum until the general population got tired of resisting.
The general population never resisted, because they were never really participants in the conversation.
Most of the net neutrality activism happened within the bubble of people who work in or care deeply about tech. I don't know very many people in the general public who had heard the term "net neutrality" before I mentioned it to them, and I live in Silicon Valley, so I would expect the general public here to be a bit more technology-inclined than in the rest of the country.
This should be a wake up call to proponents of net neutrality -- better marketing and communication with the general public is going to be needed.
It's hard to fight with lawyers who have the full-time job of doing things like repealing net neutrality. This is even more true when they don't care about public opinion, have strong industry ties, and literally run the FCC.
I'd argue that at this point, the protests are arguably irrelevant. Ajit Pai has made his position clear, he has no intention of changing it. With a Republican Presidency, the FCC has a Republican majority, and votes on party lines. The only alternate path to this issue is Congress, which is also Republican. No Congressmen cares strongly enough about net neutrality (it's not an issue that's going to lose them reelection) to risk breaking the party line over.
In short, submitting comments to the FCC or protesting is nearly completely irrelevant because Ajit Pai is gonna be Ajit Pai. I think there's a less than 1% chance that the Open Internet Order is not revoked.
Everything you say is true, but the protests and public comments need to happen anyway, for the record, since the current regime won't be in power forever.
It is a balance of ignorance. I really do believe most people don't know and don't care about net neutrality no matter how beneficial it may be to them in the most immediate sense.
At its core the net neutrality debate is a fight between media providers and transmission. It is clear to most tech literate people that net neutrality is a very good thing. Less clear is that media (including privacy) regulation is also a good thing.
The transmission side of the argument is clearly in the camp of the Republicans (as noted by campaign contributions) while the media companies (think social media and online advertising) is clearly in the camp of the Democrats (as noted by campaign contributions). The primary weapon in matters of media versus transmission is ignorance of the issue at hand.
The media side has very powerful weapons in that they control the content. If they fear regulation coming they can provide content to bolster their users. Think back to the SOPA legislation. These companies are largely unregulated and nothing scares them more than regulation.
The transmission side just has to be persistent to win their argument and hope they can hang on long enough to out last the patience and technical understanding of the public. This strategy has won wars and can easily win political arguments.
The transmission side of the argument is also fearful of regulation, but these guys have to walk a fine line. If they can dodge regulation because regulators are more interested in limiting online media then so be it, but this isn't the ideal outcome for these guys. Ideally the transmission companies would like a slice of that unregulated online media revenue, but it only makes sense if both media AND transmission remains loosely (at best) regulated. This requires a lot of careful political maneuvering and not upsetting political constituents.
I tend to not worry too much about situations where politicians take people's money and then say "FU" when those people ask for favors. (Which isn't always that case with democrats and NN, of course, just saying...)
Cracked even ran a commentary video [0] where all the hosts misunderstood how the internet works entirely (Netflix pays millions of dollars to Tier 1 providers (pre-Comcast deal even) every year, they don't use the networks for free, and Comcast didn't build them (nor own the companies that did) they only build the last mile - which is supposed to be maintained by their subscribers, not be used as a monopoly to be greedy with - they also pay Teir 1 providers to provide connectivity and maintain the internet).
Net neutrality has to be one of the most poorly marketed concepts of the past decade. When you're head-to-head with global companies with tremendous budgets, it's a good idea to have people trained in PR doing your branding.
The biggest failure of the net neutrality movement was it did nothing to undermine the belief that net neutrality represented a change in the status quo. It would have been better to lead with the idea of big business (telecoms) or the government (FCC) meddling with the Internet.
This highlights an unfortunate aspect of our public sphere. The unvarnished truth is rarely enough to influence public opinion. Those of us in the computers, and engineering must recognize that rhetoric based on emotion is a more effective tool when communicating with the general public. Facts are necessary but not sufficient.
Good point. The telecom industry started this back in the 2000s with their astroturf "Hands off the Internet" campaign, implying NN was about applying new regulations to the Internet. NN's big failure was in not finding an effective way of pushing back against that.
I'm not convinced that facts are even necessary right now. You can literally just make stuff up and make up arguments around it, then scream about it until people start getting onboard.
Anti-throttling is great. It's better rhetorically (who wants their data throttled?) and arguably clearer too, since that's what it comes down to in the end -- the ability for ISPs to throttle some content more than others.
