Net Neutrality

[Bartimaeus]

the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy, but it's more ideal when they're enemies towards each other too, rather than in bed with each other plotting against you

​

​personally, I will miss the days when my flaming trash heap of an ISP (who already puts data caps on me as it is and charges exorbitant prices for it and especially for going over) could not arbitrarily throttle my internet for non-corporate-approved downloads and streams, as I will miss the days where they were not legally empowered to outright restrict the usage of internet protocols at their leisure entirely. I think Zoraptor put it best like a week ago: an industry with lots of competition and little regulation is usually fairly ideal, an industry with no competition and lots of regulation is perhaps less than ideal, and an industry with no competition and no regulation is hell for everyone besides the monopolies.

​

​here's a fun thing to look at: portuguese mobile phone plans without net neutrality today. I look forward to the day that all our phone and internet plans work the same way.​

 

That was facetious, by the way.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Elerond]

Portuguese mobile data plans, are funny because they were main reason why lots of European mobile carriers opposed EU's plans to give people right to use their mobile data everywhere in EU with same price as they can use in their home country, because as they (carriers) put it, prices for mobile data there is so outrageous that it would force them to rise prices in their home markets if they would offer their limitless data plans there.

[HoonDing]

whatever upsets liberals must be passed

[injurai]

So when is the vote happening?

[Bartimaeus]

whenever liberals are most upset

 

(was it the 21st? not sure anymore...)

Edited December 9, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[injurai]

I don't get this liberal joke,

 

is net neutrality not an issue for everyone?

[Bartimaeus]

I just like trolling with HoonDing sometimes

[Bartimaeus]

Okay, I took the time to look through my history to find that it should be the 14th. Whoops, I was only off by a week.

[Epaminondas]

I'm genuinely curious as to how many people have had their lives change in any significant way after Net Neutrality started. For myself, I do the exact same things more or less. I only have cable as an ISP, I don't have television from it. My pricing hasn't changed. My download and upload speeds aeem to be the same. I mean, they might be different, but I'm still buying games on Steam (I know I know, as evil as Net Neutrality is good!). I still get them installed just as quickly and the size of those games doesn't seem different. Netflix, Google Play, and Amazon Prime still stream at the same speeds and, frankly, unless I evolve to be able to watch the shows faster than they play, it wouldn't matter if they downloaded faster anyway. I honestly don't know, other than theoretical and hypothetical things what actually impacts me as a consumer. Maybe I'm lucky in that I haven't had problems with my internet and I had the same company for years that recently got bought out and, other than a few outages that irritated me, even that company seems to be just like the last one. So, tell me, other than it being a big cause engendered and promoted by special interests, what is my stake in this?

 

That was *not* facetious, by the way.

 

[Malcador]

Is interesting watching Amazon and Google have their spat

[redneckdevil]

The only thing I can see effecting me is with my Hulu and online gaming.

[Bartimaeus]

nothing to worry about with hulu, as it's already owned by the cable companies (30% disney/abc, 30% fox, 30% nbc/comcast, 10% time warner/turner broadcasting - aren't all of these mega corportations/media conglomerates great?).

[Epaminondas]

Well, brother, on that note of sarcasm, I completely agree. Rat bastards.

[injurai]

I must be entirely deaf the the sarcasm in this thread, I'm usually better at picking up on it.

 

What really annoys me is that one of the arguments against net neutrality is to "save bandwidth" for critical infrastructure. But the reality is, critical infrastructure should have it's own dedicated lines being ran, and often does. So it doesn't make sense to infringe upon the average consumer with regards to ISPs that primarily service the average end user.

[Bartimaeus]

the only thing with me that you really have to remember to understand whether I'm being sarcastic or not is that I'm a radical fundamentalist right-wing evangelical hellbent on the construction of the second temple to help bring about god's reign on earth, and I'm also a huge believer and promoter of the good word, namely supply-side jesus. only through the power of supply-side jesus do we have the strength to smite these infidels, I mean heathens, I mean poor people, I mean ungulates. yes, the terrible ungulates and their stricken brothers and sisters, their transgressions shall be like crosses borne across the backs of mankind for all time to come. you would be wise to submit to the power of the dark side of the force...

Also, if I'm writing in all lower-case on a questionable post, you can probably assume it's sarcastic.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Elerond]

I must be entirely deaf the the sarcasm in this thread, I'm usually better at picking up on it.

