First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
Post Reply Net Neutrality
1509 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
15 / F / Texas
Offline
Posted 11/26/17

_gemini_ wrote:


walnut_raisin wrote:

Net Neutrality should NOT be passed. I could give a million reasons why but multiple YouTubers already have so this just gonna be a summerization of what I feel without all the facts.....

This is just a cash grab for companies and the like. It's not gonna help the consumer(you). You get nothing out of it other than being robbed of your money or being stuck in the laggy video lane. All of this is greedy. Plain and simple. I like to listen to the two sides of the topic but the reasoning for this is so blantently greedy & one sided(towards the companies) that it makes me genuinely laugh. Nothing good can come from this. THERE SHOULDNT EVEN BE A DEBATE ABOUT IT!!! Like I've stated a multitude of times: it's just people being greedy & trying to milk money out of people for absurd "innovated & business" reasons.


preach 666, preach


Um heh if you're calling me the devil due to me saying that it shouldn't be passed that was a stupid blunder on my part. Repealed is what I meant. But if it was due to me calling the companies greedy then I'd really like your feedback on it so I can get a good understanding & well rounded opinion about this. I'm still young & not that knowledgable so I might just be parroting but still I'd like polite feedback & arguments so I can a good understanding. Thanks!
18453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 11/26/17

Sollith wrote:


Nogara-san wrote:



It's a done deal pretty much. The FCC Does. Not. Care.


Only way this gets saved is if this goes to the courts. Otherwise....if you got a major cable company, you're definitely fucked.


For those of us who have an independent company that wouldn't be beholden to anyone like Comcast/Verzion....wait and see.

https://twitter.com/Moondragon_1/status/934421411153760263





Nogara-san wrote:

In this era? It's all about the corporations and no longer about the common people.

Luckily for me, my cable company is independent and not some major cable company's bitch to where if I want to go on here, I won't be directed to whatever Comcast/Verizon's anime site is.


Hopefully.

But I do think the courts will step in at some point. Millions have people have voiced their opinions; someone's gotta be paying attention since the FCC don't care.



Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if your cable company is "independent"; the smaller, more independent providers are often paying the larger internet service providers and cable companies licensing fees. Most are just middle men.

All we can do is contact our representatives, join in protests, and just generally show that the people will not take this lightly. Showing that many of the people that get them into office do not want net neutrality repealed and that they may not get re-elected if they don't do something is the best thing we can do.


The FCC isn't elected; they're picked.

Don't stop protesting; the more of an outcry there is, the more likely that someone would get the message. But it ain't gonna be anyone on the FCC, which is why I think this will wind up in the courts. Some big company is going to get pissed off sooner or later that they're losing money.


All I can say is wait and see what happens. But for now? I wouldn't be buying any electronics until this issue is straightened out one way or another.

239 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / F
Offline
Posted 11/26/17

walnut_raisin wrote:


_gemini_ wrote:


walnut_raisin wrote:

Net Neutrality should NOT be passed. I could give a million reasons why but multiple YouTubers already have so this just gonna be a summerization of what I feel without all the facts.....

This is just a cash grab for companies and the like. It's not gonna help the consumer(you). You get nothing out of it other than being robbed of your money or being stuck in the laggy video lane. All of this is greedy. Plain and simple. I like to listen to the two sides of the topic but the reasoning for this is so blantently greedy & one sided(towards the companies) that it makes me genuinely laugh. Nothing good can come from this. THERE SHOULDNT EVEN BE A DEBATE ABOUT IT!!! Like I've stated a multitude of times: it's just people being greedy & trying to milk money out of people for absurd "innovated & business" reasons.


preach 666, preach


Um heh if you're calling me the devil due to me saying that it shouldn't be passed that was a stupid blunder on my part. Repealed is what I meant. But if it was due to me calling the companies greedy then I'd really like your feedback on it so I can get a good understanding & well rounded opinion about this. I'm still young & not that knowledgable so I might just be parroting but still I'd like polite feedback & arguments so I can a good understanding. Thanks!


actually i was calling you 666 because your points were at 666 when you made that post

and don't worry I agree with you completely
Humms 
12719 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Online
Posted 11/26/17
Oh don't worry.

