The FCC just KILLED Net Neutrality

[Rubymaster]

19 minutes ago, Stefan1024 said:

When I work from home I use a VPN to connect to the companies servers. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one doing this. So a lot of employees and companies will be pissed.

This is exactly why these protections against ISPs being able to favor certain types of traffic were in place!

[WoofyDaTechHound]

Press F to start a revolution against the FCC

[dtaflorida]

Telecoms won't make big changes. Who knows what's gonna happen in 4 years. Trump's been losing voters left and right. In 4 years if the telecoms have raped and pillaged immediately after being let off the leash then they can be sure the next administration would be reversing the reversal. 

[Lurick]

17 minutes ago, lilbman said:

I'm not worried.  Before we had net neutrality, nothing was different.

 

People are just flipping their shit for no reason.

You mean aside the muscling out of traffic that certain companies didn't like?

A lot of these ISPs hare cable TV sellers as well and they don't like the fact people are cutting the cord and thus, cutting into their profits. Let's see where all these streaming options stand in a year or two after the rules fall off and then come back shall we?

 

One other question, for all these people saying NN needed to die.

Why did the FCC have to push rules that prevent states from implementing their own version of NN, what are they afraid of if NN is "sooooo bad for consumers"?

[divito]

8 hours ago, wcreek said:

and see that's the hope that repealing NN will have is that there'll be more investment in infrastructure.

 

This is literally opening the market back up again

What does being allowed to throttle, or charge micro-transactions on internet activities or apps have to do with developing infrastructure? If it didn't make sense when everything was equal, it's certainly not going to make sense when they can slow down anyone they want to. 

And by "open market," you mean where there are exclusivity contracts in certain areas of the country, and established territories that ISPs won't challenge, right? Which part of that is open?

 

5 hours ago, lilbman said:

I'm not worried.  Before we had net neutrality, nothing was different.

 

People are just flipping their shit for no reason.

Except it was different. That difference is the entire reason net neutrality was formed as an idea, because ISPs were throttling or denying service based on type of traffic. 

[Jon Jon]

1 hour ago, Maxxtraxx said:

 

Thank you for looking at this from the other perspective.

 

It actually frightens me more seeing a lot of the comments here, on my social media outlets, etc. just how little people seem to understand about ISPs, how they are run, how net neutrality didn't MAGICALLY fix anything (because nothing was really broken).

 

As someone who has been around on the internet in some form since 1999, I never noticed all of these issues that everyone seems to be so frightened of. It also bothers me that the people with the loudest voices seem to have the least amount of knowledge of how this stuff works, the business, etc. Granted, that is always the case.

 

I am not AGAINST net neutrality, but I wish people would do their research and gain an understanding of what it entails, what its goals were, the pros and cons associated. Don't give into the SCARE tactics that people losing their minds over protecting this are feeding into the media, because there is no real basis for it, because these things have not happened.

 

We've seen bandwidth caps in the past, and customer outrage nipped that in the butt (I remember reading numerous articles on Time Warner testing it out in some markets and getting major backlash). I also remember, more recently, how net neutrality really does not impact the cellular network space, because we had bandwidth throttling and accepted data caps all over the place on cellular (which is insane and ridiculous). You can thank T-Mobile for seeing an opportunity, stealing massive amounts of customers from AT&T and Verizon, and forced them back into offering unlimited data. The market made that happen. The customers (the PEOPLE), made that change happen. Now they throttle you if you use too much bandwidth and are in an area of the network where there is congestion (read the fine print for your cell carriers, as this is what my T-Mobile plan states).

 

I would also challenge everyone here to think for yourselves. Digest the information available (real information, not BS opinion pieces and regurgitating what somebody else thinks). We live in a world too controlled by what the rich want us to think. Think for yourselves.

 

Personally, I see no issue with "fast lanes" as we are all tossed onto a best effort track on these ISP's networks unless you are a business customer ANYWAY. I would love to pay extra money to get low latency, so the fiber that only extends to each city block with my ISP provider gives me priority, so during peak usage times, I don't get bandwidth starved. We do this in enterprise networks today, and I would be surprised if our ISPs aren't throttling certain access during peak hours to lower usage loads as part of maintenance.

 

I think the major concern that everyone should be worried about is access to information. I would argue that THAT is an attack on free speech and freedom of the press. The internet is a utility today, as far as I am concerned. I would argue that restricting ACCESS to information should be deemed unconstitutional, and that freedom of information (digital or physical) should be protected in our rights. This should not fall under an act, but appended to the Bill of Rights.

 

I could go on and on, but I really want everyone to take a deep breathe, get unbiased information, analyze the past of the internet and how it has evolved, etc.