 

What really annoys me is that one of the arguments against net neutrality is to "save bandwidth" for critical infrastructure. But the reality is, critical infrastructure should have it's own dedicated lines being ran, and often does. So it doesn't make sense to infringe upon the average consumer with regards to ISPs that primarily service the average end user.

 

Main reason why ISP's are against net neutrality is that rise of popularity of services like online gaming, Netflix and Youtube has made it more difficult to them to sell same bandwidth multiple times (like for example installing one gigabit cable in the apartment house and then sell every household living in said apartment house 100 megabit connection), because more and more people use services which use full capacity of their connections, which forces ISP's to build their infrastructure to actually have capacity that they are selling to their customers and they don't like that because that cuts their profits down, so instead they want government give them permission to throttle those services down or force them to pay those infrastructure upgrades for them.

[Epaminondas]

I know that people will be for Net Neutrality anyway, but AT&T was probably the biggest company in the United States for years. It existed under the very same types of regulations and the same regulatory reasoning as what's proposed for Net Neutrality. It was a monopoly created under those same conditions. What the government was going to do was break up the company but I think they came to an agreement before the suit could be completed or filed or something. Here's the kicker, by basically kicking those companies free, the actual local companies, there was a boom in both competition and as a result innovation. This isn't speculative. We probably owe our access to such a breadth of wireless technology in terms of phones and communication to that very breakup.

 

I'm not saying we should bend over and let big corporations have a whack at us. I'm simply stating a couple of things, once already stated and simply not refuted. 1. A lot of people (and I would contend the vast majority) never felt a single difference when Net Neutrality went into effect and, if they hadn't been told about it, wouldn't notice it's absence. The customers weren't being directly squeezed. The large corporations were, which is why some big company like Google is all for it. Yeah, everyone hates M$crosoft, but Google? They're the good guys. (sarcasm). 2. Net Neutrality has it's own problems. Aside from regulating the internet like a utility and putting a bureaucracy in charge of one more thing, the regulations can and will be used to promote companies and industries that best suit whichever party is in control. For all the left's bitching and moaning about big corporations, it's not like you don't see the Democrats taking advantage of crony capitalism.

 

I can probably look forward to someone spamming about fifty pages of internet 'proof,' but the idea that repealing something that has been in effect for two years and some change will somehow destroy the internet is rampant idiocy. If nothing else, why not have congress do its job for once and pass actual laws instead? That way, if you think the internet stops working and you can't get online to complain about the games you still download quickly and review the tv shows you still stream, you can lobby your congressman and senator.

[ShadySands]

Nevermind

 

Not worth it

Edited December 10, 2017 by ShadySands

[Epaminondas]

Nevermind

 

Not worth it

You should have abused me. I have remarkably thick skin. Anyhow, at this point I'm just spamming the Net Neutrality thread and it's a moot point anyway. Net Neutrality is going to be repealed. Don't worry, though. It'll happen eventually because most people want it. Is there even anyone here other than me who thinks Net Neutrality is bad? I'm used to fighting losing battles, but I don't have to be a pest about it, so now's your time for payback!

[ShadySands]

 

You should have abused me. I have remarkably thick skin. Anyhow, at this point I'm just spamming the Net Neutrality thread and it's a moot point anyway. Net Neutrality is going to be repealed. Don't worry, though. It'll happen eventually because most people want it. Is there even anyone here other than me who thinks Net Neutrality is bad? I'm used to fighting losing battles, but I don't have to be a pest about it, so now's your time for payback!

 

I just don't have the energy TBH. I don't think I would sway you anyway and while you might be the only one against it here, maybe GD too, but it's a battle you've already won. In reality most people are for NN, it has popular support, even from Republican voters. 

[Elerond]

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364336-fcc-ftc-announce-partnership-to-police-internet-after-net-neutrality-repeal

 

FCC, FTC announce partnership to police internet after net neutrality repeal

 

“Not only is the FCC eliminating basic net neutrality rules, but it’s joining forces with the FTC to say it will only act when a broadband provider is deceiving the public. This gives free reign to broadband providers to block or throttle your broadband service as long as they inform you of it."

[Malcador]

Wonder why the Internet shouldn't be treated as a utility, these days.

[Gorgon]

Well thank god for the EU, never gonna happen to us. 

[ShadySands]

Wonder why the Internet shouldn't be treated as a utility, these days.

Can make more money

[ShadySands]

Well, it's done.