How will net-neutrality affect WoW and subscription fees?

[Deleted]

As in ANY data from the parent office. Or do you seriously not understand basic hierarchy or simply playing dumb now? Also you haven't answered any of my questions, is that because you simply have no proof of any of the claims that I raised? Because that's certainly how it looks.

You obviously don't know the function of Title II or the reason for its implementation.
You obviously don't know how corporations manage data and are require to keep a constant uplink to roots.
You obviously pander to jargon that you do not fully understand and when questioned on the nature of it, you clam up or pretend that you didn't see the massive flaw in your understanding of it.

Holy shit man. Look - learn a bit about how Internet protocols work before you start forum warrioring. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Lochton]

This isn't really about bandwidth, but about charging for individual services. You could have >100ms on online games by default, and <30ms by paying for the premium package.

My comment wasn't really a statement but more a reply to the comment quoted within.

[Regalbeast]

It won't because it will be fought and repealed in 2020. Literally nothing will happen.

[Nathanyel]

Who cares everyone uses CDNs for local delivery anyhow. It won't affect people outside US. At all.

It will affect us when Netflix etc. raise their prices globally, when there's less innovation on the Internet because small startups all over the world can't access the US market without heavy fees, and obviously, this is but one notable example of several really, really bad decisions by Republican lawmakers going against the majority opinion of the US populace, Trump announced yesterday he plans to cut even more regulations, and eventually he'll find one that affects the whole world or at least Europe directly.
Killing Net Neutrality is just the first stone.

[Torrasque]

Holy shit man. Look - learn a bit about how Internet protocols work before you start forum warrioring. You're embarrassing yourself.

Again, derailing. Have you ANY proof of any of your claims or not? Do you even know what Title 2's function is? These are SIMPLE questions, among others, that you continue to avoid.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. I remember fondly how much they "squeezed" me prior to NN. Oh wait.....

NN was put into place in the 1980s. Tell me how much you enjoyed being charged for internet by the hour, then.

[xler]

Again, derailing. Have you ANY proof of any of your claims or not? Do you even know what Title 2's function is? These are SIMPLE questions, among others, that you continue to avoid.

- - - Updated - - -



NN was put into place in the 1980s. Tell me how much you enjoyed being charged for internet by the hour, then.

The FCC regulation that was just axed was put in place in 2015.

so yeah, as a guy who used the internet between 1996 and 2015 without issue, fuck this propaganda. just because they call it "Net Neutrality" doesn't mean its net neutrality.

here is how your doom and gloom scenario plays out

Comcast tries to throttle Netflix.

Netflix says fuck you we won't serve any of your Comcast kind here.

Comcast customers can't watch Stranger Things.

Comcast customers screech.

Everyone leaves Comcast.

If nobody can leave Comcast, the FTC can declare Comcast a monopoly and bust their nuts. This nut busting can legally bind Comcast to their past promises of Open Internet, since there are no competitors keeping them incheck.

the internet was perfectly fine before 2015 and itll be fine after 2017.

[Torrasque]

The FCC regulation that was just axed was put in place in 2015.

False. Title 2 was put into place in 2015. Title 2 is NOT Net Neutrality.

[Deleted]

It will affect us when Netflix etc. raise their prices globally, when there's less innovation on the Internet because small startups all over the world can't access the US market without heavy fees, and obviously, this is but one really, really bad decision by Republican lawmakers, Trump announced yesterday he plans to cut even more regulations, and eventually he'll find one that affects the whole world or at least Europe directly.

I assume you know the difference between Transit Networks and IXP's? Most of the data today is already shuffled through peering. The Internet hasn't been a You-->backbone-->service model for a decade. I don't really see that changing very much due to this. My EU ISP will still peer directly with Netflix IXP - and the traffic never gets shuffled by the transit backbone.

