About Net Neutrality

[Fredistair]

When does Congress vote whether to overrule FCC's decision? 

[DutchTexan]

I think everyone emotionally attached to that phrase should take a look at this video:

 

What if Net Neutrality doesn't actually mean neutral?

What if Planned Parenthood doesn't actually plan for parenthood?

What if the Affordable Care Act isn't actually affordable?

What if Antifa isn't actually against fascism?

What if Progressivism isn't actually progress?

 

I just want to put those thoughts out there. It seems like 99% of 10% of the world familiar with the phrase 'Net Neutrality' worships and mourns it hysterically. 

 

The FCC voted to undo what the FCC did only a few years ago. It's not a massive revolution. It's not corporate greed taking over. Calm down.

[Techicolors]

Congress and senate majority can overrule it in 60 days

 

if that doesn't work, it's still possible to mount lawsuits

[Holyghost23]

even though its not in place yet. ive noticed that ive been throttled with some websites. ive even had my ad blocker and vpn message me about having my access to a website throttled. and im already being blocked entirely from seeing some American websites. unless i have my vpn connected to an American server.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

I think everyone emotionally attached to that phrase should take a look at this video:

Can you please summarize the video for me?

 

4 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

The FCC voted to undo what the FCC did only a few years ago. It's not a massive revolution. It's not corporate greed taking over. Calm down.

I don't get this whole "we are just going back to how things were in 2015" argument. 2015 and the years before that were horrible. Things still are horrible in the US, but I don't get why people pretend like going back to 2015 rules and regulations is somehow good.

There are countless numbers of examples before 2015 where ISPs were throttling different services and demanding special contracts with them to not throttle them.

[divito]

16 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

 

Taking opinionated quotes (and some that are snipped out of context) doesn't do much for me when they have something to gain from it. Couldn't keep watching based on the poor way it was done.

The video also gets some things wrong, like denying "paid prioritization" was a thing because of some other company causing the issue. Why did Netflix pay money to Comcast then if that wasn't the source of the issue?

The other point that was bothersome was related to the elected officials vs. non-elected officials. Both are subject to bribes, whether directly or through "campaign contributions." 

 

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't get this whole "we are just going back to how things were in 2015" argument. 2015 and the years before that were horrible. Things still are horrible in the US, but I don't get why people pretend like going back to 2015 rules and regulations is somehow good.

There are countless numbers of examples before 2015 where ISPs were throttling different services and demanding special contracts with them to not throttle them.

Exactly.

[TheCherryKing]

Everybody is just losing their sh!t as if the sky is falling! Net neutrality isn't enforced anyway so you will barely notice the difference! 

[Sors]

25 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

Everybody is just losing their sh!t as if the sky is falling! Net neutrality isn't enforced anyway so you will barely notice the difference! 

But the thing is, that it WAS enforced.

 

From the things I remember, that were stop by the FCC after the reclasification.

 

- AT&T decided that they didnt want people using Facetime over their own service  since they couldnt charge users for every call,  so they blocked the app.

 

- The famous case of comcast demanding netflix to pay for the data usage of the users, the speeds improved dramatically an instant after netflix paid up.

 

- Comcast started to block peer to peer services, like Torrents just because.

 

- Several ISPs were hijacking search queries from their users,  when people thought they were searching in google, bing or yahoo,  instead their search were transmit to 3rd parties that had paid the ISPs to publish their own search results.

 

- Verizon was blocking the thetering function of phones, because at the time they wanted to charge like $20 dollars for that privilege.

 

These are the kind of things why the FFC had to reclassify the ISPs as Title 2.  It's naive to think they would not do the same now. 

 

There are even less options for an ISP now, so there's no way to "vote with your wallet" either, the only option is not having an internet service.

[xentropa]

The "we didn't have bet neutrality before 2015 argument" is like saying we didn't have vehicle or environmental emission laws in the 1700s.

[AresKrieger]

As I said before I care very little about net neutrality as a concept, it frankly would not be necessary in most scenarios however it it is a nice safeguard to hinder efforts that result from monopolization. If we were to remove the collusion and monopolization isps have cooked up then it would be entirely pointless. In addition it doesn't fix the main issues with internet in america, so its a nice bandaid but this problem requires surgery.

