Portuguese ISP Shows Us What the Net Looks like without Net Neutrality

Fix Me

Gawd
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
737
I think you can argue that restricting BT traffic and data caps are restrictive. Those are happening right now. Who can stop them, the consumer? No, because the ISPs have monopolies. That is why you are seeing the complaining. There is fear that the restrictions could get worse and some of us feel like we have absolutely no power to stop them. And if/when it happens, it's not something that will change overnight. I'd rather keep it from happening than be reactive, especially if we can see it potentially happening due to the ISP/Cable company's regional monopolies.
 

impar

n00b
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
53
How the portuguese thing works:
- You subscribe to a normal net package, say 5GB/month. With those 5GB you do whatever you want.
- If you want, you subscribe to one or more of those "+ Smart Net" packages, say the Messaging one. Now, on top of your 5GB, you have 10GB for the apps listed there (Whatsapp, Skype, Viber, etc.).

The "+ Smart Net" is an "addon" to your normal package.

You may also notice that the Meo apps bandwidth is offered in the normal package. It doesnt count to the 5GB.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
x2

I don't get it either. The only thing I've ever read about 'net neutrality' sounded a whole lot like scare tactic/propaganda non-sense to me.

regardless, I don't see how it would even be remotely possible TBH (ISP's censoring shit behind paywalls). VPNs and tunneling makes it pretty moot.


LOL, if you think VPN won't be the first thing they block, you are fucking kidding yourself. They aren't going to leave that enabled, while charging you for access to other services. I'm sure they'll have a 'vpn package' and it will be more expensive than your current monthly internet cost because it takes away their control.


I would bet almost most people arguing against NN has pretty much no knowledge of networking/firewalls. We are seriously heading back to the closed garden AOL days, where they limit/filter everything you have access to, with no bypass. You guys complain about how biassed FB/google/whatever is, now imagine you can only see articles your ISP wants to allow, all while the FCC doesn't do their effing job to regulate because it's run by a corporate shill piece of shit.
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
948
Where is that the opposite effect? In your mind? Because that is the only place it exists, in a free market where a company has to compete they answer to the customer, and not a single regulatory body. Trying to rise prices in that sort of market is not possible, as once you go past a given point, the profit margin is so high that everyone and their brother will want to enter it. And Google is offering unrestricted internet for $70 a month, this is not theoretical, this is happening. Regulation however for the majority of POTs and Internets history has all had negative effects for the consumer, why you think this will magically change this time around I have no idea. This "restricted" internet also does not even exist, however you are trumpeting as if it's already happening.
Ok well enjoy your Portuguese tiered internet coming in the next 10 years. You guys said it wouldnt happen, you said NN wasnt necessary, and here we are. If you dont think this is exactly what Comcast has in plan youre out of your fucking mind. Whats going to happen is the majority of facebook/twitter clowns out there are going to say "hey, thats all I need" and youre going to see this exodus to these shit tiered plans that offer the 5 websites they have bookmarked and poof, there goes the internet.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,415
Well, the truth is that even in the Obama Wheeler era Net Neutrality plan it didn't apply to mobile providers. Only to land based service.

U.S. mobile carriers could do that here if they thought their customers would let them get away with it.
 

viper1152012

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,025
We just need an informed politician to stand up for our digital highways.

To not implement limited tiered access and break isp exclusivity.

We need to increase speeds and access to information.

So much wrong with the anti-nn path
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,688
Net Neutrality activists have warned that a non-neutral internet will be an invitation for ISPs to create "plans" where you have to choose what services you can access, and we can look to Portugal for an immediate sampling of what will happen if the FCC gets its way: Portuguese ISP MEO is offering a series of plans for its mobile data service where you pay 5 euro ($5.80) to access a handful of messaging services, 5 euro more to use social media, and 5 euro more for video-streaming services.
Because the internet in 2014 was just like this? Really???
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
794
with competition, you get free bandwidth for Social Media apps. Like many other countries in the world.
EU trade laws still have some protectionist policies
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2016
Messages
574
yup that'll be a nightmare if that's all ISP will offer. anything a le carte will be expensive in the long run. you can count me in for an all american buffet of unlimited internet access.
 

mavrocket

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
1,099
You mean I might be able to pay for what I want and not pay for what I don't want?