You can check the peering locations they offer here: https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/peering-locations/

What will change however are the fees/control for the "last mile cable" delivery companies in US - because you don't actually have much healthy competition on that field. So stuff like this will happen: https://twitter.com/henshaw/status/941133127283564544

That's where the change will be. Limiting transit networks or trying to repel IXPs makes no sense for ISPs.

[ablib]

Prior to Obama passing Net Neutrality, were your ISP's charging you for an 'Entertainment/Gamer' package, to be able to play online games?

lol. It's so funny when the anti-net neutrality people say this. Just parrot it off, and re-tweet, and look dumb, I guess.

Yes, ISP's started heading towards the dark side, when the 2015 rules went in place. THAT's why the rules were put in place, to stop them from going down that dark road. People also say that the internet has been fine for the past 20+ years without rules in place. It wasn't until the 2010's that the ISP saw monetary value in how they regulate traffic, hence why the 2015 rules were put in place.

[Torrasque]

Title 2's primary function is to classify ISPs as common carriers / utilities. It, by itself, isn't Net Neutrality, it only labels ISPs as common carriers.

This is because in 2014, Verizon won its court case against the FCC to no longer be classified under the jurisdiction of Title 1: The Open Internet Order of 2010 which is a reformation of the 2002 FCC Brand X Decision to monitor cable practices illegally done against their own consumers. Which was the purpose of instating the FCC in the first place.

Historically, the practice of Net Neutrality has existed in the US since the 1980s, but was first adopted officially in the 1990s and first coined the term to represent is function in 2002.

Therefore, as of now, ISPs have had the power, for the first time since the 1980s, to completely avoid Net Neutrality laws. The only other time that the internet was like this was in the early 1980s.

[Ehrenpanzer]

Remember how it affected WoW prior to 2015? The exact same thing.

IE literally nothing will change. This is all just a bunch boogeyman fear mongering by Redditors scared to death that Comcast is going to take away their anime and Pornhub. I wish I was kidding

Even if the Ultra Liberal dreamt up Internet Apocalypse happens, there are far far bigger fish the telecommunications corps would go after, i.e Ebay, Amazon, Netflix, Youtube, Twitch etc and so on....

[Oneirophobia]

Prior to Obama passing Net Neutrality, were your ISP's charging you for an 'Entertainment/Gamer' package, to be able to play online games?

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/...-brief-history


There’s a list of things net neutrality prevented or impeded.

[Torrasque]

lol. It's so funny when the anti-net neutrality people say this. Just parrot it off, and re-tweet, and look dumb, I guess.

Yes, ISP's started heading towards the dark side, when the 2015 rules went in place. THAT's why the rules were put in place, to stop them from going down that dark road. People also say that the internet has been fine for the past 20+ years without rules in place. It wasn't until the 2010's that the ISP saw monetary value in how they regulate traffic, hence why the 2015 rules were put in place.

Refer to my comment on proof of your claims. Because, you are right. The last time that ISPs had the power that they hold was back before the web was used as social device and charges were made for almost everything then, including scouring your encrypted transmissions if you refused to pay for ransoming, charging you BOTH for data caps and for use per hour, outright banning consumer connection to other countries and throttling/blocking incoming traffic from other countries. It was a mess before it was uniformed and organized into the prosperity that it is today.

- - - Updated - - -

Even if the Ultra Liberal dreamt up Internet Apocalypse happens, there are far far bigger fish the telecommunications corps would go after, i.e Ebay, Amazon, Netflix, Youtube, Twitch etc and so on....

Do you have proof of this claim? As a librarian, I'd love to see proof that these content creators have more buying power than ISPs.

[Deleted]

The only other time that the internet was like this was in the early 1980s.[/URL]

And indeed, just like back in 1980s this will affect the American consumer because the last-mile cable is controlled by very few companies.
It will not have effect on backbone transit networks internationally and it will not have any effect on IXP peering outside USA.

Inside USA the big ISP's will charge the hell out of the traffic that goes from your last-mile cable to Netflix/Google/Facebook IXP within their network, because that's the money they're after and charging for that traffic will not have any adverse effect - unhappy customer? well you can always switch to.. oh right.. there's nowhere else to switch to..

