Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Funnily enough "net neutrality" is loved by the big corporations, big government, and the many people who's opinions they have swayed using money and deception. It's hated by those who love the free market.
That's because you're being lied to. 0% of this is about protecting your rights. 100% of this is about government giving unfair market advantages to certain businesses and protecting ISP monopolies.
This video really sums up the issue nicely:
https://www.facebook.com/AP4Liberty/videos/1629669957091978/
As for being lied to... There are multiple incidents in the past of those same ISPs committing acts in violation of net neutrality that have been well-documented.
Don't have time right now to watch the video you linked, but acting as if nobody truly understands this that wants net neutrality is being deceptive. The ISP positions and historical records indicate a clear need for the oversight provided by net neutrality. To think otherwise, at this point, is to ignore ore the reality of the situation with regards to major ISPs.
What certain business are getting unfair market advantage under Net Neutrality?
How is throttling innovative competitors NOT protecting ISP monopolies?
Also why are these idealogue trucker hats (who apparently identify with billion dollar corporations) ignoring bold faced evidence of what ISPs have done?
Is it blind ideology or absolute stupidity? With the facts RIGHT THERE it can't be anything else.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's like if shipping companies were told they couldn't charge a different rate to deliver a pocket watch and a grand piano.
If people's grandparents want to get a cheaper internet package because all they do is play solitaire and check their e-mail that should be an option.
I'm perfectly fine with paying for the services I use. I don't need the government to force people to subsidize the fact I game and watch Netflix.
This protects monopolies because this is a stifling business environment to new ISPs. They can't compete in this market because the costs of remaining NN compliant are so high.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
not 'price for what your paying for'
The conversation is not about how much the truck stop is charging, the question is about the freeway that goes to it.
I think this topic is far to detailed for a gaming forum to handle so I am trying to stay out but I thought I might at least try to keep it on track
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
When I surf the web whether I am skyping, watching youtube, using facebook, streaming movies, tv or music or gaming it's not any of the ISPs damned business and they shouldn't have any right trying to charge me more or less because of what I am doing or block content cause it's their competition etc etc.
They can already cater to certain groups by offering certain packages, exactly for old folks that just facebook and do emails or groups that game or groups that game and stream etc etc etc.
It's the same thing with Trumps BS idea of trying to make monument changes in the US, it has nothing to do with giving back to the people and all to do with taking control and removing protections, that protect the interest of the PUBLIC, to give more control to his company cronies so they can rape and pillage their way to big $$$$ like big ISP and big oil.
It's a recurring theme with Trump and anyone with half a working brain cell can see this and it's influencing everything he does.
Why bring Trump into this? Well for one he's the one that designated Ajit Pai as FCC Chairman and no one is going to tell me there's no conflicts of interest for a Verizon shill to be in that position.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
If this wasn't happening, net neutrality wouldn't even be an issue; the free market would take care of it. As is, we have an oligopoly and the chances of competition becoming a thing in the US are almost nonexistent. Since that probably won't be changing, net neutrality is basically the best we can hope for.
Net neutrality isn't a good thing - regulation almost never is. Anyone that thinks these giant providers have suddenly become virtuous or freedom-loving have their head in the sand. Likewise, of course Google, the kings of sensorship, are happy about net neutrality. When their customers can't be throttled, it guarantees they get more clicks and ad revenue...
The change in regulation came at the behest of the DSL providers when Cable started to be useful for internet service as a means of making it harder for cable to compete with incumbent DSL providers. Cable still managed to find a way (as many already had lines) and the DSL providers quite literally sat on their ass not really improving (that's why DSL speeds are shit in most of the US and yet other countries have faster ADSL based speeds).
Regulation was never switched back to title II until the point of net neutrality came up when verizon sued the FCC for enshrining net neutrality rules as something that needed to be followed. The ISPs were quite literally put back into the regulatory bracket they should of belonged in in the first place and Tom Wheeler didn't even take a heavier handed approach to the Title II regulations he could of put in place such as price fixing, local-loop unbundling (this would actually give us competition if local loops were forced to carry multiple isps), and a few other things.
