FCC to vote on scrapping Net Neutrality

[Draco-Onis]

There ARE data caps and OVERAGES for using more data than your CAP allows. What is your point?

That's for cell phones not regular internet, does your ISP put data caps on you?

[masterhorus8]

That's for cell phones not regular internet, does your ISP put data caps on you?

Yeah

https://www.cox.com/residential/pricing.html

[Sinyc]

That's for cell phones not regular internet, does your ISP put data caps on you?

Yes.... What universe do you live in???

[Draco-Onis]

Yes.... What universe do you live in???

I stand corrected then there is no such thing where I am and it only applies to cell service, I guess there is even shittier internet than mine. I guess the only thing left for you is tiered internet lanes and other fees.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'm not going to jump on the hype train, because I can see the arguments from both side - since this thread seems to be overwhelmingly for NN, I'm going to post my thoughts on why NN doesn't make sense from an economic perspective.

Regardless, I think for either side, this is not a problem of social justice and that while there may be a difference of opinion, this will not be the end of the internet such as We know.

Firstoff, the neutrality of the network reduces the capacity of infrastructure providers to efficiently manage traffic on their networks.

If all content providers are paying the same, there is no reflection of their perceived value for consumers in their choice of "data intensity" and the result will probably be congestion, at least at some point. Charging providers requiring more resources will help improve the performance of the network. (note here that the other alternative would be to discriminate more strictly the price on the end-user side, in other words, to make players and heavy video users pay more).


Secondly, defenders of net neutrality are amateurs to lift the flag of "Justice" for small content providers. I am quite convinced that this is a non-livelihood threat, since small content providers do not require large amounts of bandwidth in general, and therefore will not pay more if infrastructure providers can load content providers.

Thirdly, proponents of net neutrality argue that not to impose it will lead to higher prices for the end-user. This doesn't make sense; as far as I can tell, the neutrality of the network only results in a transfer of infrastructure income to content providers, which will use more bandwidth than is socially optimal and thus impose that cost to The people of the infrastructure.

1) ISPs already proportionally charge companies based on their internet usage. There are already different internet packages both for consumers and businesses.

2) Think about how cable TV works right now, and in some ways how it used to work. Now imagine not being able to access most of the internet because you only bought the basic package that includes the big sites like Amazon, Facebook, etc. If ISPs have the freedom to gouge you for every tiny piece of the internet you want to access, won't that be ABSOLUTELY FUN?

[Edge-]

That's for cell phones not regular internet, does your ISP put data caps on you?

Yes, I have Astound and our internet has a 300GB data cap each month, with charges for going over. Even Comcast seems to have adopted a 1TB data cap for most of the US, I remember checking in on that a while back. And I live in a decent city a short distance away from Silicon Valley/South Bay so... : |

[Sinyc]

I stand corrected then there is no such thing where I am and it only applies to cell service, I guess there is even shittier internet than mine. I guess the only thing left for you is tiered internet lanes and other fees.

Although in my case it's a soft cap of 1TB. They don't enforce it... YET. But they will sometime next year. Other than that, there is zero chance of an ISP having packages similar to cable. It just won't fly. They can entertain the idea all they want.

[Stormspark]

1) ISPs already proportionally charge companies based on their internet usage. There are already different internet packages both for consumers and businesses.

2) Think about how cable TV works right now, and in some ways how it used to work. Now imagine not being able to access most of the internet because you only bought the basic package that includes the big sites like Amazon, Facebook, etc. If ISPs have the freedom to gouge you for every tiny piece of the internet you want to access, won't that be ABSOLUTELY FUN?

I imagine VPN's and TOR will both start seeing a HUGE uptick in usage. TOR by itself doesn't disguise your traffic, it just disguises the source and destination. But combine that with encrypted VPN and noone can see what you're doing or where you're going.

[breadisfunny]

Yes.... What universe do you live in???

my isp has no data caps.

[Tackhisis]

Why should I pay the same price as a pirate who downloads UHD movies or someone watching netflix all day for the internet access?
Explain that please.

[Felya]

That's for cell phones not regular internet, does your ISP put data caps on you?

Yes, Comcast...

[Wyrt]

Why should I pay the same price as a pirate who downloads UHD movies or someone watching netflix all day for the internet access?
Explain that please.

Then don't get a plan with unlimited data?

[Felya]

Although in my case it's a soft cap of 1TB. They don't enforce it... YET. But they will sometime next year. Other than that, there is zero chance of an ISP having packages similar to cable. It just won't fly. They can entertain the idea all they want.

Why not? What is your alternative? Dial up? You do know that in high density areas, Netflix has boxes at your ISP data centers. Meaning, if you go to an alternative, your Netflix will not function as well (4K, lulz). It doesn’t effect those in less populated areas, but good luck finding an alternative there.

- - - Updated - - -

Why should I pay the same price as a pirate who downloads UHD movies or someone watching netflix all day for the internet access?
Explain that please.

Why do you pay 60 bucks for a game you play once, while others pay 60 and play 40 hours? What sort of nonsense are you trying to say? Just because I get more use out of a product, doesn’t mean I should pay more.

- - - Updated - - -

Then don't get a plan with unlimited data?

It doesn’t impact him in anyway... he is complaining about something that has 0 impact on him. He is simply arguing to remove his own ability...

[Blur4stuff]

Just a friendly reminder that millions of americans don't have choices. It's not like ISPs are burger joints. I can't go across the street and get a different one.

My ISP can decide to completely fuck over my town and there isn't shit any of us can do about it.