As if paying for internet isn't enough

lets also control content, and the way we view content, what we must pay to view content.

Theres nothing we can remotely do to prevent this inevitable fate of our access to the internet..... or is there.

People stop buying cable and switch to the internet, because cable forces you to buy into packages on top of your regular subscription in order to view specific channels. Lets do the exact same thing to the internet.

Its fucking stupid, but it makes money.

What was that thing I always say now, money is all that matters anymore and nobody can deny it, just try living without it see how far you get. This isnt about freedom anymore, its about total monetization of our daily lives. See to it that this will be true, unless people have a set of balls.
11311 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 11/26/17 , edited 11/26/17

danagram wrote:


ISP wouldn't offer such a service to begin with since they own the ad companies, and want people to use as data as possible so they can charge over usage fees. Not like we even need those sort of services anyways with ad block,no script,and a bunch of other programs freely available.


That's factually incorrect. ISPs do not own Google or Facebook, and most ad and marketing companies are not owned by ISPs. That's simply incorrect.

I am a professional web programmer with ten years experience. If you've ever bought a Groupon, shopped Macy's or Nike online, bought a Tufts and Needle mattress, or used a Belly reward then you've been touched by my code, either directly or indirectly.

More and more companies are blocking blocking users who use an ad blocker like ghostery, and with the rise of SPAs the option of blocking JS entirely its a thing of the past.

Net Neutrality is not neutral, and is being pushed by major corporate interests, primarily big ad companies like Google and Facebook. It's driven by greed just as much as actual neutrality.

China has net neutrality. Internet service is controlled by the government and commercial companies may not regulate bandwidth.
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/26/17 , edited 11/26/17

Mishio1 wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


dulun18 wrote:

I got this message after visiting a site yesterday


In addition to adding your name address and email to send a message, they want you to call them on your phone, so that the Congress can hear your voice asking them to protect Net Neutrality.


Just from eyeballing it, that looks suspiciously like a scam. You don't need to go through a third party to contact your representatives, unless you count said representatives' subordinates. My guess is, that's someone trying to take advantage of the fervor to collect people's personal information. I would advise against relying on a go-between like that.


Those guys are legit. The way it works is you put in your phone number. Then they automatically connect you to your Congressman or woman. You leave your message, and hang up. Then you get another call connecting you to your other Congressman or woman. You leave a message on that person's answering machine.

They do this for a couple of reasons:

1) They keep stats to get an idea of how many people participated.

2) Not everyone knows who is their Representative and who is their Senator. So, people end up calling the wrong Representative and the wrong Senator in their state. When that happens, their calls don't count to the Senator and Representative, because you are not in their districts.

3) The convenience of the service encourages people to participate and call their Congressman or woman. I've done this a few times already. Nothing weird has happened to me or my phone.

4) For the email your Representative section, it's like filling out a petition. You have to put your name and your address, and email, but that's all. It is required or the Congressman's or woman's office will reject it.

5) For the phone call part, all you put in is your phone number, and that's it.

They don't ask for account info, social security numbers your age nor anything else like that.

39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/26/17

Rujikin wrote:


Mishio1 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
Right now comcast and the ISP's are lobbying heavily against this being repealed which is strange because they have always been against net neutrality.


This is the first I've heard that. Care to share your source?


I read a little early this week about some ISP's opposing moving the internet from FCC back to FTC control (Thats what this is really about). I should have saved the stuff...

ATT seems to oppose the FTC having control over the internet VS the FCC having control (what your referring to as net neutrality): https://www.forbes.com/sites/fredcampbell/2017/07/11/is-twitter-blocking-net-neutrality-opinions-it-doesnt-like/#14bcc12f3c2d

I really shouldn't need to link about ISP's being against net neutrality.




