Screw that guy
This is honestly just the cable companies trying to stay afloat since Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon have phased them out. They're bigger than Blockbuster was, so they can fight back louder. We need to put them out of their (and our) misery.
@Empshok, very well put
@Empshok, no, that’s not how it works. But tell yourself what you want.
@Child Slapper, oh, please. Enlighten me, mr expert.
@Empshok, Net Neutrality only came out with the Obama Administration, and before that, it was working just fine. Net Neutrality means that all ISPs have to supply all use of internet traffic at the same price. So Netflix has to be charged the same as some schmo in his basement just using email. Also, all pages have to be loaded at the same speed. The problem is that it benefits big corporations like Netflix over the little guy. The reality is, if you take up a huge share of bandwidth, you should pay more for it. It’s not crazy to treat internet as a utility at this point in life.
@Child Slapper, think of it like water pipes. The ISPs are the pipes. And internet is water. A commie would say that everyone must pay the same amount for different amounts of water being used. Why would we do the same with our internet?
@Empshok, https://yo utu.be/yBrZ_CPgm7o
@Child Slapper, oh, so, can you explain exactly how bandwidth usage affects the ISP? As in, does it take more power to send more bandwith to one house? Do they have to shovel more coal into the servers to increase their 'bandwidth output?' Or is it, perhaps, that a company started getting nervous when one person used 1 GB of data and another used 100, and decided to raise the rate of the higher user?
@Empshok, shouldn’t old people who use very little internet just for email just be charged very little? Internet is a service. We should be charged what we use, instead of being entitled.
@Child Slapper, you used a phrase that I'm still not sure you understand. "Using internet." You have not shown how it costs the ISP more when more data gets used. I accept that bandwidth (data transfer speed) costs more as rates get higher, but not overall data. That's just poor reasoning, bud.
And furthermore, what's to stop ISP's from screwing with which sites people get to use? And before you say "pick another ISP" you should know that there are places with only one ISP available.
@Empshok, my apologies for the confusion. I was referring to the speed the entire time. Sorry if I did not make that clearer.
@Child Slapper, furthermore, upload and download speeds vary by ISP. Once a video has been uploaded to the internet, it is the download speed of the consumer's ISP that counts, not that of Netflix or any other video streaming site. You don't think Netflix has to pay for the privilege to stream videos? Without Net Neutrality, ISP's sponsored by cable would have blocked Netflix when it started. With your logic, a driver of a van should have to pay more taxes because they wear out the road more than the driver of a sedan.
@Empshok, the analogy of wearing out the road doesn’t make sense. It would work better with gas. The van user has to pay more for gas since his uses more, while the sedan user pays less for gas.
@Child Slapper, see, that's what I'm waiting for you to explain. How the internet "gets used up" like electricity or water. It's information. And the more infrastructure that gets built, the less it costs ISP's to provide access.
@Empshok, the costs reflect how fast we get that information. If someone leaves a few drops of water running, they are slowly using water. Like someone getting their internet slowly. If someone turns up their water, like a shower, they get their water much faster. Shouldn’t we pay more for faster information, since faster received means more?
@Child Slapper, not if it doesn't cost more to provide it. Where I live, water is a flat rate regardless of how much is used. Why? Because here, the cost is negligible. Check how much it costs ISPs to provide internet. See if you can find any viable data.
@Empshok, what? Ok that is definitely not normal.... where do you live that charges a flat rate for water?
@Child Slapper, not normal--based on where YOU live, or based on demographic surveys presented by a reliable source? I'll just say that I live in Idaho and leave it at that. A relatively dry climate. And it's a flat rate.
But back on topic, unless it costs someone more to provide ACCESS to more information, why should they be charged more for using it? If I checked out 1 book every week or 5 books every day, it would not cost the library more or less. And with computers, it costs nothing to copy data. But should 'sponsored' files transfer faster than 'unsponsored' files?
@Empshok, that’s interesting. I’ve lived in 3 different states, in 2 different types of communities. When you own a house, you generally pay for exactly how much water you intake. When you rent, it’s flat and the landlord pays it based on how much is used. I’ve never seen it otherwise. That’s the way it works where water is abundant I guess. I live in Jersey, NYC, NY State, and now PA.
Edit: also works hat way in Ohio where my wife is from
@Child Slapper, I own my house. I'm not saying it's not common for utility prices to vary, particularly when 'usage based' utilities cost more on the provider side. But I could collect water and generate my own power. There is no 'internet fuel' that gets used up like gasoline. The internet is like a road, and rules on the road are to protect people and property, and to maintain a functional means of transport. How fast you CAN travel depends on what mode of transport you take. Walking is cheap, but slow, no matter the road. Biking is faster, but driving a car or riding a train provides better transport rate. Do you pay the road maintenance crews more the faster you go? Continued...
