OT Net Neutrality

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
W

WarriorFan

Active Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2008
Messages
529
Likes
78
Points
28
Can someone please help explain this decision to me. My understanding is that net neutrality basically put everyone on the same level with no preference give for upload speeds and things like that. Site like Netflix and youtube take up most of the data that can be disseminated (I've heard it described like a pipe and most of the water coming through it belongs to them?). Killing net neutrality will allow internet providers to charge a company like Netflix a fee and them give them their own distribution channel with preferred speeds. And this can become a freedom of speech issue because if you are not paying that fee, then the internet companies can slow your speeds to a stop, preventing you from putting things online.

Do I have the basics right here or am I way off? Thanks.
 
WarriorFan said:
Can someone please help explain this decision to me. My understanding is that net neutrality basically put everyone on the same level with no preference give for upload speeds and things like that. Site like Netflix and youtube take up most of the data that can be disseminated (I've heard it described like a pipe and most of the water coming through it belongs to them?). Killing net neutrality will allow internet providers to charge a company like Netflix a fee and them give them their own distribution channel with preferred speeds. And this can become a freedom of speech issue because if you are not paying that fee, then the internet companies can slow your speeds to a stop, preventing you from putting things online.

Do I have the basics right here or am I way off? Thanks.
Click to expand...

They won't charge Netflix. They're going to charge us. The user.

Currently, Net Neutrality treats the internet like any other utility. It's like your power, your water, your phone. The service providers want to treat the internet like they treat television. They want to be able to charge you based on packages. It's already being done in other places around the world. You'll pay more money to be able to visit Netflix. You'll pay more money to be able to visit ESPN. They'll have sports packages. They'll have entertainment packages (Hulu/Netflix/Amazon/etc).

The GOP has somehow made this into a partisan issue, but it's not. This is about keeping the internet free from control. Nobody should be able to control the internet. Not the government. Not your ISPs. It should be free flowing. These telecom industry people are pissed because they're losing money over the death of cable television, so they want to get the control back. They want it back to the old days where you had to pay extra to view the Disney channel. You had to pay extra to get HBO. They don't like that you can go directly to HBO now. They don't like that you go directly to Netflix.

Television was a luxury. The internet is vital. It should not be infringed by anyone.
 
It really opens up how ISPs can leverage their product against content producers and customers.

For example, ISPs will be allowed to create their own versions of Netflix and Youtube (which they could do now), and throttle your download speeds when you stream from Netflix and Youtube instead of ComcastFlix and ComcastTube, so that you'll be "encouraged" to use their free services. OR, you could pay $4.99 a month more for the Flix&Tube package that unthrottles Netflix and YouTube. See? You have so much more choice!
 
net-neutrality.jpg
 
The worst part is that this is literally the telecom industry buying our government. They put one of their stooges in as the head of the FCC, they're getting rid of Net Neutrality in the face of overwhelming public outcry, and they don't give a shit. They don't care at all that the people want Net Neutrality to stay.

If this doesn't scare people, I don't know what would.
 
Natebishop3 said:
They won't charge Netflix. They're going to charge us. The user.

Currently, Net Neutrality treats the internet like any other utility. It's like your power, your water, your phone. The service providers want to treat the internet like they treat television. They want to be able to charge you based on packages. It's already being done in other places around the world. You'll pay more money to be able to visit Netflix. You'll pay more money to be able to visit ESPN. They'll have sports packages. They'll have entertainment packages (Hulu/Netflix/Amazon/etc).

The GOP has somehow made this into a partisan issue, but it's not. This is about keeping the internet free from control. Nobody should be able to control the internet. Not the government. Not your ISPs. It should be free flowing. These telecom industry people are pissed because they're losing money over the death of cable television, so they want to get the control back. They want it back to the old days where you had to pay extra to view the Disney channel. You had to pay extra to get HBO. They don't like that you can go directly to HBO now. They don't like that you go directly to Netflix.

Television was a luxury. The internet is vital. It should not be infringed by anyone.
Click to expand...


