First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
Post Reply FCC enforces net neutrality
5341 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/26/15

KamisamanoOtaku wrote:


BlueOni wrote:

I don't claim to be especially tech savvy, but it seems to me that the core of the issue is that all data packets are currently given equal priority (neutrality) in their speed of service. That sounds like the right thing to do in order to avoid granting ISPs the ability to "rig the game" as it were concerning matters of electronic commerce, but there may be legitimate technical concerns created by treating all data packets equally which I'm not fully understanding.


There is a lot most supporters don't understand. Increasing government control of the internet will most likely increase operating costs and decrease personal liberty... you know what usually happens with increased government control. It isn't "neutral" to force everyone to get the same regardless of what they are willing and able to pay...

...or perhaps supporters would like to apply the same logic to everything else. For example at school everyone can get the same grade based on the mean of scores earned by their classmates. Crunchyroll could start offering less to paid subscribers and more to those with a free account or no account at all.


If you aren't a supporter of net neutrality, then you aren't a supporter of what the internet has consisted of since its entrance into public use, because net neutrality is and always has been the policy. It is only recently that cable companies and internet providers want to change the basics of internet usage. They want to charge Netflix a fastlane fee to be able to provide content to their subscribers. They want popular websites like Tumblr and Facebook to pay fees to be able to be accessed by their users, because technically, Facebook uses more bandwidth than a website about cats with stupid hats on.

They want the ability to restrict access to websites that might be seen as competition for them, like if Comcast owns a streaming site, they would be able to restrict access to Hulu. At&t has already proposed plans for these things. Here's the thing, At&t wouldn't pay those extra costs, Netflix wouldn't pay those extra costs, Facebook and Tumblr and Youtube wouldn't pay those extra costs, it would be the users, (read) internet users like you and me.

How many times do you want to pay to use the internet? Would you like toll booths set up every time you go to your favorite website? I sure wouldn't. An internet user who is opposed to Net neutrality is, for lack of a better word, baka.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/26/15 , edited 2/26/15

pandrasb wrote:

If that happens gamers and streamers are f**ked, well in the U.S. anyway. Hell it's even worse for uploads.



This is true, but I actually believe it will result in lower costs for people as a whole and better internet. Remember, there are OTHER corporations that are publicly trades (google and netflix and microsoft come to mind immediately) that will side with the consumer on that particular battle which will probably go to the FTC (whose even less of a fan of the bullshit the ISP's have been getting away with, and have acted upon fraudulent charges and mis-advertising when the FCC would not). These are the same corporations that were fighting for this particular measure to pass. Chances are it'll probably work out in our favor.

EDIT: This doesn't change the fact that region locking happens, or that services like netflix, CR, etc. are going to a pay for content model. Chances are you will still have to pay twice for your content, but this is not something affected by the FCC decision. This is just the general trend of where the internet is going. On the other hand, if they did not pass it, and netflix and such were charged, you'd probably see higher costs on both ends.
5107 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Midwestern United...
Offline
Posted 2/26/15 , edited 2/26/15
Edit: I would have come back and made some edits (and a response) sooner but I kept getting am error trying to access Crunchyroll.

After being told I was wrong by so many I was... not really convinced. KisaiGate gave me some enough to crack through my stubbornness so I went ahead and re-researched the matter. Sure enough, I was half remembering the situation and getting certain terms wrong. Embarrassing? Absolutely. I'm still not thrilled with the FCC being in charge of the matter but I was indeed wrong; at this point something legislative did have to happen. It seems dishonest of me to delete my foolish comments but at the same time leaving them up could lead to further confusion, hence why I'm adding this in front of them via the Edit feature (plus making a follow up comment).

Lateraliss wrote:
If you aren't a supporter of net neutrality, then you aren't a supporter of what the internet has consisted of since its entrance into public use, because net neutrality is and always has been the policy.


Then why the need for any formal legislation? Why not give market forces time to do their thing?


Lateraliss wrote:It is only recently that cable companies and internet providers want to change the basics of internet usage. They want to charge Netflix a fastlane fee to be able to provide content to their subscribers. They want popular websites like Tumblr and Facebook to pay fees to be able to be accessed by their users, because technically, Facebook uses more bandwidth than a website about cats with stupid hats on.


