Why do people care so much about net neutrality?

[Yvaelle]

Then don't pay? If you can't afford it you have bigger issues in life.

Ok so let's say you want to look at Brazzers, and you pay Brazzers $1/mo for access. But your ISP doesn't like Brazzers, because they get a kick-back from xHamster. So your ISP says you can subscribe to Brazzers for $1/mo, but then you also need to pay your ISP $100/mo to have access to Brazzers. So now your Brazzers subscription is $101/mo, $100 of which goes to Verizon, for providing you with access to Brazzers (along with their usual internet fees, and any other websites you would like to access), and Brazzers only gets $1/mo to produce content for you. Now you can't pay for Brazzers, so your ISP can decide which online businesses succeed and which fail, based on how much access tax the ISP wants to charge.

Say you want to apply for a job at a new company, you need to submit your CV online to their website, but because your ISP knows you want to apply for that job, it cranks up the cost of going to that website to $100/visit, so now you need to pay $100 just to submit your CV to your next job.

Say your ISP doesn't like their competition, so you can go to their competitions website - but they charge you a one-time fee of $100,000 to visit the website of their competitors: so you can never leave.

In effect, Net Neutrality will kill the internet, destroy critical infrastructure, end any semblance of personal privacy, plunge the world back into the dark ages, and probably kill all humanity off faster than a nuclear winter: when we suddenly lose access to a functioning internet - which is now critical economic infrastructure the world over.

Net Neutrality is terrorism. It eliminates the sovereignty of every nation with the first stroke of a pen. ISPs will have the exclusive ability to control access to all information, to sculpt opinion, to control knowledge, to control communication.

[chazus]

See, I get what you're saying but there's something I can't wrap my head around.

Internet is an abstract, non-material thing. I say that loosely, like it requires electricity to power packets and the ISPs have their modems and shit...

Okay, I can't really word this right without coming off as an idiot. So I'll just put it bluntly: who decides how much "An Internet" is worth in money when it's not a consumable resource like a potato or plank of wood..

You definitely are looking at it wrong. "The internet" is not a 'thing', just as "roads" are not a 'thing'. The issue is where something is coming from, where it's going, and what it is.

Any internet service or page could be slowed, stopped, or charged more for by your ISP. It could block Netflix, but not Hulu, or force you to pay more. Or just slow it so you get 480p at best. The problem is that your ISP is literally your gateway to everything else, so they decide what you can, could, and don't get, and how.

It's not about limited resources. It's not about how much you consume, or 'saving it'. It's about what content is allowed and who wants to let you have it.

[Rixis]

But you do pay for water and electricity.

You also pay for the internet.

This is saying "oh, you pay for the internet but want to use youtube, that's an extra 5 dollars a month please".

Which is akin to saying "oh, you want all this water, but you want some of this water for drinking, that's an extra 5 dollars a month please"

[jackofwind]

You also pay for the internet.

This is saying "oh, you pay for the internet but want to use youtube, that's an extra 5 dollars a month please".

Which is akin to saying "oh, you want all this water, but you want some of this water for drinking, that's an extra 5 dollars a month please"

Well it's also akin to paying for cable television.

It's not hard to see why the net companies want to go that route. It's hardly without precedent.

[Rixis]

Well it's also akin to paying for cable television.

It's not hard to see why the net companies want to go that route. It's hardly without precedent.

I don't know how it works in the US, but I'll guess it's the same as Sky TV in the UK, at which, it is not the same.

You pay for access to a certain set of cable channels, and then if you want to access more you pay more, this is outlined when you take out the contract.

When you take out the contract to access the internet you may have things such as speed limits and bandwidth limits that are imposed. The proposal is this contract is redrawn to also include extra prices (or slower speeds) to access whatever the ISP deems. Chances are this would be small printed too with something along the lines of "we can choose what content we limit/slow you down on".

[Yvaelle]

Well it's also akin to paying for cable television.

It's not hard to see why the net companies want to go that route. It's hardly without precedent.

In the case of cable TV, the markup cost of additional channel packages goes back to the channels themselves, which traditionally were the content producers.

In the case of net neutrality, it's the ISP setting the markup cost, keeping the markup, and deciding if they want to provide you with access at all.

Further, Cable is a quickly dying business model - so not a great idea to model your industry after it.


Edit: Consider this too. Imagine if the CEO of your cable company was just caught sexually assaulting children - it's all over the news - every news channel in your area is covering it 24/7. You don't know about it though - because your cable company just blacks out all the news channels - you aren't allowed watching local news until the reporting stops.

[Arcrin]

Do you guys like sites like twitch?

good cause without net neutrality twitch would die in 1min and we would NEVER get it again.

[jackofwind]

Further, Cable is a quickly dying business model - so not a great idea to model your industry after it.

It's not dying with regards to digital sports channels though, with all the packages you pay for the regular season games if you want to see home and aways, and then you pay more again for the playoffs.

[Yvaelle]

It's not dying with regards to digital sports channels though, with all the packages you pay for the regular season games if you want to see home and aways, and then you pay more again for the playoffs.

You are a fan of Chelsea. The CEO of your cable company is a fan of Millwall.

Millwall vs. Chelsea - you pay $20 to watch the game.

Millwall starts losing, the CEO of your cable company ups the cost to $200 to continue watching: you pay the $200.

Commercial break.

We're back - Millwall is doing really shitty - your screen goes black - the CEO of your cable company is upset that his team lost so nobody is allowed watching anymore.

[jackofwind]

You are a fan of Chelsea. The CEO of your cable company is a fan of Millwall.

Millwall vs. Chelsea - you pay $20 to watch the game.

