First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Effect of ending net neutrality for countries besides the US.
49 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Europe
Offline
Posted 12/27/17 , edited 12/27/17
I live in Europe and I have been wondering;

Will there be consequences for countries besides the US if current net neutrality rules are repealed?

I have seen various articles and columns in newspapers and on websites discussing this. So far I have seen wildy different opinions on this matter. Some people claim the effect will be limited to the US, others say that the consequences will reach much more people than only the US population. To name some examples the effect of repealing net neutrality might have on Europe (maybe the world).

Possible consequences
First for the people who don't know what net neutrality is: Net Neutrality is the basic principle that prohibits internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from speeding up, slowing down or blocking any content, applications or websites you want to use. Net Neutrality is the way that the internet has always worked.


- It may be an example to less developed nations.

Nations that are less developed are at risk of losing net neutrality as well if this happens. How could this happen you ask? Let's take the country of Bulgaria for example. Bulgaria is one of many countries who see American culture and standards as a guide to how their country should function. When the communist regime fell in Bulgaria in 1989 the government existed out of corrupt politicians, maffia figures, militarists etc.

Eventually Bulgaria established democracy with the help of the European union (UN). Many government officials didn't really know how to rule their democratic country so they looked to America and followed the actions it took to start building their democracy. Repealing net neutrality might convince the Bulgarian government to do the same, since the country has developed a habit of looking at the US it's actions and implementing those same actions in it's government.

luckily I think this does not have a very high change of being a reality since the net neutrality rules are regulated by the European Union and changing those rules will effect a lot more countries than only Bulgaria.

- Companies (like crunchyroll) might lose customers.

I don't know the budget Crunchyroll has in one month but with the repeal of current net neutrality rules Crunchyroll is at risk to get pushed into the slow traffic lane, meaning that playback rates wil become worse. Since Crunchyroll is partially owned by AT&T there might be a chance that Crunchyroll comes out ok, but if this is not the case this might mean that in order for Crunchyroll to be in the fast lane which costs more money they may raise prices for premium subscriptions. This means that instead of $6,99 per month you may need to pay $10,95 per month. This will result in Crunchyroll losing some of it's customers. But this doesn't only affect CR, companies like Netflix are also at risk (same goes for Hulu, Amazon etc).

- It will lead to increased pirating!

I think it is safe to say that we have all been in the pirating phase and many of us are still partially in that phase (Crunchyroll does not own the rights to every show sadly). Some of you might be thinking "But mister forum post writer, won't the pirating sites go down first?!" and to this I say you are partially right. Pirating sites will be some of the first to be taken down, but my dear fellow anime lovers, we all know that the pirates always find a way. The pirates will find new ways to host their sites. A good example of this is "Pirate bay". This was an illegal movie downloading site which even though it was taken down many times was brought back up many times due to loopholes in the system and the power of VPN connection

more info on VPN for the ones that wan't to know what it exactly is: https://www.howtogeek.com/133680/htg-explains-what-is-a-vpn/

The fight is not over!
These are some of the consequences repealing net neutrality might have on Europe and the world.
Even though the vote has already been committed the change has not and so I urge you dear anime fans, if you live in the US and you are 18 years or older or have permission from your parents "Call your congress state representative!"

The people in congress can still put this to a halt!
You can contact your state representative via this website: https://www.battleforthenet.com/

Please post your thoughts below and thank you for reading

Kind Regards,
- A fellow anime lover.
1393 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 12/27/17 , edited 12/27/17
Just keep garbage American ISPs out of my country, thanks.
150 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / wherever
Offline
Posted 12/27/17 , edited 12/27/17
i heard that the internet was going to never be the same again....
6087 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 12/27/17 , edited 12/27/17
since it appears some Americans don't even know the history behind it, let alone the purpose, pros and cons, trust me it's going to be just fine in other countries. in theory some countries already have a "net neutrality" in place, that allows the net to her people that is. North Korea has the net only for the guests that visit. to this they monitor what they allow and don't allow to take place. so, it's going to be alright, no worries or stress.
mxdan 
12384 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 12/27/17 , edited 12/27/17

niotabunny wrote:

since it appears some Americans don't even know the history behind it, let alone the purpose, pros and cons, trust me it's going to be just fine in other countries. in theory some countries already have a "net neutrality" in place, that allows the net to her people that is. North Korea has the net only for the guests that visit. to this they monitor what they allow and don't allow to take place. so, it's going to be alright, no worries or stress.


Is that a thought or some minor conservative talking point sentience? >__>
24650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 12/27/17 , edited 12/28/17
We never had net neutrality therefore we couldn't get rid of it.

Throttling, data caps, and prioritization were not banned under the previous rules. Most of the fear mongering going around about the changes was already legal under Obamas rules.
qwueri 
26150 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 12/28/17 , edited 12/28/17

Rujikin wrote:

We never had net neutrality therefore we couldn't get rid of it.

Throttling, data caps, and prioritization were not banned under the previous rules. Most of the fear mongering going around about the changes was already legal under Obamas rules.