So the websites that are going to use the most bandwidth are going to be charged for using the most bandwidth?

No, really, that is how what you said translates to me. Feel free to tell me what I missed.


Lateraliss wrote:They want the ability to restrict access to websites that might be seen as competition for them, like if Comcast owns a streaming site, they would be able to restrict access to Hulu. At&t has already proposed plans for these things. Here's the thing, At&t wouldn't pay those extra costs, Netflix wouldn't pay those extra costs, Facebook and Tumblr and Youtube wouldn't pay those extra costs, it would be the users, (read) internet users like you and me.


If a company wants to restrict my access to websites of their competitor, that is its right unless my service agreement with them says otherwise. I simply would seek a new service provider. If one is unavailable, then I might have found a new business venture.

As for the extra costs... are you using the service? Oh right, you are. So why am I supposed to be upset that a company is charging me more for their service that costs them more? Your argument doesn't really work with this kind of thing. It works great when explaining how government meddling like raising the minimum wage will result in increases costs across most of the board, and so no one really gets ahead when you raise the minimum wage. It works great for explaining the issue with many government programs, where cost-shifting means those being taxed are paying for the benefits of those not being taxed or are simply paying for their own benefits but that fact is being obfuscated by the political class.


Lateraliss wrote:How many times do you want to pay to use the internet? Would you like toll booths set up every time you go to your favorite website? I sure wouldn't.


Wait, was that an argument for or against? With the government stepping in and basically turning the internet into a utility, getting an "internet meter" seems likely. Besides... why should it matter what I like? Shouldn't I focus on what fits within the existing framework of the law and will preserve the most liberty, since we made this a government issue?


Lateraliss wrote:An internet user who is opposed to Net neutrality is, for lack of a better word, baka.


"Foolish" is how I describe giving the government gain greater control over one of the few methods of mass communication that is easily accessed by just about anyone or expecting government control to truly lower prices, since it does the opposite (even when prices seem to go down, you have to factor in hidden costs like tax subsidies). Did I mention that under the "healthcare reforms" I now get to enjoy a tax penalty because I still can't afford a plan?
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/26/15

KamisamanoOtaku wrote:

Then why the need for any formal legislation? Why not give market forces time to do their thing?

Because without formal legislation, it's something that can be changed, and ISP's are lookingto act in ways against that.


So the websites that are going to use the most bandwidth are going to be charged for using the most bandwidth?

No.


If a company wants to restrict my access to websites of their competitor, that is its right unless my service agreement with them says otherwise. I simply would seek a new service provider. If one is unavailable, then I might have found a new business venture.

As for the extra costs... are you using the service? Oh right, you are. So why am I supposed to be upset that a company is charging me more for their service that costs them more? Your argument doesn't really work with this kind of thing. It works great when explaining how government meddling like raising the minimum wage will result in increases costs across most of the board, and so no one really gets ahead when you raise the minimum wage. It works great for explaining the issue with many government programs, where cost-shifting means those being taxed are paying for the benefits of those not being taxed or are simply paying for their own benefits but that fact is being obfuscated by the political class.


So you'd rather have each service restrict what competes with them and each ISP provide shittier service? And to be honest, none of them will like netflix, so you'd rather have to be stuck with cable TV rather than any other competitive service like netflix, hulu, CR, etc? (after all, almost all ISP's are tied to the current cable televison providers)



Wait, was that an argument for or against? With the government stepping in and basically turning the internet into a utility, getting an "internet meter" seems likely. Besides... why should it matter what I like? Shouldn't I focus on what fits within the existing framework of the law and will preserve the most liberty, since we made this a government issue?


I brought this issue up, and I edited a post to address it. Corporation vs. corporation fight here. The ISP's will not be able to charge an arm and a leg and the internet based businesses like google, netflix, and such will probably ensure that.


