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

Discussion in 'GBAtemp & Scene News' started by Chary, Nov 22, 2017.

  1. SoslanVanWieren

    SoslanVanWieren GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    1,282
    221
    Feb 6, 2017
    Australia
    i wonder how other country will react to this since almost anyone who uses the internet goes on sites based in the us.
     
  2. ThisIsDaAccount

    ThisIsDaAccount GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Member
    910
    457
    Apr 8, 2016
    United States
    The Prime Minister of Canada and the President of France, I believe, responded to the vote when it was announced and expressed concern.

    Edit: Macron didn't, Trudeau did
     
    Last edited by ThisIsDaAccount, Dec 15, 2017
    Xzi likes this.
  3. WeedZ

    WeedZ Possibly an Enlightened Being

    Member
    3,028
    6,145
    Jan 13, 2015
    United States
    The State of Denial
    I was just reading an article about the statement from the French communications dude. I liked this point

    "Another point made by critics of net neutrality is that the internet developed just fine without open-internet protections in place. But it is not fair to argue that because the “internet as we know it” grew with no net neutrality rules, we do not need these rules today. Gutenberg did not benefit from any declaration of rights to invent the printing press. Nevertheless, we codified freedom of speech to keep using it."

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    I just had a thought, imagine hosting sites in other countries.

    Package options:
    Hosting 10/month
    Domain 25/year
    Unlimited bandwidth 25/month
    100gb storage 5/month
    Email free
    Mysql free
    Have your site viewable in the US 99.99/month
     
    Last edited by WeedZ, Dec 15, 2017
    MrMcTiller and ThisIsDaAccount like this.
  4. ThisIsDaAccount

    ThisIsDaAccount GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Member
    910
    457
    Apr 8, 2016
    United States
    [Q
    I don't think thatll happen, they'll mostly block on a site by site basis if they do. Still, if your site is a competitor to another bigger site, youll be out of luck in the US.
     
    TotalInsanity4 and WeedZ like this.
  5. Xzi

    Xzi Virtual Bartman

    Member
    3,911
    2,681
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    I wouldn't put it past the big ISPs to wait 2-3 years until everyone's guard is down, and then throttle all but a whitelist of sites, effectively killing them, especially during peak hours. In the beginning, however, I agree. They'll only target a few sites to blacklist that they don't like. Those will be throttled near to death.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Dec 15, 2017
  6. WeedZ

    WeedZ Possibly an Enlightened Being

    Member
    3,028
    6,145
    Jan 13, 2015
    United States
    The State of Denial
    Looking at the world in my time is crazy. When I was a kid it was all about connecting. The internet started becoming a thing, peoples opinions were appreciated, we could go where ever whenever without worry, open trade and commerce between countries, one love and all that shit.. now it's all people hating on each other for political beliefs, the brexit, harsher border patrol and immigration regulations in the us, people being arrested for voicing their opinions and now a loss of net neutrality. I'm fucking disappointed. Seems like there's always some senseless reason to continue to divide and silence us. And there are people that think it's ok..
     
    Xzi, KingVamp and TotalInsanity4 like this.
  7. Xzi

    Xzi Virtual Bartman

    Member
    3,911
    2,681
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    We went wrong in a lot of places at a lot of different times. Things were better before social media as we know it now...better before 24-hour news channels...before reality TV...before Citizens United and money completely owning politics...before so much else.

    Give me back my MTV that's actually music videos DAMMIT! /geezer
     
    ThisIsDaAccount and WeedZ like this.
  8. SG854

    SG854 Happiness

    Member
    907
    953
    Feb 17, 2017
    Jamaica
    I found flaws

    First it says its makes anti competitive arrangements illegal. What if an ISP found away around this by making a "Pro Competitive Arrangements". And Comcast has just done that with Zero Rating Arrangements (aka data cap exemptions). As said by Sena Fitzmaurice the Senior Vice President of Comcast. With Net Neutrality gone they can provide data cap exemptions on certain services and force other companies to pay for those same exemptions. And the FCC can't do anything about that.

    Also the FTC could punish them if they go back on their promises/commitments. But there is no law that requires them to make promises/commitments in the first place. And therefore not be punished. They can handle their network however they want as long they disclose information to the public.

    ISP's have been doing lots of double speak recently on their commitments, and on the difference between pro competitive and anti competitive arrangements.
    With Net Neutrality down they are basically letting ISP's regulate themselves. This is basically voluntary net neutrality. (And we'll see how well this goes.)
     
    Last edited by SG854, Dec 15, 2017
    TotalInsanity4 likes this.
  9. SoslanVanWieren

    SoslanVanWieren GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    1,282
    221
    Feb 6, 2017
    Australia
    people will probably buy vpns to bypass it though
     
  10. WeedZ

    WeedZ Possibly an Enlightened Being

    Member
    3,028
    6,145
    Jan 13, 2015
    United States
    The State of Denial
    All a VPN does is hide your ip with those on a server. The slow speeds, data caps, and website blocks will still be intact. If they wanted to, they could block connections for a vpn's range of ip's, blocking it altogether.
     