You have to be careful about that, because there's nothing in net neutrality that prevents restricted data silos, censorship, takedowns; it's really only about forbidding a specific network management practice that allows ISPs to impose a time cost on sites and services they disapprove of.
Depends. Equality of opportunity, equality of the vote, equal in the eyes of the law, those are largely uncontested. Income/outcome equality is certainly a hot button issue.
22% (6% answered not sure). But to be clear, 22% SAY they know what it is. I guarantee that if asked to explain what it actually is, some chunk of that 22% would get it wrong. Anecdotally, most people I talk to IRL believe it will either lower their cable bill or remove their bandwidth cap.
I think the counter one liner to that is something like: Net Neutrality keeps big companies from controlling what you can access on the internet. But not totally comfortable with that because "access" is overstating.
Good point, I think this is important to highlight, and might appeal to people reluctant to support net neutrality.
If one supports competition and free markets, recognize that the ISP business is not free and open to competition, and used regulation to gain monopoly or duopoly status. We need some regulation to either try and create competition, or at least prevent abuse of their current monopoly/duopoly status.
It would probably help if more advocates agreed on what they mean by net neutrality. Having listened to advocates on various news networks, I'm pretty confused what they actually mean.
I would also like to see an actual bill with an actual legal definition. Given how regulations work, I would hope the authors of said bill put the actual regulations in it. I still want to see one of these advocacy groups put out a proposed bill.
Can someone point to the best ELI5 article, or tell me the best metaphor? I think I don't do a great job trying to explain net neutrality to family members.
Do you know how you have to pay extra to your ISP to watch Netflix or Youtube? You don't because of Net Neutrality.
If they are old enough you can use this metaphor:
Anti-Net Neutrality is for turning the Information Superhighway into toll roads.
If they need further explanation, go with the highway analogy. Imagine if all of the roads in the country were privately owned, but still free to use. You pay your tax and the money is distributed among the companies. Now the company that services your neighborhood decides that they want more money, so they erect tollbooths at the entrance to the neighborhood but tell companies that they'll wave the toll if you're going to a certain company. So Wal*Mart might pay the fee and get you free access, while Mom&Pop shops can't afford it so you have to pay a toll to visit them. They claim it is necessary because the Mom&Pop shop gets too much traffic and they aren't helping to pay for the roads in your neighborhood, even though the shop is in the next town over and the extra traffic doesn't really cost the road company anything.
Do you know how you have to pay extra to your ISP to watch Netflix or Youtube? You don't because of Net Neutrality.
That's a good scare tactic, but isn't very informative (or necessarily true). Net Neutrality only came into effect on June 12, 2015. I don't think people will recall paying extra to watch Netflix or YouTube before that date (because they weren't). And paying extra probably won't be the effect if net neutrality is rolled back, so it will undermine the argument to reinstate it.
The problem is that we need net neutrality to help balance the power against big vertically integrated Media/ISPs like Comcast and Time Warner. But it is more about the future potential abuse, so people won't care until there is some event that really affects a lot of people.
Not even sure this would fall under the net neutrality umbrella. Comcast and Verizon weren't specifically discriminating or shaping Netflix traffic. Netflix was buying and over saturating the cheapest bandwidth they could. The question became who pays to upgrade to accommodate it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the current Net Neutrality rules don't address this situation.
It's kind of like a business saying that it doesn't discriminate against a minority, but when one of those people walk in the door they just never get served. It's still discrimination even if it's not overt. It's the kind of thing that Netflix could definitely argue as a Net Neutrality violation over at the FCC, especially once they got a demand to pay up.
It's not like the consumers could switch to a less dickish provider, they're often a local monopoly. You may also note that there were no repeats of this problem after 2015, even though many high bandwidth services appeared and grew in this time.
All Cogent traffic was being affected, not just Netflix, so the analogy doesn't hold. Everyone at the restaurant was being served, equally slowly.
You may also note that there were no repeats of this problem after 2015
Implicit in that statement is that there have been no paid peering agreements (the Netflix/Comcast solution) since 2015, which I know for fact is not true.
many high bandwidth services appeared and grew in this time.
Examples? What high bandwidth companies appeared after 2015 that have even 1% of Netflix traffic?
No, that money came out of the pot of money that they were previously paying to Cogent for transit through to Verizon and Comcast. Describing an extremely-typical paid peering agreement as a "ransom" is massively intellectually dishonest.
They still payed Cogent for the peering, but they had to also pay Comcast and Verizon for the same peering (just on the other side), because both companies were deliberately undersizing their connections to Cogent until Netflix paid up.
