First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Donald Trump will probably end net neutrality
9760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Offline
Posted 15 days ago

KennethKenstar wrote:



Net neutrality has been on the chopping block when people who intended to chop it had power. Obama insured that net neutrality would remain a thing. I honestly don't understand why you would think it was doomed to happen when there was a literal President who backed it.


Well, it seems as though there are already more than enough people hell-bent on getting rid of it, that, regardless of the presidential results, we'd be in a similar position. Our presidents, at the end of the day, are more bark than bite; functioning as figureheads more than anything else. We can have presidents of virtually any personal opinion on it, but there are a myriad of other people who play a part, who arguably have much more say than any single president. All of this must go through the Senate and whatnot; look to them to make a decent call. I honestly think that, most of the time, we overestimate the powers and effects of our presidents.
Banned
1408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Virginia, USA
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 14 days ago

aeb0717 wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:



Net neutrality has been on the chopping block when people who intended to chop it had power. Obama insured that net neutrality would remain a thing. I honestly don't understand why you would think it was doomed to happen when there was a literal President who backed it.


Well, it seems as though there are already more than enough people hell-bent on getting rid of it, that, regardless of the presidential results, we'd be in a similar position. Our presidents, at the end of the day, are more bark than bite; functioning as figureheads more than anything else. We can have presidents of virtually any personal opinion on it, but there are a myriad of other people who play a part, who arguably have much more say than any single president. All of this must go through the Senate and whatnot; look to them to make a decent call. I honestly think that, most of the time, we overestimate the powers and effects of our presidents.


No, in this case, this falls under the President and who is in charge of the FCC. The head of the the FCC is an executive appointee.
gsm642 
1419 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 15 days ago , edited 14 days ago
if it removes shitty data caps then I am all for it otherwise I could care less
Banned
1408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Virginia, USA
Offline
Posted 15 days ago

gsm642 wrote:

if it removes shitty data caps then I am all for it otherwise I could care less


Data caps are already becoming a thing of the past anyway. I pay only 55 dollars for my unlimited data plan.
Emtro 
1543 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 13 days ago

KennethKenstar wrote:
Instead of your ISP having authority over which connections you were allowed to make, that authority was given to the FCC who gave itself the authority and then gave itself no power to enforce which connections you were allowed to make. The intention was net neutrality. Otherwise, Comcast and others, could package which connections you were to make simply because it was profitable.

For example, Comcast hates Netflix. It costs them a shitload of bandwidth and has created a trend of dropping paying for cable TV and just streaming everything.

Instead of evolving or changing their business plan, Comcast would offset the profit it loses to Netflix by charging additional money for access to Netflix.


So, did Comcast ever do this? Does Comcast even still exist? And boy, I bet Verizon was sitting in the wake, waiting to pounce on any area that Comcast dared to do it in so they could implement FiOS and steal EVERYONE.


sundin13 wrote:


Emtro wrote:

So, what is net neutrality?

Edit: And no, your second post was not enough to explain it.


In simpler terms, net neutrality prevents your Internet provider from slowing things down and making you pay extra to get it back to normal speed. It means all data is treated equally. Net neutrality exists to protect the consumer, but it also exists to protect everyone who runs an online service. Doing away with net neutrality not only could cause consumers to get slower internet if they don't pay more, but it can cause online services to work worse if they don't make deals with ISPs (which pretty much means paying money). For example, there has been talk for a while about how we need more competitors to Youtube. Well, without net neutrality the existing competitors or anyone trying to break into the market could be stuck in the slow lane while Youtube enjoys the fast lane, which means worse video quality, more buffering, etc. and most likely, a dead competitor.

Hell, same with Crunchy. Crunchy is a competitor to Netflix and Hulu and they very well could be staring down ISPs saying "we need money if you don't want your connections to slow down" which means less money in Crunchy's pocket which means either they bump up membership prices or have less money to spend on licenses.