But trying to make this into a global hysteria is a tall order. Rest of the world will be just fine.

[Coffeh]

Prior to Obama passing Net Neutrality, were your ISP's charging you for an 'Entertainment/Gamer' package, to be able to play online games?

You sound as clueless as Ted Cruz.

[Ehrenpanzer]

Refer to my comment on proof of your claims. Because, you are right. The last time that ISPs had the power that they hold was back before the web was used as social device and charges were made for almost everything then, including scouring your encrypted transmissions if you refused to pay for ransoming, charging you BOTH for data caps and for use per hour, outright banning consumer connection to other countries and throttling/blocking incoming traffic from other countries. It was a mess before it was uniformed and organized into the prosperity that it is today.

- - - Updated - - -



Do you have proof of this claim? As a librarian, I'd love to see proof that these content creators have more buying power than ISPs.

1) Common sense would indicate that a company worth around 100B would be a much more lucrative target then a company worth 21B, but I suppose common sense is a lost art these days.
2) As a librarian? Uh... we arent debating the finer points of books or authors, so thats fairly irrelevant. Or did they slip in a 5 year economics course into the requirements to run a computer and put books away?
3) Do you even understand what Net Neutrality IS? And who would be charging who for what? The ISP's are the ones CHARGING COMPANIES like Amazon and Youtube to be featured more prominently or not be throttled. Maybe you should actually understand what it is you are discussing... check around your library, Im sure theres a book on it somewhere.

[Torrasque]

And indeed, just like back in 1980s this will affect the American consumer because the last-mile cable is controlled by very few companies.
It will not have effect on backbone transit networks internationally and it will not have any effect on IXP peering outside USA.

Inside USA the big ISP's will charge the hell out of the traffic that goes from your last-mile cable to Netflix/Google/Facebook IXP within their network, because that's the money they're after and charging for that traffic will not have any adverse effect - unhappy customer? well you can always switch to.. oh right.. there's nowhere else to switch to..

But trying to make this into a global hysteria is a tall order. Rest of the world will be just fine.

Again, you say this but offer exactly ZERO proof that using their hardware will not incur ransoming. Where are you getting this information?

- - - Updated - - -

1) Common sense would indicate that a company worth around 100B would be a much more lucrative target then a company worth 21B, but I suppose common sense is a lost art these days.
2) As a librarian? Uh... we arent debating the finer points of books or authors, so thats fairly irrelevant. Or did they slip in a 5 year economics course into the requirements to run a computer and put books away?
3) Do you even understand what Net Neutrality IS? And who would be charging who for what? The ISP's are the ones CHARGING COMPANIES like Amazon and Youtube to be featured more prominently or not be throttled. Maybe you should actually understand what it is you are discussing... check around your library, Im sure theres a book on it somewhere.

Again, that makes no sense. ISPs make deals, worth greater than the entire net worth of these companies.

How can companies that have a net worth that is minimal compared to them have more buying power?

You state that companies like Facebook and amazon have more buying power than ISPs, but a quick google search shows that ISPs make deals that are far greater that then entire value of these industries. You are straight up lying.

[Deleted]

Again, you say this but offer exactly ZERO proof that using their hardware will not incur ransoming. Where are you getting this information?

Look man, I'm sure you mean well, but you are seriously confused about some basic concepts of networking.

I'm not sure what you mean by "using their hardware". It has no technical relevance in this discussion.

If we take World of Warcraft as an example - I'm in EU. My connection to my WoW server does not use Comcast (or any US-based ISPs) hardware. My traffic does not get routed through any US-based ISP. Same goes for Netflix. And Google. And Facebook. None of my traffic does this. My traffic gets either peered directly to them or it goes through transit carrier. Some of those transit agreements have always had settlement fees. Net neutrality has never really existed on the backbone level, so I don't imagine much changing there due to this. No one will "ransom" traffic, that concept doesn't exist. Congestion points are normal.