Thanks, much appreciated! That was a much more clear and concise answer than I could find reading several articles on the subject today.
 
WarriorFan said:
Thanks, much appreciated! That was a much more clear and concise answer than I could find reading several articles on the subject today.
Click to expand...

Probably because the main strategy by the GOP is to confuse people about what NN is and what it is not. They're trying to sell it as the government controlling the internet. It's not the government controlling the internet. It's the government trying to keep the internet free. I used to call myself a Republican, but not anymore. Not with the way they have been selling us up the river to the highest bidder. It's disgusting how these politicians take legal bribes to fuck us over. Companies like Comcast go into cities and buy the politicians to keep the cities from passing public utility internet bonds.
 
Natebishop3 said:
The worst part is that this is literally the telecom industry buying our government. They put one of their stooges in as the head of the FCC, they're getting rid of Net Neutrality in the face of overwhelming public outcry, and they don't give a shit. They don't care at all that the people want Net Neutrality to stay.

If this doesn't scare people, I don't know what would.
Click to expand...

Thanks Trump!! Obama protected us from this.
 
Natebishop3 said:
They won't charge Netflix. They're going to charge us. The user.

Currently, Net Neutrality treats the internet like any other utility. It's like your power, your water, your phone. The service providers want to treat the internet like they treat television. They want to be able to charge you based on packages. It's already being done in other places around the world. You'll pay more money to be able to visit Netflix. You'll pay more money to be able to visit ESPN. They'll have sports packages. They'll have entertainment packages (Hulu/Netflix/Amazon/etc).

The GOP has somehow made this into a partisan issue, but it's not. This is about keeping the internet free from control. Nobody should be able to control the internet. Not the government. Not your ISPs. It should be free flowing. These telecom industry people are pissed because they're losing money over the death of cable television, so they want to get the control back. They want it back to the old days where you had to pay extra to view the Disney channel. You had to pay extra to get HBO. They don't like that you can go directly to HBO now. They don't like that you go directly to Netflix.

Television was a luxury. The internet is vital. It should not be infringed by anyone.
Click to expand...
We have green font for sarcasm--I need a "devil's advocate" color. Dark red, perhaps?

There seems to be a big difference between TV and internet in that TV channels have to be provided, whereas internet content simply has to be accessed, and as such, any ISP that attempts to block access to certain content will simply lose subscribers to an ISP that won't. It would essentially require industry-wide collusion for the scenario you describe to occur. Any ISP that wanted to generate an advantage would just say "We are net neutral by choice!", and anyone who cared about neutrality would flock to them.

On the flip side, this opens up an opportunity for, as a non-existent but hypothetical example, an ISP that wants to market itself as family friendly, blocking all porn sites at the distribution level. They now could advertise, "We give more reliable internet speeds as we can guarantee your bandwidth won't be throttled by other users on our network streaming large volumes of adult content, and as a bonus, you can rest assured knowing that your children will not accidentally (or intentionally) access inappropriate material online."
 
PtldPlatypus said:
We have green font for sarcasm--I need a "devil's advocate" color. Dark red, perhaps?

There seems to be a big difference between TV and internet in that TV channels have to be provided, whereas internet content simply has to be accessed, and as such, any ISP that attempts to block access to certain content will simply lose subscribers to an ISP that won't. It would essentially require industry-wide collusion for the scenario you describe to occur.

On the flip side, this opens up an opportunity for, as a non-existent but hypothetical example, an ISP that wants to market itself as family friendly, blocking all porn sites at the distribution level. They now could advertise, "We give more reliable internet speeds as we can guarantee your bandwidth won't be throttled by other users on our network streaming large volumes of adult content, and as a bonus, you can rest assured knowing that your children will not accidentally (or intentionally) access inappropriate material online."
Click to expand...

On the other hand, how can such an ISP exist when the ISPs have all already colluded to take territories in monopoly without overlapping?