The INSANITY!
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,817
Do you think AOL as it was 20 years ago would be considered anti Net Neutrality today?

In the 56k days the lines were shared between ISPs. You could choose from a hundred ISPs to dial to. Not the case today with the new "private highways" model that was successfully lobbied for by broadband providers, a major setback we still pay the price for today - literally and figuratively.

Europe on the other hand retains the line sharing model in many places and the result is many choices and lower prices. They don't need NN, they got line sharing, the proper solution that we cannot politically achieve, the cat's out of the bag and the next best thing is the band-aid on the gash.
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,817
But I don't have to buy everything in the grocery store to just get the milk and eggs, so that is a bad analogy. Try again.

Try conducting a job interview through your cartoon network.
 

jardows

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
2,112
We just need an informed politician to stand up for our digital highways.

To not implement limited tiered access and break isp exclusivity.

We need to increase speeds and access to information.

So much wrong with the anti-nn path

So, when are you filing to run for public office?
 

jardows

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
2,112
Try conducting a job interview through your cartoon network.
I am certainly not saying that cable/satellite TV services are exactly like Internet. However, if all I need to do is access job sites to apply to jobs, why do I need access to video streaming services or gaming services? If I can pay just a small amount for what I need - money is tight hence why I am looking for a better paying job, or any job at all - why wouldn't I save some money?

I'm not necessarily arguing for tiered Internet service or against NN, but I have yet to see anyone properly address this question. Why is it so bad to have tiered/a la carte Internet service?
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,958
You mean I might be able to pay for what I want and not pay for what I don't want?

The INSANITY!
Whats insane is that you dont mind paying for things you already get with an unrestricted internet.
And will be prevented from accessing the rest of it unless you pay more.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
T-mobile currently has something like this already in the US. Audio and video apps don't count towards caps.
If you have a favorite service, you just submit it to them.
If you don't like it, you can opt out. It's really not a bad deal.

Anything that has data caps of any kind, especially targeted at a specific service is absolutely a bad deal.
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,817
I am certainly not saying that cable/satellite TV services are exactly like Internet. However, if all I need to do is access job sites to apply to jobs, why do I need access to video streaming services or gaming services? If I can pay just a small amount for what I need - money is tight hence why I am looking for a better paying job, or any job at all - why wouldn't I save some money?

I'm not necessarily arguing for tiered Internet service or against NN, but I have yet to see anyone properly address this question. Why is it so bad to have tiered/a la carte Internet service?

It's not bad if you have a free market, NN is only useful because the alternative was lost through lobbying: If the lines were still shared then it doesn't matter if companies did this because you could then vote with your wallet and find the right product for your needs sure.

So in principle you are correct, it's just the reality is our market got distorted by giving total control over line ownership to big providers, something that was not an issue in the 56k days or in Europe where choice of ISPs is quite large in most parts. It's just not realistic to have 100 cable lines to each house.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
You mean I might be able to pay for what I want and not pay for what I don't want?

The INSANITY!

Oh, you wanted the same service you have now? You need to buy all 10 packages, and guess what? Your bill is now twice as expensive as before, but that's fine with you because you got to choose those choices, right?

Anyone that thinks this will be good for the consumer is a gullible moron (cheeto supporter)
 

scan13

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
70
You mean I might be able to pay for what I want and not pay for what I don't want?

The INSANITY!

But you are! You may use paywalled services all you want (Netflix, YouTube Red, WaPo, etc), the difference is that you pay directly to the service provider if you like their content. This promotes competition and sets equal rules for everybody. The insanity is that you want to introduce the middleman (ISP).
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
948
I am certainly not saying that cable/satellite TV services are exactly like Internet. However, if all I need to do is access job sites to apply to jobs, why do I need access to video streaming services or gaming services? If I can pay just a small amount for what I need - money is tight hence why I am looking for a better paying job, or any job at all - why wouldn't I save some money?