Millwall starts losing, the CEO of your cable company ups the cost to $200 to continue watching: you pay the $200.

Commercial break.

We're back - Millwall is doing really shitty - your screen goes black - the CEO of your cable company is upset that his team lost so nobody is allowed watching anymore.

Hyperbole gets you nowhere.

Why is there an assumption that no contracts or terms are involved that? Why the assumption that cable companies could just cut service in the middle of a program due to a hissyfit, and not assume that they could just charge extra to access that program? One is far more likely than the other.

[Yvaelle]

Ok. I'm all for net neutrality and the OP is obviously very dumb but this isn't true at all either. Let's not exaggerate it gives your opponents more ammo against the real issues.

It's not at all an exaggeration. Your ISP would be able to charge whatever additional fee they want against your viewing of Twitch.tv, and not be obligated to give any of that markup back to Twitch.

- - - Updated - - -

Hyperbole gets you nowhere.

It's not hyperbolic - it's literally up to the ISPs to charge whatever they want, to slow traffic as much as they want, or to outright deny access - to any site on the internet - at their own discretion - and to each individual customer - based on any arbitrary criteria the ISP chooses.

That example downplays the full impact: look at my previous post for the full potential.

[Al Gorefiend]

You definitely are looking at it wrong. "The internet" is not a 'thing', just as "roads" are not a 'thing'. The issue is where something is coming from, where it's going, and what it is.

Any internet service or page could be slowed, stopped, or charged more for by your ISP. It could block Netflix, but not Hulu, or force you to pay more. Or just slow it so you get 480p at best. The problem is that your ISP is literally your gateway to everything else, so they decide what you can, could, and don't get, and how.

It's not about limited resources. It's not about how much you consume, or 'saving it'. It's about what content is allowed and who wants to let you have it.

So the ISPs want the power to enforce and dictate rules to use internet?

[Yvaelle]

Why is there an assumption that no contracts or terms are involved that? Why the assumption that cable companies could just cut service in the middle of a program due to a hissyfit, and not assume that they could just charge extra to access that program? One is far more likely than the other.

I gave examples of both, both are at the ISPs discretion. If they want to charge $200k to continue watching, they can. If they want to just disallow anyone from watching, they can.

Edit: It's worth pointing out again that the ISP is producing no content, and has no obligation to pass along these markups to the content producers. Infact, ISPs can apply these markups in both directions - you could be forced to pay more to access Netflix, and Netflix could be forced to pay more to access it's customers, and unless you both pay - the ISPs would not connect you.

[chazus]

So the ISPs want the power to enforce and dictate rules to use internet?

More or less. They want to be able to control what goes through them, the gatekeepers to your computer.

It's like the evil villain banker with comically huge mustache and black hat saying "I think I know how to run this best for your money", and the government going "This guy seems legit, we're gonna let him decide how to do this"

Bonus: I actually googled 'stereotypical villain' and was not disappointed.

[oplawlz]

Well it's also akin to paying for cable television.

It's not hard to see why the net companies want to go that route. It's hardly without precedent.

No, it's not hard to see why the companies standing to benefit would want it. What is hard to see is why anyone not being paid by those companies would want it.

This is an issue being raised in the U.S.A., so I'm going to point out that our country already has nearly the worst internet in any technologically relevant country, as well as being amongst the most expensive. Our internet providers are not in any way struggling financially, and the internet has become a vital utility - meaning it needs to be overseen carefully to ensure everyone has fair and full access.

[Rixis]

Hyperbole gets you nowhere.

Why is there an assumption that no contracts or terms are involved that? Why the assumption that cable companies could just cut service in the middle of a program due to a hissyfit, and not assume that they could just charge extra to access that program? One is far more likely than the other.

The contract need say nothing more than they reserve the right to limit access to websites and services as is their whim.

Say your ISP decides to start selling online TV services. They can just block out, or massively hinder access to their competition, all of a sudden Youtube, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime and whatever else you can think of are either blocked, or run too slowly to watch their content.

That is the danger of this law. Will it go to that extreme? Who can say, it could do eventually, and with the monopolistic setup the US has on internet access, it's not like you can do anything other than bend over and take it.

[Deleted]

Like, just pay, you are not entitled to internet, if you don't like it, don't pay. Besides, they are companies, they need money to pay their staff.

I already pay my isp.

[Rudkobing]

Fuck Corporate pigs.

[Rixis]

They said twitch will be gone when net neutrality ends (which it is scheduald to do) so let me be clear: You belive once that happens in the next month or so twitch will be gone right? Because that's exactly what they said that you defended. I want to make sure so I can come back and remind you of this when twitch continues to exist.

Mountain Mole Hill.

[Witchblade77]

and those of you who think its a hyperbole, that they wouldn't go that far? they were already testing the waters. when Verizon bought yahoo, they announced that tumblr accounts registered to e-mails with att.net etc - basically e-mails hosted by their competitors? will lose acess to long standing accounts and have to switch to approved e-mails if they don't want it to happen. the outcry was relatively small, becasue its tumblr and because there are free e-mail accounts on their approved list, so technically no one is being charged extra. but because net neutrality is STILL a thing, for now, they ended up backtracking and claiming "sorry for the confusion" but guess what. without those protections in place? they would do much MUCH worse and no one could stop them.

the irony is that they are claiming that removing net neutrality laws will help small businesses? it will HURT small businesses the most.

P.S. twitch will likely be fine. its owned by amazon now and it makes enough money through tie ins with advertising and prime, that they can eat the extra racketeering costs. not everything is amazon though. and sometimes... even when you are that big, you can STILL be blocked, because your competitor is bigger.