Battle for Net Neutrality

[dl_simc]

Before this topic gets locked and the key is lost in MAP152:

 

What's the real matter behind this? Why they are doing it? Comcast, AT&T and Verizon are not just ISPs but also major pay-TV/broadband IPTV companies. 

 

Are they just after a better profit for the content they handle?

 

Is their aim to reduce the web traffic so that their (better) paying customers can watch the streamed and overhyped HD TV series with a better band width? And without the need to invest money for better networks to tolerate the engrowing usage?

 

Or with their unknown pricing they want to guide the web users to the better suited and controlled web sites? The future goverments and presidents should have 99.99% support among the citizens.
 

[[McD] James]

3 hours ago, dl_simc said:

The future goverments and presidents should have 99.99% support among the citizens.

 

Until then we'll just have to settle with North Korea.

[Mr. Freeze]

8 minutes ago, dl_simc said:

Before this topic gets locked and the key is lost in MAP152:

 

What's the real matter behind this? Why they are doing it? Comcast, AT&T and Verizon are not just ISPs but also major pay-TV/broadband IPTV companies. 

 

Are they just after a better profit for the content they handle?

 

They'd probably not rather we use Netflix, and instead use their dogshit streaming services instead. So why out-advertise Netflix at that point when they can just throttle your connection to Netflix instead? Granted that's a tenuous projected problem, but it still has 100% more probability happening under a NN-voided internet. 

 

 

[Unholypimp1n]

It's all just another money grab that the rich will try to impose upon us.  I feel like if they take away internet neutrality then things will become even worse for all of us.

[Benjogami]

28 minutes ago, dl_simc said:

Before this topic gets locked and the key is lost in MAP152:

 

What's the real matter behind this? Why they are doing it? Comcast, AT&T and Verizon are not just ISPs but also major pay-TV/broadband IPTV companies. 

 

Are they just after a better profit for the content they handle?

 

Is their aim to reduce the web traffic so that their (better) paying customers can watch the streamed and overhyped HD TV series with a better band width? And without the need to invest money for better networks to tolerate the engrowing usage?

 

Or with their unknown pricing they want to guide the web users to the better suited and controlled web sites? The future goverments and presidents should have 99.99% support among the citizens.
 

Yeah. Netflix and services like it are killing cable TV, and it just so happens that cable TV providers are usually (and sometimes the only available) high speed internet providers. They want a piece of that pie, either by driving people away from Netflix and back to their cable TV bosom by giving poor connections to the threatening services, or by charging people more for decent connections to those services.

 

And yeah, Comcast is even more than a cable TV provider and ISP: they're a giant media conglomerate that owns TV channels, news websites, etc. I'm sure they'd love everyone to start reading nbc.com for their news instead of whatever other sites.

 

The motive and opportunity is so obvious. Remember that the only reason net neutrality is constantly under attack is because these companies whisper in the ears and stuff the pockets of politicians. So the next question is: should be they be allowed to do all that? If they're allowed to, the only thing that would prevent them from doing so is customer backlash, people dropping their service for competitors that don't do that stuff. But Comcast's relationship to its customers is so bad, and has been bad for so long, that it's practically a meme, so perhaps their business model can handle a little bit more dissatisfaction, especially when tons of people have no other choices.

 

And lack of choice is very important to this issue. People that say "let the free market sort it out" seem to forget that consumers need choices for any of that to work. That's why ye olde AT&T was split up into a bunch of different companies back in the day. Good job, US government.

 

Even if there is choice, there is also corruption and collusion. There are quite a few competing mobile data providers, for example. Do you really think they only ever play by the rules and go hard against eachother? Or might they get together and talk about what a fair monthly rate for 2GBs of data is, over some martinis? Especially when they have many very strong enemies in common: Google, Amazon, Apple, Netflix.... Crunchyroll. ;)

[roadworx]

lookie what i found on reddit!

 

Quote

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

 

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
 

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.
 

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (they actually sued the FCC over this)
 

2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit.

 

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction.
 