@Child Slapper, the internet is as much a utility as the road, and the only cost I can see for higher bandwidth is actually in power consumption, which would have nothing to do with the internet, and everything to do with the electricity provider.
Net neutrality simply outlaws discrimination, which ironically helps support 'the little guys.'
@Empshok, https://broadband now.com/report/much-data-really-cost-isps/
According to this article, it costs ISPs a good bit....
@Child Slapper, actually, you should probably read the whole article before suggesting that.
@Empshok, well, clearly I thought of the process incorrectly, but the article concludes with a great reason as to why Net Neutrality should be removed. Net Neutrality is like communism/socialism. Net Neutrality benefits the guys on top. Removing Net Neutrality and letting it become a true competitive marketplace reflects capitalism, which allows little guys to become good when their practices are good.
@Child Slapper, okay, I'm concerned with multiple aspects of your argument. 1. How is Net Neutrality like socialism/communism? 2. How does it simultaneously benefit the guys on top when socialism/communism is supposed to equalize its citizens? 3. How would allowing ISPs to choose what their customers view help support 'the little guy?' 4. Unregulated capitalism results in monopolies. Ever heard of Carnegie and Rockefeller? Industrial-Era monopolists of rail and oil, respectively. How many small business satellite/cable companies or ISPs do you know of? How hard would it be to get an ISP to 'sponsor' their company and block others? I'm betting it would come down to money. And who has the money to shut out the competition? Is it small businesses? Or is it mega-million dollar franchises? If Net Neutrality gets repealed, the internet will cease to be a viable place to advertise for small businesses.
@Empshok, communism/socialism is presented as a system that makes its citizens equal, but it’s a broken system. People say it hasn’t been implemented correctly, but it’s not the implementation that’s the problem, it’s the very idea itself that is broken. But that’s a whole other topic I really don’t feel like typing out, lol.
If Net Neutrality is repealed. Costs for streaming Netflix/Hulu/Amazon will go up because that’s what those companies want. Then, smaller businesses will have a chance because they charge less. It’s the same reason that Verizon isn’t the only phone company left. Highest price; if you don’t have Verizon, it’s most likely because you can’t afford it. If all phone companies had to charge the same price. Verizon would be the only phone company left in no time at all.
@Child Slapper, I don't have Verizon, not because I can't afford it, but because I don't think they're worth what they charge.
Also, do you think the roads would be better if run by small businesses? Or would there be tollbooths, potholes, and product-placement everywhere? How would you like to be required to slow down to 5 mph to ensure you read the sponsored billboards and drive by all sponsored businesses? The ISPs would have that power if net neutrality was removed. Sure, they might not do that, but let's assume that businesses do stupid things. Like, for example, Star Wars Battlefront 2. Suddenly your town has a new bridge, and a incredibly long road around to the next town over. Each town member was required to pay for the bridge, but if you want access to the bridge, you have to pay for an access card that costs 50 time more than what you originally paid. And what happens when the company gets mad that nobody uses their bridge? They just close the bridge, taking up space.
@Empshok, alright. At the start of this, I didn’t realize you were a hardcore democrat. You and I are different fundamentally, and at the core. You believe that corporations are greedy and all about power so we should rely on big government to regulate everything.
Well, screw that. The government is incompetent and the rules they put in place makes everything worse.
If business owners don’t appeal to enough people, they don’t get any customers. That’s how it works.
@Empshok, im done with this conversation. There’s no way either of us are going to understand each other with these short little paragraphs.....
@Child Slapper, or, the company offers a cheaper bridge, but what they don't tell you is that the bridge is not maintained at all. Or what about the Oroville Dam? How much damage would there have been if the dam broke? Say a company was allowed to form a dam to control the water a town is allowed. Say they get to charge what they want. Say a large corporation like Mansanto can pay huge amounts of money to the dam owner to redirect all water to their farms. Or, say everybody refuses to pay for the water. Suddenly an angry company decides to give up on the dam. The dam breaks and destroys the town.
Some regulations are necessary to keep companies in check. The same is true for government.
@Empshok, except the democratic government wants everyone to pay the same amount on every bridge, while republic wants it to differ based on which bridges are used more. That’s simple economics, instead of victimization.
@Child Slapper, you are amusingly biased. And also very wrong about me. I'm a Trump supporter. I think citizens should have the power to overthrow their government. I despise obama. Communism/socialism will always fail because people are too imperfect. I believe that there needs to be a balance in power between businesses and government, and there should be concern when they are working together. You don't want liberty. You want a country full of barons who house, feed, and breed their own workers to be compliant. How is that better than Nazi Fascism?