It's not like Netflix moved their servers into Comcast or Verizon data centers and paid for the bandwidth (although they offered and the offer was rejected). How many other internet companies pay the end user ISPs for their peering bandwidth? Why should they? That's what the users are paying for.
because both companies were deliberately undersizing their connections to Cogent
I think a clarification would be helpful here. Were they "deliberately undersizing" or were they refusing to to increase capacity to accommodate the surge in additional Netflix traffic without being paid?
This is how Cogent described it, “Comcast refused to continue to augment capacity at our interconnection points as it had done for years prior.”
Comcast claims:
"Comcast executive vice president David Cohen said Comcast was forced to react when the flow of traffic with Cogent went from roughly equally to Cogent sending five times as much data as Comcast was sending back."
Cogent isn't sending traffic to Comcast willy nilly. Comcast customers are requesting the traffic. It's part of Comcast's cost of doing business to size their network to meet their own customer demand. Or at least, it should be, because most of Comcast's customers have no other choice of ISP, so normal market pressure doesn't work. So yes, this is (should be) a Comcast problem, not Cogent and not Netflix.
That's an arbitrary assessment. It is a problem for both sides. Netflix was paying Cogent for bandwidth. Cogent was taking advantage of a peering agreement (peer ~ equal) that was then thrown way out of balance. Netflix switched from paying Cogent to paying Comcast - both sides had obligations to pay for bandwidth from the beginning.
For the first one, even before Net Neutrality, we didn't have to pay extra to watch Netflix or Youtube.
And for the second. Imagine that your neighbors are ordering stuff from Amazon. Amazon is making lots of money delivering to the homes. However, they are overloading our neighborhood roads with their vehicles. Our neighborhood roads have become congested because of Amazon. Now Amazon is saying that this congestion is solely our problem. However, since they are the ones making money from our roads, we want them to pay their fair share for profiting from our roads. We are only doing this for big corporations like Amazon who are not paying their fair share and causing us congestion. We have never tried to make mom and pop stores pay this fee.
This is so simple it doesn't need a metaphor; net neutrality means that ISPs would be obligated to treat all traffic equally. Throttling Netflix, Bittorrent, etc. under net neutrality would be illegal.
What the comes down to is an argument on how much agency a company has to control their service if we've deemed their service "critical to the public good."
This take is probably unpopular, but since I haven't seen many of these points and there are some very big players (IBM, Cisco, Juniper, Intel, Ercisson, etc.) that are against net neutrality with some of this reasoning, I'll fill you in some points that you probably won't hear:
1.) Routing traffic does not have equal cost. Peering, load balancing, and other aspects of routing are complex and carriers have people whose livelihoods revolve around handling these issues. A web request to a backwater site a couple hops away from you has nowhere near the load implications that streaming a 2 hour 4k movie has.
2.) Net neutrality is a bad fix for the underlying issue; local/state governments make it exceedingly easy to get a monopoly going with pole attach and franchising rules. Without this monopoly, neutral connections are a constant danger to the incumbent ISP. It is much easier to break into markets with lax regulation like Texas because of how their franchising permits work.
3.) Net neutrality is largely a power play by advertising/media companies that have no appreciable revenue other than pushing content. Facebook, Google, 4chan, etc. need advertising because they have very little value outside it. This obviously isn't an issue if you're Cisco, Intel, or the like, because they have a product other than you.
Think of it like your cable company, Mime Warmer, also happens to own a broadcasting company called DEF. You pay Mime Warmer $100/month to access every cable channel that exists. The DEF channels come in 4K. Now, because there's no cable company regulation, non-DEF channels only go up to 480p unless you pay an extra $10/month per channel you want in $4k.
The problem with this analogy is that cable already comes in packages. The key here is that you already pay for the access to all channels. But all of the sudden they see a new revenue stream in restricting access to promote their own properties.
So, it's not the internet that is being regulated: It's ISPs (Net Neutrality is the wrong word to use). You already pay for internet access, so does Netflix. Why all of the sudden would you want to let ISPs charge more for what you are already paying for?
And opponents (Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon, et al.) all say they totally support NN, but oh, they don't want to be forced to obide by it for "reasons". And there are already examples of ISPs (Verizon, namely) throttling others or exempting their traffic (from data charges). Lawmaker opponents keep claiming it's "regulating the internet", but it's not -- it's regulating ISPs since they have mono/duo-polies.
