FCC to vote on scrapping Net Neutrality

[Symphonic]

I don't think things could get any worse where I live, the maximum download speed from one of the only 2 companies available in my area is ... 10 Mbps. That's right. And if I pay the price-for-life it's only 50 dollars a month before renting equipment. FOR 10 freaking mbps!

[PC2]

People aren't really going to get better latency, they will just throttle everyone else to make up for it and make it seem like people are going faster. Everyone would still be using the same hardware and infrastructure.
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/

People will get better or worse latency depending on how the content priority shifts on the stack. Where as net neutrality works similar to a FIFO stack.

[Lahis]

I don't think things could get any worse where I live, the maximum download speed from one of the only 2 companies available in my area is ... 10 Mbps. That's right. And if I pay the price-for-life it's only 50 dollars a month before renting equipment. FOR 10 freaking mbps!

Thoug could charge $100 for that 10 Mbps unthrottled.

[zEmini]

I am ready to cut my cable cord when it happens. Has it yet? The new month is coming and I don't want to pay for it.

Need to keep internet however, but with the savings of 135 dollars, I can get all of Hulu and Amazon prime.

[DarkTZeratul]

People will get better or worse latency depending on how the content priority shifts on the stack.

Who decides the priority? The ISPs? What's to stop them from prioritizing their own content, or content providers that pay them more money?

Where as net neutrality works similar to a FIFO flow.

As it should be. Since it is literally impossible to find an unbiased way to prioritize data, trying to do so would be a horrific idea.

[Edge-]

People will get better or worse latency depending on how the content priority shifts on the stack.

You keep saying this, but have neglected to establish how this content will be valued without it being detrimental to the ISP's competitors and while also making a whole load of assumptions about how ISP's will behave.

In short you're working off of personal feels.

[wunksta]

Who decides the priority? The ISPs? What's to stop them from prioritizing their own content, or content providers that pay them more money?

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if CNN and NBC load faster than Fox if this goes live.

[PC2]

Who decides the priority?

Like I mentioned earlier, one of the main ratios is content revenue divided by congestion causing data units. Higher value data providers can afford to pay a bit more based on the underlying value.

The ISPs? What's to stop them from prioritizing their own content, or content providers that pay them more money?

As it should be. Since it is literally impossible to find an unbiased way to prioritize data, trying to do so would be a horrific idea.

Contributing more money to a business should get them higher prioritization. ISPs are running a business, not a charity.

[Grapemask]

People aren't really going to get better latency, they will just throttle everyone else to make up for it and make it seem like people are going faster. Everyone would still be using the same hardware and infrastructure.
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/

The conservative response to the point that this article makes is always "gosh, remove regulation and we'll fix the competition problem!" Drives me nuts. Competition isn't lacking because of regulation; competition is lacking because of a lack of regulation. We completely dropped the ball on enforcing anti-trust laws and stopping big mergers in the last 30 years, and now we've centralized power in a few companies who wield it to box the competition out. Which is exactly why the loss of net neutrality rules will be a deathblow to this supposed competition, not a renaissance, because net neutrality helps keep the playing field at least a little bit level even if it's not an all-encompassing, perfect solution.

The only good solution at this point would be to break up the ISPs in each region into multiple entities covering the same areas. Then, they need to revisit the Supreme Court ruling that allowed ISPs to completely privatize their networks by keeping competitors from sharing the same poles and boxes.

[Draco-Onis]

I am ready to cut my cable cord when it happens. Has it yet? The new month is coming and I don't want to pay for it.

Need to keep internet however, but with the savings of 135 dollars, I can get all of Hulu and Amazon prime.

I would say stay away from Hulu they are partly owned by Comcast and Time Warner cable. I cut the cord years ago no need to wait with streaming there is really no reason to pay those outrageous prices.

[DarkTZeratul]

ISPs are running a business, not a charity.

Hyperbolic nonsense bullshit. No one is saying they shouldn't be allowed to make money.

[Kujako]

Hyperbolic nonsense bullshit. No one is saying they shouldn't be allowed to make money.

He's just saying that ISPs should be able to sell you a service, and then charge you again for actually using it, and then charge others for when you use it, and perhaps charge even more people for reasons that are hard to understand or just block any content they don't want you to access. Basically, he wants AOL back.

[DarkTZeratul]

He's just saying that ISPs should be able to sell you a service, and then charge you again for actually using it, and then charge others for when you use it, and perhaps charge even more people for reasons that are hard to understand or just block any content they don't want you to access. Basically, he wants AOL back.

