Will the FCC's Vote to Roll Back Net Neutrality succeed? And if so, Are you worried?

2

Comments

  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    calloy said:

    calloy said:

    anything that can be done today can be undone in the future. the GOP is going down in flames, but it takes time for rational people to regain control of the levers of government.

    both parties have rational and irrational people, no need to just blame one side. also in response to another comment you made about the GOP splitting up, its also happening to the DNC, so if things keep going the way they are, we're going to have 6 parties here in the US. fun times.
    dumb argument. for one thing, I don't see the DNC supporting pedophiles. we'll see who's left standing in 2018. put on your voting pants.
    the argument I was making is it doesn't matter what party is in power. they only do what they are told by the few people that REALLY run this world. (hint one of them is named George Soros)
  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.

    calloy said:

    calloy said:

    anything that can be done today can be undone in the future. the GOP is going down in flames, but it takes time for rational people to regain control of the levers of government.

    both parties have rational and irrational people, no need to just blame one side. also in response to another comment you made about the GOP splitting up, its also happening to the DNC, so if things keep going the way they are, we're going to have 6 parties here in the US. fun times.
    dumb argument. for one thing, I don't see the DNC supporting pedophiles. we'll see who's left standing in 2018. put on your voting pants.
    the argument I was making is it doesn't matter what party is in power. they only do what they are told by the few people that REALLY run this world. (hint one of them is named George Soros)
    your tinfoil hat is on crooked
  • Come on man, chastising someone is not meaningful communication. Insulting people is how you push them away.
  • I believe so, and, yes, I am very worried.
    I wonder how a movie with Soros vs. the Koch Brothers would turn out.
  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    Witticus said:

    Come on man, chastising someone is not meaningful communication. Insulting people is how you push them away.

    both sides are not the same and someone who believes a lie like that is not CAPABLE of meaningful conversation.
  • calloy said:

    Witticus said:

    Come on man, chastising someone is not meaningful communication. Insulting people is how you push them away.

    both sides are not the same and someone who believes a lie like that is not CAPABLE of meaningful conversation.
    And I get that, but name calling doesn’t work. Express your views in a civil manner, explain why you disagree with their argument. You know I’m not a fan of any of this, but you have people here willing to talk.

    We need to bring back civil discussions where people can talk in an open way without being demeaned. Find out why they think the way they do, you’d be surprised how much you have in common.
  • calloycalloy Unsigned
    edited December 2017
    I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    Witticus said:

    calloy said:

    Witticus said:

    Come on man, chastising someone is not meaningful communication. Insulting people is how you push them away.

    both sides are not the same and someone who believes a lie like that is not CAPABLE of meaningful conversation.
    And I get that, but name calling doesn’t work. Express your views in a civil manner, explain why you disagree with their argument. You know I’m not a fan of any of this, but you have people here willing to talk.

    We need to bring back civil discussions where people can talk in an open way without being demeaned. Find out why they think the way they do, you’d be surprised how much you have in common.
    when there are no shared FACTS, there is no discussion. someone telling a LIE to my face is an insult to me. I cut off the discussion with a mild joke, since it would never progress beyond one side claiming "everyone is evil", a lie, and "No they're not", which is true.
  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    and back to the title: the FCC's decision mainly hurts the poor. I have money to pay more now, but at one time I didn't, so I know how it feels to be excluded because you're poor. I care about the less fortunate because I was less fortunate.

    my family may get a huge personal tax cut AND huge business tax cuts and pass-throughs. we don't need it. we will live the same, no matter what. the less fortunate will not. they pay for these cuts.
  • jibjqrkljibjqrkl Eventually Perceptive
    edited December 2017
    coolkat said:

    You people saying this is a major loss do realize that you've only had net neutrality since 2015, right? This is simply a reversal back to the way things went before then. The internet was still easy to access and use without net neutrality written into law.