These are interesting takes. But they seem to be based on a paranoia that capitalism will fail. It's sounds very similar to what the government did with the housing market bubble, and all the other bubbles for that matter. I guess we're lucky there was no money or banks involved or we'd be screwed yet again, lol.

When Net Neutrality was first being discussed, it was introduced to me as the exact opposite of what you've described. Actually it was ever worse but I dunno. Netflix does support it so it's obviously in their interest. Until I see the actual bills that were passed and the FCC documentation on what it really does I can't say whether it is good or not.
16841 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / L'Étoile du Nord,...
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 14 days ago
I thought net neutrality was already desecrated in October; the Obama Administration handed American control of the Internet to some private company in California, a company which also happens to have relations with China and Russia.

As for Mr. Trump, with all due respect for him, I don't expect him to be savvy on electronic sh!t. Hopefully nothing bad will happen to our Internet experiences these next four years, though.
13129 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 14 days ago

Emtro wrote:
These are interesting takes. But they seem to be based on a paranoia that capitalism will fail. It's sounds very similar to what the government did with the housing market bubble, and all the other bubbles for that matter. I guess we're lucky there was no money or banks involved or we'd be screwed yet again, lol.

When Net Neutrality was first being discussed, it was introduced to me as the exact opposite of what you've described. Actually it was ever worse but I dunno. Netflix does support it so it's obviously in their interest. Until I see the actual bills that were passed and the FCC documentation on what it really does I can't say whether it is good or not.


The thing is, capitalism needs competition to really work and for ISPs, there is a startling lack of competition. If consumers don't have the choice to find someone who isn't going to screw them over, its not like people are going to give up on internet.

And yes, net neutrality is good for Netflix as well as pretty much everybody other than ISPs. This is basically because ISP's would charge to keep things up to speed. While eliminating net neutrality limits competition (bad for the market but slightly good for the leaders of the market) it also directly decreases revenue (bad for the market and really bad for the leaders of the market as they would have to pay the most). That is why Netflix (and pretty much everybody but ISPs) is against the elimination of net neutrality.

Also, I just want to make sure we are clear on what we are talking about here. The things I was talking about in my earlier post are the effects of eliminating net neutrality, not the effects of net neutrality.

The basic concept is that net neutrality mandates that all data be treated equally. Thats pretty much it.
Banned
1408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Virginia, USA
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 14 days ago

Emtro wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:
Instead of your ISP having authority over which connections you were allowed to make, that authority was given to the FCC who gave itself the authority and then gave itself no power to enforce which connections you were allowed to make. The intention was net neutrality. Otherwise, Comcast and others, could package which connections you were to make simply because it was profitable.

For example, Comcast hates Netflix. It costs them a shitload of bandwidth and has created a trend of dropping paying for cable TV and just streaming everything.

Instead of evolving or changing their business plan, Comcast would offset the profit it loses to Netflix by charging additional money for access to Netflix.


So, did Comcast ever do this? Does Comcast even still exist? And boy, I bet Verizon was sitting in the wake, waiting to pounce on any area that Comcast dared to do it in so they could implement FiOS and steal EVERYONE.


sundin13 wrote:


Emtro wrote:

So, what is net neutrality?

Edit: And no, your second post was not enough to explain it.


In simpler terms, net neutrality prevents your Internet provider from slowing things down and making you pay extra to get it back to normal speed. It means all data is treated equally. Net neutrality exists to protect the consumer, but it also exists to protect everyone who runs an online service. Doing away with net neutrality not only could cause consumers to get slower internet if they don't pay more, but it can cause online services to work worse if they don't make deals with ISPs (which pretty much means paying money). For example, there has been talk for a while about how we need more competitors to Youtube. Well, without net neutrality the existing competitors or anyone trying to break into the market could be stuck in the slow lane while Youtube enjoys the fast lane, which means worse video quality, more buffering, etc. and most likely, a dead competitor.