And also just plain block services that they don't think are important, for reasons that really just boil down to "they don't pay us enough money."

[Cthulhu 2020]

He's just saying that ISPs should be able to sell you a service, and then charge you again for actually using it, and then charge others for when you use it, and perhaps charge even more people for reasons that are hard to understand or just block any content they don't want you to access. Basically, he wants AOL back.

He also seems perfectly fine with some less important services being outright blocked, since that will be legal too.

Well it's a good thing ISPs are mostly coastal elite libcuck techies. We might get to see the death of Breitbart and plenty of other right wing misinformation sites after all.

He whines that content providers being able to block people using their service isn't fair. Just wait until it's legal for internet service providers to deny service to people and organizations. Then the real shitshow and whines about right wing censorship begin.

[Blur4stuff]

I suppose if an ISP wanted to block white supremacist/nazi sites (or sites owned by them) they could get rid of ones like Breitbart.

[PC2]

He also seems perfectly fine with some less important services being outright blocked, since that will be legal too.

Well it's a good thing ISPs are mostly coastal elite libcuck techies. We might get to see the death of Breitbart and plenty of other right wing misinformation sites after all.

He whines that content providers being able to block people using their service isn't fair. Just wait until it's legal for internet service providers to deny service to people and organizations. Then the real shitshow and whines about right wing censorship begin.

If there isn't money behind right wing content and the viewership then indeed they will fail. Nothing of value will have been lost. On places like YouTube most right wing content already gets demonetized, scrapping NN wont make much of a difference.

[Gray_Matter]

Like I mentioned earlier, one of the main ratios is content revenue divided by congestion causing data units. Higher value data providers can afford to pay a bit more based on the underlying value.

Contributing more money to a business should get them higher prioritization. ISPs are running a business, not a charity.

That's one mighty big assumption. A couple of flaws with that:

1. Businesses don't charge based on cost. They charge based on what people are prepared to pay. So a gaming account with basically the same prioritization that you have now will get charged at a premium because games need to pay to keep playing. The cost is largely irrelevant to the ISP's when setting a price.
2. You are assuming that high bandwith sites will suddenly have a decreased bandwidth requirement. That won't happen for a couple of reasons. Firstly because the ISP's themselves have their own high bandwidth options that won't be subject to the "high bandwidth tax". Secondly, most of the larger companies like Netflix will pay the fee and pass it onto their clients.

The only results of removing NN will be the following:
1. You end up paying more for the same service. They have no reason to give you better service because there is no competition. They have every reason to charge you more because they have no competition and now have a way to force you to buy a premium tier. Remember, though, that the premium tier is different to what you have at the moment.
2. Customers of companies like Netflix will have to pay more for their service.
3. ISP's will delay and limit upgrades to their infrastructure as a way to force users to upgrade to premium products.
4. Innovation here will start to slow down. Established players will pay to prevent startups from entering their markets and will pay to stifle new ideas and then implement versions of those ideas themselves. If you invent a widget app, you won't be able to pay the fees for the ISP's so your app will be relegated to the "unusable tier".

You really need to watch the film Saving Capitalism to see the effect that businesses have on the legislation process. You are effectivly saying that we should trust businesses to do the right, who have given no indication that they should be trusted based on their previous behavior. Especially when the right thing is counter to maximizing their profit.

[JohnBrown1917]

You really need to watch the film Saving Capitalism to see the effect that businesses have on the legislation process. You are effectivly saying that we should trust businesses to do the right, who have given no indication that they should be trusted based on their previous behavior. Especially when the right thing is counter to maximizing their profit.

But that is exactly what people like him support tho..

[Gray_Matter]

But that is exactly what people like him support tho..

I am all for maximizing profit but I don't agree with companies getting the laws changed to unfairly line their pockets.

They have an interesting stat in the movie. When the general public is in favor of legislation, the chance that it gets passed is 30%. When the general public is in against legislation, the chance that it gets passed is 30%. On the other hand, when companies are in favor of legislation then the chance that it gets passed is 80%. When they are against it, the chance that it passes is 0%. Notice a trend? Companies have too much influence on the legislative process and the opinion of the general public has no impact at all.

[JohnBrown1917]

I am all for maximizing profit but I don't agree with companies getting the laws changed to unfairly line their pockets.

Its libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism in a nutshell, won't change the minds of those people.