Where has lack of net neutrality taken us? (right forum this time)

[Fasauceome]

I moved away for school at the end of summer, not that long after the official repeal I switched wireless networks, and I didn't pay the online bill back at home, so I'm not sure about how badly losing net neutrality is hitting anyone yet. I know that companies wouldn't just triple all internet bills whilst halving connection speeds the exact day net neutrality was repealed, and that it would be a slow downward spiral, but has anybody got personal experience with the newfound ability of mega corporations to screw people over for cash?

[handymanshandle]

Something not a lot of people are going to tell you or ignore to be the case, but Net Neutrality was never really enforced thankfully and from the conception of the internet to pre NN in 2015. The internet was fine, it's really hard to say what NN would've done had it been enforced more strongly but I don't think it would've been good.

[Fasauceome]

Posted this in tech news (whoops), but I'm looking for news instead of sharing it.

I moved away for school at the end of summer, not that long after the official repeal I switched wireless networks, and I didn't pay the online bill back at home, so I'm not sure about how badly losing net neutrality is hitting anyone yet. I know that companies wouldn't just triple all internet bills whilst halving connection speeds the exact day net neutrality was repealed, and that it would be a slow downward spiral, but has anybody got personal experience with the newfound ability of mega corporations to screw people over for cash?

[Fasauceome]

2 minutes ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

Something not a lot of people are going to tell you or ignore to be the case, but Net Neutrality was never really enforced thankfully and from the conception of the internet to pre NN in 2015. The internet was fine, it's really hard to say what NN would've done had it been enforced more strongly but I don't think it would've been good.

There was a healthy heaping of examples that cropped up when the discussion was live, so I'm not entirely sure that's correct. Still, not like I'm unfamiliar with corporations breaking consumer safety regulations and getting away with it, but if it were no issue, why was it lobbied so hard against, despite the will of the general populace?

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, fasauceome said:

but has anybody got personal experience with the newfound ability of mega corporations to screw people over for cash?

that's a falsehood and fearmongering.

Nothing changed before and after the repeal of NN because it was never enforced thankfully.

[handymanshandle]

Just now, fasauceome said:

There was a healthy heaping of examples that cropped up when the discussion was live, so I'm not entirely sure that's correct. Still, not like I'm unfamiliar with corporations breaking consumer safety regulations and getting away with it, but if it were no issue, why was it lobbied so hard against, despite the will of the general populace?

largely those examples were fake or misconstrued.

[Fasauceome]

Just now, pinksnowbirdie said:

largely those examples were fake or misconstrued.

Again, not sure if that's true, especially in regards to the central case made about Netflix and the throttling that occurred. Not like a megacorporation needs such serious protections against other megacorporations (I'm not personally attached to big businesses) but the argument stands for the companies that need the protections.

Additionally, local ISPs preferred net neutrality because they had to actually go out of their way to break the rules, and it prevented national ISPs from undercutting their business.

[WereCatf]

5 minutes ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

that's a falsehood and fearmongering.

Nothing changed before and after the repeal of NN because it was never enforced thankfully.

Why "thankfully"?

[Fasauceome]

Just now, WereCatf said:

Why "thankfully"?

In my other thread, he stated that enforcing net neutrality would be an overall detriment to the internet's quality. I wish I could merge the threads.

[WereCatf]

Just now, fasauceome said:

In my other thread, he stated that enforcing net neutrality would be an overall detriment to the internet's quality. I wish I could merge the threads.

I don't get that argument. We've had net-neutrality over here in Finland for ages and yet our Internet-speeds, prices and accessibility to ISPs make the U.S. look like a 3rd-world country in comparison.

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, fasauceome said:

Again, not sure if that's true, especially in regards to the central case made about Netflix and the throttling that occurred. Not like a megacorporation needs such serious protections against other megacorporations (I'm not personally attached to big businesses) but the argument stands for the companies that need the protections.