[asus killer]

19 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

I think everyone emotionally attached to that phrase should take a look at this video:

 

What if Net Neutrality doesn't actually mean neutral?

What if Planned Parenthood doesn't actually plan for parenthood?

What if the Affordable Care Act isn't actually affordable?

What if Antifa isn't actually against fascism?

What if Progressivism isn't actually progress?

 

I just want to put those thoughts out there. It seems like 99% of 10% of the world familiar with the phrase 'Net Neutrality' worships and mourns it hysterically. 

 

The FCC voted to undo what the FCC did only a few years ago. It's not a massive revolution. It's not corporate greed taking over. Calm down.

 

the video presents some good points that i can not confirm or refute. The blame is mostly on the video based always in poorly explained arguments and views or by not presenting convincing facts, sometimes it skims over it, other times not even that, and always with a condescending tone to the viewer, like we cannot comprehend what ever it is that the author does not seem to be able to transmit and if it did we would not understand anyway.

it all seems like a conspiracy theory video, i was watching it and getting the same vibe as i did on a "9/11 as a inside job" video.

 

i do not know the author , so it's hard to judge the intentions. Although earing all sides is always the smart choice in any argument, period.

 

It is as hard to me to see that the planes that it the WTC were a plan from some American entity when you know all the facts, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, etc.... As it is to see the dark side on Obama or the FCC when you compare them to what ISP's want, represent and said in the past, what Pai represents and said. 

 

In the end i guess you can get comfort in knowing that without NN the Sick and Disabled People will have fair treatment, and that's something we can all get behind unless we are monsters. Yes it is a extreme on this all discussion, and that only serves to sarcastically prove my point. Or is it just the low point that people with the responsibility of especially Pai but also Verizon should never bring the discussion to? And shows a pattern.

 

i am amazed how the US society time and time again fall pray to the same traps, and see themselves defending what is worst for them, out of lack of information, bad information that they cannot filter, blind faith in a politic party, hate for government or what ever comes their way. The you get a guy in the FCC that hates FCC, in the environment that hates environment, etc... you guys know this better than me,

 

Enjoy

http://www.pcgamer.com/verizon-vp-jokes-at-planting-a-brainwashed-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-says-awesome/

 

I just hope the US can not export this as it happens most of the times.

[TheCherryKing]

12 hours ago, Sors said:

But the thing is, that it WAS enforced.

 

From the things I remember, that were stop by the FCC after the reclasification.

 

- AT&T decided that they didnt want people using Facetime over their own service  since they couldnt charge users for every call,  so they blocked the app.

 

- The famous case of comcast demanding netflix to pay for the data usage of the users, the speeds improved dramatically an instant after netflix paid up.

 

- Comcast started to block peer to peer services, like Torrents just because.

 

- Several ISPs were hijacking search queries from their users,  when people thought they were searching in google, bing or yahoo,  instead their search were transmit to 3rd parties that had paid the ISPs to publish their own search results.

 

- Verizon was blocking the thetering function of phones, because at the time they wanted to charge like $20 dollars for that privilege.

 

These are the kind of things why the FFC had to reclassify the ISPs as Title 2.  It's naive to think they would not do the same now. 

 

There are even less options for an ISP now, so there's no way to "vote with your wallet" either, the only option is not having an internet service.

Those are just a few examples. Why does my DirecTV Now video buffer and have trouble playing when I have Comcast internet? Because DirecTV is owned by AT&T, a competitor to Comcast. 

 

1 hour ago, Teddy07 said:

-snip-

That won't happen if there aren't any strong candidates. Besides this net neutrality repeal has nothing to do with the president. 

 

6 hours ago, xentropa said:

The "we didn't have bet neutrality before 2015 argument" is like saying we didn't have vehicle or environmental emission laws in the 1700s.

This case is not to that extreme. There was barely any technology in the 1700s that was needed to be regulated by environmental emission laws. 

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, Fooshi said:

It mostly went through things like the ever-expanding bandwidth requirements of things like BitTorrent and video streaming and how these services are putting pressure on the network infrastructure. As such, that becomes the main focus of the video, and how NN is "supposedly" hurting the infrastructure by letting things like BitTorrent traffic eat a lot of bandwidth, i.e., the money we got from the government that we pocketed rather than expanding the network infrastructure is coming back and biting us in the ass, and now we're going to cry about it.

