Net Neutrality: what it is, and why you should care

641313984.jpg

UPDATE: It's been voted for repeal. The FCC took Net Neutrality to a vote, and it was 3-2, in favor of repeal. This doesn't mean overnight upheaval, but things will certainly change, for better or worse, in due time.
If you've been on the internet at all the past week, there's a high chance that you've heard of something called "Net Neutrality", and you've also likely heard that there might be huge changes to your usage of the internet entirely. This post serves as a quick information briefing on what Net Neutrality is, what could happen if it's repealed, and the current events going on regarding it, and just general visibility to let the community in general be informed.

What is this Net Neutrality thing?


The basic definition of network neutrality is simple: all internet traffic is considered and treated equally. It was established just a bit under three years ago, in February 2015. It prevented companies like Comcast Xfinity and AT&T U-verse from speeding up, or slowing down certain sites based upon content. If you remember, back in July 2017, mobile provider Verizon admitted to targeting Netflix traffic, and specifically throttling it, negatively affecting customers' use of Netflix. Going back to 2014, there were also issues with Comcast customers, and, that's right, Netflix users, as connections to Netflix were notoriously slow. Netflix then entered a legal deal with Comcast, in order to have Netflix connections be faster than they previously were. The 2014 incident was pre-net neutrality, and shows that before the law was enacted, certain sites like Netflix were indeed slowed, and had to specifically bargain with large telecommunication monopolies like Comcast to get fair speeds out to their customers.

In April 2017, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Ajit Pai, revealed that he had plans to repeal net neutrality. It's worth noting that Pai was once the Associate General Counsel of Verizon Communications, an incredibly high up position with an ISP, who we've stated before as having throttled websites in the past.

Pai's statements on the matter included saying such things as "[the government] would be able to stop micromanaging the internet" and that the FCC and internet service providers would simply have to be "transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy a service plan that's best for them". Shortly after, Comcast began vocally supporting these statements, claiming that government regulation of the internet has been harming innovation and investments of Comcast. David Cohen, the company's Chief Diversity Officer, said that "customers would be clearly informed on our practices [...] Comcast maintains that it does and will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content".

Within the movement for repealing net neutrality, also comes with power being given to the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC would then have the ability to legally charge internet service providers that were not made clear to customers.

You may notice, that within any of the claims made by Pai or Comcast, that equal traffic was never made the focus, instead putting emphasis on making sure these monopolies must be clear and transparent about what they do, but never laying down any solid rules about what they need to be transparent about or why. And, of course, if the FTC were to go after AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, or other assorted companies for not being transparent, these legal cases would find themselves taking years to make their way to court, allowing for them to have their way with their customers until a definitive legal ruling. Therein lies the first batch of unease and controversy with the repeal.

In short, net neutrality is a fairly new regulation, which allows for equal traffic between all sites while using the internet. The chairman of the FCC and former higher-up of Verizon wants to repeal it, however. This would allow less government interference with ISPs, but would also allow those ISPs to do what they wish, so long as they're "transparent".

Does repealing Net Neutrality have any benefits?

Spoiler alert: not really

From the inception of the internet, and up until 2015, Americans have gone without net neutrality. Ajit Pai claims that should we not have net neutrality anymore, more rural areas would be able to have more companies and providers, and it would allow for more competition and choice for the consumer. However, these smaller companies would also have to fight it out with established services, with years of experience and infrastructure refinements.

As a side note, I've spent thirty minutes researching a potential "pro" argument. I've not found many that seem reasonable. I've listed in the spoiler tag below arguments from other websites and blogs.

Green Garage Blog: While net neutrality allows for freedom of speech, the downside is that almost anything can be posted to the internet. This means that the cruelest or insensitive information imaginable can end up on the internet, and as a result, it can cause a lot of problems from people that otherwise wouldn’t be prone to being under the microscope of criticism. This means that people can post cruel, intimidating, or other harassing messages and often get away with it thanks to free speech legislation. So it can be a very toxic environment for a lot of people to put up with.