Except ISPs are planning to charge providers, not the users, so if NN falls and people don't see their bills increase as that suggests, good luck getting them to listen to you again.
I think the high-demand "premium" channel is the best - simply because there is no limited supply.
I used the bridge metaphor for a while, but unlike bridges there is no maintenance required from increased usage or traffic jam generated from high traffic to netflix or google.
The internet isn't run by the government, it's mostly run by private companies. These private companies want to create and enforce a sort of tax policy around internet consumption. Companies can tax you in multiple ways (slowing page load speeds, censoring content, denying access to services etc...) and they can do it for multiple reasons (business interests, lobbying from their friends, censoring dissent etc...) Net Neutrality is the idea that private companies should not be able to create tax policy on core internet infrastructure, and instead it should remain tax-free for all users.
The ultimate irony here, is that this battle is pitched as Silicon Valley vs. the U.S. government, with Silicon Valley fighting for a free and open internet and the government trying to pass legislation to pave the way for private companies to enforce tax policy. But in actuality the battle for a free and open internet has morphed into the people vs. Silicon Valley, with tech companies as the villains in the story.
The arbitrary censorship on social media sites (such as Facebook, and Twitter) has gotten really bad. Platforms like Youtube for content-hosting and Patreon for fundraising have begun demonetizing and delisting their political opponents. Lower level infrastructure such as GoDaddy and Cloudflare have even now begun to enforce political delisting.
Wake up. Private companies are already enforcing a tax on your internet consumption if you are guilty of wrongthink. Whether it's Verizon, Twitter, Patreon or Cloudflare, who cares, it's the same thing.
In my own experience I'd be surprised if that 22% that say they do would come even close to realy knowing even the basics. In my own 'tech-savvy' circle, I still find most people that once in a while utter the phrase 'net neutrality' not making the connection when their mobile ISP rolls out 'zero rating' for preferential apps.
No, not "how". Merely that it still works at all. A big fraction of the population assumes you have to buy cable to get TV. Some think that selling TV antennas is illegal. [1]
I recently cut the cable and installed a digital antenna with a HomeRun for the AppleTV. I wanted to make sure I get football games when the season comes around. I couldn't be happier, the picture is as good as cable. We get around 42 channels, but a few duplicates.
I got Hulu which I'm not overly happy with. Playstation Vue was a lot better.
I think net neutrality would do better if was rebranded as the "free market" for the internet. Then it's got a cultural touch point that people already understand.
That wouldn't be exactly accurate. A free internet market would probably be the pairing of net neutrality repeal with the repeal of all local restrictions on running cables under roads and into appartments.
Maybe I would have cared to speak up more for net neutrality if I didn't notice what an absolute joke it is to even worry about it at this point. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and all the news media services are heavily biased, actively censoring, and abusing the trust we have placed in them. I'm sorry I didn't have time to speak up, but what guarantee do I have that anyone would have listened? We gave away all our privacy, rights to speech, and everything else we had going in order to gain minor conveniences. The web has turned into a disgusting social engineering tool that tells you what to buy, think, and do at every step. Instead of fighting to keep our computing under our control, our data in our hands, and our upstream a combination of the two, we're all pretending net neutrality matters to anyone. What are you going to upload? Who is this affecting? Oh, poor Netflix can't actively change reviews and rating systems to lie to you about how favorably other users view their content because big old Comcast is throttling them? Well, fuck Comcast and fuck Netflix. I'm done with them. We need to reach Web 3.0. Whatever that means.
Unless you live completely off the grid, and are totally self-sufficient, growing your own food, making your own tools, etc. you're a consumer (in the economic sense) in some way or another.
But I can be a consumer without being a US citizen. The study wasn't done on global consumers, it was conducted solely on US citizens.
It might seem petty, but its important to be specific when reporting scientific results even for pop sci. This article chops and changes between consumers and US citizens a lot which could cause confusion
The general public cares about net neutrality about as much as they care about DNSSEC. I wonder how many people think their internet is already like a cable package - that they paid for a package that includes Google and Facebook and whatnot.
My hypothesis is it has to do with the name chosen for it. If it had a more 'consumer-friendly' name it would be more widely known. Something like 'Internet Freedom' or 'Free Internet' would have more appeal...
That's actually probably a worse name. There are a lot of people who think it has to do with regulating online content (in a political viewpoint sense). "Internet Freedom" would only make that worse.