 

There's also an interesting bit with claims against Netflix throttling the traffic themselves over different ISPs to make ISPs look like the badguys. Not sure how much merit there is in this, though.

 

The video does show the different side of the coin, and tries to reasonably counter-argue the popular pro-NN stance (stop throttling, free access, etc.) by expanding on the problems it might cause for the actual infrastructure all this is happening on. Which, again, shouldn't have been much of a problem if they actually used the government incentives to expand the infrastructure to begin with.

So basically, the video tries to counter-argue the pro-NN stance, by pointing out that ISPs have been essentially putting tax money into their own pockets instead of upgrading their infrastructure, and now they are crying that their infrastructure has not kept up with peoples' demands?

Well shit, maybe the ISPs should have built a few less sports stadiums and spent more on upgrading their networks. Maybe then they wouldn't have to throttle things. Also, that's assuming ISPs throttle traffic because their networks can't handle it, which completely ignores the huge competitive advantages they can gain by making competing services worse.

 

I haven't watched the video, but judging by your comment it's a pretty shitty one that makes really weak arguments if the intention is to dismiss the need for strong regulations.

[DutchTexan]

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I haven't watched the video, but judging by your comment it's a pretty shitty one that makes really weak arguments if the intention is to dismiss the need for strong regulations.

Why don't you watch/listen to the video rather than insulting it?

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, DutchTexan said:

Why don't you watch/listen to the video rather than insulting it?

Because I watched the first 3 minutes and got bored. Like someone else said, he sounds condescending and reminds me of a 9/11 conspiracy theory video.

That's why I asked for a summary of it.

[DutchTexan]

Just now, LAwLz said:

Because I watched the first 3 minutes and got bored. Like someone else said, he sounds condescending and reminds me of a 9/11 conspiracy theory video.

That's why I asked for a summary of it.

You're not interested, because it doesn't agree with you.. and that's okay.

 

Merry Christmas

[Gawron10001]

I'm curious, was there protest against net neutrality? Only thing I saw was memes. In Poland for example thousend of people came on the streets, same in Czech Republic. In Poland it was like 4 yrs ago

 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, DutchTexan said:

You're not interested, because it doesn't agree with you.. and that's okay.

 

Merry Christmas

I am interested. I asked for someone to summarize the video, someone did and I said what I thought based on the summary.

If you think you can make a better job summarizing the video, to lift his points forward better then feel free to do so. I simply don't feel like listening to this 30 minute video which seems slow, boring, condescending, and has the tone of a bad conspiracy theory video. He might have some great points and if he does I'd like to hear them.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Fooshi said:

1791L usually make really good political commentary, but seem to have ignored the earlier problems related to net neutrality. 

Hmm... I am not a fan of people with strong political ideas (don't know this person but if he makes political commentary videos I assume he does) talking about NN, because it seems like people like that throw out all logic and reason and just pick the side they think (there is a shocking amount of people who don't even know what NN is) align with their political ideology.

I don't believe NN is about politics at all, in the same way I don't think "you should not be allowed to attack a person because they are white/black/asian/whatever" is a politically loaded question. It should just be common sense.

[bomerr]

On 12/23/2017 at 11:44 AM, DutchTexan said:

snip

 Video is misleading and the author doesn't understand the big picture regarding net neutrality. 

 

NN is really simple. It's all about who will capture the value (read: profit / deals) from the internet: Silicon Valley tech giants, ISPs, and/or consumers. For any economy major, we are talking about 3rd degree price discrimination. 

 

Before we start it's important to understand the following business formula: Profit = Revenue (Price * Quantity) - Costs

 

To understand NN, history is required.

 

20 years ago the internet was an emerging technology. It required a lot of money to get the infrastructure in place. Market penetration was low (% of people with internet access) and consumer demand was elastic, internet wasn't fundamental to life. For this reason the ISPs competed based on price (technically speed/$). Get lower prices, get more customers, higher profit.

