Net Neutrality

Fri, Dec 15, 2017 7:27 AM

Are you for or against the new regulations? I am fine with the way things have been and feel if it ain't broke don't fix it. A recent survey shows 83% of Americans oppose the new plan. We all know that surveys are never wrong.

 

**Admin Edit** 

I moved over posts from the Impressed by Trump thread. The timeline looks a little funky because most of those posts were created before this thread was.

Ad

  • Thu, Dec 14, 2017 4:36 PM

    In other news, Net Neutrality was repealed today.

    Just checking to confirm my internet still works...

    Thu, Dec 14, 2017 4:39 PM

    oh my, how will we survive without more government regulation.

    Thu, Dec 14, 2017 4:43 PM

    I'll be billing you all on a per post basis in the future, just an FYI.

    Thu, Dec 14, 2017 5:00 PM
    posted by QuakerOats

    oh my, how will we survive without more government regulation.

    So you would prefer ISPs to funnel you content based on what digitial providers pay the highest dollar?

    Makes sense.

    Thu, Dec 14, 2017 5:15 PM
    posted by gut

    In other news, Net Neutrality was repealed today.

    Just checking to confirm my internet still works...

    The butt hurt over this is remarkable. 

    Thu, Dec 14, 2017 5:19 PM

    This was the best argument I've seen made from either side of the Net Neutrality debate:

    https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/

    Most pro-NN arguments I've seen were of the "what if" and "so you would rather" variety. I also saw a great image showing a potential "threat" to your internet bill where you paid $X for a social media tier, $X for a gaming tier, $X for email, and so on. And the pro-NN part of the image had one easy price with everything included in it. The funny thing was, all of the tiers added up to less than the single price. And, why should my grandma subsidize your gaming by paying the same rate as a gamer while using a lot less bandwidth?

    Look at cellular sevice. Nothing like net neutrality in that space, and if there were there is an argument that T-Mobile's zero-rating system for certain services would have been blocked. "Gasp! You can't priorotize one service over another, it's not fair!" Luckily they weren't blocked and have been able to innovate in that space. It's forcing the other carriers to compete to keep up. Now most, if not all, are once again offering unlimited plans which had gone away before T-Mobile started to shake the industry up.

    Hey, and maybe I'm wrong. I question my views on this constantly, but I just haven't found a compelling argument that leads me to believe the internet is going to end up in shambles after this repeal. Now, go ahead and call me moron, idiot, etc, because that seems to be the norm on Facebook and twitter comment threads when someone tries to make the argument that repealing NN isn't necessarily a bad thing.

    Thu, Dec 14, 2017 5:23 PM
    posted by like_that

    The butt hurt over this is remarkable. 

    Facebook is unbearable right now. FFS, people.

    Thu, Dec 14, 2017 5:43 PM

    I'm taking a wait and see approach, but if it results in what I'm hearing from the "sky is falling" side, we'll all be pissed off. 

    Thu, Dec 14, 2017 6:02 PM
    posted by justincredible

    This was the best argument I've seen made from either side of the Net Neutrality debate:

    https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/

    Most pro-NN arguments I've seen were of the "what if" and "so you would rather" variety. I also saw a great image showing a potential "threat" to your internet bill where you paid $X for a social media tier, $X for a gaming tier, $X for email, and so on. And the pro-NN part of the image had one easy price with everything included in it. The funny thing was, all of the tiers added up to less than the single price. And, why should my grandma subsidize your gaming by paying the same rate as a gamer while using a lot less bandwidth?

    Look at cellular sevice. Nothing like net neutrality in that space, and if there were there is an argument that T-Mobile's zero-rating system for certain services would have been blocked. "Gasp! You can't priorotize one service over another, it's not fair!" Luckily they weren't blocked and have been able to innovate in that space. It's forcing the other carriers to compete to keep up. Now most, if not all, are once again offering unlimited plans which had gone away before T-Mobile started to shake the industry up.

    Hey, and maybe I'm wrong. I question my views on this constantly, but I just haven't found a compelling argument that leads me to believe the internet is going to end up in shambles after this repeal. Now, go ahead and call me moron, idiot, etc, because that seems to be the norm on Facebook and twitter comment threads when someone tries to make the argument that repealing NN isn't necessarily a bad thing.

