First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Donald Trump will probably end net neutrality
69881 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Oklahoma
Online
Posted 16 days ago , edited 15 days ago
You can thank the DNC for propping him up and pushing the worst candidate forward. You can then thank the candidate for ignoring everyone that told her and the campaign that the rust belt states would likely determine the election. Lastly, you can take a look in the mirror and realize you helped create the average Trump supporter with your holier than though schtick.

You can blame Trump supporters for voting Trump, but the DNC created the monster and your ilk helped create them.

- a liberal tired of this nonsense.
81324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 15 days ago

sundin13 wrote:

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.


Net Neutrality was about government regulation of the internet. For now that was just to prevent you Internet provider from slowing things down, but I have absolutely no doubts that eventually that control would extend into additional taxes and potentially re-direction of content for political reasons.

There is competition in many areas of the US. The reason there is not competition in some areas of the US is primarily because of state/local governments restricting access to those areas either directly or through inordinate fees. Often this was part of sweet-heart deals with specific providers to operate in their areas.
60157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Online
Posted 15 days ago

ishe5555 wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

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.


Net Neutrality was about government regulation of the internet. For now that was just to prevent you Internet provider from slowing things down, but I have absolutely no doubts that eventually that control would extend into additional taxes and potentially re-direction of content for political reasons.

There is competition in many areas of the US. The reason there is not competition in some areas of the US is primarily because of state/local governments restricting access to those areas either directly or through inordinate fees. Often this was part of sweet-heart deals with specific providers to operate in their areas.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.


So no, Net Neutrality is not strictly about government regulation, though the reality is that the ISPs by themselves likely will not follow Net Neutrality where doing so could interfere with their profits. After all, government regulation is actually necessary to allow capitalism to function effectively. The primary concern of Net Neutrality supporters is that ISPs could control other markets and stifle competition and innovation by cutting deals with wealthy customers to stamp out potential competition if it was in their interest to do so.
2445 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Minnesota
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 15 days ago

RaisedInACult wrote

What irony...so you regurgitate the snake oil salesman pitch of the oversimplification of what net neutrality actually entails, and then talk about in case you've been in the dark....loool

its spelled out in this 50 year old cartoon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_se8c-wN35M



Watched the cartoon, for some reason I think they misspelled ISP on those bottles.

EDIT: Before you say "Just switch ISPs": "Oh look, the only other ISP is doing the exact same bullshit as mine for a penny cheaper, TIME TO SWITCH!"
27741 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 15 days ago
Donald Trump is your president,.....

i am seriously on the ground laughing
Emtro 
1553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 15 days ago

sundin13 wrote:
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.


Ok, now I remember what it was. The discussion went the opposite direction because ISPs would not charge people to access websites, they would do what they have always done and charged websites for more bandwidth. That is why Netflix favors this. And since Net Neutrality has been in place, Netflix has raised its price twice, against what they said they would do. And if you use Netflix you should know, they haven't updated their content often enough to justify their price raising.

Net Neutrality doesn't protect consumers from charges by the ISP, it protects bandwidth hogging companies from having to pay in terms of bandwidth instead of just a monthly charge for a connection with said maximum throughput.

That's how it ignore capitalism and does not do what it implies. But hey, when you're finally paying 30 dollars a month for Netflix, I'm sure you'll realize how much it hurts competition instead of helping it.

Edit: Excuse me, it's not the website they would charge for more bandwidth but whoever is hosting the server that has the internet connection. That is why bigger companies would host their own servers in the past.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.