Additionally, local ISPs preferred net neutrality because they had to actually go out of their way to break the rules, and it prevented national ISPs from undercutting their business.

It's certainly an interesting conversation to have though knowing the CS and how it's enforced I'm gonna just wrap up my comments with an article against nn
https://www.heritage.org/technology/commentary/repealing-net-neutrality-actually-good-the-internet

[Fasauceome]

2 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

I don't get that argument. We've had net-neutrality over here in Finland for ages and yet our Internet-speeds, prices and accessibility to ISPs make the U.S. look like a 3rd-world country in comparison.

Regardless of one's opinion on the actual implications and necessity of Net Neutrality, I'd like this thread to gather some info and articles related to what people are writing about as of right now in terms of the effects of the appeal. I listed some examples of what people were writing about before the vote took place, but I want to know if there's someone out there who didn't just forget about the ordeal and actually documented something.

[Sniperfox47]

25 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

I moved away for school at the end of summer, not that long after the official repeal I switched wireless networks, and I didn't pay the online bill back at home, so I'm not sure about how badly losing net neutrality is hitting anyone yet. I know that companies wouldn't just triple all internet bills whilst halving connection speeds the exact day net neutrality was repealed, and that it would be a slow downward spiral, but has anybody got personal experience with the newfound ability of mega corporations to screw people over for cash?

So far it really hasn't in any visible way. But a lot of these things happen in the background and the concerns were more about the abused inter-company relations rather than how it'll directly visibly affect the end user. We'll see how things are in 2-3 years but I wouldn't expect to see any changes right away.

 

A lot of the panic of it being "the end of the internet" was uncalled for and extremist but it is concerning since it gives more freedom to companies that are already known to abuse their power.

[Cole5]

Right to hell sadly 

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, Cole5 said:

Right to hell sadly 

hell seems pretty tame at the moment, not really sure when the devil comes around. That's why I'm trying to find articles about Comcast trickery or something.

[ARikozuM]

My current choices for internet are Spectrum and Frontier. They are both 180/month for 100/100 (100/10 for Spectrum), TV, and internet. We need competition in order to lower prices, but it looks like they just raise the price gradually every month to avoid suspicion. 

 

If new customers can get 100/mo everything, why can’t the people who are already subscribed? Why not give free HBO to newcomers and keep the pricing the same for everyone?

 

There was also that story from a month or two ago absolutely about the fire department that got throttled unless they would pay more for service. Free markets are nice, but the cost for a new competitor is too large today. Nobody wants to share their lines as that will be “tampering with the free market” and yet they don’t want to be regulated into doing anything. Austraila of all countries is making us look bad! Fuck, even Sweden is better off and they’ve got like 2 families per mile!

 

 No offense to @mr moose and @LAwLz.

[PlayStation 2]

12 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

There was also that story from a month or two ago absolutely about the fire department that got throttled unless they would pay more for service. Free markets are nice, but the cost for a new competitor is too large today. Nobody wants to share their lines as that will be “tampering with the free market” and yet they don’t want to be regulated into doing anything. Austraila of all countries is making us look bad! Fuck, even Sweden is better off and they’ve got like 2 families per mile!

That's what happens when you're raped out of 80% of your income.

[lewdicrous]

From an outsiders perspective, it does seem suspicious that the repeal was at the hand of an ex-verizon employee.

Also, because I'm an outsider, if NN is comparable to the devils balls (to some), can someone please explain why several states want(ed) to re-introduce it?

Spoiler

 

Seems to me, an outsider, that peoples position on the matter is rather limited to opinions, opinions they gain from listening to people that align with them (instead of looking at the real world implications of the matter). Yet again, I'm an outsider and I very well could be wrong.

[Fasauceome]

23 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

Seems to me, an outsider, that peoples position on the matter is rather limited to opinions, opinions they gain from listening to people that align with them

welcome to america

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

My current choices for internet are Spectrum and Frontier. They are both 180/month for 100/100 (100/10 for Spectrum), TV, and internet. We need competition in order to lower prices, but it looks like they just raise the price gradually every month to avoid suspicion. 

