Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: Not trying to start drama... But.. Net Neutrality and stuff.

  1. #1
    Colony Founder
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Somewhere Around LA - Nuke Bait
    Posts
    1,131
    Rep Power
    1

    Not trying to start drama... But.. Net Neutrality and stuff.

    Who know's if it'll take. But why not try. And if you're in support of killing net neutrality, by all means. Do the same, but opposite. Spend more money and counter such a movement.


    The Great Disconnect -
    Supporting Net Neutrality

  2. #2
    Colony Founder Kurogo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,534
    Rep Power
    1
    This might be better in the Off Topic subforum. I don't really see NN affecting games.

  3. #3
    Reconstructionist
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    749
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Kurogo View Post
    This might be better in the Off Topic subforum. I don't really see NN affecting games.
    Uh, what part of choking off bandwidth won't effect gaming? I can't see telecomm companies neglecting their ability to gouge gamers.

  4. #4
    Gray Thematic Gipothegip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    wherever, whenever
    Posts
    2,652
    Rep Power
    1
    I think it's a bad idea that they want to kill net nuetrality off. In the countries that have already done so, I hear it's terrible and isn't helping them.

    My biggest concern is that this will give ISPs (internet service providers) control over what you can access over the internet, and may allow for monopolies and trusts to arise. This will harm smaller businesses, as well as consumers. It will also restrict the flow and access of information and services over the internet.

    I frankly don't see the benefits of doing this for most people or for the market. It might help major ISPs and the bigger names in e-commerce, but they are by no means struggling, and it may harm smaller competing businesses in the same industry. I'm really not sure why this is being done.

    I think it's better the internet remain as more of a utility as it is now.

  5. #5
    Colony Founder
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Somewhere Around LA - Nuke Bait
    Posts
    1,131
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Kurogo View Post
    This might be better in the Off Topic subforum. I don't really see NN affecting games.
    You're going to have to pay an additional monthly payment for your Steam game play. So yeah, it's gonna affect your games. These types of packages are already lined up to be forced on consumers.

  6. #6
    Colony Founder StompyNZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    3,835
    Rep Power
    1
    Heh, sky tv in NZ asked vodafone to block pirate sites, vodafone told them to bugger off

  7. #7
    Colony Founder Kurogo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,534
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by skullpoker View Post
    Uh, what part of choking off bandwidth won't effect gaming? I can't see telecomm companies neglecting their ability to gouge gamers.
    That's already a thing now, just instead of it sounding like your bandwidth is being throttled, it's that you didn't buy the upgraded package. Nothing will change except people's perception of what already exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackelmyer View Post
    You're going to have to pay an additional monthly payment for your Steam game play. So yeah, it's gonna affect your games. These types of packages are already lined up to be forced on consumers.
    Care to cite this?

  8. #8
    Colony Founder Kurogo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,534
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Gipothegip View Post
    I think it's a bad idea that they want to kill net nuetrality off. In the countries that have already done so, I hear it's terrible and isn't helping them.

    My biggest concern is that this will give ISPs (internet service providers) control over what you can access over the internet, and may allow for monopolies and trusts to arise. This will harm smaller businesses, as well as consumers. It will also restrict the flow and access of information and services over the internet.

    I frankly don't see the benefits of doing this for most people or for the market. It might help major ISPs and the bigger names in e-commerce, but they are by no means struggling, and it may harm smaller competing businesses in the same industry. I'm really not sure why this is being done.

    I think it's better the internet remain as more of a utility as it is now.
    Although possible, it wouldn't make very good business practice. ISPs might start developing tiered usage packages similar to what cell phone companies are doing, but controlling what [legal content] you accessed would cut into how quickly you used up that data. Throttling how quickly you accessed that content would also cut into how much data you accessed. If anything, they'd want to push those higher data packages, and thus encourage the amount of content their customers were able to use.

    I've seen several photoshop memes of "content packages" that were convincing enough for some naive reporters to publish stories on this possibility, but it didn't take a lot of digging to find they were panicking over a joke/hoax. The laws in place to keep this from happening precede NN, and wouldn't disappear if NN did. Only who enforced those laws.

    What I -do- hope happens, though, is that if data usage becomes a concern for consumers, publishers will start to ween themselves off the marketting cancer that's been spreading it's hold over free content. I'd like to see automatic audio/video ads finally expire into nothingness, and flash banner ads get curtailed back to an unobtrusive level.
    Last edited by Kurogo; 12-01-2017 at 03:39 AM.

  9. #9
    Colony Founder lazerblade01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,819
    Rep Power
    1
    See, here's the thing. Net Neutrality came into effect in 2015. It was supposed to prevent ISP's from throttling consumer downstreams, like streaming videos, and prevent ISP's from showing favor to upstreams, like Hulu or Amazon over Netflix, or youTube over Twitch.

