Net Neutrality: Help me understand plz.

[dimmidice]

Look at how your ISP treats you (assuming you have one of the bad ones which is a good chance) Now ask yourself "Do i want them to have less restrictions or more restrictions about what they can do?" They already nickel and dime customers whenever they can, their customer support is atrocious, they already throttle connections sometimes even when they're not supposed too. Any honest answer should be "more regulations is what i want" Not less.

Companies are not your friends. This whole concept of "if we let companies do what they want there'll be more jobs and more money and everyone will be better off!" is naive kindergarten bollocks.

 

[Deleted User]

Look at how your ISP treats you (assuming you have one of the bad ones which is a good chance) Now ask yourself "Do i want them to have less restrictions or more restrictions about what they can do?" They already nickel and dime customers whenever they can, their customer support is atrocious, they already throttle connections sometimes even when they're not supposed too. Any honest answer should be "more regulations is what i want" Not less.

Companies are not your friends. This whole concept of "if we let companies do what they want there'll be more jobs and more money and everyone will be better off!" is naive kindergarten bollocks.

I actually have an ISP that makes it impossible to change the dns lol

 

[Deleted User]

Look at how your ISP treats you (assuming you have one of the bad ones which is a good chance) Now ask yourself "Do i want them to have less restrictions or more restrictions about what they can do?" They already nickel and dime customers whenever they can, their customer support is atrocious, they already throttle connections sometimes even when they're not supposed too. Any honest answer should be "more regulations is what i want" Not less.

Companies are not your friends. This whole concept of "if we let companies do what they want there'll be more jobs and more money and everyone will be better off!" is naive kindergarten bollocks.

I actually have an ISP that makes it impossible to change the dns lol

 

[dimmidice]

Do you not think it's fishy at all that the people trying to "stop" this from happening are the ones doing it in the first place?

The difference is ISPs vs Websites. A website can do whatever it wants on its website. Just like how gbatemp can delete any post it wants. If you don't like that you can easily go to a different site. Your ISP blocking access to websites is something else entirely. Now if an ISP blocked sites in a perfect world you'd say fuck those guys and move to a different ISP. But in the US the ISPs have such monopolies that's just not an option. So if they block sites that means large parts of the US can't access a site. That's simply too much power to put into the ISPs hands.

I actually have an ISP that makes it impossible to change the dns lol

You technically probably could if you hooked up your own router and just used their box as a modem. But yeah i'm in the same boat.

 

[MaverickWellington]

The difference is ISPs vs Websites. A website can do whatever it wants on its website. Just like how gbatemp can delete any post it wants. If you don't like that you can easily go to a different site. Your ISP blocking access to websites is something else entirely. Now if an ISP blocked sites in a perfect world you'd say fuck those guys and move to a different ISP. But in the US the ISPs have such monopolies that's just not an option. So if they block sites that means large parts of the US can't access a site. That's simply too much power to put into the ISPs hands.

Not at all. My old ISP, AT&T, had shitty service, so I moved to my current one, Fidelity. They're great and have built up a steady userbase made almost entirely of people yelling "FUCK AT&T" and other various shouts. Furthermore, my point is not one of ISPs vs Websites. My point is that the people who think it's unfair for content on the net to be censored, throttled, or blocked, flat out do so, and then criticize anyone else for doing it. I think it's something that's incredibly dishonest and that not enough people think about it. I understand that these are private companies doing this, but in the same vein, so are ISPs, no matter how necessary the internet may have become in today's society. I would not support legislation to force private companies like Twitter and Facebook to not censor opinions they dislike, just as much as I would not support legislation to broadly and unfairly prevent ISPs from throttling, even in situations where it is necessary.

 

[gameboy]

i have fiber optic 100M/sec installed. most days it runs at 400Klbs/sec. Thats net neutrality for ya

 

[dimmidice]

Not at all. My old ISP, AT&T, had shitty service, so I moved to my current one, Fidelity. They're great and have built up a steady userbase made almost entirely of people yelling "FUCK AT&T" and other various shouts. Furthermore, my point is not one of ISPs vs Websites. My point is that the people who think it's unfair for content on the net to be censored, throttled, or blocked, flat out do so, and then criticize anyone else for doing it. I think it's something that's incredibly dishonest and that not enough people think about it. I understand that these are private companies doing this, but in the same vein, so are ISPs, no matter how necessary the internet may have become in today's society. I would not support legislation to force private companies like Twitter and Facebook to not censor opinions they dislike, just as much as I would not support legislation to broadly and unfairly prevent ISPs from throttling, even in situations where it is necessary.

Large portions of the US only have one available.

>My point is that the people who think it's unfair for content on the net to be censored, throttled, or blocked, flat out do so, and then criticize anyone else for doing it.

My point is that you're comparing apples and pears. It's not comparable.

 

[MaverickWellington]

Large portions of the US only have one available.