    Your internet isn't going to change all that much. Everyone's making a bigger mess out of it than it needs to be because oh no, we can't have them PURE EVIL corporations doing anything because they'd rather screw over and turn away practically everyone rather than play the game safe and just not toy around with individual websites. If anyone finds out a corporation is doing what everyone says they will do, then that company essentially shot itself in the foot. It'd be bad for the business.

    Also, when was the last time excessive economic regulation worked? The Soviet Union's economy was heavily regulated, look what happened to them. Look at what's happening to North Korea now. Then look at Hong Kong, one of the most free markets in the world today, and look at how successful it is compared to the regulated economies.

    As Adam Smith once famously stated, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Regulation constricts things, it doesn't make them grow. The more stuff you put in the hands of government officials the worse things get. I hope most of us can agree with that.

    Minor rant aside, I honestly think this is the best way the vote could have ended. I know for a fact that this will garner dislikes and disagreements, but I'm so sick of this hysterical atmosphere that I just want to vent some of my frustration in the most civil way I possibly can.

    I'm probably going to be seen as the pariah of these forums for this post, especially given the political situation here, but I firmly believe in speaking my mind when the time is right. I feel now is one of those times.

    The thing is that before 2015, streaming wasn't a huge thing yet. And streaming is the thing that gets hit the hardest by slow speeds.
    Now on the surface your internet might indeed not change all that much. You will keep your netflix and your spotify and all your favorite streaming sites/apps/whatever. Why? Because these companies are now in a position where they can pay enough money to the ISPs to keep their bandwith set to a certain standard.

    -Say Netflix pays 100million per year for this. Now a new company comes along who have more shows, better shows and for a lower price than netflix. The ISPs tell them "Well netflix pays us, so you should too". They can't ever afford it. No better alternative to netflix for the consumers.
    Take it even further, Netflix (or any other company) starts paying the ISPs even more in an agreement where any competing service will get less bandwith.

    Actually, let's take an example that we can all relate to since we all play Rock Band here. Exclusivity deals.
    Remember how we couldn't get metallica, Van halen, Aerosmith because they had deals with GH? Without net neutrality Comcast for example could tell Youtube "We're only going to give you the bandwith if you don't make any deals with the other ISPs". Verizon could do the same with Netflix, Another with Spotify. Better get a connection from all the ISPs if you want to continue using anything.
    And guess what that would also mean. If youtube is exclusive to comcast, and a new ISP suddenly tries to get onto the market and actually be good to it's customers it doesn't stand a chance, because who's going to buy a connection from a service that can't give you Youtube?
    The best case scenario leads to competition between the ISPs, however this best case scenario will also destroy competition on the internet itself.

    TLDR: With net neutrality ISPs can compete based on prices and service to their customers.
    Without net neutrality ISPs can compete based on prices, services and content.
    Do you really want to pick (if you even can, some people only have 1 choice) based on who can give you what website (the best)?

    P.S. also saying it will improve competition between ISPs, The same ISPs that make deals to avoid competing with each other so they can both keep profits high? https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/comcast-and-charter-agree-not-to-compete-against-each-other-in-wireless/
    and are purposefully staying outside of each others regions https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16933/how-broadband-providers-seem-avoid-competition
  • The big problem is favoritism, suppose the owner of an ISP also owns a streaming channel. The ISP can throttle other networks to make their own look better. Likewise other services can throttle their competitors so its no longer an open playing-field. This is a huge problem seeing as though ISP's are monopolies in most areas.

    Also what's to stop them from just flat out blocking competing sites?
  • DrowGamer77DrowGamer77 Serious Business
    edited December 2017
    I believe so, and, yes, I am very worried.
    This is the only thing I am worried about. I don't want to run into a situation where I have to pick 5 different packages to get to the 5 different sites I want.

    I already hate that model with cable/satellite




    this is just an example of what happens in other countries where NN never existed.
  • jibjqrkljibjqrkl Eventually Perceptive
    edited December 2017

    This is the only thing I am worried about. I don't want to run into a situation where I have to pick 5 different packages to get to the 5 different sites I want.