@Child Slapper, and we are a Democratic Republic. Either aspect alone fails, but together they have created a great country. It is radical deviation in any one direction that has turned a strong foundation into a crumbling fulcrum.
@I Are Lebo, I know you probably don't care at this point, but what's your take on this discussion? I won't be offended if you don't respond. Just seeking another perspective.
@Empshok, huh, well you threw me for a loop there.... well we are all biased in a way. Apologies for assuming you were a democrat. I agree with most of what you said. I’m actually a conservative. I don’t support Trump because he doesn’t actually represent the ideals of Republicans or Conservatives. He’s in the middle and used the Republic party to fight his way in. And I may have been too extreme with my annoyance about the government. 8 years of Obama does that to me. I believe we are a Republic and the powers do need to be in a balance. I just think the government has wayyyy to much now, and they need to be decreased in the amount of power they currently hold.
@Child Slapper, well, I completely agree with your last statement. Except again, we are a Democratic Republic. I used to be die-hard conservative. But then I had to consider, if the conservative way were the best option, why is half of the country liberal? To claim that it's because they're stupid, or brainwashed, or simply ignorant is to open the question: what about us? So I have decided to try to focus on what I believe to be most important: providing the most liberty (and I think, opportunity) for the most people. I have deduced that that means government and business should be head to head. Thorns in one another's sides. I feel like whenever they come to an agreement, the people suffer.
@Empshok, sure. I just believe that the reason half the country is liberal is because they are self-centered and believe that the liberal side of things supports the notion that they could do whatever they want. That’s the way it’s presented, so of course most of the population says to screw family values and caring for others, and just think about myself.
@Child Slapper, and liberals see conservatives as inbred, racist, Bible-thumping rednecks who fire guns to communicate. There is good and bad on both sides.
Personally I still lean right. I think welfare is cancer and I don't think women have a right to demand an abortion from a doctor (except a few serious circumstances). I could go on but I won't. Again, I seek balance.
@Empshok, right, that’s how conservatives have been presented to them. If that’s the case, and I have the liberals wrong. What are they really like?
@Child Slapper, I only know a couple. The only thing we disagreed on was the border issue. I believe the radical differences between parties is a result of media exaggeration.
@Empshok, right, what I’m asking is: conservatives really believe in responsibility, family, rules, and small government, and they’re painted as bigots, racists, inbred. If liberals are “painted” as self indulgent, selfish, irresponsible, consumers. What are they really? What do they really believe?
@Child Slapper, I leave you to find that answer yourself. Find someone you know who claims to be liberal and have a rational discussion. Chances are you'll have more in common than you think.
@Child Slapper, for the record, in Ontario, water is also charged at a flat rate. The difference in price between a day where I don’t shower and a day where I shower three times is exactly the same.
@Empshok, no.... all my friends are all liberals. My whole childhood and young adult life. I grew up in a liberal, democratic household. I saw the errors of that lifestyle and left it behind. I know I’m ok the correct side now.... I just can’t figure out why others believe that liberalism is correct. Perhaps it’s the notion of self. I don’t know. I think you and I have a lot more in common actually....
@I Are Lebo, yeah, I hate the policies in Canada. Every day, I see America become more and more like Canada/Australia. I’ll never go to those countries.
@Empshok, I’m fairly liberal in most of my attitudes, but the thing that is most important to me is freedom. The majority of corporations ARE money grubbing, self centred sinkholes of human morality, and the government isn’t much better. If Net Neutrality was about handing control of the internet to the government, I’d be opposed to it. But it is not. Furthermore, net neutrality did not begin with Obama, so I’m confused as to why he is relevant in the discussion at all. NN began in the 90s under Clinton, it just didn’t become official until Obama.
Secondly, ISPs have already proved themselves willing to shaft their customers for extra money. Rogers regularly absorbs smaller companies, creating monopolies that must be existing through loopholes. I don’t trust Comcast or Verizon or AT&T because their history is crystal clear.
Furthermore, your analogy about the internet being more like a road than water is excellent. Repealing NN would be like allowing tollbooths to prevent access to
certain roads beyond the tollbooth even if you pay. Without NN, there is absolutely nothing to stop ISPs from releasing streaming sites and then blocking access to their competitors, and if this ISP has large swathes of land where they are the only ISP, which is usually because they own the cable company that also provides that area, then their customers have no alternative. This is unethical, but really good business. It would be extremely profitable for a major company like AT&T to side with, for instance, Hulu, and then block YouTube, Netflix, Crave, etc.
Their customers complaints could even be used to screw them over more, by AT&T adding a program where they can have access to the blocked content for a higher price.
