First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Donald Trump will probably end net neutrality
87 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 17 days ago

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.


They have to periodically renegotiate what they pay for content they license, and usually the prices go up. They also have to budget for their own productions. Cable and satellite providers have go through similar negotiations.
scye27 
50879 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / US
Offline
Posted 17 days ago
Few seem to care until it directly affects them. This seems to be a common occurrence. It will not matter to many until they get their internet bill and it will contain "packages". So if you want Netflix, Facebook, Youtube etc. at the speeds you've always had, it's an extra charge per month. It is only when they realize their bill became much larger will anyone actually stand up and say, "This isn't right." Many will just remain complacent and forget that they were once against corruption, monopolies, or oligarchies.
Emtro 
1559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 17 days ago

scye27 wrote:

Few seem to care until it directly affects them. This seems to be a common occurrence. It will not matter to many until they get their internet bill and it will contain "packages". So if you want Netflix, Facebook, Youtube etc. at the speeds you've always had, it's an extra charge per month. It is only when they realize their bill became much larger will anyone actually stand up and say, "This isn't right." Many will just remain complacent and forget that they were once against corruption, monopolies, or oligarchies.


This is what I'm talking about. It's just fear mongering. It never happened as you describe and because of the nature of capitalism, it will never happen that way.
13131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 16 days ago , edited 16 days ago

Emtro wrote:


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.


ISPS would charge more for bandwidth: Okay, again, this hurts pretty much everybody except for the ISPs. This is pretty much just another step of what I said. Further, I could be wrong but this doesn't seem to be limited based on the rules I'm reading involving net neutrality. It has three parts. No blocking, which isn't relevant here. No throttling, which is what I've talked about. No paid prioritization, which is also sort of what I was talking about. Where does charging for bandwidth come into play?

Netflix raised their price twice: Not really sure why this is relevant. Are you implying that without net neutrality this wouldn't happen because without net neutrality Netflix would have to pay ISPs a lot more money and those costs are more often than not passed on to consumers. Also, from what I can tell they raised their price once in 2014 and then ended grandfathering in 2016 which I wouldn't consider two price raises, but hey, semantics. Also they have significantly increased production which I would consider an update in content.

Net neutrality doesn't protect consumers from charges by ISPs, it protects companies: Why can't it be both? You aren't wrong that it protects companies (which isn't a bad thing), but the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Thats how it ignores capitalism: Wait, how does it ignore capitalism? I don't follow your point here. You haven't shown why the consumers wouldn't get affected in the way I previously discussed.
82916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 16 days ago , edited 16 days ago

scye27 wrote:

Few seem to care until it directly affects them. This seems to be a common occurrence. It will not matter to many until they get their internet bill and it will contain "packages". So if you want Netflix, Facebook, Youtube etc. at the speeds you've always had, it's an extra charge per month. It is only when they realize their bill became much larger will anyone actually stand up and say, "This isn't right." Many will just remain complacent and forget that they were once against corruption, monopolies, or oligarchies.


Like the U.S. postal service?

Paying for higher speeds is common sense, End Net"Neutrality"); greedy government bureaucrats.
Emtro 
1559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 15 days ago

sundin13 wrote:
ISPS would charge more for bandwidth: Okay, again, this hurts pretty much everybody except for the ISPs. This is pretty much just another step of what I said. Further, I could be wrong but this doesn't seem to be limited based on the rules I'm reading involving net neutrality. It has three parts. No blocking, which isn't relevant here. No throttling, which is what I've talked about. No paid prioritization, which is also sort of what I was talking about. Where does charging for bandwidth come into play?

Netflix raised their price twice: Not really sure why this is relevant. Are you implying that without net neutrality this wouldn't happen because without net neutrality Netflix would have to pay ISPs a lot more money and those costs are more often than not passed on to consumers. Also, from what I can tell they raised their price once in 2014 and then ended grandfathering in 2016 which I wouldn't consider two price raises, but hey, semantics. Also they have significantly increased production which I would consider an update in content.