Tortured metaphor: If the contracting company that paved roads for ODOT decided to put in toll booths on every road and threaten to activate them on the west side unless Intel paid a fee, would that be market freedom?
 
PtldPlatypus said:
We have green font for sarcasm--I need a "devil's advocate" color. Dark red, perhaps?

There seems to be a big difference between TV and internet in that TV channels have to be provided, whereas internet content simply has to be accessed, and as such, any ISP that attempts to block access to certain content will simply lose subscribers to an ISP that won't. It would essentially require industry-wide collusion for the scenario you describe to occur. Any ISP that wanted to generate an advantage would just say "We are net neutral by choice!", and anyone who cared about neutrality would flock to them.

On the flip side, this opens up an opportunity for, as a non-existent but hypothetical example, an ISP that wants to market itself as family friendly, blocking all porn sites at the distribution level. They now could advertise, "We give more reliable internet speeds as we can guarantee your bandwidth won't be throttled by other users on our network streaming large volumes of adult content, and as a bonus, you can rest assured knowing that your children will not accidentally (or intentionally) access inappropriate material online."
Click to expand...

This all hinges on the idea that there's a lot of options for ISPs.... but there isn't. In many places, there's just one provider.

Remember when you used to be able to get a no limit data plan for your phone? The telecom companies just decided that they didn't want to do that anymore, and they all got in line. A competitive market is a nice theory, but these days it's hard to be competitive when 2 or 3 companies own everything, and it's in their best interest to work together to gouge the fuck out of us.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
We have green font for sarcasm--I need a "devil's advocate" color. Dark red, perhaps?

There seems to be a big difference between TV and internet in that TV channels have to be provided, whereas internet content simply has to be accessed, and as such, any ISP that attempts to block access to certain content will simply lose subscribers to an ISP that won't. It would essentially require industry-wide collusion for the scenario you describe to occur. Any ISP that wanted to generate an advantage would just say "We are net neutral by choice!", and anyone who cared about neutrality would flock to them.

On the flip side, this opens up an opportunity for, as a non-existent but hypothetical example, an ISP that wants to market itself as family friendly, blocking all porn sites at the distribution level. They now could advertise, "We give more reliable internet speeds as we can guarantee your bandwidth won't be throttled by other users on our network streaming large volumes of adult content, and as a bonus, you can rest assured knowing that your children will not accidentally (or intentionally) access inappropriate material online."
Click to expand...

Thank you sir!
 
Natebishop3 said:
This all hinges on the idea that there's a lot of options for ISPs.... but there isn't. In many places, there's just one provider.

Remember when you used to be able to get a no limit data plan for your phone? The telecom companies just decided that they didn't want to do that anymore, and they all got in line. A competitive market is a nice theory, but these days it's hard to be competitive when 2 or 3 companies own everything, and it's in their best interest to work together to gouge the fuck out of us.
Click to expand...

The goal of course is to get a Let's You And Him Fight scam going where they:

0 - Set up "ComcastFlix" as a competitor to Netflix
1 - Threaten to throttle Netflix unless Netflix pays a crazy fee
2 - Throttle Netflix when they don't pay the crazy fee
3 - Tell users via pop-ups that This Is Netflix's Fault
4 - Get Users and Netflix to fight over the commodity neither own (bandwidth)
5 - Either Netflix hemmorages users who flock to ComcastFlix, or they pay the crazy fee
6 - Netflix raises their price to cover the crazy fee, or goes out of business; either outcome makes ComcastFlix the primary option for Comcast users

ComcastFlix doesn't have to be as good as Netflix; it won't have The Crown or Stranger Things or even Longmire; the picture quality will probably suck, and the movie library will only be from companies they already own. But because Comcast owns the experience for both ComcastFlix and Netflix, they get to decide how I experience both platforms, and so they get to decide who wins. The consumer loses because they don't get Netflix, or they have to pay way more for it.

It's like if you have the NBA, but the home team literally owns the referees. Sure, they might make the game entertaining, but you know who will win.
 
