When will net neutrailty repeal take affect

[Melano]

 

16 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

I hate specifically blocking of websites they don't like that seems unfair that the corporations dislike of other companies can screw over other people.

 

Long as there not throttling to the point of it not being usable its okay but I prefer to get the speeds I pay for.

What? They've never blocked websites. What? Not even ISIS shit is blocked. What are you people talking about? T Mobile and Sprint could be argued as ISPs, BECAUSE THEY ARE. But they get away with it all the time. Oh wait, they don't. They didn't before NN and they don't now. But wait! They do! They throttle all the damn time!

 

Its called getting off your ass and contacting the Better Business Bureau like I did on Charter and ATT. I did it because they kept sending me technicians that wouldn't fix their bullshit when they screwed up during an uninstall of Charter and an install of ATT. Speaking from experience, they have agents assigned to these complaints. Specifically, my agent was Claudia of Chart, now Spectrum.

 

They do this because they get fined tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the complaint against them and for how long the issue has progressed. If you people really think these companies are going to risk losing so much money by pissing off their consumer and customer base, you've got some reading to do.

 

If ATT loses even 20% of their base over making some dumbass package that blocks websites, they're going to fucking scramble to fix it. Why? They're rich and most of all, greedy. But they can't keep fueling that GREED if they LOSE 20% or more of their consumer base. Why? Because these consumers goto another providor that doesn't do that shit, or already did it and backtracked really fast once they lost users.

 

hey have employees to pay, technicians to pay, equipment to buy, parts to replace, and so on. Let's not forget BILLS to pay.

 

Reality check. Net Nuetrality changed nothing, and allowed NO CHANGE for better OR for worse. It caused a stagnant market where new ISP's could get destroyed in seconds.

 

NN is 50/50. Its good on paper and sounds good, until you elarn its not the corporations behind the madness. It can be considered a savior, but also a destroyer. It depends on how its used, and sadly, it was not used properly. I don't subscribe to scertain online servicesa only for my ISP to tell me they can't help because the Government won't let them use the money they're granted to improve services. Why? "Because it all has top be equal."

 

Tell that to people living in the middle of nowhere relying on "Fixed Wireless Internet."

 

Oh, and by the by.

Ignorance is not a point of view.

[Eduard the weeb]

  @MelanoI meant if the net neutrality repeal goes into affect.

[Melano]

2 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

  @MelanoI meant if the net neutrality repeal goes into affect.

They didn't do it before. They're not going to risk pissing off their entire consumer base, because then they lose all revenue. 

 

Also:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5180015/Protesters-gather-U-S-regulators-meet-end-net-neutrality.html

 

GG americans. You do a bomb threat over this? Man, you must REALLY NOT want your internet. This? This act here? This is how you LOSE freedom.

[Colin Donoghue]

Is the repeal for letting the providers meter connections or Agaist it. sorry for the dumb question 

[AndGames]

From what I understand, that is what the FCC pitched, but repealing net neutrality will likely make a package system to use certain websites that will cost extra money including your network bill and memberships to that website or service. WARNING: My understanding of this may be wrong

[Drak3]

46 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

I hate specifically blocking of websites they don't like that seems unfair that the corporations dislike of other companies can screw over other people.

 

Long as there not throttling to the point of it not being usable its okay but I prefer to get the speeds I pay for.

Net Neutrality did nothing to stop that. It only disallowed them charging not to do it.

[AresKrieger]

59 minutes ago, Melano said:

If ATT loses even 20% of their base over making some dumbass package that blocks websites, they're going to fucking scramble to fix it. Why? They're rich and most of all, greedy. But they can't keep fueling that GREED if they LOSE 20% or more of their consumer base. Why? Because these consumers goto another providor that doesn't do that shit, or already did it and backtracked really fast once they lost users.

Well this brings up the main issue which has little to do with net neutrality (which is why I don't care about net neutrality) localized monopolization, ie in my city the only ISP available is comcast their is no other option than comcast and they are very much aware of it. This is the issue I want resolved, net neutrality is small potatoes compared to the isp cartel.

[knightslugger]

1 hour ago, Eduard the weeb said:

Long as there not throttling to the point of it not being usable its okay but I prefer to get the speeds I pay for.

Then this was a huge lose for you. because what is your recourse if they do throttle a website or service they don't like to the point of unusability?

 

A: You have none.

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

their is no other option than comcast and they are very much aware of it.

HughesNet/WildBlue/Satellite is ALWAYS an option. You might not like it, but HEY, there it is. Bet me they won't throw that in your face when you pitch a fit.

[Melano]

5 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Well this brings up the main issue which has little to do with net neutrality (which is why I don't care about net neutrality) localized monopolization, ie in my city the only ISP available is comcast their is no other option than comcast and they are very much aware of it. This is the issue I want resolved, net neutrality is small potatoes compared to the isp cartel.

Its not just the ISP. Its your city. They're just as guilty for this shit.

[AndGames]

We are saved, for a little longer. https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16776308/susan-collins-angus-king-net-neutrality-vote-delay-letter

[AresKrieger]

37 minutes ago, Melano said:

Its not just the ISP. Its your city. They're just as guilty for this shit.

It has nothing to do with the city, I know what you are getting at but no exclusivity contracts or other nonsense have been made here the state in general fell into the comcast cut of the pie when the isps decided their boarders of control

[LAwLz]

@SilverMight I saw your post in the other thread but didn't have time to respond before it was locked.

 

Quote

>1.99 every google

>pretend ftc doesn't exist

You do know that ISPs has brought the FTC to court for trying to regulate them, and the ISPs won, right?