    Do people not remember when we had to pay per the hour for dial-up internet?  There was also a time where you had to choose between paying for shitty slow ass dial up internet vs paying a major premium to have cable internet.  I remember how cool it was when some of my friends had cable modem internet.  Now everyone has fast internet and it is/was getting faster, because companies kept investing money into broadband services.   Btw,  the data shows that companies started to invest less into broadband services after net neutrality.  I don't blame them, why the fuck do they need to invest to improve their service when the Government created a minimum standard that will prevent potential businsses from penetrating the market?  Only the government would think a service that has thrived without barriers all of a sudden needs barriers, because they "see" an issue.  Btw, that issue was caused by federal, state, and local Government meddling into something they had no business meddling in.  Google Fiber would be well on it's way to providing FREE internet to everyone in this country without the Government getting invovled.  Austin, TX is thriving in terms of ISPs, because of Google Fiber penetrating the market.  Not only do they have Google Fiber, but Austin now has a bunch of smaller ISPs that try and offer internet that is faster than Google Fiber for a relatively cheap price.  Do you think any of these ISPs are dumb enough to charge your per content?

     

    Most of the crying I see on Facebook comes down to "i have to pay moar for muh netflix and facebook!"

    1. You have to lol at the irony of people crying on a FREE service, that thrived due to the advances of internet technology.

    2. I sometimes wonder if this country actually has real problems.  People are crying over paying more for a luxury. Think about that shit.

    3. It shouldn't shock me with our current climate, but it never ceases to amaze me how people are so damn uncomfortable to live without their little safety net from the Government.  This is not a life or death matter.  Maybe we will go throw a temporary growing pains period, but eventually some business is going to figure it out and force the other businesses to get in line if they want to make a profit.  If anything you should contact your representatives to bitch about the mess they created and tell them to eliminate those barriers that created the mess.  This is a much better option than advocating for more Government to solve an issue that was created by the Government. 

     

    Edit: I predict either 0 of the predictions from the "sky is falling" people happen, or we will see people freak out the first sign a cable company packages their internet (growing pains) and then 2-4 years later everyone will realize it was a nothing burger when competition forces that company back in line. 

    Thu, Dec 14, 2017 6:26 PM

    That creation of smaller ISPs will be great. It will be nice to not have to contribute to garbage ISP services such as Time Warner / Spectrum. 

     

    Next up, let's get on a la cart cable TV.

    Thu, Dec 14, 2017 6:29 PM
    posted by Automatik

    I'm taking a wait and see approach, but if it results in what I'm hearing from the "sky is falling" side, we'll all be pissed off. 

    That's just it.  Literally every example I've seen (and it's usually Netflix vs. Comcast/Verizon, or a few cases of Verizon and AT&T with mobile data) has been addressed relatively quickly under the existing laws, or because of competition.  OK, "it should never happen" and there's some real consumer pain there, but we're talking about a handful of issues over a decade+.

    Exactly right that it's all about "what could happen", but at the end of the day the ISP's are going to charge the price the market will bear, and there are MANY ways to break up that price, many of which are perfectly fair and reasonable.

    The biggest misconception people seem to have is that NN rules are somehow going to prevent bad behavior.  NO!  It will happen just like it always has - a court case or investigation will be brought, and arguments on both sides will be made.  NN is not going to be magically self-enforcing, few regulations are.  And for crying out loud, nothing stops the FCC/Congress from tacking on additional laws or regulations if unfair or anti-competitive practices happen....which is why I've always felt whatever NN laws were "necessary" were redundant.  Re-classifying the ISP's just seemed like massive overkill for "what-if" scenarios that have rarely happened and have been short-lived.

    IMO, this is a manufactured wedge issue where Dems can line-up as being "for the little guy" while screaming at Repubs for being big business.  If you really wanted to shake things up, start looking at and wielding anti-trust laws to break-up local monopolies and create more competition.  Except there is an argument that there already is significant competition - many areas have at least 1 or 2 cable providers, 3 or 4 cellular providers, and satellite.

    Thu, Dec 14, 2017 6:44 PM
    posted by Automatik

    That creation of smaller ISPs will be great. It will be nice to not have to contribute to garbage ISP services such as Time Warner / Spectrum. 

     

    Next up, let's get on a la cart cable TV.

    Agreed.  A la carte cable TV would be great.  We will see it without meddling imo. Milenials are driving that demand. 