Net neutrality doesn't protect consumers from charges by ISPs, it protects companies: Why can't it be both? You aren't wrong that it protects companies (which isn't a bad thing), but the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Thats how it ignores capitalism: Wait, how does it ignore capitalism? I don't follow your point here. You haven't shown why the consumers wouldn't get affected in the way I previously discussed.


Why does it ignore capitalism?: Well, it jumps on board the Marxist train is how. It implies that ISPs will have absurd businesses practices that alienate the entire customer base simply because it would make them more money. Like in the OP where that picture shows +5 dollars for accesses certain websites. It's a ridiculous business model that would be shut down by consumers immediately. There is no demand for such an ISP and there never will be.

Netflix raised it's price because it can be greedy. That was my point. It has essentially been protected in a niche market such that nobody can compete because better technology (i.e. better compression and software) will not result in sufficient gains to make a company competitive. This is really complicated to explain because it involves negotiations for copyrights but in short: Since they started ahead of Net Neutrality and continued to grow after and stay on top after, nobody could make a competitive product even with superior technology.

While I understand that there is a written "definition" of Net Neutrality to make it look like this noble thing, the internet worked fine before it and ISP costs were continually decreasing. Have you noticed that they haven't gone down in quite a while? In face, competition is all but dead because of it. Smaller ISPs cannot compete with larger ISPs anymore because they cannot provide a service that is a better deal. Where in the past, they would buy bandwidth like the big websites do from the larger ISPs did and offer service in an area...

Anyways, this is kind of like beating a dead horse. If we get screwed by the extra legislation we'll know later when it happens.

Edit: Oh, I broke that last paragraph. While I understand that there is a written "definition" of Net Neutrality to make it look like this noble thing, it is the same idea as the definition of feminism. 3rd wave feminists point to it every time someone points out they are female supremacists and they continue to advocate for #killallwhitemales...
6579 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 16 days ago
Can someone explain what "net neutrality" is in a simple way please? I've heard the term before.
123 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 15 days ago
hmm... has the dns/isp already switched hands or do we still control it right now
58 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The Grand Line
Offline
Posted 16 days ago
To be fair Congress already tried to end net neutrality and it still didn't take.
123 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 15 days ago
i
538 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Online
Posted 16 days ago
My God a few years ago nearly everyone was for net neutrality because it was a vital part of a free internet. Now look hell just in this thread at all the people trying to find flaws so they can avoid that Trump is on the wrong side of something that will effect all internet users. Hell at least as a Democrat I can say Hillary was a shitty candidate.

Net neutrality is at its base consumers and the government telling busienss no you can't package the internet like you do cable tv. It's sad seeing some of these comments. No Obama isn't the 1st to stop the ending of Net Neutrality telecoms have been trying to limit the internet in such way in the USA for 2 decages. Does no one remember the prodigy network, Limited BBS, Hell Aol tried it for a bit.
123 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 15 days ago

dougeprofile wrote:

Net Neutrality is simply a buzzword allowing a government bureaucracy to expand its power since the law never gave them the authority to regulate the internet. The decision on what is "fair", who gets exceptions, those who must be made "more equal" - now rests with BIG government. Maybe they should force all car dealers to charge the same price for all cars be it a Hugo or BMW - that way all car dealerships will be equal and competition can flourish. Socialist sophistry! Less competition? Demonstrably a lie. ISPs built the infrastructure, they rightfully charged for it. End the theft of Net Neutrality.


Im not sure why we gave up control, pretty dumb since it was originally our military that came up with it.. and we were doing a good job at not censoring obama should have minded his own damn business.. he caved to international threats most likely from china to work against us on this specific issue... everyone is better off with only 1 government instead of every government telling every world citizen what can or cannot be ccensored
20621 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Alpha Qudrant Sec...
Offline
Posted 16 days ago , edited 16 days ago
Honestly I don't know what this man will do am sure he probably doesn't either. He said the wouldn't allow AT&T and Time Warner to merge (that probably because he has a grudge against them) but then he say there are too many regulations on these corporations.