>My point is that the people who think it's unfair for content on the net to be censored, throttled, or blocked, flat out do so, and then criticize anyone else for doing it.

My point is that you're comparing apples and pears. It's not comparable.

But it is. All these big sites preaching about how oh-so-awful it is to do yet literally do it themselves and are the biggest ones to do it. It's hypocritical. Just like Netflix throttling customers from Verizon and AT&T yet hiding such information until legislation was passed against them.

 

[MaverickWellington]

its worse than the old cheapest option. thats net neutrality for ya

what does net neutrality have to do with this? there's a myriad of options that could be affecting this.

 

[gameboy]

what does net neutrality have to do with this? there's a myriad of options that could be affecting this.

no its not. new router, 5g wifi, and 6cat ethernet. 400kb/sec when i try to max it out certain times of the day

 

[MaverickWellington]

no its not. new router, 5g wifi, and 6cat ethernet. 400kb/sec when i try to max it out certain times of the day

Again, there are way more things that could affect this than just your ISP possibly throttling you.

 

[dimmidice]

But it is. All these big sites preaching about how oh-so-awful it is to do yet literally do it themselves and are the biggest ones to do it. It's hypocritical. Just like Netflix throttling customers from Verizon and AT&T yet hiding such information until legislation was passed against them.

Again ISP vs Site. It's the difference between a bar banning a customer and a country banning bars. It's not hypocritical because it's an entirely different thing. Netflix for example throttled everyone (on mobile) equally because of concerns that people would go over their data limits (which is a valid concern tbh cause that's exactly what happened to me when i got netflix, it's easy to forget how much data netflix uses)

Again, there are way more things that could affect this than just your ISP possibly throttling you.

Yes, but ISPs are known for giving you a theoretical max that you'll never hit in actual real life scenarios. People should know not to trust the quoted max speed at all.

 

[gameboy]

Again, there are way more things that could affect this than just your ISP possibly throttling you.

its NN, it was way more functional before that bill, i think i would know... unlimited used to get me unlimited 24/7, now it gets me a little better than dial-up at certain times. it might benefit to go the cheapest option

 

[MaverickWellington]

Again ISP vs Site. It's the difference between a bar banning a customer and a country banning bars. It's not hypocritical because it's an entirely different thing. Netflix for example throttled everyone (on mobile) equally because of concerns that people would go over their data limits (which is a valid concern tbh cause that's exactly what happened to me when i got netflix, it's easy to forget how much data netflix uses)

Not a fair comparison. Imagine a bar bans a beer from being sold there. Now imagine a beer company bans that bar from selling it's beer. Same outcome. Just different execution and different people doing it.

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

its NN, it was way more functional before that bill, i think i would know... unlimited used to get me unlimited 24/7, now it gets me a little better than dial-up at certain times. it might benefit to go the cheapest option

Uh, bro? The proposal hasn't gone into effect yet. It is most assuredly something else.

 

[Kioku]

its NN, it was way more functional before that bill, i think i would know... unlimited used to get me unlimited 24/7, now it gets me a little better than dial-up at certain times. it might benefit to go the cheapest option

Is.. Is this really happening? You're blaming what seems to be poor connection quality (possibly congested even) on net neutrality? What....

 

[gameboy]

Not a fair comparison. Imagine a bar bans a beer from being sold there. Now imagine a beer company bans that bar from selling it's beer. Same outcome. Just different execution and different people doing it.

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


Uh, bro? The proposal hasn't gone into effect yet. It is most assuredly something else.

whatever Ajit Pai...

 

[MaverickWellington]

whatever Ajit Pai...

Not an argument.

 

[gameboy]

Is.. Is this really happening? You're blaming what seems to be poor connection quality (possibly congested even) on net neutrality? What....

its certainly not congested or poor connection. maybe its the sites demonstrating NN but its definitely way slower.

 

[MaverickWellington]

its certainly not congested or poor connection. maybe its the sites demonstrating NN but its definitely way slower.

Have you thought to google this at all? Given that you immediately blame the FCC, I really don't think so.

 

[gameboy]

Have you thought to google this at all? Given that you immediately blame the FCC, I really don't think so.

dude, my 5g 160mhz direct beams on a different channel than everyone else. and its fiber optic on cat6 with an unlimited 120M/sec plan on modern tech. getting 400mb/sec and obvious bottlenecking never happened before.

 

[dimmidice]

Not a fair comparison. Imagine a bar bans a beer from being sold there. Now imagine a beer company bans that bar from selling it's beer. Same outcome. Just different execution and different people doing it.

That comparison makes no sense. In my comparison Bar=site Government=ISP Customer= Customer.

In yours Bar=Site, Company=ISP. so Imagine a site bans a thing from being accessed there. Now imagine a ISP bans that site from accessing it's thing. Maybe it's me but it doesn't work.

In my comparison the key point is the severity of the ban.