murica's internet officially getting fast lanes.

[TechBruhE]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/t-didn-t-waste-time-abandoning-net-neutrality-211839641.html

 

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-quietly-drops-promise-not-to-charge-tolls-for-internet-fast-lanes/ 

 

hope this isn't a duplicate post, I couldn't find anyone talking about this, at&t is rolling out fast lanes, and (a bit older news) Comcast has it in the works.

[LienusLateTips]

37 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

-snip-

You do realize what this is, right?

[Blademaster91]

The first article is rather misleading,cell data wasn't covered under NN anyway,and Comcast is shit anyone should use their local or municipal broadband if possible instead even if you get a slower connection.

[Max_Settings]

2 minutes ago, JDE said:

You do realize what this is, right?

Yep. Faster lanes for certain internet activities for those who want to pay for it.

[Lurick]

2 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

Yep. Faster lanes for certain internet activities for those who want to pay for it.

Not exactly.

It's priority and faster service for companies that can afford to pay for it.

New competitor to netflix, hulu, etc? Tough luck, get lumped in with the garbage traffic and good luck along the way and have fun trying to compete.

[DrMacintosh]

I use Spectrum. So far they have been really great and don't seem to have any interest in doing this.

 

37 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

-snip-

Fast lanes are a lose lose situation. 

[theninja35]

3 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

Yep. Faster lanes for certain internet activities for those who want to pay for it.

And higher costs. Currently, the local internet provider offers 100Mb/s for somewhere around $70/month. With net neutrality removed, not only will I be unable to access certain websites, I'll also be required to pay for more packages and I will receive either the same speed or slower speed for a higher cost. I'll likely be unable to access websites like LTT, LCPDFR, or my beloved GTA modding websites because they'll be too slow.

 

Say goodbye Max, because once it's in place we probably won't be talking to each other again.

[Tech_Dreamer]

 

Can afford the gas , but the car aint cheap yo'

[Blademaster91]

10 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

Yep. Faster lanes for certain internet activities for those who want to pay for it.

5 minutes ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

 

Can afford the gas , but the car aint cheap yo'

It's like having to pay extra for a key that lets your car drive faster than 30mph,makes no sense at all to limit the internet you're already paying for because data caps are bullshit enough imo.

[Max_Settings]

3 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

 

It's like having to pay extra for a key that lets your car drive faster than 30mph,makes no sense at all to limit the internet you're already paying for because data caps are bullshit enough imo.

Bugatti does that. You have to get a special key to unlock all the horsepower.

[TOMPPIX]

12 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

Yep. Faster lanes for certain internet activities for those who want to pay for it.

nothing was stopping them from providing you with a faster connection in the first place.

[Sakkura]

38 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

-snip-

No it didn't. It prevented slower internet for those who did not pay (extra).

 

As one of the comments on Ars points out,

 

Quote

If the network is built to handle the demand then there is no "priority" to sell. Now ISP's have a double incentive to not invest in their networks. By not upgrading they not only save the upgrade cost but now have something to sell in the form of priority access. Because nobody pays for priority on an uncongested network.

 

[Max_Settings]

10 minutes ago, Lurick said:

Not exactly.

It's priority and faster service for companies that can afford to pay for it.

New competitor to netflix, hulu, etc? Tough luck, get lumped in with the garbage traffic and good luck along the way and have fun trying to compete.

That will be nothing more than another piece that they will just have to pay for. You think it’s cheap to make a Netflix or Hulu competitor? No that’s billions of dollars in licensing fees. Paying for faster lines will be just one more thing that companies will have to get used to paying for. You could say that even regular regulations on manufacturing could hurt lesser companies because now it costs them more to compete with the big guys.

[Delicieuxz]

21 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

Awesome to see. This was one of my problems with net neutrality. It prevented faster internet for those who wanted to pay for it. 

Unlimited / so fast you couldn't possibly complain speeds, were already available in the US. What fast lanes means is that there will be deliberately slowed-down internet speeds to try to coerce people to pay more for "faster" (relative to slowed-down), AKA normal internet speeds.

[Sakkura]

20 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

That will be nothing more than another piece that they will just have to pay for. You think it’s cheap to make a Netflix or Hulu competitor? No that’s billions of dollars in licensing fees. Paying for faster lines will be just one more thing that companies will have to get used to paying for. You could say that even regular regulations on manufacturing could hurt lesser companies because now it costs them more to compete with the big guys.

So because it's hard, we should make it harder? Terrible idea that goes against free market capitalist principles.

[Sakkura]

17 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

-snip-

So regulations against monopolies also makes it harder for the small guys? That's so badly wrong I almost feel bad for you.

[Lurick]

Just now, Max_Settings said:

But it was attempted several years ago by certain companies to offer super fast internet for the rich but it was blocked under net neutrality laws if I recall correctly. 

No, that would be AT&T, Verizon, Comcast who bought and paid for laws to go through to prevent people from touching their precious money and giving them competition. Just look at Google Fiber getting sued left and right by AT&T in several locations to stop them from coming in.

Community ISPs are basically banned in roughly 20 states in the US, laws that were pushed by existing incumbent ISPs

 

Also, NN only came about in 2015, anything before that would be other laws.

[Delicieuxz]

17 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

-snip-

A lot of regulations are in place because the lack of them resulted in corporations sucking all the blood out of the small guys, just like EA and other companies are now doing with loot boxes and predatory microtransactions that make things harder for those who don't pay extra - which is leading to regulations on predatory microtransaction practices.

[Tech_Dreamer]

13 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

t's like having to pay extra for a key that lets your car drive faster than 30mph,makes no sense at all to limit the internet you're already paying for because data caps are bullshit enough imo.

Much better analogy would be toll roads versus regular roads. it's a corporate environment that provides a said service under their own freedom .

[Daegun]

Another totally expected, totally scummy move by isps. Businesses never lobby or spend money on things they won't use.

 

@Max_Settings Ken M, is that you?

[Max_Settings]

At the end of the day guys you can complain all you want, but it’s repealed. Maybe the next President will re-instate it, but until then this is how it’s going to be. Before we get all speculative let’s see how it pans out for a bit. Don’t be those dumb high school kids that think that now we have to pay $30 a month for Snapchat. 

[PCGuy_5960]

Doesn't meet posting guidelines and it kinda turned into a political discussion.

 

-Thread Moved to General Discussion, locked and cleaned-