 

If new customers can get 100/mo everything, why can’t the people who are already subscribed? Why not give free HBO to newcomers and keep the pricing the same for everyone?

 

There was also that story from a month or two ago absolutely about the fire department that got throttled unless they would pay more for service. Free markets are nice, but the cost for a new competitor is too large today. Nobody wants to share their lines as that will be “tampering with the free market” and yet they don’t want to be regulated into doing anything. Austraila of all countries is making us look bad! Fuck, even Sweden is better off and they’ve got like 2 families per mile!

 

 No offense to @mr moose and @LAwLz.

None taken.  We all have to accept the realities of the countries we live in.  I put up with many abusive social reforms, but I also get cheap unlimited internet, a truly democratic government and a legal system not afraid to take both the government and the corporate banking sector to task for their activities.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

None taken.  We all have to accept the realities of the countries we live in.  I put up with many abusive social reforms, but I also get cheap unlimited internet, a truly democratic government and a legal system not afraid to take both the government and the corporate banking sector to task for their activities.

Which Australia is this?

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Which Australia is this?

The same one that is about see a huge legal class action against the banks for ripping off the people (evidence discovered during a royal commission into the financial sector).  Insurance companies go under the spot light next.  Also the same country who's high court decided 4 politicians had to resign because they were ineligible to sit in parliament.

 

Now if only we could find a way to stop our politicians acting like 2 year olds and actually concentrate on the country.

[Garrett4]

2 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

Something not a lot of people are going to tell you or ignore to be the case, but Net Neutrality was never really enforced thankfully and from the conception of the internet to pre NN in 2015. The internet was fine, it's really hard to say what NN would've done had it been enforced more strongly but I don't think it would've been good.

This is incredibly false. Net Neutrality is an extension of Title 2 under the Telecommunications act of 1934.... Let me reitterate, 1934. This is way before the internet was even concieved and regulates telephone lines. These same telephone, TV and other lines are what the internet ran over and for most people in the US when it first came about and boomed into what it is now. Obama era title 2 is a return to the regulations that the internet truly blossomed under. Title 2 allows companies to sell you the speed at which you may use internet, but not what you do with the internet. Net neutrality prevents ISPs from charging you based off of what on the internet you do. Getting rid of it would be like your electricity company only providing electricity to GE appliances. There are tons of examples of net neutrality violations; https://tinyurl.com/y94bnyd6

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The same one that is about see a huge legal class action against the banks for ripping off the people (evidence discovered during a royal commission into the financial sector).  Insurance companies go under the spot light next.  Also the same country who's high court decided 4 politicians had to resign because they were ineligible to sit in parliament.

 

Now if only we could find a way to stop our politicians acting like 2 year olds and actually concentrate on the country.

5 new prime ministers this decade all I'm saying lol. Maybe take Jacinda for your next PM away from NZ. Absolute nonsense she is. Great news about the insurance companies though. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, RorzNZ said:

5 new prime ministers this decade all I'm saying lol. Maybe take Jacinda for your next PM away from NZ. Absolute nonsense she is. Great news about the insurance companies though. 

It's getting to the point where the PM means nothing.  Since 2007 every Pm, we've had has stabbed someone in the back to get the job. The only two PM's who actually got the job because they were the leader of the party during the election was Rudd in 2007 and Abbott in 2013.  Now that should scare a few people to think abbot is the only PM in the last 11 years who hasn't stabbed someone in the back for personal gain.

 

EDIT: that paragraph was two trains of thought rolled into one,  I should have read that Abbot is the only PM who got the job at an election,  and the only PM who didn't stab someone in the back for that specific job, he did however stab Turnbull in the back when they were in opposition.  Which means every PM we've had for the last 11 years is willing to be a Brutus for the top job.