Vittana: Reduced income from internet uses limits infrastructure improvements.
There are certain businesses and high-use individuals who consume large amounts of bandwidth every month. If net neutrality was removed, these high-level consumers would be asked to pay more for what they consume. This added income could then be used to upgrade the infrastructure of each internet service provider, making it possible for advanced fiber networks to be installed in many communities.

AEI: But in many instances, fast lanes, zero-rating, and the like benefit customers. In separate research, both former FCC Chief Economist Michael Katz (with Ben Hermalin) and I (with Janice Hauge) showed that fast lanes benefit small content providers in their attempts to compete with established industry leaders. AEI scholar Roslyn Layton has shown that elderly and low-income consumers benefit from zero-rating services.

Basically, the only benefit would be if America's current economy wasn't dominated by monopolistic ISPs. Below is an interview with Ajit Pai, showing his perspective.


Scrapping these rules, Pai told Reason's Nick Gillespie, won't harm consumers or the public interest because there was no reason for them in the first place. The rationales were mere "phantoms that were conjured up by people who wanted the FCC for political reasons to overregulate the internet," Pai told Gillespie. "We were not living in a digital dystopia in the years leading up to 2015."

If left in place, however, the Title II rules could harm the commercial internet, which Pai described as "one of the most incredible free market innovations in history."

"Companies like Google and Facebook and Netflix became household names precisely because we didn't have the government micromanaging how the internet would operate," said Pai, who noted that the Clinton-era decision not to regulate the Internet like a phone utility or a broadcast network was one of the most important factors in the rise of our new economy.

Pai also pushed back against claims that he's a right-wing radical who's "fucking things up."

"[I ascribe to] the very radical, right-wing position that the Clinton administration basically got it right when it came to digital infrastructure."


What happens if/when this gets repealed, and what does this mean for you?


The worst part of this, is that there's no definitive answer of what WILL happen, only what CAN happen. What has people concerned, though, is the potential things that larger ISPs can do with this new power, should net neutrality be repealed. Internet service providers could slow access to specific sites, and speed up others, in theory, others specifically being sites who pay ISPs for faster access, and those partnered or in contracts with ISPs. Websites like Google, Amazon, Reddit, Etsy, Netflix, and many more have all broadcast their support of net neutrality, stating that without these rules in place thanks to net neutrality, internet providers would become gatekeepers to the internet, restricting what customers can see. Without definitive government restrictions, these companies could be free to split access to the internet into packages, like cable TV, indeed making true on the intention of lowering the cost of internet access, but also making it more difficult and expensive to see all of the internet, as you can right now.

Likely, what will happen, though everything is up in the air, is that certain ISPs will utilize what's called "fast lanes" and "zero rating". Fast lanes are sort of like what we talked about at the start, with Netflix and Comcast. Currently, these fast lanes and zero rating are used with mobile phone data. AT&T customers can watch DirecTV (owned by AT&T) via their mobile data, without it counting towards their monthly cap. These rules could be applied to home internet as well; if you're a Comcast user, and you want to watch Hulu (owned by NBC-Universal-Comcast), maybe your connection to Hulu will be lightning fast, thanks to these theoretical fast lanes, and they won't go towards your Comcast monthly 1 Terabyte home cap. But what if you want to watch Netflix? Either Netflix will have much lower picture quality, or take a longer time to connect to. And if Netflix pays a fee, or gets into a contract once again with Comcast, then that potentially means that Netflix's increased costs move down to the consumer, who also now has to pay more for a service as well.

What can we do?


The only thing left to do is let your voice be heard. Social media has exploded without people decrying the impending repeal of net neutrality, and the negatives that it would entail, to the point of where the majority of Reddit has been plastered with net neutrality posts.

zZOxMA2.png

The FCC will take the repeal to a vote on December 14, 2017. It is highly predicted that the repeal will pass, and net neutrality will come to an end. Millions have taken to the site "battleforthenet" and "callmycongress" to contact their local representatives and congressmen in order to show that American citizens don't want net neutrality destroyed.

You can learn more at the links below. Hopefully this is helpful in describing what net neutrality is, and why it shouldn't be taken away.