    I already hate that model with cable/satellite




    this is just an example of what happens in other countries where NN never existed.

    actually those examples that people are spamming online aren't exactly what they're made out to be. Those countries have a slightly weaker version of "true" net neutrality. Countries in the EU are allowed to apply Zero-Rating models (unless the law of said country actually forbids it ofc.) Meaning that ISPs can offer a customer a service where they pay a set amount for some websites/apps/streams and then those particular ones won't affect data usage on their device.
    So say you have 2GB of data per month and buy the $5 a month package for "video streaming", then you can watch all the youtube you want without it using your data. However in EU law it is also stated that these zero rating plans must apply to all similar apps/sites/etc. So it will apply to every video streaming site and not favor anyone.


    Your scenario definitely can happen when there's not any defined laws like that though. Like it would be in the US based on how it currently stands if NN completely goes away.



    EDIT:
    just needed to throw this one in there for if anyone thinks the ISPs have no intentions of doing these things:

    This picture is from a week before the vote was made:

    This one is from the day the vote was passed:

  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    Witticus said:

    The big problem is favoritism, suppose the owner of an ISP also owns a streaming channel. The ISP can throttle other networks to make their own look better. Likewise other services can throttle their competitors so its no longer an open playing-field. This is a huge problem seeing as though ISP's are monopolies in most areas.

    Also what's to stop them from just flat out blocking competing sites?

    if they do this they have make it public knowledge beforehand. this was actually in the fcc internet regulation rulebook before the 2015 law. this way people know what they are paying for.
  • BachiGBachiG Inconceivable...

    Witticus said:

    The big problem is favoritism, suppose the owner of an ISP also owns a streaming channel. The ISP can throttle other networks to make their own look better. Likewise other services can throttle their competitors so its no longer an open playing-field. This is a huge problem seeing as though ISP's are monopolies in most areas.

    Also what's to stop them from just flat out blocking competing sites?

    if they do this they have make it public knowledge beforehand. this was actually in the fcc internet regulation rulebook before the 2015 law. this way people know what they are paying for.
    Lol... you mean in the fine print of your contract or Eula, that I’m sure you’ve read ever line of for everyone you’ve ever had to sign?
  • I believe so, and, yes, I am very worried.

    Witticus said:

    The big problem is favoritism, suppose the owner of an ISP also owns a streaming channel. The ISP can throttle other networks to make their own look better. Likewise other services can throttle their competitors so its no longer an open playing-field. This is a huge problem seeing as though ISP's are monopolies in most areas.

    Also what's to stop them from just flat out blocking competing sites?

    if they do this they have make it public knowledge beforehand. this was actually in the fcc internet regulation rulebook before the 2015 law. this way people know what they are paying for.
    And given the regional domination of specific ISPs, it's basically the big companies looking their customers in the eyes before [PREEMPTIVE MOD EDIT].
  • Just like it took years for the 2014 rules (Title II classification) to take any effect, it will be years before these new rules do anything at all. I'm hopeful that Congress will have the motivation to do something after finishing the tax stuff.
  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    you know what I am more worried about, Disney just bought fox, so now tv will be nothing but one ideology and one viewpoint. good thing I don't watch much tv, but I feel for this world in what it will be like in a generation.

  • LiveHomeVideoLiveHomeVideo Trying too hard
    I don't believe so, but I am worried.

    you know what I am more worried about, Disney just bought fox, so now tv will be nothing but one ideology and one viewpoint. good thing I don't watch much tv, but I feel for this world in what it will be like in a generation.

    From what I've read, they're not buying Fox News, so you have that, I guess. Also, there are still other channels not owned by Disney or Fox, though they're not really news networks (stuff like Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, The Bible Network, The Home Shopping Network, what have you).
  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.

    you know what I am more worried about, Disney just bought fox, so now tv will be nothing but one ideology and one viewpoint. good thing I don't watch much tv, but I feel for this world in what it will be like in a generation.

    From what I've read, they're not buying Fox News, so you have that, I guess. Also, there are still other channels not owned by Disney or Fox, though they're not really news networks (stuff like Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, The Bible Network, The Home Shopping Network, what have you).
    yeah, cartoon network is like the only thing I watch anymore. can't stand fox news lol

  • I don't believe so, but I am worried.
    I sure was hoping that Disney was buying Faux News so that consumers could put some brand pressure on Disney to shut that crap down.
  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.

    I sure was hoping that Disney was buying Faux News so that consumers could put some brand pressure on Disney to shut that crap down.

    I actually think Fox News is the least biased of the mass media networks. There's a fair amount of people from both sides of the political spectrum whenever I make the decision to watch it, and there are actually some studies, one from Harvard and another from the Pew Research Journal, to back that claim up.

    Ultimately, whatever news network you watch, it's probably still lacking in some form or another. Fox isn't the most detailed, CNN and MSNBC generally lean towards the left, et cetera. At the end of the day, it's up to you whether or not you trust a source. I, for one, read the news from varied sources instead of just watching it. I feel I get a better perspective on an issue or a story that way.
  • Oh dear sweet summer child. All news channels have a bias and its extremely important to get news from a variety of sources. Do not just blindly trust one news source. Follow up incredulous stories that seem to good to be true and likewise do the same with those that enrage you.

    With that said, Fox News might feed into your view of the world to make it seem less biased, but it is far from reliable. Although I do think Shepard Smith is a fantastic guy and arguably the most trustworthy on the station.

  • jibjqrkljibjqrkl Eventually Perceptive
    Dont watch any news at all myself, the important events i'll hear about anyway. And then i'll do my own research if needed.

    The bias doesnt only exist in how they report, but also what they do (or more importantly) dont report. No point in relying on something that chooses what you should find important

  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    Witticus said:

    Oh dear sweet summer child. All news channels have a bias and its extremely important to get news from a variety of sources. Do not just blindly trust one news source. Follow up incredulous stories that seem to good to be true and likewise do the same with those that enrage you.

    With that said, Fox News might feed into your view of the world to make it seem less biased, but it is far from reliable. Although I do think Shepard Smith is a fantastic guy and arguably the most trustworthy on the station.

    Did you even read the second paragraph in my post? I explicitly stated that I read news from a variety of sources instead of just one, and never once did I say there was no bias, there always is some bias even in the least biased of sources. Just because I believe based on statistics and personal experience that Fox is the least biased does not, I repeat, DOES NOT, mean it is not biased in some form.

    Please, thoroughly read the post before you decide to tear it apart. Things work out better for everyone that way.

    I'll just sit back and watch that disagree counter rise, in the meantime.
  • Oh, you're trying to take my disagree crown away from me now!
  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    Witticus said:

    Oh, you're trying to take my disagree crown away from me now!

    We shall fight to the death over it in the tradition of our ancestors! THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE (holder of the disagree crown)!

    *Princes of the Universe plays quietly in the background.*
  • coolkat said:

    Witticus said:

    Oh, you're trying to take my disagree crown away from me now!

    We shall fight to the death over it in the tradition of our ancestors! THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE (holder of the disagree crown)!

    *Princes of the Universe plays quietly in the background.*
    I tend to fight in interpretive dance or water polo.
  • I don't believe so, and nor am I too worried either.
    Witticus said:

    Oh, you're trying to take my disagree crown away from me now!

    Darn it. You had me stuck into wanting to give you another disagree but it made me laugh so hard I had to give you a "LOL".
    Sorry @Witticus :(
  • I believe so, and, yes, I am very worried.
    There was a post about pool noodles. I ated it.

    Sorry.
2
Sign In or Register to comment.