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
 

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

 

lmao we're all fucked

[Blastfrog]

On 7/14/2017 at 1:41 PM, 42PercentHealth said:

Of course I know what a lease is. It doesn't mean you're "locked into" your apartment -- it means you agreed to pay rent on it for a designated amount of time.

...so are you suggesting that he continue to pay rent to a former landlord while simultaneously paying rent for a new place? Does it even occur to you how unrealistic that is?

 

On 7/14/2017 at 3:08 PM, Phade102 said:

a topic such as this will typically make your head hurt simply because of the complexity of the subject.

It's actually rather cut-and-dry. Net neutrality simply states that ISPs have to treat net traffic equally and not play favorites. ISPs don't like this because they would rather be the internet and control it for their own interests, rather than merely provide unfettered access to it. Anyone opposed to NN are either A. corporate hotshots or B. fools that have had the wool pulled over their eyes.

 

There's really nothing else to it; NN is vital not just for Americans, but for the whole globe. These kinds of things can have a wide impact.

[june gloom]

On 7/14/2017 at 11:02 AM, 42PercentHealth said:

As much as I hate labeling myself, I consider myself to be libertarian.

I knew when I saw this line that I was in for a good thread.

[Man of Doom]

On 7/14/2017 at 5:28 PM, Benjogami said:

Netflix and services like it are killing cable TV, and it just so happens that cable TV providers are usually (and sometimes the only available) high speed internet providers. They want a piece of that pie, either by driving people away from Netflix and back to their cable TV bosom by giving poor connections to the threatening services, or by charging people more for decent connections to those services.

You may not be far off from the truth. Cable TV's days are starting to wane, and these larger conglomerates are starting to feel it. That's why they're trying their damnedest to deter "progress" (case in point, net neutrality), even at the expense of their customers and the general public. They're been part of the status quo for a long time now, and they're trying to keep it that way, no matter what new technology or methods is being created.

 

It's the same deal with Big Oil vs. alternative fuels. The former knows that they're going the way of the dodo bird, and they're relying on similar underhanded tactics to keep their coffers full. Even if this planet is going to be rendered uninhabitable within a century, they won't care.

 

A pity that such shortsightedness and greed impedes progress.

 

[Doom64hunter]

The Title II regulations will be lifted no matter how much people protest. The US government is corrupt to the core, especially with Trump in charge -- they don't represent the people, they only represent themselves.

 

Furthermore, you will likely never see those separate "pay-to-view" website access packages like in that image that keeps getting passed around whenever people talk about net neutrality. Much rather, the effects of lifting Title II regulations will be much more subtle. Like Graf Zahl stated, censorship will be the much greater issue, as ISPs may throttle connections arbitrarily and restrict access to sites that they do not approve of. Most people wouldn't even notice this either.

 

The effects are also going to be much more pronounced in regions that are largely rural, and hence have very little in terms of competition regarding internet providers. This is already a problem in the US, where ISPs can impose small data caps without any repercussions on people in rural regions. In cities and suburban areas in the US, as well as most of Europe however, the choice of ISP is much broader and hence attempting to restrict access to websites using the PayTV-esque package model would backfire on the ISP, as competitors could simply offer a much better service for a lower price.

Unless of course the ISPs decide to collude and introduce the model all at the same time, in order to collectively raise their revenue. It's possible, but unlikely.

 

Edit: After I posted this, the White House expressed support for the FCCs intentions to remove Title II regulations, pretty much proving my point that any sort of protest will fall on deaf ears.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Doom64hunter : White House response

[Master O]

9 hours ago, Doom64hunter said:

The Title II regulations will be lifted no matter how much people protest. The US government is corrupt to the core, especially with Trump in charge -- they don't represent the people, they only represent themselves.

 

Furthermore, you will likely never see those separate "pay-to-view" website access packages like in that image that keeps getting passed around whenever people talk about net neutrality. Much rather, the effects of lifting Title II regulations will be much more subtle. Like Graf Zahl stated, censorship will be the much greater issue, as ISPs may throttle connections arbitrarily and restrict access to sites that they do not approve of. Most people wouldn't even notice this either.