:arrow:Techcrunch: These are the arguments against net neutrality and why they're wrong

:arrow: Extra Credits: What a closed internet means

:arrow:Phillip DeFranco: The Internet is under attack

:arrow:Save the internet: What you need to know


:arrow:Ars Technica: RIP net neutrality
 

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,716
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,461
Country
United States
Everything I've seen says that merger fell through.
AFAIK it's actually AT&T trying to acquire Time Warner. The Justice Department has sued to temporarily block the merger. I think AT&T only provides DSL, so they aren't really competing in the cable-broadband sector right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kioku

Kioku

猫。子猫です!
Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
11,987
Trophies
2
Location
In the Murderbox!
Website
www.twitch.tv
XP
16,078
Country
United States
AFAIK it's actually AT&T trying to acquire Time Warner. The Justice Department has sued to temporarily block the merger. I think AT&T only provides DSL, so they aren't really competing in the cable-broadband sector right now.
That makes more sense. I actually was skimming through an article with AT&T saying they should be allowed to go through with the purchase... On the grounds that Comcast purchased NBC or something like that.
 

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,716
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,461
Country
United States
That makes more sense. I actually was skimming through an article with AT&T saying they should be allowed to go through with the purchase... On the grounds that Comcast purchased NBC or something like that.
That was allowed to go through on the condition that Comcast/NBC not attempt to block their content from reaching other service providers and their customers. They've violated that promise several times over by now, so it's really a cautionary tale. Time Warner owns a lot of content, including HBO and CNN.
 
Last edited by Xzi,
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
641
Trophies
0
Age
82
XP
832
Country
United States
I've noticed an overwhelming amount of snark in reply to my post, but I suppose that's to be expected when the bulk of the Net Neutrality discussion is dominated by hyperactive 16 year olds that are terrified because of dumb campaigns by google and reddit to make you think your cat memes or whatever kids are after these days are under attack.

The simple fact of the matter is that they aren't. I'm too lazy to go around quoting specific parts of different people's replies so I'm going to address them here. First and foremost, no one has paid any attention to the net neutrality """violations""" (which I will continue to address the """violations""" with as many condescending quotation marks as possible until they stop being non-issues or start being related to internet neutrality) and their context, only that people like FreePress and so on see them as threats. In the unlikely event the proposal (which I implore all of you to sit and read before flipping out further) even goes through, who is to say it won't get lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit ad-infinitum until the proposal is killed and proper rules are put in place, should ISPs do anything undesirable? I would like to remind everyone that to this day ISPs *STILL* throttle you. Source: https://www.infoworld.com/article/2...hrottle-traffic-and-the-fcc-cant-stop-it.html

The current net neutrality rules are not working. They're heavily restrictive and end up getting companies in hot water legally because too many uninformed people start clambering over each other over hearsay and rumors to have the heads of companies on a plate in front of them. Remember when Vonage was throttled by a celluar service provider and everyone screeched "ZOMG MUH NEUTRALITY" and the entire reason was literally because the network, which was 2G, slowly but surely transitioning into 3G (and thus requiring more maintenance) was heavily overloaded and the constant use of services like Vonage was congesting it?

How about when BitTorrent and similar clients would drag internet services to their *KNEES* to the point ISPs like Comcast either had to throttle, or the service would be fucked for everyone? Mind you, they only throttled during peak hours, and on illegal torrents. If it was, say, a torrent for a Linux distro, you could torrent/seed away happily. Kinda ironic that the outrage from that was mostly from people who were breaking the law, and felt unfairly treated.

Now granted that's a bit of a strawman, so how about the fact that if any company wanted to get a foothold on the market since long before these archaic, overbearing rules were put in place, and offer fast lanes, packages, and all sorts of other garbage -- which I'd like to stress here that I'd be *LIVID* if that stuff came my way, but it's not going to so there's no reason for all this outrage about what's at absolute worst a potential thing that will result in economic suicide for any company dumb enough to try it -- how come it wasn't widespread? The net neutrality doctrine has not been the same way for 10-20 years. Only in the past 3 or so years have such rules come into play. Why is it that in the absence of such rules -- which is what we'll be going back to should the proposal pass -- the internet did not implode upon itself, or turn into this big wild west shitfest?