To anyone that says “this is just a hypothetical, it won’t happen”, google “AT&T blocks Netflix”. Netflix has been using the NN laws to stop AT&T for the last five years in a row because they never stopped trying.
You pay for internet based on how much data you use.
@Child Slapper, considering the length of our debate I would tend to agree about our commonality. My mom is passionately conservative and my dad is conservative but more open-minded. My mom is now married to an English teacher who she claims to be very liberal, but after talking with him I'd say he's pretty level-headed. I was lucky to have a fairly intelligent upbringing, while you were wise enough to question yours. All I will suggest is to clearly identify your own biases, focus on the big picture, and realize that words can be more powerful than bullets. Bullets can (and often must) kill, but words can convert an enemy to a friend. Statistically, that is the best outcome.
@I Are Lebo, thank you for your response! I didn't know Obama and Clinton had to do with NN. If that's true, than they have done something good for America.
The biggest problem here is that if net neutrality is repealed, it may become extremely difficult to reinstate it once people realize they fücked up the internet.
A lot of people will be forced to go to the dark web, which is not a good place to be, especially since after the removal of NN, the illegalization of the dark web is the next logical step.
I mean, the dark web is a big part of the reason why human trafficking still happens in the modern world. There’s a lot of disgusting shït on there.
Net neutrality protects the freedom of speech on the internet. It’s why places like the KKK website are completely legal. And while some may think this is a reason to REMOVE NN, I’m just going to ask, what do you do when your beliefs are labeled illegal and your platform to speak on gets removed?
The removal of NN will cost lives. That’s my prediction.
@Child Slapper, I have traveled Canada and the USA. We have better economic, health, and infrastructure than you right now.
When you say you’ll never go to those countries, that’s you clinging to ignorance. How can you learn the ways that your county is doing well or poor if you shut yourself off to others?
@Empshok, really truly, I don’t think a single president has had anything directly to do with NN, but I’m not 100% about that.
@I Are Lebo, I meant never again. I have gone to those countries. I don’t agree that they are better, but if that’s your opinion, then sure. I didn’t know you were going to end up commenting here. I already know your opinion of things.
@Child Slapper, now, think for a moment about your reaction. Instead of anger, consider what is causing your opposition. Observe these countries. I would say another thing about socialism. In a large country, it would never work (based on my knowledge). But my dad moved to New Zealand, and he says socialism suits them. I don't know how, but I trust my dad, his morals, and his political perspective. Always beware of ignorance, we are all infected, and anger is a symptom. Humility and reason are the treatment. No matter who you are.
@Empshok, exactly. That’s why it bothers me when Americans brag about being the best country in the world. Not only are they provably NOT the best, but that attitude also prevents improvement. If you’re already the best, there’s not much motivation to get better, it’s just basic human nature that relatively few oppose.
@I Are Lebo, the dark web isn't inherently evil any more than darkness. It simply provides more anonymity(sp?). True that human trafficking benefits from this, but so do the FBI. All the dark web is is dynamic web addressing. To access a dark website, you need either a link or a pattern.
@I Are Lebo, if we were the best, we would be too busy to know it. And I think that's the point. And furthermore, what determines 'best?' "My country is red, and yours is blue. Therefore, based on my superior logic, we are better than you."
@Empshok, that’s why I’ve never really understood the point of racism. What exactly makes one race superior to another? Individual variance is clearly much larger than racial variance on every observable level.
@I Are Lebo, well, there are significant variances within medical statistics, for example. Racism and 'colorblindness' are in my opinion, are both facets of ignorance. If someone's race is prone to thromboses, for example, and rapid treatment with blood thinners could save 50% more lives if administered as an emergency treatment prior to more lengthy and expensive medical analysis, I'd say such racial profiling would be beneficial.
Although I personally suffer from a different form of racism. I believe that members of an individual race, when gathered together based on their race, are a cancer to society. Like certain bacteria, they form a 'biofilm' that supports similar bacteria but forces others out, all the while harming the host. Doesn't matter what race. I believe people like that are as inferior to me as the white people thought the black people were in that shameful chapter of American history.
@Empshok, fair enough. My attitude is that outside of biology, ethnicity is irrelevant. How much melanin you have in your skin has no correlation with your value as a human being.
@I Are Lebo, that's why "Black Lives Matter" and other race-promoting constructs are setting us back. In the 60s, it was about equality. Now it's about payback and superiority.
@Empshok, the whole concept of white guilt is retarded to me. I’m supposed to have shame because of the actions of past people completely unrelated to myself because I share a trait with them?!
All four of my grandparents were Holocaust survivors. Does that mean that every German person is indebted to me? Of course not.
I would not be held liable for the actions of my father, so there’s no way in hell I’m going to allow myself to be held responsible for something my grandfathers grandfather MAY have done. Fück that nonsense.