I agree that it's technically a worse name. Net neutrality is technically not a bad name - it just doesn't resonate and the stats on awareness (somewhat) reflect that. My point was more that it needs to better resonate with consumers. I'm not an expert in naming to come up with something actually better, but I am an expert in consumer behavior and know a name that lacks clarity when I see one...
Well, since the Bill was named "Restoring Internet Freedom" (and in a time where it feels like every third bill is named something with "freedom") I doubt that would have made things more transparent to the average consumer.
If you can't define it on a bumper sticker, most Americans won't "know what it is".
As for the FCC, Ajit Pai, and Net Neutrality, I'm much more open-minded to the current FCC policy after having listened to him on the latest Recode/Decode podcast. His speaking patterns make him sound like he's an energetic jerk, but I don't disagree with lots of the policy agenda he mentioned. I detest the games they played with the citizen comment submission system and the "cyberattack" they claimed happened, but that seems only tangentially related.
I'm not sure that the FCC is the right instrument to enact net neutrality -- I feel like demolishing arbitration and allowing consumers to sue the crap out of ISPs for unfair competition actions would go further. The FCC has only been good at restricting speech, not protecting it.
Pai is a good talker but he reminds me of the people who talk of the free market in health care. Sounds great but when you look at reality you see quickly there is no such thing. But they still keep talking. Same for Pai's talk about innovation. All innovation that's coming from ISPs is to squeeze more money out of the system.
Because the status quo is the wrong body setting rules. If you believe the FTC is appropriate, then the only thing to do is stop the FCC from enforcing rules and use the existing competition enforcement framework enforced by the FTC.
So basically the 80/20 rule, that applies to most everything. The internet is still the Blue E. Is something happening to that E? Then nothing to worry about.
Ah, the free market dream, where any attack on consumer rights is just an excuse for new company to sprout and take the lead! Too bad that in reality that doesn't happen.
Ignoring Net Neutrality is something that financially benefits ISPs especially when ignored as part of a cartel. When noone does it, noone has the incentive to implement it.
Also, do you really think a new ISP can just appear, dig up new cables, wire up whole swaths of United States without being obstructed by existing ultra-rich companies lobbying in the local and federal government?
(It's a rethorical question, here in my county the main Telecom used a lot of dirty tactics to make sure that the competitor had utter hell of a time trying to dig in their FTTH to compete with major telecoms obsolete copper system. The digging and building permits had to be fought on basis of every few city blocks due to bribery and friends in mayors office).
If there was choice, but running cables and utility poles leads to a natural monopoly. Nobody has pockets deeper than Google, and even they failed to break into it.
Personal anecdote, the past 4 places I've lived were suburbs with only one broadband provider, a couple of which had daily outages that they refused to fix because it was difficult.
The majority of Americans have only one ISP to choose from, and the majority of the market share is distributed between 6 companies (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cox, CenturyLink, Time Warner).
While I'm sure you're going to beat a drum about "regulation" and "free markets" it might be worth stepping back and actually assessing the issue from a practical, rather than ideological stance
Utilities naturally gravitate toward monopoly. Would you want to have multiple sewer lines running to your house, because your upstairs bathroom costs more money than downstairs with a different "provider"?
Stringing up competing sets of coax cable, telephone lines or fiber optic cables is a losing proposition for the ISP's themselves
Why subject yourself to competition, when you can simply carve out your own market and be "the" provider in an area? Comcast doesn't want to overlap with Time Warner, because Time Warner is the incumbent provider. Even if Comcast offered a faster internet service, they'd be building their market share from zero
Actually, I really wonder why it doesn't work that way in the US.
I worked for an ISP company that grew from a tiny startup, connecting just a few buildings, to a successful ISP that covered a significant part (almost all, I believe) of small (200K) city in Russia.
I haven't really interacted much with our network builders department (worked on software, and left the company some years ago, moving to another city), but IIRC in overall it worked like this - people found our offers interesting and signed up to get their buildings/apartments connected. We chose new addresses we were able to physically reach, got the approval from the building owners and the city, and laid down the wires, extending the network's frontiers.
We laid our own fiber (or, sometimes, copper) and used wireless bridges whenever we weren't able to reach otherwise. We had also leased fiber from other companies (there are companies here that have business just by providing underlying infrastructure but not offering the Internet connectivity). It's not like adding an extra fiber to an existing conduit is comparable to installing a new sewer line.
In the end, having 4-5 actually different ISPs in a building - usually all with their own lines - was (still is) a norm where I had lived. Competing offerings drove prices down, and bad behavior (sans the state-mandated ones) were mostly non-existent.