Rujikin, it is a greater deal than you think. Net Neutrality is NOT a red herring. The FCC makes rules and regulates all communications, including how to protect privacy, etc.

The FTC only regulate how business is done. They DON'T CARE about Net Neutrality. ComCast, ATT, Verizon and set Net Neutrality on fire, and the FTC won't care. They only care that they don't do business dishonestly.

This means that all of the things that would make the Internet an uneven playing field would not matter as long as it's clearly spelled out in the contracts and disclosures of the ISP's.

The FCC HAS TO CARE about Net Neutrality. If the people put pressure on them, then they will protect Title II and continue to treat ATT, Comcast, and Verizon, etc, as common carriers, and that means even playing field for users of the Internet. The FTC doesn't care about any of that, and does NOT regulate that.

So, if the FCC hands it off to the FTC, you can kiss the Internet we know goodbye.
619 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Offline
Posted 11/26/17

karatecowboy wrote:


danagram wrote:


ISP wouldn't offer such a service to begin with since they own the ad companies, and want people to use as data as possible so they can charge over usage fees. Not like we even need those sort of services anyways with ad block,no script,and a bunch of other programs freely available.


That's factually incorrect. ISPs do not own Google or Facebook, and most ad and marketing companies are not owned by ISPs. That's simply incorrect.

I am a professional web programmer with ten years experience. If you've ever bought a Groupon, shopped Macy's or Nike online, bought a Tufts and Needle mattress, or used a Belly reward then you've been touched by my code, either directly or indirectly.

More and more companies are blocking blocking users who use an ad blocker like ghostery, and with the rise of SPAs the option of blocking JS entirely its a thing of the past.

Net Neutrality is not neutral, and is being pushed by major corporate interests, primarily big ad companies like Google and Facebook. It's driven by greed just as much as actual neutrality.

China has net neutrality. Internet service is controlled by the government and commercial companies may not regulate bandwidth.


Never said the ISPs owned Google,or Facebook. ISPs still own,and work with some ad companies to serve their own ads to consumers so it makes no sense that they would come up with a service that blocks annoying ads.

I wouldn't consider Google,or Facebook to be big advertising companies as they just offer a massive platform to their partners to host ads on. Google does have a in house advertising firm,but it still pales in comparison to something like WPP'S GROUPMedia,and other advertising firms.

Yes,net neutrality is being driven by corporate interest on both sides,but why should we give in to what the ISPs want? Repealing theses rules isn't going to drive innovation,create jobs,give consumers better deals,and spur competition because the major ISPs just want to play the monopoly game while crushing anyone else.

US has had Net Neutrality since 2015,and we haven't turned into a communist country yet. Our internet is still at the top of being the least censored by the government.
1588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Online
Posted 11/27/17 , edited 11/27/17
I love the idea people keep saying "monopoly game" well realistically they already have a monopoly, it isn't going to change even if you get net neutrality, or whatever rules you want.I mean think about it, sure they can't filter content, throttle, or what not but at the end that changes nothing. Monopoly has became a buzz word that is just used to get everyone to hate it, well he is the realistic point.

NOBODY IS GOING TO JOIN IN THE ISP GAME TODAY! PERIOD!

Like really, who is going to sink hundreds of millions to billions to build a network, run lines, buy equipment, employ hundreds across the country, and then since they cannot afford to make their own intercontinental backbone, pay to jump off one of the major carriers. Ain't nobody gonna do that, hence why this isn't a "monopoly" least not one that "net neutrality" is gonna fix anytime soon.

So yea, guess what the major ISPs will remain the major ISPs, nobody is gonna join the market. And it'll be a "monopoly" today, tomorrow, and potentially decades down the road.

Sooo.. kindly, drop the "monopoly" buzzword.
37834 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/27/17 , edited 11/27/17

Nasigno wrote:

I love the idea people keep saying "monopoly game" well realistically they already have a monopoly, it isn't going to change even if you get net neutrality, or whatever rules you want.I mean think about it, sure they can't filter content, throttle, or what not but at the end that changes nothing. Monopoly has became a buzz word that is just used to get everyone to hate it, well he is the realistic point.

