I appreciate the effort - but the internet is not the US. I don't think all the international users will be so pleased to be interrupted by nag-screens calling them to action for what, in the end is a domestic issue of the US.
We feel the same about the EU and all of the "THIS SITE USES COOKIES" banners.
It shouldn't be terribly hard to isolate the effects to browsers that request language-locale tuples from the US or run the JavaScript conditionally on the browser if the locale+timezone is set to something in the US.
I understand the frustration with making content region-specific, but the less annoying cookie-law banners irrelevant to my jurisdiction on the web, the better. I'd be personally fine with that sort of location-based variance: it's not that different from setting a default weather location for a news website, for instance.
If US loses net neutrality, people from other countries are also fucked, other governments are likely to follow the US path.
Besides let's be honest, 90% of the useful and interesting internet sites, companies, innovation originate in the US(from my personal experience). If it changes, that's bad for everyone.
It will affect startups as well. If you're interested in building an online business based in US, you don't want your site to get throttled.
besides a slippery slope argument is the a technical argument why it will be worse outside of the US? does the change only effect the last mile internet consumers or will this effect backbone connections as well?
i have seen a lot of stuff about the proposed FCC changes but every time someone asks about how this will effect non-US internet users the reply is always "because the USA is the best and your government will copy us"
Don't get me wrong i competently agree with the need for net neutrality, ISP's should not be allowed to throttle or dictate which data you can access or at what speed. I just want to understand the issue better and how it effects the global internet community.
I also don't think we should limit action to just the US region, if a website wants to protest let them do it for everyone to see, it might help when the fight starts in what ever country is next (apparently) but they do risk alienating global consumers who frankly don't care about US politics.
I don't know about the slippery slope argument, but there are lots of economic arguments why people and companies outside the USA should be worried.
BBC, Al-Jazeera, any kind of non-USA news site should be terrified of losing US business. They will be an obvious choice to not include in "default" bundles.
Any non-US video or music startup (imagine one competing with Netflix) will have no chance of getting off the ground in the USA, one of the biggest potential markets in the world.
More nebulous, but a bunch of startups in the USA that would have otherwise succeeded and brought innovation or service to other countries, will not be squashed a fail.
If the US starts selling domain/service packages to customers in the US, what stops them from doing the same to the cross Atlantic fiber lines? Or increasing the costs of services being provided to those lines?
I mean, I find it annoying to get a nag screen when I can't even do anything about it, but repealing net neutrality in the US will have plenty negative effects on me either way, so I'm perfectly ok with it.
It'll fuck competition in the US even more, resulting in even more monolithic companies from the US flooding our market and killing off competition here. And it will result in my data being sifted through by the ISPs of the webpage owners in the US, whose webpages I visit.