BLM wants to continue racism, not stop it. They just want the target of mainstream racism to switch, and that will solve nothing.
The more extreme attitude is even dumber. If there was an actual race war in the USA, black people would lose badly. They make up ~12% of the population, and history shows pretty clearly what happens when such a small minority of people get too aggressive towards the majority.
@Empshok, as for the dark web, I agree that it’s not inherently evil, I just meant that without net neutrality, a lot of frustrated people will turn to the “last bastion of online freedom”, which in turn will put a target on the dark web.
@I Are Lebo, *scrolls down for 5 minutes* I think we may have accomplished whatever it is we set out to do.
@Empshok, indeed. Good conversation, thanks for getting me involved in it. 👍
FunnyPics, where Holocaust memes are funny but net neutrality memes give us heart attacks and trauma
@HFSA, I think that's been the state of the whole internet for awhile now
He is a husk, get rid of the husk and the parasite of big business will find another host to take his place
@Mendicant Bias, “He bit the monopoly man!”
“Grrrrrrr! Augh! ARRRRRR- Hey kids! If you’re against corporations bribing officials into letting them do whatever they want to you, you’re a commie.”
@UmActually, capitalism is rough but I wouldnt have it any other way
@Mendicant Bias, But businesses using the government to create monopolies and increase prices really isn’t capitalism, it’s corporatism.
@UmActually, I hate the name, but you are correct. Well said.
@UmActually, civ 4 had it best as america inc.
@UmActually, I normally disagree with you but you're right, monopolies are detrimental to capitalism. The Constitution itself has clauses against them
It's my understanding that this change in title is what removes the regulation we call net neutrality.
Also, I think it's wise to start using a vpn if this passes. Limits what the isp can do without going full ham and disallowing vpns
My dad talked to Ajit Pa (or whatever his name is) and the dude really does believe the change will be good, especially for those currently without internet, as decreased regulation will promote more investment. Didn't convince me, but it's possible he's right, so I guess we'll see
@Sheep Rider, It MIGHT increase investment, but the trade-off is that for the Internet, deregulation will hurt everyone who has internet and create exclusivity for the sake of exclusivity. Most places only have one ISP, if they charge too much or make packages (they will, it makes too much financial sense not to), the consumer is screwed. You can’t vote with your wallet if there’s only one candidate. The deregulation actually can decrease competition. What if they only allow ads for their company and their brand partners? What if they only show political ads they approve? This is different from TV, because they want it classified so the Internet they provide is THEIR property, not the content creators. They want a direct money flow into their pocket from consumers and creators, because one wants to use their service to see what the other created. And this would make sense if the ISPs did anything besides provide the connection.
@UmActually, I 90% believe that, but the immediate counter is to say that deregulation will solve the local monopoly problem as it allows new isps to be created and existing isps to spread more easily. Hard to argue against that when neither side has evidence.
@Sheep Rider, I have evidence to the contrary. The regulation doesn’t prevent either. It’s about controlling content. They’re parroting that because the knee-jerk reaction to the term “regulation” by most republicans in Congress is “Bad!” And in some cases, they are right. How will allowing ISPs to control content allow new ISPs to form if the biggest advertising market is online? If I was an exec at Comcast, I’d block every competitor website, because if they see the ad, they might use “my” internet to buy a “different company’s” internet. They already try to hide them obviously, purposefully slowing services they compete with. If allowed the chance, they’ll do it more, because they could get away with it.
@UmActually, also in my area comcast is contracted to provide internet. The only cable in this area. Exclusively thiers. So no other isp can provide cable Internet like they do.
@Ginger Incorporated, But that’s (usually) because of state and local legislation, not federal, and deregulating won’t fix those issues.
@UmActually, it's moving internet from a title 2 utility to title 1. There's pages and pages of regulation more than what you stated
@Sheep Rider, that’s not what the repeal of net neutrality will do. That’s the classification, which is an entirely different thing. The Internet was classified as a utility prior to 2015.
@UmActually, yea, that was my point.
@UmActually, why do you continue to feed into the fears of people with misinformation and wild speculation.
There is existing infrastructure in place to provide internet to people's homes. If they price themselves out so that people cant afford them they are leaving money on the table. That infrastructure collects no revenue, and they mis out on easy money. For the same reason walking away after your final offer on a negations works is because some money is preferable to no money. If there is a profit to made, it will be done. No one will be intentionally priced out of internet access when the infrastructure has already been invested in. "It makes to much financial sense not to" keep using a profitable business model when more profitable models don't. Stop talking out of your ass with speculatory fear mongering.