Oh yeah, because any ISP that would be stupid enough to do that may as well burn their money, sell their shares to monkeys, and just get wasted. In my area, I have an ISP that's primarily composed of people fed up with AT&T's terrible services and practices. You know what happened? AT&T started lowering their prices, improving their services -- both support and general internet service -- and now there's fair competition. I don't care how scummy businesses are and can be, it's ridiculous to assume that these people have absolutely no interest in the world but destroying your internet for the sake of money. The absolute worst they'd do that people would be okay with is sell packages or something, and I say people would be okay with it because you can just neglect to purchase the stuff you know for a fact you don't need or don't care about, and that stuff wouldn't even be blocked without it, you just wouldn't have max speed.

Furthermore while the evidence is anecdotal I've been throttled numerous times, had websites just straight up not connect, be redirected to other sites, and a whole slew of unkosher stuff from AT&T, as I have multiple friends with similar experiences. So either, the current rules aren't doing anything and need to be removed so we can instill better rules and actually sit down and enforce them, or net neutrality is just a big stupid meme that doesn't actually stop the bad stuff everyone's panicking about, and what's *really* stopping the implosion of the internet is just good ol' capitalism.

tl;dr this debate is plagued with uneducated, overemotional teenagers scared of losing memes and piracy more than it is with people who know what the proposal entails, why it's being proposed, what the history behind the stuff the proposal will change is, and so on. Before you type up some stupidly long wall of text about how you "should care otherwise you're not informed," you should stop, read proposals yourself, close out of sites like Gizmodo or Reddit, and actually come up with your own ideas. Quite frankly, this sort of behavior is precisely why Ajit Pai doesn't talk to you people about this. This isn't about "ignoring the american people," it's about ignoring the masses who clearly don't care what's really going on and are instead deluding themselves with fear mongering and propaganda. I dislike some parts of his proposal -- specifically how ISPs will no longer have to disclose their packet loss averages, something that I consider important to making informed decisions about services -- but ultimately Ajit Pai, like all of us, is a flawed human being who can make mistakes. Some harmless, some stupid, but none of them, at least in this scenario, irreversible.

tl;dr;dr calm down holy shit this isn't a big deal
 
Last edited by MaverickWellington,
  • Like
Reactions: DarthDub

Kioku

猫。子猫です!
Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
11,987
Trophies
2
Location
In the Murderbox!
Website
www.twitch.tv
XP
16,078
Country
United States
tl;dr;dr calm down holy shit this isn't a big deal

There's too many buzzwords used in this NN nonsense that it's really hard to take a side. It's easy to say that without it? Your ISP would be able to legally screw you with paid fast lanes for certain sites and ad content... It's also easy to say that it keeps the ISPs at bay and lets you do more of what you like without worry of paywalls. Personally? I have no Idea. I'm on the fence for a lot of reasons. "It's good!" "It's bad!"...

At the end of the day? I'm still struggling to make ends meet. So, there's that.
 

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,716
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,461
Country
United States
The current net neutrality rules are not working. They're heavily restrictive and end up getting companies in hot water legally because too many uninformed people start clambering over each other over hearsay and rumors to have the heads of companies on a plate in front of them.
The fuck are you talking about? The current rules are fine, and nobody would be complaining about any of these companies if they were willing to continue doing the right thing. The only reason anybody cares is because they're trying to repeal Net Neutrality, and I'm sorry, they're not doing it "just for teh lulz." Corporations care about money, they don't give a fuck about you or me, and if you believe otherwise you're in for a very rude awakening soon enough.
 

the_randomizer

The Temp's official fox whisperer
Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
31,284
Trophies
2
Age
38
Location
Dr. Wahwee's castle
XP
18,967
Country
United States
The fuck are you talking about? The current rules are fine, and nobody would be complaining about any of these companies if they were willing to continue doing the right thing. The only reason anybody cares is because they're trying to repeal Net Neutrality, and I'm sorry, they're not doing it "just for teh lulz." Corporations care about money, they don't give a fuck about you or me, and if you believe otherwise you're in for a very rude awakening soon enough.