 

The effects are also going to be much more pronounced in regions that are largely rural, and hence have very little in terms of competition regarding internet providers. This is already a problem in the US, where ISPs can impose small data caps without any repercussions on people in rural regions. In cities and suburban areas in the US, as well as most of Europe however, the choice of ISP is much broader and hence attempting to restrict access to websites using the PayTV-esque package model would backfire on the ISP, as competitors could simply offer a much better service for a lower price.

Unless of course the ISPs decide to collude and introduce the model all at the same time, in order to collectively raise their revenue. It's possible, but unlikely.

 

Edit: After I posted this, the White House expressed support for the FCCs intentions to remove Title II regulations, pretty much proving my point that any sort of protest will fall on deaf ears.

 

 

[Cupboard]

nice job, ass-tards. you decided to give control of the country to the Republicans (in both chambers of Congress!). weeewwww. good job there. let's not even approach the orange cheeto.

[Master O]

2 hours ago, Cupboard said:

nice job, ass-tards. you decided to give control of the country to the Republicans (in both chambers of Congress!). weeewwww. good job there. let's not even approach the orange cheeto.

 

Republicans and Democrats are 2 sides of the same coin. Neither one cares about you.  They care only about staying in power for as long as possible.

[Mr. Freeze]

14 minutes ago, Master O said:

Neither one cares about you. 

>Democrats pass ACA

>Democrats support gay marriage

>Democrats want to raise minimum wage

>Democrats want to keep Net Neutrality

>Democrats want gay lesbian and trans equality

>"Both sides are the same!"

 

A privileged upper-class millennial with little perspective wrote this

[Master O]

Just now, Mr. Freeze said:

>Democrats pass ACA

>Democrats support gay marriage

>Democrats want to raise minimum wage

>Democrats want to keep Net Neutrality

>Democrats want gay lesbian and trans equality

>"Both sides are the same!"

 

A privileged upper-class millennial with little perspective wrote this

 

No, I'm just a realist.  They're all in it together and neither party cares about you.  

[Jaxxoon R]

44 minutes ago, Mr. Freeze said:

A privileged upper-class millennial with little perspective wrote this

Or they could always, you know, not be a boogieman made out of a string of buzzwords and actually be a human being with nuance and a life of their own.

[Gothic Box]

7 hours ago, Master O said:

 

Republicans and Democrats are 2 sides of the same coin.

They're two sides of the same coin, but one side is slightly less focused on taking cheap healthcare away from sick people and blatantly violating separation of church and state by erecting monuments of the 10 commandments in front of the state legislature and teaching young-earth creationism in the public schools that they defunded. I get what you're saying, as in both parties want as much power for as long as possible, are funded/bribed/persuaded by lobbyists, corporations, and billionaires, and only care to further their agenda, but I don't agree with what some people claim is false equivalency.

 

In other news, net neutrality seems to be rather bipartisan everywhere except Capitol Hill.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Gothic Box : Extrapolation of my worthless opinion

[axdoomer]

11 hours ago, Gothic Box said:

 taking cheap healthcare away from sick people

As a Canadian, I could tell you a lot about the disadvantages of a public and free healthcare system.

 

On the main subject, I would like to say that the fight for Net Neutrality in the US is very important not only for the US, but also for other countries. Most of the world's Internet traffic goes through there and if the country starts slowing down traffic or blocking some website, it will affect Canadians and customers from other countries as well.

 

All you need to do to fix the problem is by letting the free market sort out the things, because there's too much government regulation that prevents competition which drives the price higher. It also prevents you from changing your ISP because there's few or one of them by area, so you can't change your ISP to protest what you disagree with. It's just like health insurance where you have barriers that prevent insurance companies from competing which each other between states, which is why healthcare is not affordable. Obamacare didn't fix the problem, it just put more money into the lobbyist pockets. Seems like your government is always working against you.