None of the regulation from the FCC defines what is and is not allowed to be put on the internet. There is zero censorship and they only regulate what the ISPs are allowed to do to customers in a way to prevent abuses from the industries they are supposed to regulate. Pai hopes to pull back not just net neutrality and title II, but realistically Title I regulations as well and wants to push regulation over to the FTC who take years to be able to do anything and can't do shit until shit has already hit the fan not to mention the FTC has literally no teeth for regulation outside of antitrust suites.
The Obama era FCC was quite literally ending an unjust period of time that happened during the Bush years in an attempt to protect the telecom industry who at the time were using phone lines (copper) from actual competition sprouting up. And those that want to say "but net neutrality didn't exist on the internet before Tom Wheeler" don't realize that it has been a point of contention since the mid 90's (isps didn't like it then) and yet they have followed the basic tenants of it up until it was broken even despite massive lobbying in the mid 2000's (2005 - 2006 area). So essentially until it was broken the ISPs were literally following it so the internet has always had net neutrality in place save for a 1 - 3 year period there.
The change is literally making the FCC just do their god damned jobs properly. ISPs should of never been regulated as information services. They may offer information services/webservices over their lines, but they are telecommunication networks first and foremost and should be regulated as such and no regulation does not mean censoring the internet it means protecting consumers (in this case consumers might be web service companies too) from telecommunications companies acting in bad faith to the detriment of the american people.
It isn't about charging more for high or low bandwidth services and never has been. Netflix also is not a high bandwidth service in general terms (unless you are streaming 4k video streams) on average a household has a singular netflix account and at most a netflix account can do 4 screens (4 streams at once) you are looking at under 30 mbps used (it's like 26.24 mbps) if everyone in a single household is watching an HD stream at the same time (more if 4k, but 4k isn't the average and there just isn't that much 4k content out there).
Not to mention that the issue was never about bandwidth and had to do with the interconects (links) between Netflix's isp and comcast etc. Now a small hint for you here Netflix's ISP is a larger tier 1 or tier 2 ISP who people like comcast also buy their bandwidth/data from (comcast etc are tier 3 providers). The interconnects between them are important to all web traffic and comcast was letting those that came in from Netflix's provider degrade and become congested so netflix traffic felt worse off than it would of been while allowing comcast's own traffic out of the network reliably using other interconnects.
There is also the fact that netflix provides their openconnect platform which is free hardware they provide to an ISP to lessen their potential burden by bringing things in house a lot more. This shit was a case of the isps simply wanting more money. Netflix and youtube are all compressed videos and no reasonably designed network should be struggling with them unless they are over subscribing their local loops/nodes heavily or letting their interconnects degrade/become congested on purpose. There is no reason when entering the age where providers are offering 100s of mbps connections that 26 mbps is congesting jack shit. You use more bandwidth downloading a game on your PS4, Xbox One, Switch, or PC.
The only logical goal of net neutrality is to stifle competition in the event that their frivolous lawsuits against emerging competition no longer hold up.
Also what you said toward the bottom there shows you don't know what Title II or Net Neutrality are about at all. Title II is actually necessary for competition, but we need to stop the light touch approach for it and go full on with it pushing price controls and local-unbundling while keeping net neutrality intact for those companies that provide the local loop, this would increase competition while allowing providers to build out the lines and rent them out or municpal governments to do the same.
Frankly a large part of the reasons the isps could sue in the first place was due to Title I regulations, it was designed to keep competition away from incumbent providers because cable was poised to replace DSL (and it did) regulation was changed to try and give DSL isps a leg up to make cable isps have to dig trenches and loads of other shit that slows them down massively.
Net Neutrality does everything to stifle new competition because the new companies can not offer what Net Neutrality requires them to offer cause it costs too much upfront.
