Putting banners on the site or small statements at the top urging users to call their representatives is helpful, but if they really wanted to get the point across, Google, Amazon, etc could intentionally slow the traffic of representatives from DC involved in this bill. Better yet, Google should push their pages to the fifth page of search results or just delist them all together. Imagine the outcry if all the sudden, the Facebook and Twitter pages for these reps got "deprioritized." Tech companies have the ability to make an impactful statement like that, but instead we'll get a little blurb at the top of the site and business as usual.
Is there an actual technical definition of what Net Neutrality means with some document a Representative or Senator could put in a bill and a network engineer could look at the network setup and say if it conforms or doesn't?<p>I've heard some definitions that don't square with what I believe the statement means.
Maybe I'm stupid, but what's the point of internet-wide action for a national bill? I'm not represented in any US politician. I'm not entirely sure what I'm supposed to do here..
It's frustrating I have to enable umpteen domains in UMatrix to even attempt to sign up.<p>Why did you need JavaScript for a basic form submission?
Am I the only one who has started to feel like a useful idiot defending the big 5's riches? What we have now isn't a neutral net. We're complaining about traffic shaping by ISPs, while big 5 are shaping it already, deciding what we read, what we can download, and who we mingle with.