He is already hiring lobbyist something he railed against to I am betting these big media corporations will drop some big money somewhere then SOPA and PIPA will come back
1464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Virginia, USA
Online
Posted 15 days ago , edited 15 days ago

dougeprofile wrote:

Net Neutrality is simply a buzzword allowing a government bureaucracy to expand its power since the law never gave them the authority to regulate the internet. The decision on what is "fair", who gets exceptions, those who must be made "more equal" - now rests with BIG government. Maybe they should force all car dealers to charge the same price for all cars be it a Hugo or BMW - that way all car dealerships will be equal and competition can flourish. Socialist sophistry! Less competition? Demonstrably a lie. ISPs built the infrastructure, they rightfully charged for it. End the theft of Net Neutrality.


This post is pretty much the opposite of reality.
11 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 16 days ago
Ok, For those who don't know;

Net Neutrality is the concept that an ISP must treat all data equally, no matter what it is. 5 Megabytes of Data From Japan is the same as 5 Megabytes of Data from Virginia. a video from Youtube is the same as a Video from Netflix. A Store Page from Wal-Mart is the Same as a Store page from Amazon.

The Argument for Net Neutrality is that it keeps the internet a fair, open playing field for business, as it has been for I don't know how long now. Net Neutrality is the reason we have business' like Amazon, Netflix, Youtube, and why new businesses are able to start up and compete. It also ensure that consumers receive fair prices and consistent service without having to pay extra.

The Argument against Net Neutrality is that it is Anti-Capitalist, it restricts the ability of Service Provides to place the true price on the value of the data they carry on the infrastructure they paid a lot of money to build and maintain. They also argue that it wouldn't be a 'slow lane' vs. 'fast lane' where they restrict you down, but a 'super-fast lane' that you can upgrade to and a 'fast lane' that you always got.

Everybody clear?
13131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 15 days ago

Emtro wrote:


sundin13 wrote:
ISPS would charge more for bandwidth: Okay, again, this hurts pretty much everybody except for the ISPs. This is pretty much just another step of what I said. Further, I could be wrong but this doesn't seem to be limited based on the rules I'm reading involving net neutrality. It has three parts. No blocking, which isn't relevant here. No throttling, which is what I've talked about. No paid prioritization, which is also sort of what I was talking about. Where does charging for bandwidth come into play?

Netflix raised their price twice: Not really sure why this is relevant. Are you implying that without net neutrality this wouldn't happen because without net neutrality Netflix would have to pay ISPs a lot more money and those costs are more often than not passed on to consumers. Also, from what I can tell they raised their price once in 2014 and then ended grandfathering in 2016 which I wouldn't consider two price raises, but hey, semantics. Also they have significantly increased production which I would consider an update in content.

Net neutrality doesn't protect consumers from charges by ISPs, it protects companies: Why can't it be both? You aren't wrong that it protects companies (which isn't a bad thing), but the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Thats how it ignores capitalism: Wait, how does it ignore capitalism? I don't follow your point here. You haven't shown why the consumers wouldn't get affected in the way I previously discussed.


Why does it ignore capitalism?: Well, it jumps on board the Marxist train is how. It implies that ISPs will have absurd businesses practices that alienate the entire customer base simply because it would make them more money. Like in the OP where that picture shows +5 dollars for accesses certain websites. It's a ridiculous business model that would be shut down by consumers immediately. There is no demand for such an ISP and there never will be.

Netflix raised it's price because it can be greedy. That was my point. It has essentially been protected in a niche market such that nobody can compete because better technology (i.e. better compression and software) will not result in sufficient gains to make a company competitive. This is really complicated to explain because it involves negotiations for copyrights but in short: Since they started ahead of Net Neutrality and continued to grow after and stay on top after, nobody could make a competitive product even with superior technology.