The FTC has next to no (if any) power to regulate ISPs anymore.

Common carriers are regulated by the FCC. The court has ruled that the FTC are not allowed to regulate common carriers.

Phone services however, are classified as common carriers. What this means is that AT&T and other ISPs that operate phone networks can no longer be regulated by anyone.

 

If the FTC tries to regulate AT&T they can claim to be a common carrier (even though the ISP part of their business is not) and therefore FTC have no authority over them.

But at the same time, the FTC are not allowed to regulate the ISP part (but they can regulate the phone part) because broadband was reclassified to no longer be covered under title II.

Does it sound like a massive loophole and clusterfuck? It sure is, but it's something both Pai and ISPs were aware of when they constantly told people the FTC could regulate them if NN was repealed.

 

 

 

So, how long before ISPs start fucking their customers over now that they have no regulations or oversights regarding throttling and discrimination of traffic? I'll give it a few months. It would be too obvious if they started straight away.

[TechMan2175]

What about the internet before net neutrality it was still just fine.

[Lurick]

1 minute ago, TechMan2175 said:

What about the internet before net neutrality it was still just fine.

You do realize that NN was pushed for a while as a result of ISPs abusing their power over a period of time and wasn't just someone waking up one day and saying "I want to regulate things! I'll call it Net Neutrality"

[SImoHayha]

2 minutes ago, TechMan2175 said:

What about the internet before net neutrality it was still just fine.

No it wasn't ISP's were always doing shady shit. Like preventing certain apps from working or forcing P2P programs to not to work. The list goes on and on and only after they got exposed is when they stopped doing shady stuff.

[Contreramanjaro]

2 minutes ago, TechMan2175 said:

What about the internet before net neutrality it was still just fine.

What about it? It's an evolving medium and we're pushing more bits than ever now. People have become dependent on it from everything from communication to running their business. It's not like it was and I doubt we could go back to life without, especially not if we intend to stay competitive worldwide.

 

That's the whole point. Could we continue without the internet now? It's a necessity, not some frivolous luxury.

[Contreramanjaro]

2 hours ago, Colin Donoghue said:

Is the repeal for letting the providers meter connections or Agaist it. sorry for the dumb question 

Neither really. It allows the provider to decide what data it moves and how fast. A blunt example might be if Comcast didn't have enough bandwidth to move Netflix videos and their own videos at the same time in HD, it could decide to slow down the connection to Netflix to keep their own videos in higher quality giving themselves some sort of advantage. Net neutrality said they had to treat all data equally.

[WkdPaul]

4 hours ago, Gamingfreek said:

*snip*

3 hours ago, AndGames said:

*snip*

 

Threads merged.

 

More coming soon

[Eduard the weeb]

3 hours ago, AndGames said:

We are saved, for a little longer. https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16776308/susan-collins-angus-king-net-neutrality-vote-delay-letter

that was posted 2 mins before the actual voting and arguments started.

[Ithanul]

5 hours ago, knightslugger said:

HughesNet/WildBlue/Satellite is ALWAYS an option. You might not like it, but HEY, there it is. Bet me they won't throw that in your face when you pitch a fit.

They are no better.

I have sat.  You not going to find a safe haven on it.

They do the same practices of tiering content too.  O, and they been doing that while NN been around.  Yep, mine tiers video streams by Internet package plans.

 

6 hours ago, Eduard the weeb said:

I hate specifically blocking of websites they don't like that seems unfair that the corporations dislike of other companies can screw over other people.

 

Long as there not throttling to the point of it not being usable its okay but I prefer to get the speeds I pay for.

That is the gray of the Internet.  One must remember that websites are privately owned and the hardware is privately owned.  The Internet kind of floats in an odd Private and Public middle ground.  The hardware that hosts it is private owned along with the code while the data can be either private or public in its nature determined by the one who produces the data (this varies too).

[ANNIHILATOR284]

only google fiber can save us now but only until they roll Skynet out

[ANNIHILATOR284]

1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

didn't some ISPs basically prevented Google to use current infrastructure or even make their own? o_o

wowza, i wasn't aware of this. i gotta check this out. but then again it's Google. who's got the power to stop Google. it might be a speed bump that's it. 

[pmos]

Just to get one thing clear, the Internet has not changed and will not change based on something decided in the states. The Internet is fine.. what this could have an affect on is Amercian's connection to the internet and companies that make a living of american clients:-)

 

So to illustrate for an american person: 

INTERNET <-------- no change here--------> ISP <-------There might be some change here----------> MODEM IN AMERICA.

 

Rest of the world:

INTERNET <-------- no change here--------> ISP <-------- no change here--------> MODEM.

 

I hope this clears it up for at least some people. :-)

[chiller15]

4 minutes ago, pmos said:

Just to get one thing clear, the Internet has not changed and will not change based on something decided in the states. The Internet is fine.. what this could have an affect on is Amercian's connection to the internet and companies that make a living of american clients:-)

 

So to illustrate for an american person: 

INTERNET <-------- no change here--------> ISP <-------There might be some change here----------> MODEM IN AMERICA.

 

Rest of the world:

INTERNET <-------- no change here--------> ISP <-------- no change here--------> MODEM.

 

I hope this clears it up for at least some people. :-)

There a lot of services that may not be in the US, but traffic may well pass through servers or ISPs in the US. Even this traffic could be affected.

[pmos]

Just now, chiller15 said:

There a lot of services that may not be in the US, but traffic may well pass through servers or ISPs in the US. Even this traffic could be affected.

its the ISP's internal networks.. it is not the internet, it just connects americans to the internet, and thats the only part they have control over :-)