I personally wouldn't mind paying a little extra to access a fast lane specifically during gaming and streaming movies while experiencing a slower connection during basic web browsing. However, with a lack of competition amongst ISPs, I'm not naive enough to believe they won't abuse this power. But then the solution is unbundling and network sharing requirements to support more competition, not net neutrality.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Games Could Be Hit Hard by Net Neutrality’s Death
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
But I don't agree at all and I have stated why before. The FCC was not the right part of the government to try and implement net neutrality, wrong tool for the job. Straightening this out gives the FTC back it's thunder.
So you want to trust the corporation? That's historically had wonderful success for the consumer!
It's fairly evident you are part of the segment that hates "big gubment" and cherry picking a few examples that are literally apples to oranges versus a utility as internet access should be (it checks all the boxes if you haven't looked recently).
That's not the only option at all.
There are those things that are much smaller called .... States.
But addressing the rest of your comment, I also do not think that the Internet is a utility not that it should be thought of as one. It sounds nice on the surface, and that is what helped sell the takeover of internet regulatory power by the FCC. But internet isn't a utility because it isn't a resource. Internet service is a service, not a utility. And as a service it's the proper purview of the FTC to regulate, not the FCC. The FCC doesn't have the proper powers to do the job right, only the FTC does. That's why even when the FCC tried to do some good things, they couldn't do a complete job because although the tried to impose regulatory oversight over these things, things like privacy protections. They couldn't do it across the board because only the ISPs qualified as providers of the "utility" but search engine giants didn't and were beyond the FCC's reach. Not the FTC on the other hand, they can apply their regulations fairly across all of the businesses once they get rid of this bullshit Title II classification. Title II classification was a shortcut the FCC tried to use to establish control and although it was for a good reason, it was being done the wrong way.
Now I don't have a crystal ball that's really any better than anyone elses'. I would like to say that I have faith in the FTC to do this properly, but that would be a lie. I just know that the FCC wasn't the correct agency for this job, that the FTC is, and that I hope it works out right. At least the FTC has a chance to do it right, the FCC never ever had a chance and at best was a half-assed solution when we need a complete solution.
Too much power with
I wouldn't say zero...
https://qz.com/1114690/why-is-net-neutrality-important-look-to-portugal-and-spain-to-understand/
I wouldn't say zero...
https://qz.com/1114690/why-is-net-neutrality-important-look-to-portugal-and-spain-to-understand/
LightningEagle7
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 27
Ok, I've been trying to hold my tongue on this topic but I'm tired of reading all this fear mongering and straight up FUD. Has anyone actually read the document published by the FCC on net neutrality? Well here it is: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
For those too lazy to actually read it, here is a TLDR of whats going on:
What The Declaratory Ruling Will Do:
>Restore the classification of broadband Internet access service as an “information service” —the classification affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Brand X case.
>Reinstate the private mobile service classification of mobile broadband Internet access service.
>Clarify the effects of the return to an information service classification on other regulatory frameworks, including the need for a uniform federal regulatory approach to apply to interstate information services like broadband Internet access service
What The Report And Order Will Do:
>Adopt transparency requirements that ISPs disclose information about their practices to consumers, entrepreneurs, and the Commission.
>Restore the Federal Trade Commission’s ability to protect consumers online from any unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive practices without burdensome regulations, achieving comparable benefits at lower cost.
>Eliminate the vague and expansive Internet Conduct Standard under which the FCC micromanaged innovative business models, along with the bright-line rules.
What The Order Will Do:
>Find that the public interest is not served by adding to the already-voluminous record in this proceeding additional materials, including confidential materials submitted in other proceedings.
TLDR of the TLDR:
ORDER IS CHANGING CONTROL OF INTERNET FROM FCC TO FTC. MEANING COMCAST AND OTHER TELECOM COMPANIES ARE NOW GOING TO BE UNDER A MORE WATCHFUL EYE AND LESS ABLE TO SCREW PEOPLE OVER WITHOUT GETTING SLAPPED WITH A BIG FINE. LITERALLY JUST GOING BACK TO HOW IT WAS BEFORE 2015. EVERYONE CALM DOWN.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
For those too lazy to actually read it, here is a TLDR of whats going on:
What The Declaratory Ruling Will Do:
>Restore the classification of broadband Internet access service as an “information service” —the classification affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Brand X case.