While I understand that there is a written "definition" of Net Neutrality to make it look like this noble thing, the internet worked fine before it and ISP costs were continually decreasing. Have you noticed that they haven't gone down in quite a while? In face, competition is all but dead because of it. Smaller ISPs cannot compete with larger ISPs anymore because they cannot provide a service that is a better deal. Where in the past, they would buy bandwidth like the big websites do from the larger ISPs did and offer service in an area...

Anyways, this is kind of like beating a dead horse. If we get screwed by the extra legislation we'll know later when it happens.

Edit: Oh, I broke that last paragraph. While I understand that there is a written "definition" of Net Neutrality to make it look like this noble thing, it is the same idea as the definition of feminism. 3rd wave feminists point to it every time someone points out they are female supremacists and they continue to advocate for #killallwhitemales...


Why does it ignore capitalism: First of all, I don't think that picture shows access. Obviously that would be ridiculous. It would be charging for "fast lanes" otherwise known as "not slow lanes". And again, how would consumers "shut it down"? In many places there is a grand total of ONE ISP for the area. What would the consumer honestly do? Not have internet? I've made this point before but there is so little competition, ISPs don't have to worry about being competitive. People will pay for internet no matter what and there isn't enough competition to ensure that companies are unable to abuse this. You have proven nothing.

Netflix raised its prices: Again, I'm not really sure what you are trying to prove. Eliminating net neutrality may make Netflix worse which isn't exactly the kind of "competition" that is good, especially if other small businesses are also worse off. It just makes the market worse.

The internet worked fine before Net Neutrality: I think there is a misunderstanding here. The internet has always been neutral (as protected by net neutrality). This was not a change. This was to prevent things from changing. Yes, the internet worked fine before when it was neutral and it is working fine when it is still neutral. Why should we change this?

Internet costs are rising now and they weren't before: First of all, nothing has changed so this pretty much means nothing. Further, I don't even think it is true but I can't find any concrete data one way or the other.

Definitions: The thing is, we aren't talking about "discussion definitions". I understand that true definitions can differ from this. We are talking about "legal definitions". These are set. There is no fluctuation. There is no debate about what they really mean. The law means what it says, nothing more, nothing less. Again, I can't find any evidence in the law which indicates what you are saying about charging for bandwidth is true. If you have something, I would love to see it, but the definition argument doesn't really work here.
scye27 
50879 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / US
Offline
Posted 16 days ago , edited 16 days ago

dougeprofile wrote:


scye27 wrote:

Few seem to care until it directly affects them. This seems to be a common occurrence. It will not matter to many until they get their internet bill and it will contain "packages". So if you want Netflix, Facebook, Youtube etc. at the speeds you've always had, it's an extra charge per month. It is only when they realize their bill became much larger will anyone actually stand up and say, "This isn't right." Many will just remain complacent and forget that they were once against corruption, monopolies, or oligarchies.


Like the U.S. postal service?

Paying for higher speeds is common sense, End Net"Neutrality"); greedy government bureaucrats.



Except the post office didn't once have next day and first class shipping be the same price and now they do not.

Ending net neutrality means that there will be less competition. A new company that wanted to compete with Youtube would not be able to afford the speeds that Youtube can afford to pay ISPs. We need the internet to remain open to encourage competition rather than having a few companies control what users see.
69881 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 15 days ago
Without net neutrality an ISP could throttle any website to where it's effectively blocked unless one party (you or the content provider) pay extortion. The US taxpayer actually paid for infrastructure growth which ISPs turned around and pocketed. They then turn around and argue that their infrastructure cannot support what is being asked (in-spite of regular record breaking profits). Finally they chop up the US into market segments where others won't compete. I mean, even if you have the choice between DSL and cable DSL as a technology is shit. Your only option is typically cable and the majority of the US only has access to one near them (whether that's Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, Mediacom, Etc).