I'm not necessarily arguing for tiered Internet service or against NN, but I have yet to see anyone properly address this question. Why is it so bad to have tiered/a la carte Internet service?

Should libraries only carry science fiction because those are the only kind of books you read? A tiered internet is more like a Barnes & Noble. We dont want an internet that caters to the highest bidder, with a series of winners & losers chosen by the ISP when it comes to content available. This would be an internet akin to mainstream media. Your mom could always create a geocities webpage for baking cookies and it would always be there and accessible for anyone to find if they wanted to. Without NN the only websites you will be able to see will be those the ISP thinks you want to see. Most of you mock the fact that the news networks that exist on TV today primarily consist of Fox and CNN. Well this is what will happen to the internet in due time without NN. Instead of you getting to find content you want, content will be provided to you based upon expected value.
 
Last edited:

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,313
Oh, you wanted the same service you have now? You need to buy all 10 packages, and guess what? Your bill is now twice as expensive as before, but that's fine with you because you got to choose those choices, right?

Anyone that thinks this will be good for the consumer is a gullible moron (cheeto supporter)

Example of said scenario? And what has prevented said scenario from already happening?
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,313
What the hell kind of question is that? Only an idiot would just wait for the bomb to go off before defusing it.

Ok, well I'm gonna go home and cower in place cause there is a possibility that a bomb could go off at any time any where. I'm not going to think about the fact that it hasn't ever happened and there is no evidence to show it will happen in the future. The fact that it COULD happen is enough for me to be terrified.

Also, a meteor could kill me at any moment. Fuck my life.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
Ok, well I'm gonna go home and cower in place cause there is a possibility that a bomb could go off at any time any where. I'm not going to think about the fact that it hasn't ever happened and there is no evidence to show it will happen in the future. The fact that it COULD happen is enough for me to be terrified.

Also, a meteor could kill me at any moment. Fuck my life.


Yes, corporations have never screwed over consumers for profit right? Never happened in the history of mankind..... What do you think those data caps are for? It's to stifle competition since ISPs are also content 'producers' with their own streaming services. You don't think the next logical step is to start charging users an added fee to access their competitors service? How about them charging the competitor to allow the traffic without throttling it (And who do you think will eat that cost, the competitor or THEIR consumers?).... Hmm, where have we seen that before. Oh yea, that's what ISPs were doing with Netflix before NN came into play.

It boggles my mind to think anyone is naive enough to think this won't happen, especially with the current administration hell bent on doing everything they can to fuck us over in favor of the poor poor corporations stifled by regulations.....
 

Master_shake_

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
17,795
How the portuguese thing works:
- You subscribe to a normal net package, say 5GB/month. With those 5GB you do whatever you want.
- If you want, you subscribe to one or more of those "+ Smart Net" packages, say the Messaging one. Now, on top of your 5GB, you have 10GB for the apps listed there (Whatsapp, Skype, Viber, etc.).

The "+ Smart Net" is an "addon" to your normal package.

You may also notice that the Meo apps bandwidth is offered in the normal package. It doesnt count to the 5GB.

what is the difference between the types of data used?
 

Master_shake_

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
17,795
Well, the truth is that even in the Obama Wheeler era Net Neutrality plan it didn't apply to mobile providers. Only to land based service.

U.S. mobile carriers could do that here if they thought their customers would let them get away with it.

patently untrue all of it.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/11/...ng-report-net-neutrality-att-verizon-t-mobile

zero rating does in fact violate it.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0111/DOC-342982A1.pdf

they mention the freebee360 program which is LTE wireless network.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/11/...ng-report-net-neutrality-att-verizon-t-mobile
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
I think some people here make their living from their friendly oligopoly ISP, and that is fine.. This issue is really not hard to understand, and the consequences are easy to see... Just remember, they don't love you, at all.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
Then opt out at no cost. I don't see the problem here.

If you don't see the problem at face value, I'm not sure you understand the fundamental problem with this and nothing I can say at this point would change that. Just understand your apathy screws everyone.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,415

Hmm.