What's so different in the US, that even Google had failed?
The US has draconic pole attach rules in most places. Local governments and regulations on when, where, and how you're able to run cable make it borderline impossible to efficiently get it done, no matter how much or how little money you have.
Things like this are not as much an issue in states like Texas that require only one permit to run cable anywhere in the state. Whether or not people would like to admit it, this is a case where we can see with our own eyes regulations are seriously hurting the ability for people to start up and compete, and is the only reason net neutrality is an issue in the first place.
Choice. If you have only one line to your CPE, you have none. If there are multiple lines (ISPs) to chose from - you can select the best one available. As the ISPs have to actually compete for customers (assuming they don't collude to screw everyone - which is a legal problem) and any bad behavior will be punished by losing some market share, their customers will benefit from this.
Also, resilency/failover. If one connection goes down, you have a backup. It may be uncommon, but for some people who rely on Internet connectivity, this is useful.
Single provider just can't know best.
Talking about efficiency... For efficiency's sake it may make some sense to move demarcation point a little further, to some mini-PoP in the neighborhood, but to have choice the end-users need to own their lines there, and I'm not sure it's convenient and without the drawbacks.
Senator Isakson gave a townhall Monday. One of the questions was a rambling explainer that could be best summarized is "Net neutrality is about not censoring the internet so do you support it?" to which of course responded "I do not support censorship so we have to deregulate to ensure it."
I don't know what "Net Neutrality" is. I have looked and tried to find out. My best guess is that Net Neutrailty is a badly named concept that emcompasses lots of different things to different people. Maybe it means control of The Internet, or equal speeds for all sites? Besides squishy feelings is there a concrete meaning?
From what I can gather the FCC changed some things which might allow groups to do things which may end up worse for end users, at least for a while. Before the FCC "repealed" it, was there a single bill/rule/law called Net Neutrality?
No sarcasm in this question, just pure ignorance- what EXACTLY is Net Neutrailty?
The idea that governs the phone systems the modern internet was born from. That providers of network access must provide access to other networks equally. That the networks are neutral to the content flowing across them. This is about preventing monopolies of the physical lines.
If you're here, you can likely set up a VPN on a VPS provider. Do yourself a favor and spend the $5 / month for an instance. Get your hands on your parent's, spouse's, friend's, sibling's phones and get it set up for them too. Nobody needs to put up with this bullshit from ISPs or the Government.
There is a great and easy to follow tutorial from DigitalOcean here: digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-set-up-an-openvpn-server-on-ubuntu-16-04.
Edit: It seems as though this post is rubbing people the wrong way. I'm sorry to anyone offended by this post, that was not my intent. In my mind, one can simultaneously watch out for their own safety online and advocate for sensible internet policy.
> Get your hands on your parent's, spouse's, friend's, sibling's phones and get it set up for them too. Nobody needs to put up with this bullshit from ISPs or the Government.
I... I don't do this anymore. I've found myself overburdened with support calls when the tech I've configured invariable breaks. Whether it's weeks or months later. Even if what I've configured isn't the culprit, I'm still on the hook. This is actually one of the reasons why I recommend Apple products to the least tech-saavy in my circles. Just so I can direct them to Apple Support later on...
When I retired, I moved to a new, very rural, area.
This led to what was probably one of the dumbest things I've ever done.
Wanting to be nice, I fixed a new neighbor's computer. I then fixed another, and another, and it kept going. For an area with so little population, I was shocked by the numbers.
The good news is that this drove me back to Linux. Now, I can truthfully tell them that I don't use their OS and am not qualified to fix their problem.
Still, don't fix someone's computer. Certainly don't do it for free.
This won't help you if your ISP decides to penalize all VPN traffic or all traffic that doesn't pay protection money. Also, you're throwing normal people under the bus; the point of net neutrality is to fix the Internet for everyone, not just geeks.
Secure your own face-mask before securing the face-mask of those sitting around you.
A couple situations where it will help you: The justice department issues a subpoena for your IP address because you visited a website about a protest, your ISP wants to sell your internet history to the highest bidder.
I am fully cognizant that we need to be working on NN at a collective level but individual protection is incredibly important in 2017.
Edit: To answer the comment below that I cannot reply to -- I am the VPN provider and I wouldn't do me like that.
Not at all. Rule 41 just says that if the FBI already has a warrant to hack your shit, they can hack your out-of-jurisdiction servers. This seems like good policy to me. Am I missing something about it that 'paints a target on my back'?