Natebishop3 said:
This all hinges on the idea that there's a lot of options for ISPs.... but there isn't. In many places, there's just one provider.

Remember when you used to be able to get a no limit data plan for your phone? The telecom companies just decided that they didn't want to do that anymore, and they all got in line. A competitive market is a nice theory, but these days it's hard to be competitive when 2 or 3 companies own everything, and it's in their best interest to work together to gouge the fuck out of us.
Click to expand...
I still have a no limit data plan on my phone, and there are several other cell service options outside of the big 4 that offer unlimited data as well. And of course, those cell companies are also ISPs in their own right, which makes for a few more options than are implied.
 
Natebishop3 said:
The worst part is that this is literally the telecom industry buying our government. They put one of their stooges in as the head of the FCC, they're getting rid of Net Neutrality in the face of overwhelming public outcry, and they don't give a shit. They don't care at all that the people want Net Neutrality to stay.

If this doesn't scare people, I don't know what would.
Click to expand...
Doesn't scare me at all. Pisses me off. I'll just cancel everything and read books.
 
SportsAndWhine said:
You're on his side, just own it. :ghoti:
Click to expand...
I'm just that annoying guy that insists that both sides of a debate are represented in an intelligent discussion. That is to say, I hate echo chambers even more than you hate this FCC decision.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I'm just that annoying guy that insists that both sides of a debate are represented in an intelligent discussion. That is to say, I hate echo chambers even more than you hate this FCC decision.
Click to expand...
Do you do this with climate change debates too? Evolution versus creationism? Just because there are two sides doesn't mean they're equally valuable to the discussion.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
Doesn't scare me at all. Pisses me off. I'll just cancel everything and read books.
Click to expand...
Better start lobbying now for page neutrality; you don't want the publishing houses and bookstores charging different prices for different types of content, thereby determining what you can and cannot read. It will be the end of civilization as we know it.
 
SportsAndWhine said:
Do you do this with climate change debates too? Evolution versus creationism? Just because there are two sides doesn't mean they're equally valuable to the discussion.
Click to expand...
Generally both sides are pretty well represented in those discussions, so I don't need to. But when in a setting where they're not, I often do. There aren't a whole lot of topics about which I feel passionately on one side or the other, and even for those I do, I make a point to try to understand the point of view of the other side. Just a personal preference.
 
And then there's this little nugget of info...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394.html

By the end of 2014, America will have been charged about $400 billion by the local phone incumbents, Verizon, AT&T and CenturyLink, for a fiber optic future that never showed up. And though it varies by state, counting the taxes, fees and surcharges that you have paid every month (many of these fees are actually revenues to the company or taxes on the company that you paid), it comes to about $4000-$5000.00 per household from 1992-2014, and that’s the low number.

You were also charged about nine times to wire the schools and libraries via state and federal plans designed to help the phone and cable companies.

And if that doesn’t bother you, by year-end of 2010, and based on the commitments made by the phone companies in their press statements, filings on the state and federal level, and the state-based ‘alternative regulation’ plans that were put in place to charge you for broadband upgrades of the telephone company wire in your home, business, as well as the schools and libraries — America, should have been the world’s first fully fibered, leading edge broadband nation.

In fact, in 1992, the speed of broadband, as detailed in state laws, was 45 Mbps in both directions — by 2014, all of us should have been enjoying gigabit speeds (1000 Mbps).

Instead, America is not number 1 or 2 or 5 or even 10th in the world in broadband. As of Monday, September 15th, 2014, one of the standard testing companies of the speed of broadband, worldwide, Net Index by Ookla, pegged America at 25th in the world in download speeds and 40th in upload speeds. Though this accounting varies daily, America’s download speeds are never in the top 20 countries.
Click to expand...
 
Natebishop3 said:
To support the abolition of NN, one must first make an argument that the current status of the internet is bad.

I would love for someone to make that argument.
Click to expand...
There's lots of pedobears out there. Way too many ad's. That's about it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top