But what I want to know is, how was the internet, its state, etc before these NN rules were implemented? I'm genuinely curious.
 

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,716
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,461
Country
United States
But what I want to know is, how was the internet, its state, etc before these NN rules were implemented? I'm genuinely curious.
I've commented on this previously, but it started getting bad right before Net Neutrality was finally implemented. Netflix and League of Legends were definitely being throttled because of the amount of bandwidth they were taking up.

A few years prior to that, things were fine because it wasn't just two giant ISPs controlling everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

Kioku

猫。子猫です!
Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
11,987
Trophies
2
Location
In the Murderbox!
Website
www.twitch.tv
XP
16,078
Country
United States
I've commented on this previously, but it started getting bad right before Net Neutrality was finally implemented. Netflix and League of Legends were definitely being throttled because of the amount of bandwidth they were taking up.

Oh, yeah the Netflix debacle.

Didn't know online gaming was taking a hit. This was also back when I knew nothing of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

the_randomizer

The Temp's official fox whisperer
Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
31,284
Trophies
2
Age
38
Location
Dr. Wahwee's castle
XP
18,967
Country
United States
I've commented on this previously, but it started getting bad right before Net Neutrality was finally implemented. Netflix and League of Legends were definitely being throttled because of the amount of bandwidth they were taking up.

A few years prior to that, things were fine because it wasn't just two giant ISPs controlling everything.

Hmm, as much as this is a heated topic, it may be more productive for people to approach this logically; doesn't mean people can't be upset or what have you, but being levelheaded about issues like this is far more productive than having outlets spreading fear. That's my opinion however, if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. *Sigh*.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThisIsDaAccount
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
641
Trophies
0
Age
82
XP
832
Country
United States
There's too many buzzwords used in this NN nonsense that it's really hard to take a side. It's easy to say that without it? Your ISP would be able to legally screw you with paid fast lanes for certain sites and ad content... It's also easy to say that it keeps the ISPs at bay and lets you do more of what you like without worry of paywalls. Personally? I have no Idea. I'm on the fence for a lot of reasons. "It's good!" "It's bad!"...

At the end of the day? I'm still struggling to make ends meet. So, there's that.
Precisely this. Too many people are screeching and being extreme about everything and a fraction of them -- maybe 10 of them out of like, a million -- are reading the damn proposal and figuring out what's going to happen. I'm sure people like Xzi aren't aware of the fact that the new proposal will require that ISPs specifically announce any behavior like throttling, blocking, lanes, etc on a very clearly visible section of their sites that, in the words of the document itself (https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf ) "must be clearly navigable and legible by even the disabled."

The whole reason ISPs have been getting away with sneaky shit is because they don't have to tell anyone. I've had to go through support clerk after support clerk to the point I went to like 5 people before they finally just said "Yes, we're throttling, there's issues with our infrastructure right now." Look at all this outrage. Do you legitimately think people this livid about the *POSSIBILITY* they might get throttled/blocked/lanes/whatever would even consider purchasing internet from an ISP that openly states they're gonna do that? No. Without overbearing regulations as well, smaller ISPs can actually compete with the bigger ones instead of buyouts turning everything into some giant blob of whatever like play-dough having all the colors mashed together, so if one ISP thinks they can be a dumbshit, the other ones are going to smack them into line by taking their customers, and I know this happens because I've literally experienced it myself.