[DarkTZeratul]

Why should I pay the same price as a pirate who downloads UHD movies or someone watching netflix all day for the internet access?

What you're complaining about has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. ISPs are entirely free to charge you whatever they want based on how much data you use, how fast you want to use that data, and even when you use that data. All Net Neutrality says is that they cannot charge you based on what data you're using or where that data is from, nor can they selectively interfere with that data.

Or, if you need some examples:

Things that are totally okay under Net Neutrality:
"Pay $50 a month for slow internet, $125 a month for decent internet, or $200 a month for super fast internet."
"Pay $50 a month for up to 100gb of data, and $1 per gigabyte over that. Or pay $300 a month and get unlimited data."
"Pay $25 a month for unlimited internet during off-hours. During peak times, we'll charge you $2 per 10gb of data you use."

Things that are not okay under Net Neutrality:
"Your internet access includes our proprietary streaming service, but Netflix is prohibited."
"Pay $10 a month for access to Steam and World of Warcraft. Pay another $10 a month for access to Disney XD and Hulu. Pay another $10 a month for Facebook."
"Our customers get everything at a baseline speed for $50 a month, and Amazon can pay us $10,000 a month for their streaming service to go faster."

Basically, so long as whatever the ISP is doing applies equally to all internet traffic, it's still fine. Net Neutrality is about making sure they can't pick and choose what traffic to allow and at what speeds.

[Slant]

Here's a new question... since this bullshit swaps over from the US every odd year or so, wouldn't that make it worthwhile to be put into an amendment? I mean seriously, it's the same old story every 2 years. And everytime there is this outrage about it all. Just codify net neutrality into your amendments and be done with it once and for all. Some of you are rather militant about your 2nd amendment, hey, if they were this militant about net neutrality, you'd be golden.

- - - Updated - - -

Just a friendly reminder that millions of americans don't have choices. It's not like ISPs are burger joints. I can't go across the street and get a different one.

My ISP can decide to completely fuck over my town and there isn't shit any of us can do about it.

Don't you have antitrust laws?

[Slant]

Why should I pay the same price as a pirate who downloads UHD movies or someone watching netflix all day for the internet access?
Explain that please.

Hmm, I can't find the video that explains this, but their method will make you understand...

Think of the internet as roads. ISPs own those roads. On those roads you have different vehicles coming to your house. Whether or not you paid for those vehicles to come to your house is not a matter for this discussion. They come to your house regardless of how/if you paid them. And also regardless of how/if you paid them, net neutrality ensures that the ISP can't suddenly build a slow lane and route 90% of your internet over that lane while the now empty fast lane can only be used by certain services, which only incidentally are owned by your ISP and direct competition to the other 90% that are now stuck in the slow lane.

That, my friend, is what the competetive legal sector usually calls a foul and bad sportsmanship. Companies have been broken up or fined billions of dollars for that kind of foul play. It's no joke. Unless you make it legal, of course. Here's where the FCC comes in. Owned by the mother of all douches (or father? I'm confused), he's obviously been bought by all kinds of ISPs (and he's worked for one, if I'm informed correctly), and he's intending to throw away the fair play rule and establish by law that ISPs can do what the fuck they want with their lane. They can build slow lanes, build fast lanes... heck, they can outright block shit, because Netflix at about 56kb/s is as good as blocked effectively. That's what he wants.

So no, this doesn't have anything to do with the pirate stealing movies and the other dude paying Netflix to stream 24/7. This has everything to do with ISPs attempting to kill competition that is vastly superior at a better price. This is the textbook example of monpoloy extortion. This is why antitrust laws exist. This exactly is the reason why consumer protection exists. And this is why everyone, except you apparently, is outraged at this attempt.

- - - Updated - - -

I always see people from the US commenting about them not having ISP choices and it baffles me. I am in Greece ffs and even in the islands you always have at least two ISP options if not more, and they are in constant competition to provide better services. What is it that killed the free market there from doing its job?

I think cartell collusion is the magic word here.

[Stormspark]

Here's a new question... since this bullshit swaps over from the US every odd year or so, wouldn't that make it worthwhile to be put into an amendment? I mean seriously, it's the same old story every 2 years. And everytime there is this outrage about it all. Just codify net neutrality into your amendments and be done with it once and for all. Some of you are rather militant about your 2nd amendment, hey, if they were this militant about net neutrality, you'd be golden.

- - - Updated - - -



Don't you have antitrust laws?

Technically, yes. In practice, the corporations own the government and can do whatever they want. If there are laws that threaten them, they just buy a congressman or two and then it's no problem.

[Slant]

Technically, yes. In practice, the corporations own the government and can do whatever they want. If there are laws that threaten them, they just buy a congressman or two and then it's no problem.

There has to be something that can be done. What does the SCOTUS say about all of this? Have they piped up at all in any direction? Even just a hint maybe?

[Draco-Onis]

I always see people from the US commenting about them not having ISP choices and it baffles me. I am in Greece ffs and even in the islands you always have at least two ISP options if not more, and they are in constant competition to provide better services. What is it that killed the free market there from doing its job?

ISPS actively collude together, local politicians are owned by them and put up barriers of entry to protect them. Most places have one or two providers and they are both terrible, they are among the lowest rated companies in the US. We basically pay a lot more for a lot less compared to the modern world no one is really happy with them but we have no choice hence the shitty customer service.

- - - Updated - - -

There has to be something that can be done. What does the SCOTUS say about all of this? Have they piped up at all in any direction? Even just a hint maybe?

SCOTUS said money equal speech bribe away.