>Reinstate the private mobile service classification of mobile broadband Internet access service.
>Clarify the effects of the return to an information service classification on other regulatory frameworks, including the need for a uniform federal regulatory approach to apply to interstate information services like broadband Internet access service
What The Report And Order Will Do:
>Adopt transparency requirements that ISPs disclose information about their practices to consumers, entrepreneurs, and the Commission.
>Restore the Federal Trade Commission’s ability to protect consumers online from any unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive practices without burdensome regulations, achieving comparable benefits at lower cost.
>Eliminate the vague and expansive Internet Conduct Standard under which the FCC micromanaged innovative business models, along with the bright-line rules.
What The Order Will Do:
>Find that the public interest is not served by adding to the already-voluminous record in this proceeding additional materials, including confidential materials submitted in other proceedings.
TLDR of the TLDR:
ORDER IS CHANGING CONTROL OF INTERNET FROM FCC TO FTC. MEANING COMCAST AND OTHER TELECOM COMPANIES ARE NOW GOING TO BE UNDER A MORE WATCHFUL EYE AND LESS ABLE TO SCREW PEOPLE OVER WITHOUT GETTING SLAPPED WITH A BIG FINE. LITERALLY JUST GOING BACK TO HOW IT WAS BEFORE 2015. EVERYONE CALM DOWN.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...lls-net-neutrality-dont-expect-our-help.shtml
Care to comment since you're clearly well informed?
fuzzylogik
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2012
- Messages
- 653
I just have to laugh.
maclem8223
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,849
Not really. All depends on where you go. I have been to a dozen different VA facilities and each one has their individuals issues. Some are better than others. But for the most part the VA is still a clusterfuck. Hell, I've been waiting 2 years just for a new PCP.
Back on topic....the sky is falling!
The fuck they are. The VA kept screwing around with my uncle until it was far beyond too late.
griffinhart
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,294
I have a few comments on the link.
1. Portugal and Spain, are not affected by the FCC.
3. This is has specifically for Mobile and very similar to what some US mobile companies, like t-mobile, have been doing even with the current order in place. Things like Netflix not counting towards your data cap.
2. The article states that they are not blocking content.
Ahhh, ... Theres many reasons why ' many' years before it didn't happen... A huge on was technology and packet sniffing and shit... This horse has been beaten with a vengeance.. a lot will happen as a lot was happening already. Big tech companies need to create a massive consortium and a nationwide neutral ISP... That warm hand around their balls will soon clamp down hard.
I didn't mean to infer VA hospitals were perfect, just to say they have made strides since 2012, and according to at least two studies they were rated as good or better overall.
https://www.dav.org/learn-more/news/2014/va-care-as-good-as-or-better-than-private-sector-hospitals/
twonunpackmule
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,700
I just love this idea that we are going to go back to the old Prodigy days. A lot of countries that has established NN laws has also tried to pass bans on the use of End to End Encryption. France is even introducing a measure to ban porn and language against women.
Thanks in significant part to past FCC decisions to "deregulate", Television, Radio, and the press are DOMINATED and largely owned / controlled by massive Multinational Corporations. I'm old enough to remember the days when local television shows with average everyday people were on the air right alongside major Corporate network "programming". Today, television, radio, and the Press (on these two traditional communication mediums) are nearly 100% owned and controlled by massive Multinational Corporations. The average citizen or humble start-up has a near zero presence in Television and Radio let alone any realistic "chance" to succeed. The costs to use these formats (particularly Television) are astronomical and fiercely combated (buried) by the Corporations that own and control them.
