Net Neutrality, good bye internet.

[Revoltingest]

I feel totally free to enjoy my fantasies.

Just so long as I'm fully clothed in them.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Great point. The pendulum will swing again hopefully starting next year.

I think it has been swinging in favor of large corporations and the wealthy for too long, and it has not swung the other direction nearly far enough.

 

[Kapalika]

I'm reminded of a friend.
He tends to base decisions & beliefs on worst case scenarios..

That might sound all well and good but the cable companies have been abundantly clear on what they plan to do. This isn't so much a "worst case scenario" as more so one step away from what they have explicitly said they plan to do and why they have pushed for the legislation.

Also the FCC guy worked for one of the big ISPs before he got this position, and still has conflicts of interest with them. He's purely doing it because he's corrupt and will get something out of it. The majority of Americans support net neutrality and actual companies who's business are online are against it as they know the cable companies are pushing for it to make the internet more like cable tv with packages and throttled speeds outside of those packages.

If you are for free speech why would you get rid of rules that prevent censorship? All net neutrality does is say they can't throttle your connection based on what sites you are going to and can't block sites (at least that are otherwise legal).

How getting rid of that rule is good for anyone but the cable companies I have no idea. But it's been clear since they started introducing datacaps and excluding their own streaming from it that they are trying to price gouge. Hell, their profit margins are already at record highs. And that ain't enough. It's corruption and anti consumerism.

The internet is a free and open market right now. Net Neutrality was put in place to keep it that way when ISPs started to threaten that status. It's about one of the few places you can have free speech and anyone can make their own website or start a business online. The removal of net neutrality will ruin all that. They've made very clear their intentions in removing it for years, the ISPs anyway. The FCC chairman has been more coded and lying about it however as it's gained public attention.

 

[Kapalika]

America is pretty clear on what it wants and is in bipartisan agreement:

Current: 83%

Net Neutrality Poll Results

July: 76%

Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality

November: 81%

New poll: Republicans and Democrats both overwhelmingly support net neutrality


So who the **** does the FCC represent? Greedy cable companies it would seem.

 

[Altfish]

My main hope for this is...If Trump says he's doing it, it usually doesn't happen.

 

[Kapalika]

My main hope for this is...If Trump says he's doing it, it usually doesn't happen.

Too bad it's decided by the FCC and not Trump then. The Irony is it was the FCC who put the net neutrality rules in place originally. The old FCC did a lot right right when it was becoming a problem.

 

[Revoltingest]

That might sound all well and good but the cable companies have been abundantly clear on what they plan to do. This isn't so much a "worst case scenario" as more so one step away from what they have explicitly said they plan to do and why they have pushed for the legislation.

I just don't think the sky will fall.

If you are for free speech why would you get rid of rules that prevent censorship?

I don't see market based price & speed as censorship.

If things do eventually turn out poorly, there's always the opportunity to change things.
Trump won't be in office forever.

 

[Koldo]

I just don't think the sky will fall.

I don't see market based price & speed as censorship.

If things do eventually turn out poorly, there's always the opportunity to change things.
Trump won't be in office forever.

What benefits do you foresee ?

 

[Revoltingest]

What benefits do you foresee ?

With the ability to charge based upon resource, it can be allocated more efficiently.
Those willing & able to pay more will see better service, which will also spur improvement.

Just as some will drive....

....others on a budget will drive....

 

[Koldo]

With the ability to charge based upon resource, it can be allocated more efficiently.
Those willing & able to pay more will see better service, which will also spur improvement.

Just as some will drive....

....others on a budget will drive....

I don't understand. Can't you already pay more for a better service ( better internet speed, for example ) ?
What would be the difference ?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't understand. Can't you already pay more for a better service ( better internet speed, for example ) ?
What would be the difference ?

For a given level of service, some will hog bandwidth, eg, movies.
This slows down things for others.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So the greedy corporations have won, and successfully repealed net neutrality.

Net neutrality repeal means your internet may never be the same

Which means endless paywalls and micro transactions just to access what had been free. Does this mean the end of the internet age? Will people go back to the old ways of the old days (pre-80's)? I certainly will if it gets as bad as I suspect it will. Your thoughts and comments appreciated.


As per @Kapalika request.


"As companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast acquire more online content like video, they could give their own services priority on their networks, squeezing out competitors and limiting what you could access. This might mean fewer startups get a shot at becoming the next Facebook, Netflix or YouTube. Ultimately, it could lead to your internet experience looking more like cable TV, where all the content is curated by your provider.


Some critics also fear this control could lead to higher prices. And groups such as the ACLU say it could affect your First Amendment right to free speech as big companies control more of what you experience online."

Companies don't care what you think or how you feel. If people really want to make an impact, stop paying money for their ****.

Realistically people will adjust and life will continue on after all the rage dies down. That's how corporatism works and they know it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

For a given level of service, some will hog bandwidth, eg, movies.
This slows down things for others.

I'm waiting for the dial up tones again.

Ahhh....Nostalgia

 

[Koldo]

For a given level of service, some will hog bandwidth, eg, movies.
This slows down things for others.

Ok, but how does this relate to your previous post ?
I don't understand. Are you suggesting that people should pay according to how much bandwidth they use ? If people get to pay for a bigger share of the bandwidth, wouldn't that still cause slow down for others ? I still don't understand what benefit you see.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok, but how does this relate to your previous post ?

I answered your question.

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that people should pay according to how much bandwidth they use ? If people get to pay for a bigger share of the bandwidth, wouldn't that still cause slow down for others ? I still don't understand what benefit you see.

Bandwidth is a limited resource. When demand is high, we see
slowdowns. Charging based upon usage can better optimize things.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm waiting for the dial up tones again.

Ahhh....Nostalgia

I remember when one could whistle into a modem, & spell words on the screen.

 

[Koldo]

I answered your question.

Bandwidth is a limited resource. When demand is high, we see
slowdowns. Charging based upon usage can better optimize things.

Sure. I agree with that. But as far as I understand the term, Net Neutrality it is ''the concept that providers of internet services must treat all traffic equally''. So, you haven't touched the issue I am asking. What's the benefit in internet providers treating traffic in an unequal manner ? For example, what would be the benefit of allowing them to give a higher connection speed to Vimeo over Youtube ?

 

[Revoltingest]

For example, what would be the benefit of allowing them to give a higher connection speed to Vimeo over Youtube ?

I don't know that this would happen.
But it's also possible that one of them might pay for preferred access.

 

[Koldo]

I don't know that this would happen.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to prevent it from happening either way ?

But it's also possible that one of them might pay for preferred access.

And how would this be a benefit ?

 

[Revoltingest]

Wouldn't it be a good idea to prevent it from happening either way ?

No. Regulation always has costs.
If the benefits don't exceed the costs, then it's a net loss.

And how would this be a benefit ?

If the provider has another income stream, this could lower consumer costs.
This is why broadcast TV is cheaper in Americastan than Not So Great
Britain....ours is paid for by advertisers.