99.7% of unique comments to the FFC about Net Neutrailty were in favor of it

[dpark1023]

The majority.

Net Neutrality was a pretty simple rule.

If youtube can discriminate against people than why shouldn't the people that sell bandwidth to youtube? What negative events have taken place as a result of the net neutrality repeal? Did those same things happen before net neutrality was implemented?

[Xeones]

If youtube can discriminate against people than why shouldn't the people that sell bandwidth to youtube? What negative events have taken place as a result of the net neutrality repeal? Did those same things happen before net neutrality was implemented?

The document of the rules had 8 pages of regulations and over 300 pages of justification and explanations for the rules.

[wunksta]

If youtube can discriminate against people

How has YouTube discriminated against people?

What negative events have taken place as a result of the net neutrality repeal?

https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/23/1...ter-throttling

Did those same things happen before net neutrality was implemented?

Yes, and the ISPs were sued
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...cked-facetime/
https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...t-traffic.html
https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders...-05-543A2.html

[Xeones]

How has YouTube discriminated against people?

He has a problem with Nazis or ISIS and what not being allowed to use a specific website.

Because that is totally the same thing.

[Orbitus]

If youtube can discriminate against people than why shouldn't the people that sell bandwidth to youtube? What negative events have taken place as a result of the net neutrality repeal? Did those same things happen before net neutrality was implemented?

That isn't what net neutrality is. Are you sure you know what net neutrality is?

[Wyrt]

If youtube can discriminate against people than why shouldn't the people that sell bandwidth to youtube? What negative events have taken place as a result of the net neutrality repeal? Did those same things happen before net neutrality was implemented?

Youtube isn't an ISP.

And what negative events? Did you miss Verizon throttling firefighters in California? Does that not matter because it's California or something?

[dpark1023]

That isn't what net neutrality is. Are you sure you know what net neutrality is?

No I'm not actually.

[Muzjhath]

No I'm not actually.

Net Neutrality states that (at least for commercial data) no data will be treated differently than any other. A package going from Time Warner will be treated the same as one from Netflix which is the same as something from Apple or Alphabet which is the same as something from a locally hosted little personal website. The main pipes of information is blind to where said information comes from.
And it doesn't charge you extra to access any of those places, you just pay for the internet and you choose your food within and it gets delivered by a blind waiter.

That is, in very short form, the essence of it.

[dpark1023]

Net Neutrality states that (at least for commercial data) no data will be treated differently than any other. A package going from Time Warner will be treated the same as one from Netflix which is the same as something from Apple or Alphabet which is the same as something from a locally hosted little personal website. The main pipes of information is blind to where said information comes from.
And it doesn't charge you extra to access any of those places, you just pay for the internet and you choose your food within and it gets delivered by a blind waiter.

That is, in very short form, the essence of it.

So if 80% of the bandwith is going to and from Netflix servers, they should be able to pay the same amount as a different business thats using less bandwith? Or am I getting that wrong?

[Muzjhath]

So if 80% of the bandwith is going to and from Netflix servers, they should be able to pay the same amount as a different business thats using less bandwith? Or am I getting that wrong?

You're getting that somewhat wrong. Focus to much on the money issue.
They should pay the same rates as a different business. However as they use more bandwidth they'll have to pay more for infrastructure somewhere. Either internally to connect up to the ISP, or to the ISP so the ISP can cover what they need.
The main issue here is however, that if we say you're using Time Warner for your internet. Time Warner in this case can't slow Netflix services down, while making their own channels stream flawlessly and faster than average. Same as Alphabet (google) can't pay to have YT delivered smoother than Netflix is. The 1s and 0s in the pipes are treated as blind figures with no discrimination.

However, as I've got no idea how ISPs and major other service providers make their contracts I can't really say specifics in how they deal. I assume it's not made with how consumers pay for it. It's a far more complicated thing, more so for a streaming service. I don't know if ISPs just pay to connect someone up, or if they pay for bits through their pipes, or whatever.
Time Warner (I keep using them as I know they provide broadband in the US, and have used them so far) shouldn't be able to dictate the speed which I, as the consumer, get different parts of the internet. They also shouldn't be able to go "No, you can't access Youtube as we already have a perfectly good streaming service. Unless you're willing yo pay higher monthly rates ofcourse". (So, shouldn't be able to do to the internet what they do to TV network offerings).

Most of the core issues of NN is consumer faced.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

https://www.marketplace.org/2017/07/...internet-pizza

“There are a lot of ways to describe net neutrality, but my favorite has its roots with justice [Antonin] Scalia: Pizza delivery. Imagine you are in a town with two pizza places — Domino’s and Papa John’s — and one phone company, AT&T. In a normally functioning free market, if you want to order pizza you are likely to call whichever pizza place that tastes best to you or has the best bang for your buck. But let’s say AT&T and Domino’s cut a special deal where any calls to Domino’s are favored over the calls going to other pizza places. So anyone calling Papa John’s has to wait behind everyone else calling Domino’s. For most people even if you might think Papa John’s tastes better, you know you will get your pizza faster if you choose Domino’s.