The Internet is the ONLY mass communication medium readily accessible to "everyone" where Money does not speak louder than people. Ending Net Neutrality in effect gives unprecedented power over to the SAME companies that already own and control nearly all of Television, Radio, and printed media. What do you think is going to happen? Collectively they will reshape the Internet (as fast as they think they can get away with) into Cable 2.0. It will start with the "less" controversial changes they have in mind (fast lanes) and steadily evolve into Censorship, throttling, higher prices and pricing scheme's that resemble Cable / Satellite, data caps that progressively get worse / more expensive, slower / reduced infrastructure improvements, even more aggressive anti-competitive behavior, and future legislation (bribes) to erode or do away with what "few" protections remain. Only an idiot would trust these Multinational Corporate giants of Industry to "voluntarily" uphold the principles of Net Neutrality when they have every financial incentive (combined with little to no legal restrictions) to do otherwise.
The Internet is a massive threat to the few Corporations (Oligopoly) that own and control the traditional communication mediums (Television, Radio, and Newspapers). Their viewership, profits, and relevancy are tanking thanks to the level playing field of the Internet. This is the REAL reason Net Neutrality is under decades long relentless assault.
The Internet is the ONLY mass communication medium readily accessible to "everyone" where Money does not speak louder than people. Ending Net Neutrality in effect gives unprecedented power over to the SAME companies that already own and control nearly all of Television, Radio, and printed media. What do you think is going to happen? Collectively they will reshape the Internet (as fast as they think they can get away with) into Cable 2.0. It will start with the "less" controversial changes they have in mind (fast lanes) and steadily evolve into Censorship, throttling, higher prices and pricing scheme's that resemble Cable / Satellite, data caps that progressively get worse / more expensive, slower / reduced infrastructure improvements, even more aggressive anti-competitive behavior, and future legislation (bribes) to erode or do away with what "few" protections remain. Only an idiot would trust these Multinational Corporate giants of Industry to "voluntarily" uphold the principles of Net Neutrality when they have every financial incentive (combined with little to no legal restrictions) to do otherwise.
The Internet is a massive threat to the few Corporations (Oligopoly) that own and control the traditional communication mediums (Television, Radio, and Newspapers). Their viewership, profits, and relevancy are tanking thanks to the level playing field of the Internet. This is the REAL reason Net Neutrality is under decades long relentless assault.
Last edited:
SecretStash
Gawd
- Joined
- May 27, 2017
- Messages
- 684
It will go away fast when there is more competitive, i.e. when the barrier to entry is low.
Quit with the politics? You are advocating a political position: government control of the internet. For all your good intentions the end result will be an unelected bunch of political tools in charge of the internet and what can and cant be.
It took 40 years for cellular phone tech to make it to market because of government interference. Lobbyists for the phone companies parked the tech from 1940 to 1980.
Susquehannock
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,607
Wow! Really envy those of you with choices in broadband providers. Around here it is Comcast/Xfinity or dial-up.
My only choice was 56k until Comcast ran cable down my road in 2003. At that time there were no price tiers whatsoever. Paid $30 for internet and I got what I got. Did my downloading at night since it often topped out over 100 Mbps. Slower during daytime hours. Especially from 6-10pm when families were at home. Then the price tiers started. Now up to $75 month for 25 Mbps which caped around 30 Mbps. Has dropped to 21-22 Mbps max now.
As for the future ... have to evaluate later whether I would pay extra to game and stream video. If the past is any indication, highly doubt prices would drop from where they are presently.
My only choice was 56k until Comcast ran cable down my road in 2003. At that time there were no price tiers whatsoever. Paid $30 for internet and I got what I got. Did my downloading at night since it often topped out over 100 Mbps. Slower during daytime hours. Especially from 6-10pm when families were at home. Then the price tiers started. Now up to $75 month for 25 Mbps which caped around 30 Mbps. Has dropped to 21-22 Mbps max now.
As for the future ... have to evaluate later whether I would pay extra to game and stream video. If the past is any indication, highly doubt prices would drop from where they are presently.
This is the republican position. The FCC doesnt have the authority to do what it did. It needs to be law.