Classifying internet as a common carrier did regulate against throttling and prioritization.
198 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M / Cold side of the...
Offline
Posted 12/28/17 , edited 12/28/17
I trust only the golliaths will come out unscattered by it all. Which might mean that not much will change for the most part outside of the US.


Most tech based companies, who have very low cost of production, are cash rich so if they charge you anymore then that's just evil.
24650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 12/28/17 , edited 12/28/17

qwueri wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

We never had net neutrality therefore we couldn't get rid of it.

Throttling, data caps, and prioritization were not banned under the previous rules. Most of the fear mongering going around about the changes was already legal under Obamas rules.


Classifying internet as a common carrier did regulate against throttling and prioritization.


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/atts-common-carrier-status-helps-it-defeat-data-throttling-lawsuit/

ATT avoids the wrath of the FTC giving refunds to the people using ATT's service by instead giving the FCC and the US treasury the money. I wonder how much money was awarded to ATT in the next year to "expand their network". https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/atts-common-carrier-status-helps-it-defeat-data-throttling-lawsuit/

The FCC even states here that: The FCC last year proposed a $100 million fine against AT&T, saying it falsely labeled plans as “unlimited” and failed to sufficiently inform customers of the throttling.

Throttling was not illegal just improperly informing customers of it.

Humms 
14441 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 12/28/17 , edited 12/28/17
Money yo

How else would the world function. We would be animals could of fooled me.

Are we animals, or do we become animals I don't have a clue, just thinking about that now actually
qwueri 
26150 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 12/28/17 , edited 12/28/17

Rujikin wrote:

Throttling was not illegal just improperly informing customers of it.



That's kind of the point, to regulate unadvertised speed throttling.
24650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 12/28/17 , edited 12/28/17

qwueri wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

Throttling was not illegal just improperly informing customers of it.



That's kind of the point, to regulate unadvertised speed throttling.


False advertisement has been illegal for about a century. Infact the FTC who used to have jurisdiction over the internet and has it once again was already suing ATT in an attempt to give a refund to all the customers they lied to, then jurisdiction got transferred. Instead the FCC took the money and gave it to the general treasury while customers didn't get a dime.
qwueri 
26150 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 12/28/17 , edited 12/28/17

Rujikin wrote:

False advertisement has been illegal for about a century. Infact the FTC who used to have jurisdiction over the internet and has it once again was already suing ATT in an attempt to give a refund to all the customers they lied to, then jurisdiction got transferred. Instead the FCC took the money and gave it to the general treasury while customers didn't get a dime.


That's a cute way of defining a fine for breaking a regulation on common carrier networks on top of customers still being able to pursue damages. While it's unfortunate the FTC was unable to pursue a case for customers in that instance, the FCC was able to add further and more immediate action upon AT&T. Now we're just left with a perpetual game of cat and mouse lawsuits over customer injury that will result in nothing but even more fine print in EULAs to fight litigation.
24650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 12/28/17 , edited 12/29/17

qwueri wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

False advertisement has been illegal for about a century. Infact the FTC who used to have jurisdiction over the internet and has it once again was already suing ATT in an attempt to give a refund to all the customers they lied to, then jurisdiction got transferred. Instead the FCC took the money and gave it to the general treasury while customers didn't get a dime.


That's a cute way of defining a fine for breaking a regulation on common carrier networks on top of customers still being able to pursue damages. While it's unfortunate the FTC was unable to pursue a case for customers in that instance, the FCC was able to add further and more immediate action upon AT&T. Now we're just left with a perpetual game of cat and mouse lawsuits over customer injury that will result in nothing but even more fine print in EULAs to fight litigation.


So tell me... what percentage of people do you think will hire a lawyer to sue comcast for an amount almost equal to hiring a lawyer?

The FCC didn't help the consumer in the least they just helped Washington's pockets. Useless.

We could work on speeding up trial dates across the country instead of ignoring that big issue so these games stop. It would help us in every way instead of a limited effect.
979 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Online
Posted 12/28/17 , edited 12/29/17

Rujikin wrote:


qwueri wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

We never had net neutrality therefore we couldn't get rid of it.

Throttling, data caps, and prioritization were not banned under the previous rules. Most of the fear mongering going around about the changes was already legal under Obamas rules.


Classifying internet as a common carrier did regulate against throttling and prioritization.


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/atts-common-carrier-status-helps-it-defeat-data-throttling-lawsuit/

ATT avoids the wrath of the FTC giving refunds to the people using ATT's service by instead giving the FCC and the US treasury the money. I wonder how much money was awarded to ATT in the next year to "expand their network". https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/atts-common-carrier-status-helps-it-defeat-data-throttling-lawsuit/

The FCC even states here that: The FCC last year proposed a $100 million fine against AT&T, saying it falsely labeled plans as “unlimited” and failed to sufficiently inform customers of the throttling.

Throttling was not illegal just improperly informing customers of it.



Where in the article does it say that the FCC,and US treasury got the funds?
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.