    First thing you should ask yourself - was bandwidth throttling or endpoint favoring an issue prior to 2015? Was bandwidth throttling or endpoint favoring reduced or eliminated between 2015 and 2017?

    I've heard more reports of throttled bandwidth in the past 2 years than at any point prior. I've heard reports of favoring one streaming service over another more often in the past 2 years than any point prior.

    My cable bill, for internet, has gone up every year, just like all the years before NN. My internet speeds - both upstream and downstream, have also gone up every year.

    The only difference between NN and no NN is that with NN the government, or an agency of the government (FCC), was supposed to be regulating and ensuring fairness, and handing out fines for ISP's that failed to provide such, and without NN, the ISP has far less regulations.

    For the end consumer, I don't foresee anything changing. For businesses, I see a swing from advertising and commercialization expenses to ISP favoring expenses. So Netflix will pay more to top tier ISP's to ensure they are the fastest, and Hulu will do the same, just to compete. Less Netflix and Hulu commercials on TV, better streaming speeds for the end consumer. It opens the door for B2B competition, and may even reduce the monopolization of ISP's like Comcast and Verizon, potentially.

    If, on the other hand, it causes more problems than we, the end consumers, experienced prior to 2015, it will open the door for innovation and alternative service provision. Maybe mobile bandwidths will open up and we'll see competitive upstream and downstream speeds from them, allowing us, the end consumers, to drop cable entirely and just use air-cards.

    Before we grab our pitchforks, let's see where the whole thing goes - back to pre-2015 service (possible reductions in speeds or increased prices for current speeds, with multiple tiers) or forward to better service where ISP's don't have to spend money on ensuring they meet the regulations set by the FCC, and thus be able to disperse that overhead into better equipment and service.

    If I were to make an educated guess, I'd say that most ISP's get the majority of their income from happy customers and aggressive business service plans. I don't see extortion as being a good business model.

  10. #10
    Colony Founder StompyNZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    3,835
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by lazerblade01 View Post
    If I were to make an educated guess, I'd say that most ISP's get the majority of their income from happy customers and aggressive business service plans. I don't see extortion as being a good business model.
    How does that work when most places only seem to have one-two options for internet?

    Killing net neutrality had one goal, giving more power to businesses.

    There are zero positives in killing it for the end user.

    But hey, I don't live there so doesn't bother me

  11. #11
    Gray Thematic Gipothegip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    wherever, whenever
    Posts
    2,652
    Rep Power
    1
    @lazerblade; only time will tell, and I hope you're right, but this is for big business not the consumer. There's a reason they lobbied millions to get it removed, it wasn't for you.

    Of course, good business practice would be to make it a plus for the consumer. There is, however, no guarantee that the money will be well invested, or invested in a way that helps the consumer.

    I will note, in you're Netflix and Hulu example, that would potentially harm Netflix and Hulu (they won't be able to invest their money elsewhere, that is, put it into their services), but would also be making speeds slower for sites and businesses that don't pay off or make a deal with ISPs, since it's likely that ISPs would be throttling to make favored sites faster.

    I don't know about where you're at / what service you have, but where I live we already get the highest speeds they can provide, and it's not very fast either. Best case scenario for me is that they don't do anything where I live / with my service since they can't currently get faster speeds in my area. If they were to "favor" sites / have a fast lane as things currently are, that means everything else would be throttled, which is a detriment if I don't get that service, and an expense if I do. I'm not in a position for this to benefit me, although if all goes well it will be of little to no consequence.


    Edit :

    You also forget to factor in stupidity. People get ripped off all the time, let it happen, and it can be detrimental. I don't think I need to tell you about the state of rip off dlc and microtransactions, but it prospers for a reason. People are easily swayed by emotions and appearances, and are not strictly logical or looking for the best solution at all times.

    My point is that ISPs could abuse this and potentially get away with it, and are as likely to do that as they are to do good things with it as you state. This being benificial hinges on ISPs doing the right things with their newfound power, but they have many options.
    Last edited by Gipothegip; 12-20-2017 at 01:03 AM.

  12. #12
    Guppycurian Forum Whore Guppycur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Enemy for life
    Posts
    18,304
    Rep Power
    1
    I can definitely see Lazer's point; my internet is limited to 1TB/month, then I see a HUGE increase in my bill... that means I break that limit regularly. Nothing stops the ISP's from limiting my total usage, and nothing stops them from raising their prices, so this is a non issue (so far).

    ...isp's would be better off just raising the prices across the board rather than targeting people who stream (which they already do via the usage limit).

    Comcast btw... so not exactly small time.

  13. #13
    Inventor Bimbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Republic Of Texas
    Posts
    827
    Rep Power
    1
    What is Net Neutrality?