 

Today the market is very different. Internet penetration is very high which means there aren't many more people to sell internet service. Consumer demand has become more inelastic, because internet is a huge part of our lives today. The ISPs want to take advantage of these factors to increase revenue. Specifically they want to employ 3rd degree price discrimination. 3rd degree price discrimination is selling essentially the same service to different people at different prices. We can see this in cable packages. Cable is just data over a line but certain packages like sports cost extra. Likewise i5 vs i7 CPUs, it's really the same die but Intel charges more for the i7 because they are able to identify people who are willing to pay more for that CPU. That word identify is the key.

 

Internet traffic today is dominated by a few major websites, e.g. Netflix, YouTube. ISPs want to target these sites to squeeze more revenue out of them. We see this a few years ago with the Comcast-Netflix throttling situation. So with NN, ISPs will force big internet players like Netflix, like Amazon, like YouTube to pay extra, those costs will be indirectly passed onto us, the consumers. With NN, the ISPs can charge extra by segmenting the internet into different packages like social media, streaming, etc.

 

So the question is this, do we want to let the ISPs squeeze all the profit out of the internet? This is the fundamental idea behind NN. To give an analogy think about electricity and all the devices it powers. If the electric company was not classified as a utility, they would increase their prices because they see how much value electricity produces to society. Eventually the electric companies would be the most powerful corporations in America because everyone is forced to pay them a premium for electricity. That's what will happen without NN for the ISPs. So the internet needs to be classified as a utility, essentially a good or service so vital to society that the companies providing it, can't charge the most profitable price for it because that would squeeze all the profit out of all the other sectors in society. 

[DutchTexan]

2 hours ago, bomerr said:

 Video is misleading and the author doesn't understand the big picture regarding net neutrality. 

 

NN is really simple. It's all about who will capture the value (read: profit / deals) from the internet: Silicon Valley tech giants, ISPs, and/or consumers. For any economy major, we are talking about 3rd degree price discrimination. 

 

Before we start it's important to understand the following business formula: Profit = Revenue (Price * Quantity) - Costs

 

To understand NN, history is required.

 

20 years ago the internet was an emerging technology. It required a lot of money to get the infrastructure in place. Market penetration was low (% of people with internet access) and consumer demand was elastic, internet wasn't fundamental to life. For this reason the ISPs competed based on price (technically speed/$). Get lower prices, get more customers, higher profit.

 

Today the market is very different. Internet penetration is very high which means there aren't many more people to sell internet service. Consumer demand has become more inelastic, because internet is a huge part of our lives today. The ISPs want to take advantage of these factors to increase revenue. Specifically they want to employ 3rd degree price discrimination. 3rd degree price discrimination is selling essentially the same service to different people at different prices. We can see this in cable packages. Cable is just data over a line but certain packages like sports cost extra. Likewise i5 vs i7 CPUs, it's really the same die but Intel charges more for the i7 because they are able to identify people who are willing to pay more for that CPU. That word identify is the key.

 

Internet traffic today is dominated by a few major websites, e.g. Netflix, YouTube. ISPs want to target these sites to squeeze more revenue out of them. We see this a few years ago with the Comcast-Netflix throttling situation. So with NN, ISPs will force big internet players like Netflix, like Amazon, like YouTube to pay extra, those costs will be indirectly passed onto us, the consumers. With NN, the ISPs can charge extra by segmenting the internet into different packages like social media, streaming, etc.

 

So the question is this, do we want to let the ISPs squeeze all the profit out of the internet? This is the fundamental idea behind NN. To give an analogy think about electricity and all the devices it powers. If the electric company was not classified as a utility, they would increase their prices because they see how much value electricity produces to society. Eventually the electric companies would be the most powerful corporations in America because everyone is forced to pay them a premium for electricity. That's what will happen without NN for the ISPs. So the internet needs to be classified as a utility, essentially a good or service so vital to society that the companies providing it, can't charge the most profitable price for it because that would squeeze all the profit out of all the other sectors in society. 

Thanks for the simple breakdown and common sense explanation. I'm still glad the FCC repealed NN. As I have stated in another thread not too long ago, I wanted NN to be repealed and I'm not regretting the 'end of internet'. My heart does hurt though.. for how evil I am in the eyes of so many for not seeing it their way.

 

I do want ISP's to compete and try to make as much money as they possibly can. That's great.

