We write a lot on this topic now, as if this were important only now.
Some of us might write out of fear that the communications commission of the USA is helping some rich people charge less rich people more for delivering data to computing devices.
I think that spending time in the streets in Washington (or wherever) doesn't improve the communication between the people and their government.
I've seen too many poor people complaining that rich people destroy their lives. These are usually brief repeated discussions that only touch the surface of problems.
And I've never liked begging. People don't fulfill such requests anyway.
Some companies have asked this commission to support Net neutrality. This letter matters much less than the relationships of these companies with the FCC. Do you know who represents these organizations in these relationships?
If the current communication provisions change and affect Net neutrality, what changes for most Internet users?
Some say that the poorer your team is, the more difficult it will be to offer online services to people. Most people might not care much about this. We are already favoring rich companies. A large number of Internet users neither understand well this network, nor try to keep control of their browsing or privacy.
But more and more people try to decentralize the Internet:
- I support e.g. the global project MaidSafe.
- Johannes Ernst has created the Indie Box.
- Guifi is creating an Internet infrastructure owned by individuals.
1. a practical encyclopedia with divisions like arts, social sciences, natural sciences
Some of its goals:
1.1 becoming one of the best knowledge tools
1.2 increasing global awareness
1.3 raising the quality of content
1.4 helping people find faster what they look for
A (possibly new) user of a computing device connects it to the Internet and opens a browsing application. This application, especially Chrome, will probably introduce Google to this person. Google Search helps them find Web sites, especially if the owners have paid for AdWords, but they can get distracted very easily. I want to give people a better map and guidelines so that they can focus better. I want to help people realize what is essential or urgent, so that they improve their lives and their environment.
At the same time, it's tiresome to spend many hours looking every time you want to buy something. I want to give buyers and sellers better tools.
2. an obviously better networking platform
Some of its goals:
2.1 helping people to communicate more like they communicate offline
2.2 enabling improvements in any and all countries
3. a complex voting application
I want to help people vote on anything and everything.
I like that Loomio stresses the fact that we need to consult before making decisions.
4. a software suite that should meet the needs of artists and entertainers better than current services
I would connect it with the encyclopedia of arts.
Agents should help artists and art buyers. Some of them hurt the interests of these two categories. I can create a better agent, as I've done in the language service industry.
5. a global payment service
Online payments should be safer, simpler and cheaper.
I want to reach USA citizens, but I might declare myself pleased with reaching 200 other countries at least as easily as the USA. How would a less neutral USA Internet affect the Internet?
I think that we should create software that can be used globally, so that we don't have dozens of applications doing the same things, and create customized versions for any teams who require it.
We should also optimize software, because people usually cannot switch to another software application only to use a function that is missing in the current one.
Laws and facts are different things. You don't need a law in order to do something, e.g. Netflix pays more to deliver content, but Comcast has not been proven to have violated any law. Some people get away with violating laws; some useless people receive money from them for merely being let know that laws are violated. I suggest that we spend more time on useful deeds than on useless words.
If no Internet communication provisions are changed
The people who push for changes against Net neutrality will negotiate either indirect provisions, so that one can imagine that they act legally, or business terms that will increase their profit anyway.
Most citizens are not left out; they are usually not in the circles of the most influential decision-makers. I suggest that we exert all the influence we can, so that the ripples have a strong effect. If you know a Comcast shareholder, can you talk with him? If not, we can make computing more useful where we are.
We solve problems by communicating. 2.9 billion people can communicate easily over the Internet; more than 1.6 billion of them already have a Google account, but all of them can use software like Google Hangouts and Jitsi. I suggest that we create waves of influence and organize actions (not walks and runs) instead of signing petitions and giving money to teams that might be charitable.
A Google Plus community in which we can plan a better Internet is Independent Internet.
I want us to use these means today. This context is unique. We can use the Internet as long as we can use electrical energy, which is usually generated by extracting and burning coal and gas. Not all countries have coal and 1.3 billion people don't have access to electrical energy. In 2017 1 billion people didn't have access to electrical energy. There is no guarantee that the number of Internet users will exceed 50% of the population. (It seems that 53% of all people use the Internet in November 2018 and this percentage is growing.) Let us use the chance to coordinate globally now!