@UmActually, And why do you think it's possible for a company to block out competitor ads on the internet? Adblock has a hard enough time with a zero tolerance policy and you think an ISP will invest in a filtered adblocker? You think competitors can't alter ads to get past the filter? Do you think they are willing to spend the money on active monitoring of the ENTIRE INTERNET so that Comcast can't play an ad? Are you kidding me?
In actuality that business strategy is a never ending cat and mouse game. Fruitless, creating blockades that can be easily circumnavigated. Repeatedly. Why would a company engage in that when the cost for typical marketing may cost less and be more effective and retaining customers.
What is this fantasy where the greedy ISPs are more interested in fisting customers more than making money? Stop fear mongering. You are speculating crudely.
@NotCaveJohnson, I like how you respond with “don’t worry, guys, I’m sure the ISPs have our best interest in mind.” They realize that for the people that have Internet, not having Internet really isn’t an option. Hell, in 2008, 62% of adults who are employed require the Internet for work, and that was nearly ten years ago. The ISPs have most of the country by the balls. There’s nothing we can do about it besides tell them not to fvck with the libertine nature of the internet. They’re not stupid, they won’t make it prohibitively expensive, they’ll make basic packages as cheap as Internet usually is, but then as you want more more content, you will pay more. They’re not going to go right into everything being $150,000 a month. No one thinks that. I never said that it would be prohibitively expensive to have Internet, I said that it is going to be prohibitively expensive to have Internet in its current form.
@UmActually, they have their own interests in mind you putz. Leaving money on the table is not in their best interest or ours. A greedy isp might raise prices but theyre not going to abandon customers when there is still profit to be made.
@NotCaveJohnson, The more profitable option for them is to treat Internet like TV, which includes creating packages, regulating content, charging people to be featured on their service and removing competition. This also means that they could block certain sites that are illegal under certain US laws. That means no more free streaming of content or Pirate Bay, I’d give 4chan a day before being removed “just to be safe.” Why the hell would Comcast allow Netflix to be used? They own the competition, Hulu. That means Netflix will go to Verizon and Verizon will block Hulu, and Verizon will block Skype and give you a non-free version. Now, I want to be very clear on this, I am not against capitalism, I’m against corruption. They’ve lobbied to towns and states and they have created monopolies for themselves. They say they won’t charge us more, but why the hell should be believe them? They have nothing to lose charging people more who have no other choice.
@NotCaveJohnson, they’re not abandoning customers, you idiot. For something like 75% of Internet users in America there is only one choice. They’re not leaving money on the table, they’re leaving a necessity for, like I said, at least 62% of Americans on the table, and saying “you will pay whatever I say for this, because you can’t get this anywhere else.” This is the exact same thing with toll roads. If they increased the cost of toll roads, they’re not going to lose any “customers,” they’ll just make more money off them.
@NotCaveJohnson, it’s not in their best interest to tell people who have no other option that they’re going to raise prices? Because it seems to me that’s a captive consumer.
@NotCaveJohnson, no, but they can do is they can tell websites that they have to submit whatever add service that they’re using, and whatever ad service runs ads for their competitor, they can tell the websites that use that advertiser that they need to find another advertiser, or their speeds will be throttled, or they will not be available on their service. It’s what they do with television, man. They’re not interested in fisting us, they’re interested in making money off of us, and if we are captive consumers, they will charge whatever they possibly can. Let me put it this way, if you make a deal with the local government in your town and get permission to charge a toll on a bridge across the river that runs directly through the middle of town, and you have the only bridge, what’s to stop you from charging $20 to cross? Nothing, if someone needs something on the other side of the river, they will have to pay the $20.
@NotCaveJohnson, you know that you're not convincing anyone because everyone here likes the current system and we have fought to keep it that way you should probably stop wasting your time trying to convince people who will never be convinced that net neutrality is somehow a bad thing
@NotCaveJohnson, I admire you for holding to an extremely unpopular perspective. While I disagree with you, it does take courage, unless you're simply trolling. At any rate, there are far too many people in the dark web making far too much money for net neutrality to be repealed. Consider that a significant number of people/businesses with terrifying resources will have their businesses damaged. And many will torture, kidnap, rape, and kill people (women and children usually, and with an active video feed) to ensure the net remains neutral. I am concerned that this FCC chairman doesn't realize the danger he's putting his family in.
@UmActually, May I just say, f_cking thank you.
I don't think enough people realize the state of ISPs and how they already are de facto monoploies in all but the largest metropolitan centers for the US. I mean, the infrastructure would need to overlap for competing firms, or they would have to share cables almost like we forced the railroad industry to share rail lines rather than make new ones. The legislation to cause such cooperation (that would directly benefit one firm over the other , and disrupt the market) would never get passed currently, so we are left in a state of increasing economies of scale for ISPs, and a huge barrier to enter for any new firm if there's already established infrastructure in that region. In short, we have a perfect storm for natural monopolies.