NOBODY IS GOING TO JOIN IN THE ISP GAME TODAY! PERIOD!

Like really, who is going to sink hundreds of millions to billions to build a network, run lines, buy equipment, employ hundreds across the country, and then since they cannot afford to make their own intercontinental backbone, pay to jump off one of the major carriers. Ain't nobody gonna do that, hence why this isn't a "monopoly" least not one that "net neutrality" is gonna fix anytime soon.

So yea, guess what the major ISPs will remain the major ISPs, nobody is gonna join the market. And it'll be a "monopoly" today, tomorrow, and potentially decades down the road.

Sooo.. kindly, drop the "monopoly" buzzword.


There are smaller companies that build infrastructure. There is an independent company building fiber in my city right now (slowly). It requires support from local government. Local government is the type corporations have the least potential influence over. Unfortunately it's also the type people pay the least attention to.

Tech companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook may just jump into the ISP game themselves (some have already flirted with it). It would be interesting to see how their stance on NN would change then. They may not be the steadfast allies we hope for. Even more reason to make it law as soon as possible.

I think it's premature to call for a breakup of ISPs or anything. It's still not like the Bell monopoly that was dissolved in the 80s. Net Neutrality is about putting some rules down, because these companies are consolidating, and wield a tremendous amount of power already.
619 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Offline
Posted 11/27/17 , edited 11/27/17

Nasigno wrote:

I love the idea people keep saying "monopoly game" well realistically they already have a monopoly, it isn't going to change even if you get net neutrality, or whatever rules you want.I mean think about it, sure they can't filter content, throttle, or what not but at the end that changes nothing. Monopoly has became a buzz word that is just used to get everyone to hate it, well he is the realistic point.

NOBODY IS GOING TO JOIN IN THE ISP GAME TODAY! PERIOD!

Like really, who is going to sink hundreds of millions to billions to build a network, run lines, buy equipment, employ hundreds across the country, and then since they cannot afford to make their own intercontinental backbone, pay to jump off one of the major carriers. Ain't nobody gonna do that, hence why this isn't a "monopoly" least not one that "net neutrality" is gonna fix anytime soon.

So yea, guess what the major ISPs will remain the major ISPs, nobody is gonna join the market. And it'll be a "monopoly" today, tomorrow, and potentially decades down the road.

Sooo.. kindly, drop the "monopoly" buzzword.


We have small ISPs that pop up from time to time,and Google jumped into the game with Google Fiber. While Google has been slow to roll out fiber , it still impacted the market as the other ISPs adjusted their plans,and increased their speeds to be competitive.

To the best of my knowledge I don't think many people intended net neutrality to fix the monopoly issue. Repealing it won't fix it either so we're in the same boat either way.

I think I'll use "monopoly " even more now =p



1588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Online
Posted 11/27/17
Google Fiber rolled out of the game, as much like everyone ignores, net neutrality does not stop monopolies. Again, the ability to build networks is mostly a local and city by city level issue. Net Neutrality isn't gonna fix that City A has an agreement with ISP A and any other ISP coming in will have to pay more, or meet unreasonble standards.

This was an issue that Google Fiber actually had actually a deal with one city, got told to use city infrastructure then got told to make their own shit instead. Which promptly cut back on them expanding that network. Again, city level effected this. It is the same elsewhere as guess what, companies and politics love to share special interest and lobbying.

Sooo if you want faster internet, and more companies out there. Best actually push for LESS government regulation on network building at the local level, least unless you don't mind it staying the status quo.

As for the smaller ISPs, that goes back to the original point of them leasing off a major ISP, as again no company today is gonna get as big as AT&T, Verizon, ComCast in the next decade so.... yea. As for fixing monopoly, the word literally pops up 1 post above mine dealing with "monopoly game" and I've seen it said enough times elsewhere.