Do I think Comcast is going to instantly fuck everyone if this passes? Well given they have already been historically doing that exact thing to all their customers..Yes..Yes I do in fact. Seriously the amount of ignorance in this thread of the kind of shit telecoms pull is astounding. NN was passed to put a stop to anti consumer and anti competitive behavior that was starting to become more common. It has succeeded in doing that very thing and there is a long list of shit many ISP's pulled that before NN which is why it came into existence. This idiotic viewpoint that everything isn't going to get worse with repealing NN is either unspeakably stupid or willful ignorance and or paid shilling. Not only do we need to keep NN but on top of that regional monopolies or oligarchies to be precise need to be halted. Real competition must be allowed in the market place or we as a nation will continue to end up further and further behind.
ShuttleLuv
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2003
- Messages
- 7,295
Remember when we had choices? 
Randall Stephens
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2017
- Messages
- 1,819
My wife just came to ask me why I was taking a shit and laughing hysterically
I see there is a post disputing what this ruling will actually do, but this comment and ones like it are just ignorant. For profit entities will naturally charge what the market will bear (pay). So if people will pay for low latency, they will end up charging for it. The free market system relies on competition to regulate this (self regulating) this system breaks when there is little to no competition. guess what?
Damar
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 4,613
At this point its far too late I think. The corporations that provide internet access have near monopolies in place, and lobbyists working around the clock to make sure that any sort of laws or regulations that might prevent them from controlling access never see the light of day. They'll nickel and dime us to death.
Access to the internet is so ingrained in our lives now, as a society, we're addicted to it, and they know it. Lots of things couldn't function without it, and people are too used to having it to let go even if the prices spike.
We keep re-electing the same rich cocksuckers that put us in this position though, and the corporations help with that too.
Access to the internet is so ingrained in our lives now, as a society, we're addicted to it, and they know it. Lots of things couldn't function without it, and people are too used to having it to let go even if the prices spike.
We keep re-electing the same rich cocksuckers that put us in this position though, and the corporations help with that too.
RogueTadhg
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1,527
Giving monopolies more power to do anything with the data isn't a good idea. History has shown us that they're willing to block or throttle traffic on their whim. So the next time when your videos load like a 56K modem (If at all), just remember the good days. I suspect we're getting to the point where people forget about how slow the internet used to be. Downloading a 5 Mb song took 30 minutes. Keep that computer on all night long too.
People who say they "Couldn't" don't know that you can.
- John has a new plan enable? Paste some code. Modify a little bit. Done.
People who say they "Wouldn't" don't know how Companies (without real competition) work.
My fear isn't just the gaming scene. It's also Mining.
People who say they "Couldn't" don't know that you can.
- John has a new plan enable? Paste some code. Modify a little bit. Done.
People who say they "Wouldn't" don't know how Companies (without real competition) work.
My fear isn't just the gaming scene. It's also Mining.
theBrownLlama
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2017
- Messages
- 794
don't Americans remember the era when fast internet was a luxury ? (say 15 years ago)
i guess this is what happens when the business elites has a better memory of the good old times...
i guess this is what happens when the business elites has a better memory of the good old times...
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
Actually, it was the fault of the government that we had a large selection of ISPs to choose from to begin with because they required ILECs to line share which gave rise to the large number of DSL based ISPs competing with each other. When Republicans killed that requirement, the number of ISPs in most areas dropped to 1-2. And the reason that local/state laws have made it hard to have competition is because of laws bought and paid for by the incumbent ISPs which are also fully behind the repeal of NN, anyone asserting that the end of NN will do anything positive aren't thinking.
The government regulating the internet is no more a bad thing than guns being available. It all has to do with how it is used.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
Actually, power lines are power neutrality enabled. What you are talking about isn't the network, but the rates the power providers charge. The correct analogy would be if Netflix charges more during peak viewing times not the ISP charging more. After all, the power lines are sized to provide peak electrical power and the cost to use the lines doesn't fluctuate with time of day. For almost all power bills, you can get a line item break out and see the static monthly power network costs along with the actual power provider costs.
Yes, the Republican plan to end ILEC line sharing severely reduced the number of competing ISPs. But without the FCC using Title II to re-introduce line sharing, the competition for ISPs will hardly improve. It generally takes an incumbent ROW owner to provide realistic competition to existing ISPs, which if you aren't aware are almost always also governmental entities. And even for an existing ROW owner, it requires a rather large capital outlaw to get into the ISP game, for a small sized city/region, you are looking at roughly $500 million (and it is significantly more for underground ROW even with existing conduit) which generally requires local municipal bonds to fund, yet another government entity.
