FCC to vote on scrapping Net Neutrality

[s_bushido]

I just love it how literally everyone (regardless of party/political affiliation) despises their cable company/ISP, but the instant someone can politicize it, you have right-leaning people tripping all over themselves to suck the cocks of these giant corporations.

[NYC17]

It is a free market on it's own. If it's not then it's because an earlier regulation screwed it up, which means the solution is further deregulation to make sure new ISP competitors can be established.

There's nothing "free market" about it. It' the same lie you've bought into about healthcare being a "free market". I really wish people would learn what they're talking about, or at least fake it better.

[PC2]

The biggest road block to competition is infrastructure. A new ISP can't afford to lay miles and miles of cables, let alone considering how complicated things would be if a dozen ISPs laid cables everywhere. That means they have to share the existing infrastructure and ISPs don't want to share.

If current ISPs are gouging customers then the initial investment for new ISPs will be easily worth it. People will flock to the new fair competitor and make it profitable.

The key is to start locally in the most under-served areas then expand. Which takes time and diligence. It's up to the localities to facilitate it though. In CA, Charter Communications Inc helps to give more options outside of ATT and Comcast.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It is a free market on it's own. If it's not then it's because an earlier regulation screwed it up, which means the solution is further deregulation to make sure new ISP competitors can be established.

Your only argument against NN this entire thread has been that "bandwidth hogs" prevent "more important" information from getting through, and otherwise you just speak general nonsense indicating you don't even know what net neutrality is. So your only coherent argument isn't even right considering that

1) ISPs have enormous bandwidth, enough to accommodate traffic increases for at least a decade or two even with current infrastructure.
2) FCC regulations require that emergency channels exist on all communication medium and take priority over normal communication, meaning that even if we reach that bandwidth cap anywhere, ISPs are already required to allocate a certain amount exclusively for the use of emergency communication.

Your only other pseudo-point was that "bandwidth hogs" would have to finally pay their fair share, when they already pay the same amount per packet as everyone else. The reason net neutrality even became a thing in the first place is because comcast recognized that netflix was making asstons of money, and wanted a piece of that pie that wasn't theirs, so on top of already charging netflix the same amount per data packet as everyone else, they decided that since they could, they were going to charge additional "fees" on top of that.

Imagine if the company you ran relied entirely on one food company to feed your employees. Now imagine if that food company suddenly decided that instead of charging you $2 per meal for your employees, like it charged every single other company out there, it suddenly wanted to start charging you $3, because they know you are ultra successful, that you can pay and they know you are reliant on them, and they're the only food company available so you'd have no choice but to pay or they'd stop feeding your employees. In my example yes, someone else could start up a food chain to compete against that, but when it comes to ISPs, they have monopolies and oligopolies in pretty much every corner of the country and immediately squash any and all competition that starts up. So that "counter" is bunk.

And on top of the one and a half points you've made about the issue, you don't seem at all worried even though you cry about "right wing censorship" on the internet. You're bitter at content providers like facebook and twitter because you think there's some kind of right wing censorship going on, but at least those right wing people and organizations can access the internet. One of the provisions of net neutrality is that ISPs must offer service (at a price of course) to every individual or company unless it is an illegal organization or other common sense exceptions blah blah. Without net neutrality, ISPs can choose to shut off internet service to Breitbart and small right wing vomitoriums, making it so that they have NO internet access. And since in the US, our telecoms operate as monopolies and oligopolies, these right wing sites and people won't have alternative ISPs to turn to. Not saying that this will happen, but it is a possibility without NN, and you seem to already believe there is some kind of censorship campaign by companies on the left... which telecom companies are.

So considering this has now been explained to you how many times now? It's pretty much proof positive that you're either trolling or being deliberately ignorant (otherwise known as stupid).

[Cthulhu 2020]

If current ISPs are gouging customers then the initial investment for new ISPs will be easily worth it. People will flock to the new fair competitor and make it profitable.

The key is to start locally in the most under-served areas then expand. Which takes time and diligence. It's up to the localities to facilitate it though. In CA, Charter Communications Inc helps to give more options outside of ATT and Comcast.

Companies try this, they get out competed, fail, and then get bought out by big telecoms. You seem oddly ignorant of how the telecom industry works in the USA, and should probably stop posting with any kind of authoritative tone on the matter.

[Somewhatconcerned]

If current ISPs are gouging customers then the initial investment for new ISPs will be easily worth it. People will flock to the new fair competitor and make it profitable.