The fuck are you talking about? The current rules are fine, and nobody would be complaining about any of these companies if they were willing to continue doing the right thing. The only reason anybody cares is because they're trying to repeal Net Neutrality, and I'm sorry, they're not doing it "just for teh lulz." Corporations care about money, they don't give a fuck about you or me, and if you believe otherwise you're in for a very rude awakening soon enough.
"The current rules are fine" is the calling card of someone who does not understand the rules, their flaws, the kind of loopholes that ISPs exploit, and so on. I don't think you understand what I'm getting at here, primarily that if the proposal passes, nothing bad will come from it, and if anything we'll get more specific, less ridiculous regulation that allows other ISPs to compete instead of, as stated, everything else being a stupid blob. Corporations care about money. No shit. Which is exactly why they won't actively try to fuck over customers just to bleed them for money. It will be literal economic suicide. Corporations love money so much that they will literally abuse loopholes in current regulations in order to squeeze as much money out of other people as possible. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...exploited-a-gaping-loophole-in-net-neutrality

You can verify this by looking at how stocks drop significantly whenever an ISP gets into a lot of trouble from lawsuits regarding shit behavior. Comcast has had it, AT&T has had it, Verizon has had it, and so on. To fuck your customers is to fuck your wallet, and yourself. So I ask, what the fuck are *you* talking about? Because it's not the bigger picture, it's not the smaller picture, is it even a picture at all? Where's your outrage over Netflix throttling shit for people on specific ISPs? I thought you cared about Net Neutrality, but evidently not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthDub

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,716
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,461
Country
United States
Hmm, as much as this is a heated topic, it may be more productive for people to approach this logically; doesn't mean people can't be upset or what have you, but being levelheaded about issues like this is far more productive than having outlets spreading fear. That's my opinion however, if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. *Sigh*.
This is not about fear, it's about keeping internet freedom. Assuming Net Neutrality is repealed, you'll still be able to access everything you could before, but you'll be deterred from certain sites by 56K loading times. It's not some big mystery why your ISP would want to do this to you, for them it's about the ad revenue.

"The current rules are fine" is the calling card of someone who does not understand the rules, their flaws, the kind of loopholes that ISPs exploit, and so on. I don't think you understand what I'm getting at here, primarily that if the proposal passes, nothing bad will come from it, and if anything we'll get more specific, less ridiculous regulation that allows other ISPs to compete instead of, as stated, everything else being a stupid blob. Corporations care about money. No shit. Which is exactly why they won't actively try to fuck over customers just to bleed them for money. It will be literal economic suicide.
This argument hinges on the fact that internet service is optional, but it's very much mandatory for a lot of people. Most would keep their ISP even if rates were hiked by an extra $20 a month. If they lose some customers but ultimately still pull in more profit, then obviously they're not gonna care about the people they lost.
 
Last edited by Xzi,
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
641
Trophies
0
Age
82
XP
832
Country
United States
Hmm, as much as this is a heated topic, it may be more productive for people to approach this logically; doesn't mean people can't be upset or what have you, but being levelheaded about issues like this is far more productive than having outlets spreading fear. That's my opinion however, if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. *Sigh*.
That's what I'm saying. It's admittedly making me mad that all these kids are flooding in from sites like 4chan and reddit and are muddying the entire discussion with "B-B-B-BUT ARE THEY G-GONNA TAKE AWAY MY V-VIDEO GAMES AND A-ANIME?"

I think this is honestly just corporate shenanigans that either won't affect the consumer, or give us way more options in the long run. Hell, the FCC is strengthening the FTC's power against anti-competitive practices (such as ISPs preventing other companies from using their lines and so on) so that we get some actual competition, especially in rural areas.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Seriously though how has no one tried to fix Net Neutrality's flawed, gaping lawset?
https://www.wired.com/2015/11/comcast-may-have-found-a-major-net-neutrality-loophole/
I mean look at this, it's literally anti-competitive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthDub

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,716
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,461
Country
United States
Seriously though how has no one tried to fix Net Neutrality's flawed, gaping lawset?
https://www.wired.com/2015/11/comcast-may-have-found-a-major-net-neutrality-loophole/
I mean look at this, it's literally anti-competitive.
Man you're just not living in the real world here. There is no competition in broadband ISPs any more, and it's not because Net Neutrality killed it. It's because Comcast and Time Warner bought out all the competition and now try to shut down any efforts for community or local ISPs. Where you think more competition is magically going to appear from is beyond me. Why you think Comcast/TWC have ever been or will ever be benevolent to their customers is also beyond me. It already seems like they derive pleasure from customers' hatred of their poor business practices.