8226 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
64 / M
Offline
Posted 12/1/17
I have mixed feelings about it. I own a dot.com that does millions of transactions a day. Bandwidth is a big issue. The transactions themselves are almost invisible. It's the large file downloads that suck the life out of my network. I don't want to go deep into queing theory, but when there is a continous demand for service, such as in streaming video, the queue approaches infinity and and network thrashes. So, my application software throttles long report downloads. This protects both my bandwidth as well as my customers bandwidth. Typically, there are 50 stations sharing a single modem and an unthrottled report download would bring them to a standstill. This works out well since they don't need instant access to the report and they are ok with it getting there when it gets there.

ISP's have the same issues so I agree that they need to be able to manage their network so that high priority traffic isn't impacted by low priority traffic.So, if net neutrality is lost and they start throttling video downloads, I think the streaming companies could adapt pretty easily. Remember, Netflx started off mailing dvd's back and forth and did a good business at it. If they haven't done so already, the streaming companies could add DRM to their apps so videos can be downloaded and be in complicance with license restrictions and add a download list instead of or in addtion to the watch list, sending an alert when the downloads complete. Maybe schedule the downloads to times of the day or days of the week when it costs less.This has become more practical as smart phones can come with impressive amounts of storage. Frankly, I wish they had this now. It doesn't happen all that often on Crunchyroll, but I do see substantial buffering from time to time.

Now if they cut off content all together from certain sites, I would have a big problem with that.
3673 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/1/17
Google fiber was suppose to be here 2-3 year ago Gibablast internet, etc.. instead we got lower data cap 2TB down to 1TB. while those 1800p -4K patch for Xbox one X will eat up 75-175GB of data . We are still waiting.............
mxdan 
11779 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Online
Posted 12/1/17 , edited 12/1/17

flashsmith wrote:

I have mixed feelings about it. I own a dot.com that does millions of transactions a day. Bandwidth is a big issue. The transactions themselves are almost invisible. It's the large file downloads that suck the life out of my network. I don't want to go deep into queing theory, but when there is a continous demand for service, such as in streaming video, the queue approaches infinity and and network thrashes. So, my application software throttles long report downloads. This protects both my bandwidth as well as my customers bandwidth. Typically, there are 50 stations sharing a single modem and an unthrottled report download would bring them to a standstill. This works out well since they don't need instant access to the report and they are ok with it getting there when it gets there.

ISP's have the same issues so I agree that they need to be able to manage their network so that high priority traffic isn't impacted by low priority traffic.So, if net neutrality is lost and they start throttling video downloads, I think the streaming companies could adapt pretty easily. Remember, Netflx started off mailing dvd's back and forth and did a good business at it. If they haven't done so already, the streaming companies could add DRM to their apps so videos can be downloaded and be in complicance with license restrictions and add a download list instead of or in addtion to the watch list, sending an alert when the downloads complete. Maybe schedule the downloads to times of the day or days of the week when it costs less.This has become more practical as smart phones can come with impressive amounts of storage. Frankly, I wish they had this now. It doesn't happen all that often on Crunchyroll, but I do see substantial buffering from time to time.

Now if they cut off content all together from certain sites, I would have a big problem with that.


I don't think anyone would argue that ISP control wouldn't have positive benefits if market options were high. As it stands now though ISP's have regional control over specific areas. This is part of the reason it has been so hard for Google Fiber to take off. Do you think that an ISP not only having regional control but content control would have negative impact over regions? If there aren't any competitors to give demand how is content control driven by market incentives at all?

This puts the power from the demand of an individual to corporate incentives and interactions. Because as was ruled before, the internet is no longer thought of as a luxury but a utility to exist in the 21st century. People aren't just going to stop using the internet because Comcast throttles and controls what they can see and use. They need the internet. This just means they are going to be served a completely binary and undemocratic version of it. It means they get whatever makes a few oversized suppliers more money regardless of their opinion of it. In a healthy market they could choose a version that doesn't prioritize it's shareholders over its customers. That's not what is going to happen.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.