 

Also, as a side note, with net neutrality, MMOs would have struggled to become a thing. Am I the only one who remembers that there was an MMO that was actually partnered with Compuserve to guarantee you a good connection to the servers which ultimately helped drive down the cost of hosting it?

[Guest lilbman]

5 hours ago, divito said:

Except it was different. That difference is the entire reason net neutrality was formed as an idea, because ISPs were throttling or denying service based on type of traffic. 

Not in the United States.

 

It's a solution to a problem that never existed. 

 

5 hours ago, Lurick said:

You mean aside the muscling out of traffic that certain companies didn't like?

A lot of these ISPs hare cable TV sellers as well and they don't like the fact people are cutting the cord and thus, cutting into their profits. Let's see where all these streaming options stand in a year or two after the rules fall off and then come back shall we?

 

One other question, for all these people saying NN needed to die.

Why did the FCC have to push rules that prevent states from implementing their own version of NN, what are they afraid of if NN is "sooooo bad for consumers"?

Name one significant example in the United States when an ISP throttled traffic that they didn't like.

 

They pushed rules to prevent states from implementing their own version of NN because this is one of those things where the entire country has to be on the same page about.  You can't have NN only in Florida.  I'd imagine that would be pretty difficult and a waste of taxpayers dollars.

[AshleyAshes]

Meanwhile, in Canada:

[Lurick]

20 minutes ago, lilbman said:

Name one significant example in the United States when an ISP throttled traffic that they didn't like.

 

They pushed rules to prevent states from implementing their own version of NN because this is one of those things where the entire country has to be on the same page about.  You can't have NN only in Florida.  I'd imagine that would be pretty difficult and a waste of taxpayers dollars.

Comcast and P2P traffic in and around 2012

AT&T, Comcast, Level 3 telling Netflix to pay more and more in and around the same time period while also slowing traffic to the Netflix servers.

 

How about the ~500 BILLION dollars given to the likes of Verizon, Comcast, AT&T over the past several years to upgrade their infrastructure that was taken and jack all was done to upgrade anything?

[TurbulentWinds]

Welp, bye guys. It was nice knowing you . . .

[MadyTehWolfie]

The internet slow downs are already starting. Went to sign into my bank on their website. Got a "check your internet message". Yet I was downloading a game while surfing other sites. Fuck you Ajit Pai your new name should be Ashit Pai.

 

4 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

Meanwhile, in Canada:

Let's be real net neutrality was one of the few things left leaning people did right. Now surprise Canada would be for net neutrality. Lol At them saying they stand behind freedom of expression/speech though.

[Knightfall3n]

Trumps whole "idea" was to keep jobs in the U.S, this does just the opposite. If you think about it, a lot of the WORLD relies on U.S companies. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Youtube and many other companies that have servers stationed here. This is gonna cause a mass panic to business in America. Many other countries will feel this whiplash. Even Canadian reporters are saying they too will feel this themselves.

[cj09beira]

3 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Let's be real net neutrality was one of the few things left leaning people did right. Now surprise Canada would be for net neutrality. Lol At them saying they stand behind freedom of expression/speech though.

unless you think males are males, then you get punished,

[Flameytail]

we have comcast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

$#!t

[divito]

42 minutes ago, lilbman said:

Not in the United States.

 

It's a solution to a problem that never existed. 

 

33 minutes ago, lilbman said:

Name one significant example in the United States when an ISP throttled traffic that they didn't like.

 

They pushed rules to prevent states from implementing their own version of NN because this is one of those things where the entire country has to be on the same page about.  You can't have NN only in Florida.  I'd imagine that would be pretty difficult and a waste of taxpayers dollars.

The entire impetus for NN was essentially Netflix getting throttled, to the point that Netflix paid Comcast and Verizon to stop the slowing down of its traffic. Comcast also settled for $16 million in a class-action suit for throttling that they did in 2007 and 2008.

 

[AlwaysFSX]

2 hours ago, SeriouslyMikey said:

What about an argument from the other side? 

That's wrong-think don't you know.

[cj09beira]

4 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

That's wrong-think don't you know.

the argument from the other side would have worked just fine IF there was a free market, but because the large isps have a monopoly over the infrastructure and they all agree not to compete in the same area it wont work, if they do repeal it, a way to salvage this is by forcing them to compete and to sell bandwidth to other smaller isps, also allow them to use the poles, etc 

[AresKrieger]

29 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

The internet slow downs are already starting. Went to sign into my bank on their website. Got a "check your internet message". Yet I was downloading a game while surfing other sites. Fuck you Ajit Pai your new name should be Ashit Pai.