479.jpg
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
641
Trophies
0
Age
82
XP
832
Country
United States
This is not about fear, it's about keeping internet freedom. Assuming Net Neutrality is repealed, you'll still be able to access everything you could before, but you'll be deterred from certain sites by 56K loading times. It's not some big mystery why your ISP would want to do this to you, for them it's about the ad revenue.


This argument hinges on the fact that internet service is optional, but it's very much mandatory for a lot of people. Most would keep their ISP even if rates were hiked by an extra $20 a month. If they lose some customers but ultimately still pull in more profit, then obviously they're not gonna care about the people they lost.
My ass-backwards southern state has 11 service providers in my city alone, only 2 of which belong to AT&T -- the rest are all smaller companies, sans one, which is just Comcast's XFinity service. If one company starts acting dumb, another could so capitalize on it by *not* being dumb. It's economics 101. If I knew how to word it in google I guarantee you I could get over a thousand examples of it happening in corporate/economic history. Squeezing extra money out of people and pissing them off vs not suckling them for money when other ISPs do, and thus bringing a great amount of people to you. Obviously the second one will garner more income. Others will look at this success and go "oh, okay, don't be (shitty ISP) here, be (good ISP) here."

Quit focusing on the "all corporations wanna do is just treat you like shit for money" meme. Yes, they're out to make money, but they aren't out to commit economic suicide.

"There's no competition anymore!"
Yeah uh, no shit? Because the current rules regulate smaller ISPs significantly harder than they regulate the much larger ISPs, who half the time just break the rules anyways. Maybe if you had read the proposal instead of reddit you'd see the FCC plans to give the FTC the jurisdiction to tell ISPs "hey, fuck off, you're trying to run a monopoly here and we're not having it."

But at least you got to post a south park meme, surely you're lmaoing your butts in the floor right now from that one.
 
Last edited by MaverickWellington,
  • Like
Reactions: DarthDub

the_randomizer

The Temp's official fox whisperer
Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
31,284
Trophies
2
Age
38
Location
Dr. Wahwee's castle
XP
18,967
Country
United States
This is not about fear, it's about keeping internet freedom. Assuming Net Neutrality is repealed, you'll still be able to access everything you could before, but you'll be deterred from certain sites by 56K loading times. It's not some big mystery why your ISP would want to do this to you, for them it's about the ad revenue.


This argument hinges on the fact that internet service is optional, but it's very much mandatory for a lot of people. Most would keep their ISP even if rates were hiked by an extra $20 a month. If they lose some customers but ultimately still pull in more profit, then obviously they're not gonna care about the people they lost.

And again, there may be massive backlash from the public, i.e the nationwide protests, we don't know for sure if there will be a huge legal mess from people suing, etc, to keep this in place. There's no denying that there is still a bit of fear mongering going on, that's all. With that said... maybe I..never mind.
 

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,716
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,461
Country
United States
My ass-backwards southern state has 11 service providers in my city alone
I'm guessing exactly one that's cable internet and not some DSL/satellite BS that runs at 56K speeds already?

And again, there may be massive backlash from the public, i.e the nationwide protests, we don't know for sure if there will be a huge legal mess from people suing, etc, to keep this in place. There's no denying that there is still a bit of fear mongering going on, that's all. With that said... maybe I..never mind.
There are lawsuits happening already, but I doubt they'll delay the repeal.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
641
Trophies
0
Age
82
XP
832
Country
United States
I'm guessing exactly one that's cable internet and not some DSL/satellite BS that runs at 56K speeds already
Not including the duplicate AT&T service, it's 3 actually, and the speeds are all pretty damn good.

3N5QuGy.png

Also for anyone thinking there's never gonna be competition on the level of big ISPs keep in mind my ISP covers almost as much as AT&T. Expect to see more ISP competition as the awful regulations get removed.
 
Last edited by MaverickWellington,
  • Like
Reactions: DarthDub

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    LeoTCK @ LeoTCK: yes for nearly a month i was officially a wanted fugitive, until yesterday when it ended