    First off:
    Its a political spin lie.
    The People had internet freedom, without government intrusion dictating what The People can & cant do with internet.
    "Net Neutrality" was the end of the government being neutral, and the start of prohibitions and freedom denial regulations.
    But nobody would be in favor of a new Government Internet Burden & Prohibitions policy,
    so they lied and called the new government intrusion "Neutrality" .

    A simple linguistic test:
    What would Abortion Neutrality be?
    a) MORE government intrusion & prohibitions regulating abortions
    b) LESS government intrusion & prohibitions regulating abortions
    "B" : The People would have more freedom if the gov stayed neutral and stopped regulating abortions.

    Secondly:
    The fears folks have stem NOT from FCC returning to The People some freedom,
    but as with ALL freedoms, some of The People might engage in sleazy business practices. If your ISP treats you like crap, take your business to a competitor that doesnt. In a Free Market, you choose which provider you want, and if you want something no provider offers then a new competitor can start up business offering that and take all the customers away from the sleazy companies. Thats how Free Market works.

    Problem is that we dont have a Free Market.
    The FTC has been allowed to not do its job for decades,

    so many metro areas HAVE NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE in a free market: FTC let monopolies form in those areas. If ATT does content throttling and it has a monopoly, then the FTC screwed you by not protecting your Freedom Of Choice. FTC already broke up the ATT Monoply once before,
    ITS TIME FOR FTC TO DO ITS JOB AN BREAK UP THE COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLIES AGAIN.

    Some metros are so tightly controlled by ISP monopolies that not even a huge corporate giant like Google Fiber can break into that market to compete with ATT. There is no way a new BLUENETS franchise of Neutral ISPs run by Libertarians can start up in a ATT monopoly city. If you dont want Content Throttling then dump ATT and sign up with Bluenets that are net neutral.
    .... oh whats that?
    Your area doent have a Bluenets franchise ISP?
    And you say ATT / Comcast / Verison has a monopoly preventing them from starting up???
    The solution to your internet problem is Bluenets, and the solution to your ATT Anti Competitive problem is the FTC.


    That is NOT the fault nor responsibility of FCC.
    Stopping and breaking up monopolies is the job of FTC.

    Why are people being told to incorrectly hate on the FCC
    when it has been the FTC failing to protect peoples freedom of choice this whole time?

    FCC canb only bandage the symptom of monoplolies hurting internet choice,
    its the FTC that can cure the problem of monopolies denying Free Market choice



    I'll cover a few more points in a later post, since this text wall is big enough as is.

  14. #14
    Inventor Bimbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Republic Of Texas
    Posts
    827
    Rep Power
    1
    Verizon has been running ads for a while
    that you can get unlimited HULU free with THEIR NETWORK.

    Do people say its great to get free Hulu?
    Or do that say Evil Verison is charging you more to access Netflix while charging less for Hulu?

    Isnt that one of the major arguments for Net "Neutrality" ?
    That evil ISPs will provide cost tiers that favor some content over others?

    WITH the 2015 Net "Neutrality" regulations in place,
    Verison was doing exactly that by charging you for Netflix while Hulu is free.

    So why are folks upset that Verison will CONTINUE doing what Net "Neutrality" allowed it to do-
    Content Cost Tiers:
    Watching the same movie, Verison Network has been charging you more for Netflix content than Hulu content
    Last edited by Bimbie; 12-20-2017 at 03:38 PM.

  15. #15
    Gray Thematic Gipothegip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    wherever, whenever
    Posts
    2,652
    Rep Power
    1
    @Bimbie You make some valid points in terms of the FTC. I believe there is a case between AT&T and the FTC being reviewed to determine the FTCs jurisdictions, however. The original jurisdiction ruled in favor of AT&T, that they are not under the FTCs jurisdiction, which will leave a potential gap without Net Neutrality in place. If they rule in favor of the FTC, then they will be able to regulate common carriers (such as ISPs), and what you said will apply.

    Of course, the original ruling was made with Net Neutrality in place IIRC, so at the time AT&T were under FCC jurisdiction and the FTC didn't have the right to regulate AT&T. Without Net Neutrality, but with the original ruling, that could leave AT&T (and other ISPs, under precedent) unregulated in some regards.

    I haven't been able to find any recent news on how that went / is going, however, so I'm not sure on the matter.


    As for Verizon, I don't believe they are under the same rules, as they are a cellphone service and not technically an ISP, so they have been allowed to do that under FCC guidelines.

    As for your example, free Hulu (whether you mean a free subscription, or it not using your data) is not so bad, however if they were charging extra to access Netflix or arbitrarily blocking or throttling it, that is a potential issue and not something I would be happy about. That is where my concern lies.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •