True, but what incentive do they have? There would potentially be a huge backlash from customers whose favorite sites suddenly started sucking (even if for only a few months until things got settled). And many ISPs such as cable also have to compete with DSL or fiber, so customers would flock away.

Plus something I haven't thought of before now... consider net neutrality, and the fact that customers may start filing complaints that their favorite service is being throttled by their ISP. That service is working fine for other ISPs (which are still using IPv4). This appears like a classic net neutrality violation, but in reality the ISP is not throttling anyone, it's the site or backbone provider that has something screwed up.

Even if the FCC sides with the ISP, plenty of damage to reputation will be done.

What you mentioned is what I was talking about, that it would only apply to open Wi-Fi networks with web-based authentication (as opposed to encrypted connections).

Perhaps, I don't know how those work. I've only used pay-by-the-day at hotels.

I'm talking about the open hotspots that are protected behind a password web page, such as many home guest networks, restaurants, and hotels.

I doubt that will be the catalyst. I think websites will start the charge. Probably the easiest way forward is to begin reducing the number of nodes that respond to IPv4 (effectively slowing down that traffic). IPv6 should become more stable and used more frequently, and that will allow the sites to reduce even more nodes. Repeat until all clients use IPv6, then shut down IPv4 (both on sites and ISPs).

Suckage.

I recently disabled IPv6 on my router because too many sites were slow loading. It was particularly bad with Wikipedia, which usually just timed out after a few minutes. OTOH, IPv4 works fine for the same sites.

I don't know where the trouble is, Wikipedia or my ISP (U-Verse) or somewhere in between or some problem with my computer... but in its current state, I can't endorse switching.

Well, I agree that it's a solution looking for a problem. Really the only time I could see that being useful is if you go to a restaurant or coffee shop and want to get on their Wi-Fi, and a friend has already been there before and logged in.

And I didn't mean to downplay how big of a problem this may be for the many people who have a password-protected open network for guest access.

I'm just keeping in mind, though, that guest networks are typically isolated from the main network and the guest network would only be shared with friends-of-friends*... probably not an actual issue for the vast majority of people, so much as a theoretical one.

* Actually, come to think of it, would the password also go to friends-of-friends-of-friends? Friends-of-friends-of-friends-of-friends? How deep can this go? The whole six-degrees-of-separation thing comes to mind... could this end up pushing almost everyone's network passwords to the entire connected internet? Yeah, I'd like more info, and the sooner the better.

The way I read it, they probably don't.

The FAQ seems to imply that it is only applicable to open routers:

Still very questionable, but perhaps not nearly as pervasive. I'd think it would mostly apply to hotels, restaurants, and other places of business.

Unless you are Steve Jobs reincarnate, I doubt this position will get you as far in life.

And to be extremely clear, I never said "Google was being racist", in any form or fashion at all. Let's nip that in the bud before someone argues against that straw man.

This is kind of like being hit in the arm by a baseball as you are walking by your neighbor's yard. It's probably no big deal, probably didn't hurt much and is unlikely to have caused permanent damage of any kind. But it's still respectful for your neighbor to apologize.

Remember that Google gets money from this, primarily indirectly through advertising. Anything they do to help society also lines their wallets (which is pretty much the definition of how capitalism is supposed to work).

Don't fall into the trap of thinking Google's intentions are completely selfless. I'm beyond certain that they meant no harm, but considering they are getting something out of it, it would be very disrespectful for Google to brush it off.

It depends on what you mean "store". Dictionary.com provides this as a definition: "to accumulate or put away, for future use". (emphasis mine)

I don't think Facebook guarantees future retrieval, so it is probably not proper to classify it as storage.

In the future? Perhaps if the situation doesn't improve. Right now? Very doubtful... they just recently made a huge investment on making Windows 10 run on Windows Phone and the Universal Windows Platform capable of running the same binaries (with responsive UI) on all devices from phone to IoT to tablet to Xbox to PC to HoloLens and whatever else they dream up.

Also consider that in most markets, Windows Phone is closer in phone marketshare to iOS than iOS is to Android. That's not saying a lot. But WP is definitely at the #3 spot, and the way this market is... if they can find that itch to scratch, things could change within the course of two or three years.

The obvious solution is to just make sure they never go out of business. Too big to fail.

The company gets to keep profiting off of you, and you get to keep providing them with data that will help further their profiting off of you. Win-win!