Worse, let’s say AT&T acquired Domino’s and profits directly from Domino’s profits. Now AT&T has even more reason to block or throttle calls going to Papa John’s. We doubt any new pizza shops are going to set up shop near you if they know they are facing this kind of unfair treatment from the established big guys. So, here we have fewer choices and higher prices for everyone involved. The strong net neutrality rules currently on the books prevent big providers like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast from favoring one pizza chain — or in the case of internet, content creator — over another. It means all traffic and content travels over your connection at an equal pace. This means more entrants to the market, more reasons for people to continue making their services better, and happier customers, whether they prefer Domino’s or something else.

And now imagine that instead of delicious pizza we are talking about access to healthcare, the ability to open competitive businesses, launch your own app, to apply for jobs and for your kids to do their homework. Net neutrality makes sure that everyone gets a seat at the table to succeed at the American dream."

[Deleted]

I don't understand how anyone can be against net neutrality after Verizon was caught throttling data for firefighters in California.

Governments and corporations are against it, and the rest of the people don't really care that much as to make a fuss big enough to make the government fear repercussions. Hell, Billy Bob doesn't even wtf that is.

[Cthulhu 2020]

They seem to think, some of them anyways, that it means "for every conservative post, there must be a liberal one!" which is false. Or they believe that it's a government take-over of the internet, which is also false. Or that we have the freedom to ditch one ISP for another, which is false. Or that it's possible for a small business to start its own ISP and be successful which is . . . well . . . extremely difficult and may as well be false.

The way I like to put it is like this: ISPs are like the Post Office. The Post Office doesn't get to look into your letters, it doesn't get to decide if your letter gets to its destination faster or slower depending on it's contents (lets just ignore hazmats for right now.) Their only job is to get the letters from A to B. The same thing is true for ISPs. ISPs don't get to look into your data packets. They don't get to decide if your packets go faster or slower depending on it's contents. Their only job is to get that data packet from A to B.

Don't forget the ones who insist that if we want better internet and not get scammed by internet companies, we should just switch providers to providers who aren't taking advantage of their customers. What? There's not a single internet provider in this country that isn't doing that? Well let's not forget these same posters suggest that people should just simply set up their own private companies like comcast and the 2 others did because it's totally easy to start up and ISP.

These are also the same people who say that the internet lines belong to the internet companies, so they're free to gouge prices if they want (which is literally anti free market, even though these people claim to be free marketeers) They always seem to get stumped when I tell them that the GOVERNMENT used TAXPAYER DOLLARS to lay the foundations of most of the internet lines, and simply GAVE most of the internet lines to the cable companies FOR FREE.

[Orbitus]

No I'm not actually.

Net Neutrality means that ISPs can't throttle you or charge you for things like Netflix or block you from sites that are things like recruiters for terrorism and whatnot. It has NOTHING to do with being banned from a website like Facebook or Youtube.

So, no, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about with Net Neutrality.

[Dontrike]

How many of those 99.7% know what net neutrality is enough to have a valid opinion on it?

The ones against it would pretty much show they don't know anything about it.

- - - Updated - - -

If youtube can discriminate against people

Do show where youtube has discriminated. We'll all wait while you gather the mountains of evidence you always bring to a discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

No I'm not actually.

If you don't know then you'd be one of those people that shouldn't have an opinion on this, or do you not remember this post you made barely 90 minutes prior?

How many of those 99.7% know what net neutrality is enough to have a valid opinion on it?

I guess you're part of them.

[Travis B]

Lol @ the guy who thinks net neutrality is about whether ISPs can discriminate against people based on political beliefs, and then has the audacity to try to mock others for not knowing what net neutrality is. You just can't make this shit up.

[Dontrike]

Looks like 9.5 million comments were made with stolen identities.

Shit Pai fucking things up as much as possible.

[Radical Centrist]

https://www.pcgamer.com/almost-every...et-neutrality/

Big shocker. /s

But yeah, a study by a researcher from Stanford determined that of the comments that people wrote themselves (That is, weren't copy/pasted from anti-consumer right wing groups or spammed by bots), 99.7% were in favor of maintaining Net Neutrality. Said commenters tended to be well-informed about Net Neutrality and what's more, was a bipartisan group from both Democratic and Republican districts.

Of course, Trumps anti-consumer FCC run by corporate stooge Ajit Pai made no effort to prevent comment stuffing/fraud by anti-Net Neutrality bots.

What changed after the Obama era policy was implemented? What has changed since it was done away with? Nothing and nothing, right?

[Dontrike]

What changed after the Obama era policy was implemented? What has changed since it was done away with? Nothing and nothing, right?

So you don't remember when an ISP was throttling fire fighters during a fire? Must be easy to ignore how things changed when you know nothing of Net Neutrality.

[Radical Centrist]

So you don't remember when an ISP was throttling fire fighters during a fire? Must be easy to ignore how things changed when you know nothing of Net Neutrality.

I am not familiar with this one incident. But I think the fact that something so obscure is the biggest problem to arise, it seems to validate my point that life under the Obama policy didn't change, and neither has restoring the prior status quo. Your life has literally not been impacted, in any way, as this policy has changed back and forth. So I just find all the huffing and puffing to be amusing.