Even where there are multiple firms, we already see clear signs of collusion, and price fixing. They're hardly even competing with each other any more. Sacking Net Neutrality will not
@PB2, help nor address any of the root causes of the market manipulation we see in internet providers, instead, it would act as yet another tool in their arsenal to eliminate competition, and retain or increase their market share.
@eleven, ... "Everyone here likes the current system and we have fought to keep it that way"... things slave holders said for $1000, Alex.
@NotCaveJohnson, goodbye and find some actual fun instead of trying to irritate people
@Empshok, But this is all distopian pessimistic speculation... This is done for every law passed.
Allowing guns on campuses... Everyone will start shooting everyone else. Gun deaths will rise, our children will die!
Everyone will be addicted, nothing will get done, everyone will be stoned all the time.
Pedophiles will run a muck with little girls! Our daughters! If we let men go in whatever bathroom they please we will need to escort our children to the bathroom so they don't get raped.
ISPs will throttle the internet and filter out content that isn't inline with their political or economic goals.
It's all in the same vain of fear mongering distopian pessimistic speculation. And it continues to propagate because of a fear, an irrational unfounded fear. Where people think of the worst outcome, possible or not, and expect it to be an inevitability.
@NotCaveJohnson, Okay, except one of those has already been done. ISPs have purposefully throttled content before. Why would they not throttle their competitors like Netflix or any streaming service? They’ve openly said they will block “illegal” content, which, in a memo from Verizon, includes VPN download sites. They want to turn the internet into cable tv.
@UmActually, Don't hold your breath. If you buy an internet package from, let's say Verizon, what are the reasons you may want to upgrade your internet speed, ie spend more money with Verizon? If switching from 10mb/s to 100mb/s doesn't improve my experience with a throttled Netflix, or let me use VPN services more smoothly, why would I spend more?
They are in the business of making more money and their current business model is about giving you faster internet to access the content you actually WANT more quickly in exchange for higher monthly rates. If you don't have the content you want you won't want to purchase higher packages.
The ISPs will still be regulated, just not considered a common carrier under title II. Which has only been the case since 2015.
User interest will be the horse driving the carriage of how content gets throttled on a regular basis, not ISPs. Just like EA, they will get chastised if they try. Im more skeptical than you that its a wise business decision.
@NotCaveJohnson, well, they will incentivize upgrading in other ways. Nobody just has Internet only for Netflix. If I need to use some patented software for work, and the only Internet package that allows that is the most expensive one, I will have to buy the most expensive one, no matter how bad the connection for Netflix is.
@UmActually, it could actually work to our benefit, let's say HULU can be streamed at 4k on the 10mb/s package but Netflix can't. You'll still be shopping for Stranger Things so you'd still be inclined to upgrade and they'd still be after increased profit margins so... Yeah, I don't see how out right throttling competitors will lead to more income for them. People don't like being funneled to content. For example U2s free album on itunes. It was free and we still complained
@NotCaveJohnson, prior to 2015, the Internet was classified in a way that would not allow the Internet service writers to control content or speeds, they still did it. I don’t know why you are saying they won’t do what they already have been doing. Comcast throttle Netflix, nobody abandon Comcast entirely, because there’s no other options. They have prices specifically designed so that people pay more. Whether you buy a basic Internet package or the highest speed, they make a profit.
@UmActually, that's a rather unique circumstance. I'm not sure how much profit they'd be able to squeeze out of less then a few thousand people by packaging in career specific software.
@NotCaveJohnson, they will profit because they can approach Netflix and say, “hey, if you pay out a premium, we will give you unthrottled access to our customers.” That’s how they got caught last time.
@NotCaveJohnson, well, it could be applied to a variety of different circumstances. In countries where NN is not a thing and the Internet is available in packages, the Internet does not run faster, the Internet technology is not better, and it’s a lot more expensive to have Internet. There’s a basic package, which is like Wikipedia, Google, most encyclopedia sources and basic information websites, then there would be the entertainment package, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc. then there is the social media package, then the News package, then the sports package, etc. if you need more than one of those for your job or, because we’re used to having the entire Internet, you will end up paying significantly more for less Internet.
@UmActually, and I think they have a right to do so. Last time... They had an infrastructure that was being heavily burdened by Netflix traffic. To the detriment of other user traffic. They had a few choices. Throttle Netflix to ensure other user traffic is not negatively affected or expand the infrastructure. Expanding the infrastructure costs something, it's not a software feature like throttling. They could either eat the cost, or charge the consumer more, or content provider more which is what they did. If it cost you more to make a delivery somewhere you're going to charge them more for the service. Because it took more resources to make the accommodation.