"Foolish" is how I describe giving the government gain greater control over one of the few methods of mass communication that is easily accessed by just about anyone or expecting government control to truly lower prices, since it does the opposite (even when prices seem to go down, you have to factor in hidden costs like tax subsidies). Did I mention that under the "healthcare reforms" I now get to enjoy a tax penalty because I still can't afford a plan?


Utilities are different than healthcare by a far margin. Do you dislike your other utilities? the aforementioned water, electric and phone?
I mean if instead of public tap water you wish to solely fill your toilet, sink, and tubs with Dasani, which is, essentially tap water sold by Coca Cola, and has a 200x markup....
7493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / In a world that d...
Online
Posted 2/26/15
Net neutrality is essentially how the internet has been operating since it went into the hands of the public. No packet of data was given preferential treatment to the other. This worked and it continues to work now.

ISPs started not liking the concept when Netflix came to prominence and more people started using Youtube; they wanted to force power users to pay more or to broker deals with content providers to prioritize their traffic...and they did very underhanded things to ensure they get their way. It's been proven a multitude of times that various ISPs, prominently Verizon and Time Warner, have been secretly throttling Netflix traffic to strongarm a paid "fast lane" deal. Not only is this practice anti-competitive by trying to force content providers to take sides with certain ISPs (thereby making the competitive content market stale, given the current monopoly system current telecoms companies are entitled to under current law,) it screws the consumer out of their end of the deal when they pay for internet access.

Speaking of the current monopoly state of telecoms providers in the US, the FCC is also attempting to override state laws that were prominently pushed by telephone and cable companies to stop municipal broadband networks from going up. A few cities have brought gigabit networks into operation and startups have come flocking like bees to these cities. The same is true when Google Fiber was brought up in testbed cities - new businesses flocked to these areas and they are growing at unprecedented rates. The new Title II reclassification will allow the FCC leverage to pressure telecoms companies to upgrade their infrastructure to bring areas into modern internet throughput speeds, which is utterly pathetic in some areas. Being a center-right political leaner myself, I always look at new government regulation with extreme scrutiny, but I believe the Title II reclassification can bring good to America as a whole when you look at the fact that we pay more for internet quality that is subpar compared to Europe and Japan.

Title II reclassification may bring taxes though, that is a very likely reality unless lawmakers pursue otherwise, which will be this October, in fact.

Quite frankly, while I can see the fears brought in arguments that government oversight would reduce investment, it comes out as nonsensical in the end, when the facts stand that modern internet access speeds attract businesses, and business customers are very lucrative. I can tell you for a fact that there is little investment happening in my area to improve broadband so it seems like a few ISPs need a kick start anyway *coughVerizoncough*.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/26/15 , edited 2/26/15
Actually.. yeah.. I just realized. I never showed the proof that ISP's are already charging per the GB...

http://www.sectv.com/Web/aspInternet.aspx?strSystem=LV

They're the local competition for my current ISP.

Check the red text at the bottom of the page. After 250GB, they charge you an outrageous $1 per GB.

The next battle over the internet is being set up already.
13652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
こ ~ じ ~ か
Offline
Posted 2/26/15
Here is a video explaining why Net Neutrality is necessary for the internet (and also why the market cannot be trusted to enforce it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMyTwmu_M

It's a very well-constructed allegory.

One especially important bit is around 3:15 or so.

In short, this was a triumph. It's a huge success, for the good of all of us, except the greedy incumbents.
82916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 2/26/15
Great, now some government bureaucrat is going to be determining what is "fair"? This gives them the ability to throttle down groups opposed to liberal policies in the interest of fairness. The greatest venue of free speech just got taken over by the federal government. The rules haven't even been published yet, so there is more to come. It had to be voted in before we could find out what is in it.

I think if someone pays more for a service they should get more speed; it is the rich users that in effect subsidize all the complainers paying $8 for Netflix. You can kiss internet investment good bye - now everyone will suffer "equally".
24641 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 2/26/15 , edited 2/26/15

serifsansserif wrote:

Actually.. yeah.. I just realized. I never showed the proof that ISP's are already charging per the GB...

http://www.sectv.com/Web/aspInternet.aspx?strSystem=LV

They're the local competition for my current ISP.