    TotalInsanity4 and Xzi like this.
  11. I_AM_L_FORCE
    This message by I_AM_L_FORCE has been removed from public view by Veho, Dec 15, 2017, Reason: No.
    Dec 15, 2017
  12. MaverickWellington

    MaverickWellington *BRAAAPPPPT*

    Member
    397
    454
    Nov 24, 2017
    United States
    https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/25/16546798/verizon-unlimited-data-full-video-quality-fee
    https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/26/...ed-premium-plan-announced-less-throttly-sorta
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ottling-to-be-punished-with-100-million-fine/
    http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/1...identally-deactivates-customers-sims-process/
    oops i think i killed your argument haha

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    "B-b-b-b-but Title II s-stopped the throttling! W-what do you mean it's still happening!?"
    lmao okay xzi
    Evidently you don't trust the government at all but the moment they propose rules you agree with you totally trust them to run your internet despite saying before they were corrupt but okay lad

    Cognitive dissonance must hurt. Not that I'd know :^)

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    upload_2017-12-15_7-17-14.png

    Wrong.

    Under anti-trust laws these moves would be illegal, regardless of what they call them.
    The argument of "they could enforcement but no law says they have to" is a non-argument. You can neglect to press charges in situations where you were wronged if you feel it was an accident, or it has been solved privately and you don't want to push it further. The point of the lack of a law requiring every single event and situation to be punished by law is that it allows for situations and "violations" to be observed on a case by case basis, as they should be, rather than some catch-all thing that means throttling because of infrastructure problems is the exact same thing as throttling to prevent competition.

    To clarify, the idea of legitimate violations being ignored is fucking garbage, but we have no evidence to suggest that will be what happens. Why the FCC would accept laws that they intend to ignore and never enforce is beyond me. If they didn't give a shit about the laws, why would they change them?

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    No. That would only happen if there was a huge surge in bandwidth that'd increase costs. I *sincerely* doubt an ISP would go to a fucking forum and extort them to remove throttling. They don't have a reason to. Name an ISP that's offering a competing forum about game mods and homebrew.
     
    DarthDub likes this.
  13. SG854

    SG854 Happiness

    Member
    907
    953
    Feb 17, 2017
    Jamaica
    We have evidence of allowing Data Caps exemptions, and forcing other companies to pay for those same exemptions under this new management from Ajit Pai. The guy is anti net neutrality, this is just a taste of whats going to happen. Under old management from Tom wheeler it was ruled illegal. But new management from Pai let it slide.
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...that-att-and-verizon-violated-net-neutrality/
     
    Last edited by SG854, Dec 15, 2017
    TotalInsanity4 likes this.
  14. TotalInsanity4

    TotalInsanity4 GBAtemp Supreme Overlord

    Member
    7,987
    8,007
    Dec 1, 2014
    United States
    Under a rock
    He's going to ignore it because arstechnica
     
  15. Captain_N

    Captain_N GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Member
    846
    286
    Mar 29, 2010
    United States
    If net neutrality stays then i dont want to be blocked from downloading torrents. My phone data should not be slowed down. No blocking vpn and tor network. It ain't truly neutral now is it? If im blocked from a certain streaming site that illegal then that's not neutral. The law will probably be passed since its in the tax law. The real issue is that when a new law is proposed, only things pertaining to that law should be in the bill. There should be no sneaking it in. That should have been in the Constitution. All in all, id rather the government take its dirty hands off my internet. They always fuck up everything they touch. look how expensive health care in the US is now. Don't people know that the Liberal/Progressive agenda is more government control. Look up what FDR started. They hate trump because he is a huge wrench into their view for America. When trump trolls them its great.
     
  16. TotalInsanity4

    TotalInsanity4 GBAtemp Supreme Overlord

    Member
    7,987
    8,007
    Dec 1, 2014
    United States
    Under a rock
    I totally agree with you on the whole "sneaking stuff into bills thing", that's actual horseshit

    But, uh, what exactly is your issue with FDR?
     
  17. Xzi

    Xzi Virtual Bartman

    Member
    3,911
    2,681
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    No, you sure didn't. You pointed out individual instances of ISPs being dicks, and you think handing over all control to those dicks will solve everything. Your logic is so obviously broken.

    In good news, however: states are suggesting they'll be implementing their own Net Neutrality laws one by one. There's still probably a plan in place to strip away those states' rights, but it hasn't started moving yet. Would be pretty funny if only the red states were truly stripped of Net Neutrality and have to reap what they sow. It'd also be satisfying to see all 50 states pass their own NN laws, making the fact that repeal passed irrelevant.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Dec 15, 2017
    WeedZ and KingVamp like this.
  18. SG854

    SG854 Happiness

    Member
    907
    953
    Feb 17, 2017
    Jamaica
    I just don't trust management under Pai. Especially with the plan he proposed and is going to take affect.
    If he allows this then what. Thats what political heads do, they play with wording a lot to confuse. Masters of Double Speak.
    Wording is one thing. How they interpret it is another. Which is we have to see the many different ways a document can be interpreted.
    And pick out the finer details.
     
  19. MaverickWellington

    MaverickWellington *BRAAAPPPPT*

    Member
    397
    454
    Nov 24, 2017
    United States
    "You think handing over all control to them will solve everything"
    Where have I ever fucking argued that
     
  20. Xzi

    Xzi Virtual Bartman

    Member
    3,911
    2,681
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    Well, if you thought it was going to make things worse, you would've been arguing against NN repeal. So what, you believe ISPs holding all the power will simply change nothing? Sounds naive.
     
    cracker likes this.
  21. MaverickWellington

    MaverickWellington *BRAAAPPPPT*

    Member
    397
    454
    Nov 24, 2017
    United States
    I swear I would have to literally pay you to make a coherent representation of someone's argument.
    When have I ever said that I believed the ISPs should hold all the power? When have I presented anything saying the proposal is to let ISPs have all the power?

    This video explain it, since apparently you can't read. Hopefully you can listen better though.


    The breakdown is that authority is given to the FTC. How in the fuck does that mean "No regulations on ISPs?"
     
    DarthDub likes this.