Net Neutrality once again needs our help!

[RevPokemon]

So you're not at all worried if they end up censoring agendas or sites that don't align with their political views in favor of things that do align with their views? I don't want to have to pay more to get access to places I want to go to.

The issue is still that the cost is still not equal which is the central problem.

So what is that ~$100/mo I pay my ISP going towards? And what about the money companies pay for their Internet lines to run their servers? Is that money not being used to maintain the networks?

Of course but the issue is at the end the cost of access for certain websites cost more than others. Allowing faster speeds on Youtube or Netflix objectively is more costly than faster speeds on some text only website and beceause of that the ISP should have the right to decide how to handle the data. To say other wise is flawed.

 

[the_randomizer]

The issue is still that the cost is still not equal which is the central problem. As for the censorship claim that is being used, well my response is that


Of course but the issue is at the end the cost of access for certain websites cost more than others. Allowing faster speeds on Youtube or Netflix objectively is more costly than faster speeds on some text only website and beceause of that the ISP should have the right to decide how to handle the data. To say other wise is flawed.

What do you suggest? Who are we to combat powerful, faceless companies, right? It's all in vain.

Ask Comcast, what with their artificial limits.

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



Where I live I have a few choices... They're not good ones. Verizon or AT&T are our big mobile providers. Spectrum is our "fastest" internet.. Everything else is trash. I'd still rather not pay them. Grrr

Yeah, damned if we do, damned if we don't.

 

[RevPokemon]

What do you suggest? Who are we to combat powerful, faceless companies, right? It's all in vain.

We have the power to boycott, chose alternatives, and so on. There is no corporation that is more powerful than the people.

 

[GerbilSoft]

Of course but the issue is at the end the cost of access for certain websites cost more than others. Allowing faster speeds on Youtube or Netflix objectively is more costly than faster speeds on some text only website and beceause of that the ISP should have the right to decide how to handle the data. To say other wise is flawed.

Why is that? If I'm paying for unlimited usage, how does it "cost more" to use one site than another?

It doesn't cost more for a network router to be active than to be doing nothing.

 

[Piluvr]

We have the power to boycott, chose alternatives, and so on. There is no corporation that is more powerful than the people.

you've never faced a legal team, have you?

 

[the_randomizer]

We have the power to boycott, chose alternatives, and so on. There is no corporation that is more powerful than the people.

Boycotts and protests rarely work.

 

[RevPokemon]

Why is that? If I'm paying for unlimited usage, how does it "cost more" to use one site than another?

Does 100% speeds on Youtube cost as much for a company like comcast than 100% on some legacy BBS forum?

Boycotts and protests rarely work.

Public outcry does work in many cases actually.

you've never faced a legal team, have you?

Your point?

 

[Piluvr]

Does 100% speeds on Youtube cost as much for a company like comcast than 100% on some legacy BBS forum?


Public outcry does work in many cases actually.


Your point?

My point is, we shouldnt have companies pay extra, just have it 100% on ALL websites.

 

[jt_1258]

Boycotts and protests rarely work.

sadly true, we need internet somehow and they know we will come crawling back eventually, and they have plenty of money to burn while they wait on us

 

[GerbilSoft]

Does 100% speeds on Youtube cost as much for a company like comcast than 100% on some legacy BBS forum?

It costs Comcast virtually *nothing*, because they have peering agreements with all the other major ISPs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering

Comcast doesn't connect directly to YouTube's servers. In order to access YouTube, a Comcast customer's PC has to send packets through Comcast to other ISPs that handle the actual upstream traffic. This is true for basically all sites.

Because of this, arbitrarily charging for YouTube but not some other upstream video streaming site has no basis in reality.

 

[the_randomizer]

Does 100% speeds on Youtube cost as much for a company like comcast than 100% on some legacy BBS forum?


Public outcry does work in many cases actually.


Your point?

I've yet to see it actually work for something of this scale, sadly.

sadly true, we need internet somehow and they know we will come crawling back eventually, and they have plenty of money to burn while they wait on us

Makes me ask, "What's the point?"

 

[Kioku]

I've yet to see it actually work for something of this scale, sadly.




Makes me ask, "What's the point?"

You're right. We should all just give these corporations every last cent to our name because it's hopeless to try and stand up for ourselves. That mindset is why shit like this happens.

 

[Deleted User]

You're right. We should all just give these corporations every last cent to our name because it's hopeless to try and stand up for ourselves. That mindset is why shit like this happens.

I'm SURE 10 people not using comcast will make them change their evil ways. I'm super sure.

What do you expect people to do? The Internet isn't needed in daily life (not yet at least) but do you really expect people on a internet gaming forum to not use the internet?

 

[the_randomizer]

You're right. We should all just give these corporations every last cent to our name because it's hopeless to try and stand up for ourselves. That mindset is why shit like this happens.

But do you honestly think someone as heartless as those Comcast bastards is going to give in to protests? I honestly want to know? We sign protests, we join these EFF fights, we write to congressmen, reps, etc, but does it truly make our voices heard? Sometimes, it doesn't feel like it, like it falls on deaf ears.


How I so want to tell those responsible for this to eff themselves to their face.

 

[Deleted User]

But do you honestly think someone as heartless as those Comcast bastards is going to give in to protests?

A business doesn't have a heart. None do.

 

[the_randomizer]

A business doesn't have a heart. None do.

Exactly my point. If i I had a choice, I'd go with Google Fibre, they're much cheaper than Comcrap, that's for sure. Too bad they can't come to this city, but the one next over, they have a big presence in. AT&T is overpriced and is garbage.

 

[Piluvr]

can we call comcast commies now and make it the 1950's again??!!!??

 

[Deleted User]

Exactly my point. If i I had a choice, I'd go with Google Fibre, they're much cheaper than Comcrap, that's for sure. Too bad they can't come to this city, but the one next over, they have a big presence in. AT&T is overpriced and is garbage.

The hell? Comcast is 30 here and We don't even have fibre. How much is google?

 

[the_randomizer]

The hell? Comcast is 30 here and We don't even have fibre. How much is google?

Well, we have cable, internet and phone, it's a bit much, but we get 100 mbps speeds. I don't know the exact cost, there's the 200 mbps pack, but it's way too pricey. Google I want to say 70 dollars for all three.

 

[RevPokemon]

It costs Comcast virtually *nothing*, because they have peering agreements with all the other major ISPs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering

Comcast doesn't connect directly to YouTube's servers. In order to access YouTube, a Comcast customer's PC has to send packets through Comcast to other ISPs that handle the actual upstream traffic. This is true for basically all sites.

Because of this, arbitrarily charging for YouTube but not some other upstream video streaming site has no basis in reality.

Your argument has no basis in reality. What you have failed to understand that as an ISP the companies have a right to give service as the see fit. There is literally no reason as to why Comcast should treat Youtube, Netflix, NBC, and whoever else the same. Even if there are no cost differences in terms of the networking side there are still other considerations to make when it comes to net neutrality. Thus the idea of treating such data equally is laughable at best and sad at worst. The true genius of the net neutrality movement is that it is being led by in large by massive corporations (Google, NBC, Disney, and whoever else) that have a large impact on terms of how it will affect them while targeting some everyday joes into supporting such legislation on the grounds of buzz words that are ultimately attractive to the same crowd who have no clue what it is about.