Check the red text at the bottom of the page. After 250GB, they charge you an outrageous $1 per GB.

The next battle over the internet is being set up already.


Lol. Looked at some of their policies, check this:


Obscene: The personal use of or commercial distribution of vulgar language, sexually suggestive language, obscene language, obscene images or vulgar images which are transmitted, posted, or displayed are prohibited to traverse any PenTeleData system or any system accessible through PenTeleData. Obscenities may result in the immediate and permanent termination of your customer privileges. These activities may border on criminal depending upon circumstances and could result in Federal, State or Local Law Enforcement involvement.
1606 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 2/26/15
Good, another win.
37966 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Online
Posted 2/26/15
Anything that piss off Comcast and Verizon are fine by me :D. Comcast plans to charge $50 for every 10GB over the limit of 250GB. F**k them.

Now Google have the right to access the utility poles.
18602 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/26/15
But can we read it yet
Posted 2/26/15
Oh thank god. I was getting worried for a while...
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/26/15 , edited 2/26/15

KamisamanoOtaku wrote:

Then why the need for any formal legislation? Why not give market forces time to do their thing?


Because among the most influential market forces at play would be a thing called collusion.


If a company wants to restrict my access to websites of their competitor, that is its right unless my service agreement with them says otherwise. I simply would seek a new service provider. If one is unavailable, then I might have found a new business venture.


Here's the problem, though: if you argue that what a business does is its own business, and that market forces ought to be the thing to sort things out, you're going to run into a number of problems. Let's talk about information asymmetries. An information asymmetry is when one party is privy to information that the other isn't, either in part or in whole, on some issue of concern to both. For example, if an ISP is secretly collecting and selling information about your browsing habits that's an information asymmetry because you don't even know that's happening. This leads us to the concept of principal-agent dilemmas. The agent is your ISP, and you're the principal. The dilemma is that your agent will face the risk of injury (you cease in being their customer) if they reveal that they've effectively been spying on you and selling your personal information to the highest bidder, so they don't want to tell you they've been doing that. If at all possible they don't even want you to know that's an option for them.

Society has decided to resolve that particular principal-agent dilemma by attacking the information asymmetry. They cannot secretly collect and sell your data, they have to tell you if they're doing that. Society has also placed restrictions on what sort of information can be collected, and what can be done with it.

See how dangerous a free market can be, and why regulation is important? The trick is to avoid regulatory capture.


As for the extra costs... are you using the service? Oh right, you are. So why am I supposed to be upset that a company is charging me more for their service that costs them more? Your argument doesn't really work with this kind of thing. It works great when explaining how government meddling like raising the minimum wage will result in increases costs across most of the board, and so no one really gets ahead when you raise the minimum wage. It works great for explaining the issue with many government programs, where cost-shifting means those being taxed are paying for the benefits of those not being taxed or are simply paying for their own benefits but that fact is being obfuscated by the political class.


Social spending is not the topic of this thread. In fact, it's complex enough to cover several threads. We're talking about regulation, in this case regulation designed to preserve competitiveness in electronic marketplaces. Your job as an opponent is to show how net neutrality is detrimental to competition in said marketplaces or that regulatory capture has occurred.


Wait, was that an argument for or against? With the government stepping in and basically turning the internet into a utility, getting an "internet meter" seems likely. Besides... why should it matter what I like? Shouldn't I focus on what fits within the existing framework of the law and will preserve the most liberty, since we made this a government issue?


Preservation of liberty is not precluded by government involvement. In fact, sometimes government involvement is essential for the preservation of liberty.


"Foolish" is how I describe giving the government gain greater control over one of the few methods of mass communication that is easily accessed by just about anyone or expecting government control to truly lower prices, since it does the opposite (even when prices seem to go down, you have to factor in hidden costs like tax subsidies). Did I mention that under the "healthcare reforms" I now get to enjoy a tax penalty because I still can't afford a plan?


Do you even know what net neutrality is? What it mandates? You're talking like it's some sort of centrally set internet price. It's not.
8687 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 2/26/15
Ahh, there goes the bullshit government again.

Thanks, Obama.


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.