It is only ludicrous if you don't know how the utilities actually work or are being intentionally misleading about how they actually work.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
This is mostly bullshit. And completely bullshit wrt NN. NN basically has about zero cost to an actual providing putting in a new network. And the red tape that exists has literally nothing to do with NN nor is it a significant cost factor (it can however be a time factor).
Almost all the cost for installing a new network is ROW rights and labor with the actual installation labor being by far the dominant factor. That labor only gets paid when actually working generally as well due to the contract nature of the actual work (excluding actual electrical utilities who have a large staff of line workers on standby and paid anyways. And often the contract provider for contract line services is the local utility anyways as they already have the staff and are often the ROW leaser anyways).
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
The FCC is literally the government entity that is chartered and designed to regulation communications. It has ALL the powers required to do that. The FTC has basically none. You might want to do a bit more research into the matter.
The FCC is concerned with the communication which is the network, not the services that are used across that network. The FCC can significantly more wrt to privacy on communication networks than the FTC. The FTC can't do jack in general with regard to communication networks. Services like Google and Amazon are the proper purvey of the FTC and ISP networks are the proper purvey of the FCC.
The FTC doesn't have the staff, experience, resources OR authority to do much at all. That's why the FTC was *happy* that the FCC was doing what it did. The privacy provisions the FCC was putting on the ISPs were much more strict, appropriate, and on a much more firm legal footing than anything the FTC will ever be able to do.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
> which will be unenforcable as outlines in the Verizon vs FCC case
> which won't work generally and will result in at best minor corrections after years to decades of court battles
>they were not vague and they aren't innovative business models, merely extremely anti-consumer and anti-competitive
AKA we don't have shit to back any of this up so we'll just skip any actual attempt at data and justification.
LOL, the FTC isn't equipped nor does the FTC have the legal authority to control the internet. Nor will the FTC be more watchful (they already have their plate full of other shit they are suppose to handle) and ISP will be able to screw over consumers with impunity knowing that no one has actual legal authority to make them do shit. And no, it isn't going back to how it was before 2015. Before 2015 there was a minor period under which the FCC didn't have presumed legal authority to enforce NN and privacy regulations, dating from the ruling in Verizon vs FCC to 2015 and the ISPs knew that actions were being considered and on best behavior during that period and still did all kinds of nasty shit.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
The FCC DID have the authority to do what it did and it has been upheld in federal court. Any argument that they didn't have the authority is BS.
mygreeneggsandham
n00b
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 42
The amount of FUD being spread around over repealing this stupid regulation is amazing. It is as if we didn’t have an internet at all untill the misnamed net neutrality was passed. ISPs will not charge you to play battlefield. The idea that we need a regulation with its origins in the 1930’s to promote technological advancement is offensive. Furthermore just consider that it was govt regulation that hindered the adoption of FM radio by over 20 years and the adoption of cellphones by over 30 years. Free the net!
You're missing the point; if ISP's were more than happy to abuse/twist regulations in their favor, what in the hell do you think they're going to do if totally unmoderated?!
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,030
FTFY
You want evidence? How about ISP's fighting tooth and nail to be granted the authority to do precisely these things? With the current state of affairs how exactly are they limited? What is it ISP's cant do that is so burdensome they need to astroturf fake anti-NN propaganda? Why are they so desperate to enact carte blanche control over the internet if they arent going to take advantage of it? I mean literally their/your only argument in support of repeal is "we promise we wont abuse it. We dont even need it, we arent going to change anything, but like seriously though GIVE IT TO US FUCKING NOW"
Last edited:
It just boggles my mind. We have the 2nd largest case of "fox in the hen house" since big oil and people still keep falling for it. ISP's have knocked out smaller competitors due their abuse of regulations meant to prohibit them, and yet at the same time these are the people you are going to trust to do the right thing if no regulations existed at all? I mean what in the actual fuck.... jesus