The key is to start locally in the most under-served areas then expand. Which takes time and diligence. It's up to the localities to facilitate it though. In CA, Charter Communications Inc helps to give more options outside of ATT and Comcast.

How does a new "start up" ISP lay infrastructure and compete with the big boys?

Even if they manage to break into the game, they will inherently have weaker infrastructure and weaker service. And probably in very limited areas. Not very appealing, nor competitive.

You say it takes time and diligence. What happens in the meantime? The larger ISPs are free to censor and over-charge at will?

[NYC17]

Companies try this, they get out competed, fail, and then get bought out by big telecoms. You seem oddly ignorant of how the telecom industry works in the USA, and should probably stop posting with any kind of authoritative tone on the matter.

He's oddly ignorant about how business in general works.

[Dezerte]

It is a free market on it's own. If it's not then it's because an earlier regulation screwed it up, which means the solution is further deregulation to make sure new ISP competitors can be established.

A self-correcting & infallible free market only exists in the ideals of it's believers. E.g. communism looks great on paper but it doesn't really work in reality because of the human factor, and the same is true for capitalism and the free market. Like most aspects of life, we need to enforce rules in order to ensure a just & fair society.

Now, regulations can absolutely be created that are anti-free market but the opposite is also true - anti-trust laws comes to mind here. But you can consider any law as an example of how we regulate things to protect our freedoms from being abused.

[PC2]

Your only argument against NN this entire thread has been that "bandwidth hogs" prevent "more important" information from getting through, and otherwise you just speak general nonsense indicating you don't even know what net neutrality is. So your only coherent argument isn't even right considering that

1) ISPs have enormous bandwidth, enough to accommodate traffic increases for at least a decade or two even with current infrastructure.
2) FCC regulations require that emergency channels exist on all communication medium and take priority over normal communication, meaning that even if we reach that bandwidth cap anywhere, ISPs are already required to allocate a certain amount exclusively for the use of emergency communication.

Your only other pseudo-point was that "bandwidth hogs" would have to finally pay their fair share, when they already pay the same amount per packet as everyone else. The reason net neutrality even became a thing in the first place is because comcast recognized that netflix was making asstons of money, and wanted a piece of that pie that wasn't theirs, so on top of already charging netflix the same amount per data packet as everyone else, they decided that since they could, they were going to charge additional "fees" on top of that.

Imagine if the company you ran relied entirely on one food company to feed your employees. Now imagine if that food company suddenly decided that instead of charging you $2 per meal for your employees, like it charged every single other company out there, it suddenly wanted to start charging you $3, because they know you are ultra successful, that you can pay and they know you are reliant on them, and they're the only food company available so you'd have no choice but to pay or they'd stop feeding your employees. In my example yes, someone else could start up a food chain to compete against that, but when it comes to ISPs, they have monopolies and oligopolies in pretty much every corner of the country and immediately squash any and all competition that starts up. So that "counter" is bunk.

And on top of the one and a half points you've made about the issue, you don't seem at all worried even though you cry about "right wing censorship" on the internet. You're bitter at content providers like facebook and twitter because you think there's some kind of right wing censorship going on, but at least those right wing people and organizations can access the internet. One of the provisions of net neutrality is that ISPs must offer service (at a price of course) to every individual or company unless it is an illegal organization or other common sense exceptions blah blah. Without net neutrality, ISPs can choose to shut off internet service to Breitbart and small right wing vomitoriums, making it so that they have NO internet access. And since in the US, our telecoms operate as monopolies and oligopolies, these right wing sites and people won't have alternative ISPs to turn to. Not saying that this will happen, but it is a possibility without NN, and you seem to already believe there is some kind of censorship campaign by companies on the left... which telecom companies are.

So considering this has now been explained to you how many times now? It's pretty much proof positive that you're either trolling or being deliberately ignorant (otherwise known as stupid).

I understand that NN does not create a bandwidth problem. Like I said:

I'm not talking about bandwidth at all. I'm talking talking about priority execution and better latency which isn't allowed under net neutrality.

I'm talking about making a market for latency prioritization, which businesses cant do right now.

The emergency protocol is good, that's one example of why not all types of data are equal and shouldn't be treated the same.

[Moralgy]

I just love it how literally everyone (regardless of party/political affiliation) despises their cable company/ISP, but the instant someone can politicize it, you have right-leaning people tripping all over themselves to suck the cocks of these giant corporations.

I do find it kind of sad that people will agree with screwing theirself over just because it started being billed as a red vs blue situation. Last time NN was on the table, the internet was seemingly overwhelmingly against removing NN, but now its suddenly a partisan issue.