    Thu, Dec 14, 2017 6:46 PM
    posted by gut

    That's just it.  Literally every example I've seen (and it's usually Netflix vs. Comcast/Verizon, or a few cases of Verizon and AT&T with mobile data) has been addressed relatively quickly under the existing laws, or because of competition.  OK, "it should never happen" and there's some real consumer pain there, but we're talking about a handful of issues over a decade+.

    Exactly right that it's all about "what could happen", but at the end of the day the ISP's are going to charge the price the market will bear, and there are MANY ways to break up that price, many of which are perfectly fair and reasonable.

    The biggest misconception people seem to have is that NN rules are somehow going to prevent bad behavior.  NO!  It will happen just like it always has - a court case or investigation will be brought, and arguments on both sides will be made.  NN is not going to be magically self-enforcing, few regulations are.  And for crying out loud, nothing stops the FCC/Congress from tacking on additional laws or regulations if unfair or anti-competitive practices happen....which is why I've always felt whatever NN laws were "necessary" were redundant.  Re-classifying the ISP's just seemed like massive overkill for "what-if" scenarios that have rarely happened and have been short-lived.

    IMO, this is a manufactured wedge issue where Dems can line-up as being "for the little guy" while screaming at Repubs for being big business.  If you really wanted to shake things up, start looking at and wielding anti-trust laws to break-up local monopolies and create more competition.  Except there is an argument that there already is significant competition - many areas have at least 1 or 2 cable providers, 3 or 4 cellular providers, and satellite.

    This, especially the last paragraph. 

    Fri, Dec 15, 2017 7:31 AM

    This is the funniest thing I've ever seen.   Liberals are losing their shit calling for the death of Ajit Pai and comparing him to Hitler.  In the same breath they are saying that Pai and the FCC should have  more control over the internet.   

    Fri, Dec 15, 2017 7:36 AM

    Not sure if you saw it, but there is a lot of discussion on this in the impressed by Trump thread. 

    Fri, Dec 15, 2017 7:38 AM
    posted by justincredible

    Not sure if you saw it, but there is a lot of discussion on this in the impressed by Trump thread. 

    Missed it my bad. Maybe kill this thread?

     

    Fri, Dec 15, 2017 11:06 AM

    i was trying to explain this to young adults yesterday who think they are going to pay for google searches and other things.......I had to explain that unregulated open markets will kill companies that try to do this.

    Fri, Dec 15, 2017 11:19 AM
    posted by Spock

    i was trying to explain this to young adults yesterday who think they are going to pay for google searches and other things.......I had to explain that unregulated open markets will kill companies that try to do this.

    The fearmongering is insane.  People seem to think NN was the law of the land since the beginning, instead of just from 2015.  Examples like the above - they didn't do that before 2015, why are we so scared they'll suddenly do it now?  Many other examples were not and are not illegal under current law even before NN.

    Fri, Dec 15, 2017 11:20 AM

    Truthfully, Net Neutrality is Catastrophic Global Warming's underachieving little brother.

    Fri, Dec 15, 2017 11:30 AM
    posted by like_that

    Do people not remember when we had to pay per the hour for dial-up internet?  There was also a time where you had to choose between paying for shitty slow ass dial up internet vs paying a major premium to have cable internet.  I remember how cool it was when some of my friends had cable modem internet.  Now everyone has fast internet and it is/was getting faster, because companies kept investing money into broadband services.   Btw,  the data shows that companies started to invest less into broadband services after net neutrality.  I don't blame them, why the fuck do they need to invest to improve their service when the Government created a minimum standard that will prevent potential businsses from penetrating the market?  Only the government would think a service that has thrived without barriers all of a sudden needs barriers, because they "see" an issue.  Btw, that issue was caused by federal, state, and local Government meddling into something they had no business meddling in.  Google Fiber would be well on it's way to providing FREE internet to everyone in this country without the Government getting invovled.  Austin, TX is thriving in terms of ISPs, because of Google Fiber penetrating the market.  Not only do they have Google Fiber, but Austin now has a bunch of smaller ISPs that try and offer internet that is faster than Google Fiber for a relatively cheap price.  Do you think any of these ISPs are dumb enough to charge your per content?

    You got a link for this, corporate shill? But seriously, I'd love to read up on this.

    Ad