Um no they are not, if they were then net neutrality wasn't actually doing anything since it is currently still in effect

[Guest lilbman]

3 hours ago, divito said:

 

The entire impetus for NN was essentially Netflix getting throttled, to the point that Netflix paid Comcast and Verizon to stop the slowing down of its traffic. Comcast also settled for $16 million in a class-action suit for throttling that they did in 2007 and 2008.

 

Net neutrality isn't the only solution to that though.  Say a Comcast user is also a Netflix subscriber but Comcast is throttling the speeds for Netflix.  That Comcast user can stop using Comcast and go to a service that offers what the consumer wants.  This would likely happen on a large enough scale, which would force Comcast to change unless they want to lose business.

 

I'd rather have the ISPs be in control of the internet over the government because as a consumer, we can push a company in the right direction by taking business away from them, but with the government, we can't because the people in the FCC are not elected officials.  

 

Remember: the purpose of a company is to make money, and if you want to make money, you have to be selling a product that the consumer wants.

 

3 hours ago, cj09beira said:

the argument from the other side would have worked just fine IF there was a free market, but because the large isps have a monopoly over the infrastructure and they all agree not to compete in the same area it wont work, if they do repeal it, a way to salvage this is by forcing them to compete and to sell bandwidth to other smaller isps, also allow them to use the poles, etc 

In a truly free market, it is hard for a monopoly to survive for a long period of time because it's extremely difficult to keep up with.

 

I mean, look at Standard Oil. Before monopoly laws even existed, they had monopolized the oil market.  By the time the government passed anti-monopoly legislation, Standard Oil had already lost a very very large part of its market share because it couldn't maintain its death grip on the market.

[Lurick]

6 minutes ago, lilbman said:

Net neutrality isn't the only solution to that though.  Say a Comcast user is also a Netflix subscriber but Comcast is throttling the speeds for Netflix.  That Comcast user can stop using Comcast and go to a service that offers what the consumer wants.  This would likely happen on a large enough scale, which would force Comcast to change unless they want to lose business.

 

I'd rather have the ISPs be in control of the internet over the government because as a consumer, we can push a company in the right direction by taking business away from them, but with the government, we can't because the people in the FCC are not elected officials.  

 

Remember: the purpose of a company is to make money, and if you want to make money, you have to be selling a product that the consumer wants.

Go where? Over 50 million US households have access to 1 or 0 ISPs that provide broadband services, at the time the definition of broadband was 25Mbps, that has since been scaled back by the current head of the FCC to even slower speeds to qualify as "broadband" but this was done in 2016, so it probably hasn't changed much. Or are you really saying that people just stop going online all together?

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170320/06080536955/despite-gigabit-hype-comcast-is-facing-less-broadband-competition-than-ever.shtml

[AresKrieger]

1 minute ago, lilbman said:

That Comcast user can stop using Comcast and go to a service that offers what the consumer wants.  This would likely happen on a large enough scale, which would force Comcast to change unless they want to lose business.

If I could I already would have, there is no other ISP in my area I checked and checked over and over, now net neutrality I find to be meaningless however I also find the removing the monopolies to be extremely difficult, the legal option is next to impossible, short of a violent revolution to eliminate the isp scum I see no scenario where the issue is resolved

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, lilbman said:

I'm not worried.  Before we had net neutrality, nothing was different.

 

People are just flipping their shit for no reason.

Except for when it was different as has been pointed out before and can be seen in the multitudes of articles on the subject.

 

1 hour ago, Jon Jon said:

SNIP

 

You may not have noticed a difference, but plenty of others have,  in fact to the point where google had to release a tool for measuring bandwidth in specific areas for youtube users as some where experiencing more trouble then others.  Also to the point where there was a court case regarding netflix and ISP throttling.  And to the point where, and I can't stress this enough, that the industry and the FCC had to fabricate 2.5 million letters and arguments to justify repealing it.  So much effort has gone into repealing it that to claim it made no difference is illogical.   

[Tsuki]

10 minutes ago, lilbman said:

Net neutrality isn't the only solution to that though.  Say a Comcast user is also a Netflix subscriber but Comcast is throttling the speeds for Netflix.  That Comcast user can stop using Comcast and go to a service that offers what the consumer wants.

I cant though.  i have 2 choices for internet where i live.  Comcast or Century Link.

Century Link does not offer unlimited internet, and begins to throttle down to nothing after 1TB.

i regularly use 1.5-2TB of data monthly in my household.

Comcast allows unlimited(as long as i continue paying an extra $50/month)

 

if Comcast starts doing something that i dont like, i cannot change providers because nobody else offers what i actually need.

[Kamina]

I don't even have good internet providers except for xfinity and it's expensive as hell.

ATT is still on ASL in my neighborhood.

[Not_Sean]

Good luck America, may the odds ever be in your favour.