 

That will seem evil to virtually every millennial on the internet now, but that's how I see it. We need competition and I do not believe 2015 regulations were encouraging that.

 

For example, electricity is a utility and there are no monopolies in my area. I have literally over a dozen choices for electricity in my area. So, as a valued consumer, I chose to go with a slightly more expensive plan that involves solar days and 'free' nights. Whilst my internet options are nothing short of pathetic; I have one option for over 25mbps. In Obama's first term, I recall having at least 4 respectable options for internet.

 

I understand this alone doesn't justify being against keeping 'Net Neutrality' but it's and relative, short example.  

 

A philosophical example: One can care deeply for our Earth while not valuing a restrictive and pointless agreement like the Paris Climate Accord. Similarly, I care strongly for the internet while I am damn happy the FCC repealed 'NN'. It is possible.

[bomerr]

4 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

Thanks for the simple breakdown and common sense explanation. I'm still glad the FCC repealed NN. As I have stated in another thread not too long ago, I wanted NN to be repealed and I'm not regretting the 'end of internet'. My heart does hurt though.. for how evil I am in the eyes of so many for not seeing it their way.

 

I do want ISP's to compete and try to make as much money as they possibly can. That's great.

 

That will seem evil to virtually every millennial on the internet now, but that's how I see it. We need competition and I do not believe 2015 regulations were encouraging that.

 

For example, electricity is a utility and there are no monopolies in my area. I have literally over a dozen choices for electricity in my area. So, as a valued consumer, I chose to go with a slightly more expensive plan that involves solar days and 'free' nights. Whilst my internet options are nothing short of pathetic; I have one option for over 25mbps. In Obama's first term, I recall having at least 4 respectable options for internet.

 

I understand this alone doesn't justify being against keeping 'Net Neutrality' but it's and relative, short example.  

 

A philosophical example: One can care deeply for our Earth while not valuing a restrictive and pointless agreement like the Paris Climate Accord. Similarly, I care strongly for the internet while I am damn happy the FCC repealed 'NN'. It is possible.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

 

1st) Electricity is a utility and you only have 1 option for service in your local area.

 

2nd) NN has nothing to do with competition. Competition is determined by [free] market forces. With regards to the ISPs, the market forces tend toward monopoly and consolidation. Absolutely nothing can do done about this. We saw the exact same situation with the companies that spawned ISPs, telecom, specifically the original AT&T. AT&T was broken up in 1982 and most of the baby bells have remerged together.

ISP will always tend to less and less competition over time and to merge and acquire.

 

To reiterate, without NN, ISPs will increase profits by making you pay more for the same service and those profits will go to their shareholders. With NN, ISPs will be bared from squeezing all the profit out of the internet and prices will remain low. That's it.  

 

Ideologically. If you believe in a "free market" then you believe in the freedom of companies, like ISPs, to squeeze the most amount of money out of people. This becomes problematic in practice. Imagine if electricity or water were not utilities. They are so vital to society that those companies could charge 200,300,1000+ a month for service. People wouldn't be able to afford other goods or services because they are paying so much for the basics. That's the problem with free market. It allows certain companies to make insane (e.g. Apple) profits. We prohibit certain industries from charging a fair market value for their services if it would be destructive to the other industries in our society (i.e utilities, e.g. water, electricity and eventually internet). 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

On 12/23/2017 at 2:44 PM, DutchTexan said:

I think everyone emotionally attached to that phrase should take a look at this video:

 

What if Net Neutrality doesn't actually mean neutral?

What if Planned Parenthood doesn't actually plan for parenthood?

What if the Affordable Care Act isn't actually affordable?

What if Antifa isn't actually against fascism?

What if Progressivism isn't actually progress?

 

I just want to put those thoughts out there. It seems like 99% of 10% of the world familiar with the phrase 'Net Neutrality' worships and mourns it hysterically. 

 

The FCC voted to undo what the FCC did only a few years ago. It's not a massive revolution. It's not corporate greed taking over. Calm down.

So therefor i will watch this video but it better explain how ISP's were able to not only throttle users but blocked users from services online. 