@UmActually, are there news packages and social media packages and basic information packages in other countries without NN?
@UmActually, I have Cox for my internet. If they started throttling my stuff, I would protest by dropping to the lowest tier of payments. If the same number of people who crapped on EA did the same Cox would be shaking in it's boots based from lost revenue. It's still a voluntary agreement between two parties and most people can afford to lose high-speed internet at home for a little. Some can't, but most can.
It would have to be a very bitter battle between Executives and collusive competitors and customers in order for it to spiral out of control like you seem to be thinking it will.
@NotCaveJohnson, that’s ridiculous, I pay for a certain speed of Internet, if that is not being reached, they are breaching the terms of our contract, this is a problem, because the ISPs have already lobbied to say that speeds are not guaranteed, even if advertised, so even if I’m paying $100 more for Internet in a year, if you’re using Hulu, and I’m using Netflix, because Netflix is a competitor to Comcast, I will have slower connection speeds. That’s ridiculously unethical.
@UmActually, if the package is advertised as 10mb/s with 4k Hulu streaming, it's not fraudulent. Relax. I think changing terms without consent is unethical too. It's fraudulent.
But saying speeds are not guaranteed is fine by me. I've complained that my wifi was slower than adverstised speed. But it's because wifi diminishes the connection as a function of distance from the router. And at times of high traffic your internet might slow. It's a burden to the infrastructure, it's not being purposefully throttled, it's just not physically possible to give the same speeds as at times of lower traffic.
As a consumer when I buy a 100mb/s connection I expect that speed, at least when I'm plugged into to my router. We all should. We live in a very litigious society, asking the government to loosen up on definitions is not necessarily a sign of intent to commit fraud.
@NotCaveJohnson, but Verizon openly wants to restrict content. Comcast has said that they don’t, however their actions say otherwise. We stand a precipice to go from a totally open Internet to one in which the Internet service providers control what we can and can’t see at the behest of the federal government, as well as their own economic needs. If this were any service besides Internet, I might agree, but they do not own the Internet, nor did they do any work in the maintenance of it, they just want to make more money off of something that they currently are making insane amounts of money on. They know that for 95% of their current customers, they are there only choice, cutting or restricting speeds or content is not a big deal, because they have no competition.
@NotCaveJohnson, I know several countries in South America do and China does, but most places either lack the widespread infrastructure, or there are laws against it. The EU has NN built into their bylaws, and Russia does it through the government entirely, meaning the government blocks content. I’m not sure on Africa or Southwestern Asia.
@UmActually, You have cellular data and home internet... You have options. And not having options doesn't give you any more rights as to what you can dictate from an ISP.
An ISP provides you the infrastructure that allows you to access the internet. The developed it, and continue to maintain it. This is a service I am willing to pay for and if they decided one day to close shop and shutdown completely I would have no recourse except to search for a replacement. It's not my right to dictate how those companies use their infrastructure. I laid out why it would be a bad business strategy to do what your suggesting they intend to do. The reality that I imagine will happen is an overall improved customer experience, commonly used services will be fast tracked on some ISPs and all other sites will go into an "other" category of less commonly used sites that just won't be given priority.
@UmActually, There are actual bottlenecks that ISPs have to negotiate. If everything goes into the bottleneck at the same rate and time you have a clog, if you prioritize some information the bottleneck can be controlled and information flows more freely than before. You think companies will charge for this prioritization and you might be right, but an improved service is worth paying for. A rising tide raises all ships.
@NotCaveJohnson, but the Internet is the last free communication channel that we have that’s unburdened by both government control and corporate control, you want corporations to all of a sudden have a say in it. The Internet is not theirs to dictate what we canning can’t see on it. Whether someone is going on Wikipedia or Pornhub, they get the same speed and the same priority, they can do this with no penalty, they have been doing so for 2 years. My speed has only gone up since the ruling, they have created this issue of scarcity, multiple expert analysts have said that the infrastructure can support much more traffic than what is used, and internal memos from Verizon support this. They say that people are overloading using Netflix so that they can have a reason to throttle, when in reality they are throttling because they have a video service in competition to Netflix. I disagree that slower connection speeds for certain users and certain sites would improve the experience.
@UmActually, not slower, faster. Theyre not throttled downwards, they are fast laned.
If you had a highway and opened up the express lane you increase speed for everyone. You relieve some traffic on the highway and the express lane travels St faster speed. You don't need to close a lane on the normal highway to encourage people to spend the money for the express lane.
first time in my life i want big businesses to win
@HolyDad, because the internet companies ARE big businesses
@ChuckxWagon, although I am against your position, I’m glad that you have it right. All those downvotes you have are because people don’t understand how Net Neutrality works.