They should be treated closer to a utility company due to de facto monopoly.
61159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 16 days ago

scye27 wrote:


dougeprofile wrote:


scye27 wrote:

Few seem to care until it directly affects them. This seems to be a common occurrence. It will not matter to many until they get their internet bill and it will contain "packages". So if you want Netflix, Facebook, Youtube etc. at the speeds you've always had, it's an extra charge per month. It is only when they realize their bill became much larger will anyone actually stand up and say, "This isn't right." Many will just remain complacent and forget that they were once against corruption, monopolies, or oligarchies.


Like the U.S. postal service?

Paying for higher speeds is common sense, End Net"Neutrality"); greedy government bureaucrats.



Except the post office didn't once have next day and first class shipping be the same price and now they do not.

Ending net neutrality means that there will be less competition. A new company that wanted to compete with Youtube would not be able to afford the speeds that Youtube can afford to pay ISPs. We need the internet to remain open to encourage competition rather than having a few companies control what users see.


Not only speed, but I'm pretty sure that Net Neutrality is really the only thing stopping ISPs from outright blocking access to specific sites for various reasons. For instance, the ISP could set up guidelines that sites must follow if they want the ISP to allow "regular" users to access the site. Users may be required to buy an upgrade package to access the sites they want to visit. Websites that are attempting to advertise, promote, or simply provide information may end up becoming more expensive to maintain and/or less accessible to the general public. One of the guidelines might be that site owners will have to pay an extra fee to the ISP to have their site included in a more generally available package.

It's not necessarily going to happen this way, but it's a definite possibility. It all depends on what the ISPs can actually get away with in order to maximize their profits. Personally, I'm not convinced that there is enough competition between ISPs to really prevent this sort of abuse if we blindly let capitalism reign. As consumers, we'd probably find ourselves in the all too familiar position of choosing between a couple really shitty options.
gsm642 
1425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 15 days ago
if it ends shitty data caps from isps like Comcast then I am all for it 1tb is simply not enough especially if you plan on using PS now
3415 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 16 days ago
?.. "nearby trumpkins"...
You mean the whole US is letting this happen, don't just focus on trump and his voters.
either side did the same thing to screw people over, I guess that is a thing the US likes to do..
To screw with people and good things they will never have.
69881 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 15 days ago

gsm642 wrote:

if it ends shitty data caps from isps like Comcast then I am all for it 1tb is simply not enough especially if you plan on using PS now


It does not, that is another important issue that unfortunately is not getting handled at this time.
qwueri 
16462 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 16 days ago

MonoDreams wrote:

Can someone explain what "net neutrality" is in a simple way please? I've heard the term before.


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.
Dushan 
8030 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 15 days ago
But this would only apply to the countries of those governments. So say a Brit could no longer connect to american websites without a fee but the rest of the world would be open to them. If there government kept net neutrality.

With this in mine. ISP's would just strangle themselves if they didnt up hold it. Internet is world wide. If you tried to charge the rest of the world to access youtube or netflix they would just stop visiting.
82916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 16 days ago , edited 16 days ago
Net Neutrality is simply a buzzword allowing a government bureaucracy to expand its power since the law never gave them the authority to regulate the internet. The decision on what is "fair", who gets exceptions, those who must be made "more equal" - now rests with BIG government. Maybe they should force all car dealers to charge the same price for all cars be it a Hugo or BMW - that way all car dealerships will be equal and competition can flourish. Socialist sophistry! Less competition? Demonstrably a lie. ISPs built the infrastructure, they rightfully charged for it. End the theft of Net Neutrality.
37361 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Online
Posted 15 days ago
Google, Microsoft, and others will talk to him about it. I'm sure they'll explain it to him. There's also, EFF, FFTF, and other groups that fight for Internet and software related laws and rights, and such. I'm sure they'll pass along petitions electronically signed by millions of Americans. Just be ready to add your voice to the petition, and to write your congressmen and women.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.