 

Better explain that as it did happen and it was getting more frequent  

[Guest]

On 12/23/2017 at 11:26 PM, TheCherryKing said:

Everybody is just losing their sh!t as if the sky is falling! Net neutrality isn't enforced anyway so you will barely notice the difference! 

This i somewhat agree with i mean take a look at cell phone internet packages NO WAY does this follow net neutrality 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

Thanks for the simple breakdown and common sense explanation. I'm still glad the FCC repealed NN. As I have stated in another thread not too long ago, I wanted NN to be repealed and I'm not regretting the 'end of internet'. My heart does hurt though.. for how evil I am in the eyes of so many for not seeing it their way.

 

I do want ISP's to compete and try to make as much money as they possibly can. That's great.

 

That will seem evil to virtually every millennial on the internet now, but that's how I see it. We need competition and I do not believe 2015 regulations were encouraging that.

 

For example, electricity is a utility and there are no monopolies in my area. I have literally over a dozen choices for electricity in my area. So, as a valued consumer, I chose to go with a slightly more expensive plan that involves solar days and 'free' nights. Whilst my internet options are nothing short of pathetic; I have one option for over 25mbps. In Obama's first term, I recall having at least 4 respectable options for internet.

 

I understand this alone doesn't justify being against keeping 'Net Neutrality' but it's and relative, short example.  

 

A philosophical example: One can care deeply for our Earth while not valuing a restrictive and pointless agreement like the Paris Climate Accord. Similarly, I care strongly for the internet while I am damn happy the FCC repealed 'NN'. It is possible.

I reacted to this as very funny the very fact that you think competition exist in this market is hilarious and makes you so uninformed that even my 78 year old grandma would laugh. 

 

Please tell me how we have competition in the US(for ISPs) please i'm simply dying to hear it. 

 

"Comcast, Cox, Frontier All Raising Internet Access Rates for 2018"

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/12/19/comcast-cox-frontier-net-neutrality/

 

 

" I have literally over a dozen choices for electricity in my area."

 

Really where do you live?

 

In Michigan we have two DTE and consumers energy in my area we have only 2 ISP's AT&T with their crappy 5mb DSL and charter with their high speed 100mb internet both the same costs. Lapeer Michigan 

 

"I have one option for over 25mbps. In Obama's first term, I recall having at least 4 respectable options for internet." 

 

That had to do with Net Neutrality? Do you understand what a contract is? What about how Lapeer Michigan has a very long contract that says ONLY charter can use the connection for like 30 years? How on earth is this fair to consumers?

 

 

Simple as this if ISP's throttle or block sites again like they did before 2015 then this was complete and utter BS(same with your own statements) and if they raise prices like the link i provided said they will then again this is BS and bad for consumers. 

 

[Guest]

If one would like me to post what happen before 2015 i will but in short ISP's blocked competing services they forced Netflix to pay money to use their network AND THEY STILL THROTTLED IT even after Netflix paid money. 

 

The internet should NOT be throttled should NOT be blocked

 

 

This is a nice video but now that this is all over with i recommend every single user to use a VPN

 

I remember when youtube was being throttled back when i was in college in Owosso Michigan i had to use a VPN to just get around it i couldn't even play music video without major issues. 

 

I recommend everyone to use a VPN PIA is a good one Linus likes TunnelBear which is good as well this makes it where your ISP can't abuse you and throttle you based on the content you enjoy but they could one day throttle encrypted traffic making VPN's useless for this. 

 

Internet needs to stay 100% open to everyone if an ISP tells you 100mb download with 5mb upload it needs to be that for everything NOT Just their services they want you to use.   

 

If the internet becomes as bad as cellular data then people like DutchTexan will be directly responsible for this we will always have people running for corporations in government but they get elected by humans, people must stand up and not allow this type of BS. 

 

If however in 2 years i'm wrong internet prices go down cause of all this "competition" and ISP's don't throttle users or block them from services then i will seriously come back and eat whatever anyone wants me to eat i will give DutchTexan whatever he wants but i highly doubt this as ISP's such as Comcast already said they would "prioritize" network traffic once Net neutrality was gone and prices are already confirmed to go up not down in 2018. But who knows anything is possible it's possible the universe is in a cat's behind and we don't know it is it probable NO but possible anything is possible. 

 

Let's wait and see i guess