[Master O]

14 hours ago, Gothic Box said:

They're two sides of the same coin, but one side is slightly less focused on taking cheap healthcare away from sick people and blatantly violating separation of church and state by erecting monuments of the 10 commandments in front of the state legislature and teaching young-earth creationism in the public schools that they defunded. I get what you're saying, as in both parties want as much power for as long as possible, are funded/bribed/persuaded by lobbyists, corporations, and billionaires, and only care to further their agenda, but I don't agree with what some people claim is false equivalency.

 

In other news, net neutrality seems to be rather bipartisan everywhere except Capitol Hill.

 

One of the biggest mistakes the Founding Fathers made was not having term limits for the House, Senate, and Presidency (although the Presidency now has them).  Because of this fatal mistake, we have people who sit in government forever and never leave.

[Gothic Box]

2 minutes ago, Master O said:

 

One of the biggest mistakes the Founding Fathers made was not having term limits for the House, Senate, and Presidency (although the Presidency now has them).  Because of this fatal mistake, we have people who sit in government forever and never leave.

I heartily agree. The fact that members of congress such as Steve King, who is an utterly horrible human being, have been reelected time and time again for decades makes me lose hope for this country. George Washington also spoke about how there should be no political parties, but here we are.

[axdoomer]

11 minutes ago, Master O said:

 

One of the biggest mistakes the Founding Fathers made was not having term limits for the House, Senate, and Presidency (although the Presidency now has them).  Because of this fatal mistake, we have people who sit in government forever and never leave.

Term limits would probably mean that the  corrupted assholes would be replaced more frequently with other corrupted assholes. I don't believe this is a good solution, except if you run out of corrupted assholes. From reading my post, you can guess that I have lost faith in anything that touches the government for a while. I have become a libertarian.

EDIT:

3 minutes ago, Gothic Box said:

George Washington also spoke about how there should be no political parties

 

I agree with this. I believe people should vote for a person instead of a party. This way, you also get rid of the political polarization.

[Benjogami]

nevermiiiiiind

 

In the end, it doesn't even matter.
 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Benjogami

[Gothic Box]

We might want to keep this on topic...

[Flesh420]

23 hours ago, Mr. Freeze said:

>Democrats pass ACA

>Democrats support gay marriage

>Democrats want to raise minimum wage

>Democrats want to keep Net Neutrality

>Democrats want gay lesbian and trans equality

>"Both sides are the same!"

 

A privileged upper-class millennial with little perspective wrote this

I'm not repub or demo (at this point anyone that claims a party is, well ... ahhh, 'special'), but if you want a real world example of how democrats handle things go to Detroit or Chicago.  Just try not to get shot.

[Benjogami]

4 minutes ago, Flesh420 said:

I'm not repub or demo (at this point anyone that claims a party is, well ... ahhh, 'special'), but if you want a real world example of how democrats handle things go to Detroit or Chicago.  Just try not to get shot.

Over 13.7 million people live in those metro areas. Seems pretty easy to not get shot.

[Master O]

The only other thing I'm gonna say is that they'll just pass these new NN rules, regardless of what the public thinks.

[Gothic Box]

1 hour ago, Flesh420 said:

I'm not repub or demo (at this point anyone that claims a party is, well ... ahhh, 'special'), but if you want a real world example of how democrats handle things go to Detroit or Chicago.  Just try not to get shot.

But that doesn't explain Portland, or Honolulu, or Austin, or Chula Vista, or Henderson, or Lincoln, but keep thinking that some correlation equals causation.

[Man of Doom]

On 7/19/2017 at 7:42 AM, Doom64hunter said:

The White House expressed support for the FCCs intentions to remove Title II regulations, pretty much proving my point that any sort of protest will fall on deaf ears.

Like I said, guys, this is becoming the darkest timeline. 

[Gothic Box]

1 hour ago, Man of Doom said:

Like I said, guys, this is becoming the darkest timeline. 

The FCC is being run by a former Verizon CEO, so there isn't much hope anyway.

 

Also the cabinet has more wealth than the poorest third of Americans combined, so I doubt they care about normal, everyday people.

[Flesh420]

10 hours ago, Benjogami said:

Over 13.7 million people live in those metro areas. Seems pretty easy to not get shot.

A little less than 700, 000 live in Detroit, silly.