Hell, same with Crunchy. Crunchy is a competitor to Netflix and Hulu and they very well could be staring down ISPs saying "we need money if you don't want your connections to slow down" which means less money in Crunchy's pocket which means either they bump up membership prices or have less money to spend on licenses.


These are interesting takes. But they seem to be based on a paranoia that capitalism will fail. It's sounds very similar to what the government did with the housing market bubble, and all the other bubbles for that matter. I guess we're lucky there was no money or banks involved or we'd be screwed yet again, lol.

When Net Neutrality was first being discussed, it was introduced to me as the exact opposite of what you've described. Actually it was ever worse but I dunno. Netflix does support it so it's obviously in their interest. Until I see the actual bills that were passed and the FCC documentation on what it really does I can't say whether it is good or not.


????

What do you mean "does Comcast still exist?"

You mean the biggest ISP and media company in America? Yeah. They still exist.

They also still rank horribly customer service.

And yes they would love a say in how you use your internet.
Vahvi 
2966 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Ever Changing
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 15 days ago

KennethKenstar wrote:


Vahvi wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:


gsm642 wrote:

if it removes shitty data caps then I am all for it otherwise I could care less


Data caps are already becoming a thing of the past anyway. I pay only 55 dollars for my unlimited data plan.


Unlimited data yes, but your provider probably throttles your speeds if you consume too much data in a given month.

Yeah, network throttling; it's actually a thing and i've experienced it firsthand


this is different from net neutrality

but in the case of my service provider, I used over 200 GB in one month no problem


The posts are out of order for some reason but yes I am aware. I'm just bringing to light that data caps exist behind the scenes. I forgot to mention that there have also been instances where providers charge a fee raise the data cap.

Banned
1408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Virginia, USA
Offline
Posted 15 days ago

Vahvi wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:


gsm642 wrote:

if it removes shitty data caps then I am all for it otherwise I could care less


Data caps are already becoming a thing of the past anyway. I pay only 55 dollars for my unlimited data plan.


Unlimited data yes, but your provider probably throttles your speeds if you consume too much data in a given month.

Yeah, network throttling; it's actually a thing and i've experienced it firsthand


this is different from net neutrality

but in the case of my service provider, I used over 200 GB in one month no problem
14468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 14 days ago
Obama really didn't take much of a stance on it until we had millions of people take action and spam the hell out of politicians at every level. The internet was kicking and screaming and Obama listened... If Trump supporters come out against this bullshit it will once again be ignored until lobbyists find their new champion to sneak this crap through.

Pretty much every Trump supporter I knew locally was FOR Net Neutrality. We're not as stupid as the media, the cable companies, and our representatives would like to believe.
Vahvi 
2966 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Ever Changing
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 15 days ago

KennethKenstar wrote:


gsm642 wrote:

if it removes shitty data caps then I am all for it otherwise I could care less


Data caps are already becoming a thing of the past anyway. I pay only 55 dollars for my unlimited data plan.


Unlimited data yes, but your provider probably throttles your speeds if you consume too much data in a given month.

Yeah, network throttling; it's actually a thing and i've experienced it firsthand
Banned
1408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Virginia, USA
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 14 days ago

GreatLordBalzak wrote:

Obama really didn't take much of a stance on it until we had millions of people take action and spam the hell out of politicians at every level. The internet was kicking and screaming and Obama listened... If Trump supporters come out against this bullshit it will once again be ignored until lobbyists find their new champion to sneak this crap through.

Pretty much every Trump supporter I knew locally was FOR Net Neutrality. We're not as stupid as the media, the cable companies, and our representatives would like to believe.


It wasn't just the people, though. It was the biggest players involved in the Internet. The ISPs of course, were on one side, and everyone else was on another.

And, tbh, you have a hell of a lot more faith in Trumpkins than I do. Just wait until it becomes an issue and you will have every old person preaching to you whatever Fox News tells them to.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.