[Wyrt]

If current ISPs are gouging customers then the initial investment for new ISPs will be easily worth it. People will flock to the new fair competitor and make it profitable.

The key is to start locally in the most under-served areas then expand. Which takes time and diligence. It's up to the localities to facilitate it though. In CA, Charter Communications Inc helps to give more options outside of ATT and Comcast.

New competitor using what infrastructure?

[PC2]

New competitor using what infrastructure?

Entirely new competitors have to make new infrastructure. If a locality has pre-existing regulation to keep competition out then the related regulations must be cancelled.

[Dezerte]

I'm talking about making a market for latency prioritization, which businesses cant do right now.

The emergency protocol is good, that's one example of why not all types of data are equal and shouldn't be treated the same.

If that really was true it could have been an amendment to net neutrality. The fact that it isn't is a red flag.

[SavoirFaire]

I do find it kind of sad that people will agree with screwing theirself over just because it started being billed as a red vs blue situation. Last time NN was on the table, the internet was seemingly overwhelmingly against removing NN, but now its suddenly a partisan issue.

I was wondering where a NN thread was on the forum and was bummed that it got flushed to the politics subforum. It seems that anything remotely controversial nowadays get 6 degrees of Trumped and turned into some mindless shitposting exercise. Hell, if there is one thing that should unite the people of the US, it should be that cable companies and telecom companies are dirtbags and should be given less power and not more.

[Gray_Matter]

Okay, conservatives need to cut the "small business is a virtue" mentality. It made sense in the past, but the 21st century is a battle of economies of scale. If a new small business has an innovative idea, I would expect them to be acquired. They would have to have an extremely great idea to become the next Facebook or Google.

Read this http://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/

Some highlights:

“Small businesses accounted for 63.3% of net new jobs from the third quarter of 1992 until the third quarter of 2013.”

Employer firms with fewer than 100 workers employed 33.7 percent

Seems like you are throwing quite a few people under the bus there.

[Stormspark]

The funny thing is, people are going to start using VPN's and encrypting their traffic and ISP's won't be able to tell where stuff is going anyway.

[Moralgy]

I was wondering where a NN thread was on the forum and was bummed that it got flushed to the politics subforum. It seems that anything remotely controversial nowadays get 6 degrees of Trumped and turned into some mindless shitposting exercise. Hell, if there is one thing that should unite the people of the US, it should be that cable companies and telecom companies are dirtbags and should be given less power and not more.

The amount people complain about their cable companies is insane, but the moment it became a political issue half the population apparently forgot about how often ISPs try to screw them over.

Political football is "fun".

[Wyrt]

Entirely new competitors have to make new infrastructure. If a locality has pre-existing regulation to keep competition out then the related regulations must be cancelled.

How is a new competitor going to afford all the infrastructure required? It's not cheap to lay miles and miles of cable.

[Nellise]

Entirely new competitors have to make new infrastructure. If a locality has pre-existing regulation to keep competition out then the related regulations must be cancelled.

Infrastructure is incredibly expensive. Even the existing ISPs aren't upgrading it properly. And if they do get a competitor, they have so much cash, they can reduce their prices below profitability and starve out anybody new for several years (they might get hit with an anti-trust claim for that, but only after the damage was done).

[Felya]

I'm talking about making a market for latency prioritization, which businesses cant do right now.

Net neutrality doesn’t actually impact latency. There are 4 reasons for latency, with only queue latency having any impact through NN. But, think of the impact of lowering a que, by splitting. Not only are you adding an extra hop, the split actually requires adding resources.

Remember, this is just 1 of 4, one that really impact densely populated areas, which usually already have a proximity advantage. That’s why there are so many players in NYC, that have less latency. The que they sit in, is negated by proximity. So, if you don’t live in a major city, the 1 in 4 will not even impact you at all. It will pretty much only be an advantage for coastal elites... and an unnoticeable one at that.

The emergency protocol is good, that's one example of why not all types of data are equal and shouldn't be treated the same.

Uhm... emergency protocols are ISP agnostic. I have not worked with them in about 4 years, but most... I mean all that are not cheap crap... this includes really cool fleet management, uses SMS. Reasons why this is, should be blatantly obvious.

Edit: SMS would still require ISP, but not in the same sense as ISP that is part of NN. We are not talking commercial use. Although, you can even build one.

- - - Updated - - -

Fun anecdote... the reason targeting started out the way it is in WoW, is not a game play choice. It was specifically meant to combat latency. It’s why recently there have been more spells that are “skill” shots, instead of follow targeting. Latency isn’t really relevant anymore... most problems are local.