You are in this mindset that treating video packets all the same, treating game packets all the same, treating website packets all the same and applying proper QoS is somehow costing an ISP more. They've been doing this shit forever and it's basically more costly to not follow along with "doing nothing" as you need to start developing systems to prioritize specific traffic from a specific source a certain way or not and that would actually drive up costs. There isn't "increased costs" with net neutrality or title II at all actually Title II isn't costing isps more, it isn't lowering investments, and it isn't making it harder for new isps like fixed wireless Wisps to enter the market despite what some of the larger isps and consortium of isps/industry shills will say about it.
These regulations hurt absolutely no one other than squashing a new way isps wanted to make money off webservices that they themselves are not hosting.
Like your propaganda you are spewing is truth. For a new company they have to be able to keep up the speeds to everyone. Take your crap and peddle it to the noob masses.
You couldn't say favor traffic coming from youtube over say netflix, or game data coming from EA over say blizzard as the packets for that type of shit are doing the SAME thing and oft using the same data (compressed video is usually using the same amount of data because almost everyone is using the same type of compression and codecs and most game packets are very small packets that are just location data and ping) a new company doesn't have to keep up the speeds to "everyone" and they'd actually be free to throttle any type of shit they'd need to under QoS. The difference between QoS is that you'd handle packet types only as opposed to packets from a specific source.
Again your the only one spewing lies, crap, or propaganda here. You act like a troll or industry shill, or again you are uneducated on the matter at hand and just believe the shit you are spoon fed to you by republicans. libertarians, or you simply trust the word of lobbyists at their word. A new ISP does not have to provide a set "speed" to everyone and it isn't costing them anymore money than it cost before. You have no idea wtf net neutrality or what Title I or II are.
And lest we forget, Ma Bell was monopoly back in the day but they were never as greedy as all the companies that sprouted up to take their place.
Government interference typically does more harm than good. Mainly because the people running it are as corrupt as the people they claim to be protecting us from.
It doesn't matter what you think about Net Neutrality... you have no voice in it whatsoever to begin with. You just think you do.
I'm for NN, but only because I live in a rural area. We only get one option for most internet service. Yes, I could get satellite instead but the latency would make gaming impossible. Therefor I only have 1 ISP option.
I'm all for capitalism, but the fact is it's a system that just doesn't work unless the consumer has actual options to pick from. So unless and until someone gets an entire other set of back-bone infrastructure in place(which will likely not happen for decades if ever). Government regulation is the only thing from protecting us from being 100% at the mercy of the available ISP's.
If the system wasn't actually broken then Comcast wouldn't still be the juggernaut it is currently, after getting such terrible customer reviews and satisfaction year after year. They just don't care because they own the cables so it doesn't matter how much people hate them.
WIthout net neutrality it could let isps block sites unless a customer pays extra to unlock those sites or a website pays to get itself unblocked. The reason why you have groups you may not associate with normally and groups you might associate with normally all getting together on this one thing is primarily because of what it could ultimately lead to.
I've stated many fact that people don't want to listen to. I've stated reasoning and what has actually happened. I support net neutrality, but what I have said is not propaganda or lies. ISPs have come out with what they already plan to do in the past and tenants they have broken in the past have been blocking VOIP other than their own among a slew of other things. Regulation is a necessity unless we have healthy competition and sadly the only way we are going to get competition is local-loop unbundling which would also require regulating wholesale prices and then making sure the actual lines provided are neutral in the first place (no funny business outside of QoS), but alas that will never freaking happen
If Elon Musk's sattelite idea for internet works and is low latency it could bring actual competition to the isps ultimately. Also just to point out an entirely free market economy never works. Capitalism requires rules and regulations to function properly because otherwise one company would just buy all newcomers or be able to squash them before they could get started monetarily by vastly lowering prices. So capitalism exists in a society with rules and regulations. Those who want entirely free markets are delusional people that weren't alive before regulations existed or know very little of history.