You can find out how your peering and routing works, it's not a huge secret here are two handy tools for you:
https://www.peeringdb.com/ and http://lg.telia.net/
If you want to find out how Blizzard routing works towards you (in EU) - you can use this tool they provide: http://eu-looking-glass.battle.net/

You should be worried about your ISP's ransoming your last mile cables (which they've actually done long time ago) since you have nowhere else to go. You can't switch to an alternative. You only have a handful of ISP, that's why you're in this situation. Now they want to squeeze you for the data that goes through that last mile cable, just like they used to do with copper lines back in the day.

Trying to push this into a global discussion is hyperbolic.

[Gadzooks]

The FCC has opened a veritable Pandora's box with its repeal of NN. Only the Light may know what will happen with the price of online-based companies, such as Steam, Netflix, Spotify and even Blizz. I can't see the sub going up though, since most stuff has already gone up and salaries remain stagnant, in the US and in many other (western) countries afaik.

There are good arguments for both sides of the debate, the problem is, the FCC side really isn't making their case to the public, and explaining WHY they chose to repeal NN. That's bad. The other side has made their case, quite vocally, and right or wrong, their stance and goals are plain.

There's a bigger issue here than how much you pay for WoW/gaming. This could/will change the entire landscape of the internet...or it won't. Right now, US customers pay more, for less, than other countries, because broadband providers stopped building out their networks, because of NN. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure that will support 4k and beyond, and nobody wants to. So the fear is, legitimately, that cost is going to be passed on to use, with packaged tiers of access, or higher broadband costs, or massively throttled access. There's a reason we all mistrust the ISPs that are the gateway to the internet for us - I don't trust Comcast at all, and I'm legit concerned what they're going to do.

But, it's unclear where this is going. The FCC didn't make their case to us, and that's why so many are upset. If NN wasn't needed, tell us WHY. And tell us why the Commissioner went from talking about revising the NN policies, to just dumping them altogether.

There's a bigger picture here, that's unclear. We all rush to the "tiered access plans" meme, but is that really the aim? Or is it a way for the current administration to undermine the power of sites like Facebook who have been making billions of dollars and now influencing the government and society with their newfound power, all based on cheap access and free data from it's users? Or an attack on Amazon? Or Twitter? If people have to pay, how many are going to stick with social media? I know most people I know are posting that if they have to pay for Facebook/Twitter/Youtube, they're not going to. This will GUT these sites.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you say this but offer exactly ZERO proof that using their hardware will not incur ransoming. Where are you getting this information?

ISPs don't own the pipe. They pay for access, to the backbone providers. I think you have a deeply flawed misunderstanding of how the internet works. You can't "ransom" the pipe, unless you own it.

ISPs are a gateway. They can control only what flows through their gateway, and that's it. You can avoid part of Comcast's gateway by using 3rd party DNS servers, right now. Do you understand what that means, or what a DNS server is? If you don't, go educate yourself before you start throwing words like 'liar" around.

[Ehrenpanzer]

Again, you say this but offer exactly ZERO proof that using their hardware will not incur ransoming. Where are you getting this information?

- - - Updated - - -



Again, that makes no sense. ISPs make deals, worth greater than the entire net worth of these companies.

How can companies that have a net worth that is minimal compared to them have more buying power?

You state that companies like Facebook and amazon have more buying power than ISPs, but a quick google search shows that ISPs make deals that are far greater that then entire value of these industries. You are straight up lying.

Man... you seriously have no idea what the hell Net Neutrality is, or what could (again, in theory) happen. You are rambling incoherently about "buying power" and ISPs making deals worth more then the value of the industries. At this point you are just making nonsensical shit up, please show me a 100B+ deal. What I did find however was this https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.88136147fc5a

Which basically proves exactly what I was saying.. Please, since you know how to use google, try checking out what NN actually IS and WHO would profit from it if the tariffs start flying.