You seem right. What the hell am I remembering then? An early draft or something? The damned Net Neutrality plan changed so many times I can't keep track of it anymore.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
If you don't see the problem at face value, I'm not sure you understand the fundamental problem with this and nothing I can say at this point would change that. Just understand your apathy screws everyone.
It doesn't screw anyone. No one is forcing you to buy into their services. It's not even apathy, it's simply trusting that market forces will balance everything out.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,415
It doesn't screw anyone. No one is forcing you to buy into their services.

You need broadband internet to function in modern society, so yes, you are forced to buy into their services. That is why the public utility model makes more sense here. When you sell premium tiered access to a limited resource, those not interested in being scammed, or unable to pay, both businesses and individuals ARE going to get screwed over, not to mention if you have ideas, interests or political thoughts other than those of the provider. It is very dangerous to allow those who build the infrastructure to police its content.

As I see it we have two choices:

1.) Comprehensive net Neutrality regulation, or;

2.) Nationalization of the internet infrastructure.

Pick one.

It's not even apathy, it's simply trusting that market forces will balance everything out.

Market forces only balance everything out when there is competition.

Market forces will NEVER work for ISP's since very few households actually have more than one choice for broadband.

In a monopoly market forces work for, and only for, the seller, resulting in them providing less, innovating less, and doing so at a higher cost and having no regard for their customers.

While market forces are generally positive in most industries, if you are waiting for market forces to fix ISP's you'll be waiting a very long time. It simply will not happen.

This is more like trusting the fox to guard the henhouse.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,313
Yes, corporations have never screwed over consumers for profit right? Never happened in the history of mankind..... What do you think those data caps are for? It's to stifle competition since ISPs are also content 'producers' with their own streaming services. You don't think the next logical step is to start charging users an added fee to access their competitors service? How about them charging the competitor to allow the traffic without throttling it (And who do you think will eat that cost, the competitor or THEIR consumers?).... Hmm, where have we seen that before. Oh yea, that's what ISPs were doing with Netflix before NN came into play.

It boggles my mind to think anyone is naive enough to think this won't happen, especially with the current administration hell bent on doing everything they can to fuck us over in favor of the poor poor corporations stifled by regulations.....

Of course they do. The Internet exists to screw you over for profit. The computer or cell phone you used to type this was created for the sole purpose of taking your money. You, the consumer, are not entitled to best price.

Net Neutrality is not in play. All of the important laws have either not gone into effect or have already been struck down. That's my whole point, the only thing protecting you right now is the ebb and flow of consumerism. Which is why I'm asking for examples of where it didn't work. Maybe Cox did throttle Netflix, but people complained and now it seems to be gone.

Why are the ISP's the only ones being talked about here?
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
It doesn't screw anyone. No one is forcing you to buy into their services. It's not even apathy, it's simply trusting that market forces will balance everything out.

Just in case you miss it, red the below again and again until it registers what the problem is with your stance. There are NO market forces when it comes to ISP's in the US because there is essentially Zero competition. DSL is not and never will be a competitive product to Cable/Fiber.

You need broadband internet to function in modern society, so yes, you are forced to buy into their services. That is why the public utility model makes more sense here. When you sell premium tiered access to a limited resource, those not interested in being scammed, or unable to pay, both businesses and individuals ARE going to get screwed over, not to mention if you have ideas, interests or political thoughts other than those of the provider. It is very dangerous to allow those who build the infrastructure to police its content.

As I see it we have two choices:

1.) Comprehensive net Neutrality regulation, or;

2.) Nationalization of the internet infrastructure.

Pick one.



Market forces only balance everything out when there is competition.

Market forces will NEVER work for ISP's since very few households actually have more than one choice for broadband.

In a monopoly market forces work for, and only for, the seller, resulting in them providing less, innovating less, and doing so at a higher cost and having no regard for their customers.

While market forces are generally positive in most industries, if you are waiting for market forces to fix ISP's you'll be waiting a very long time. It simply will not happen.

This is more like trusting the fox to guard the henhouse.

Thank you, beat me to it.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
Just in case you miss it, red the below again and again until it registers what the problem is with your stance. There are NO market forces when it comes to ISP's in the US because there is essentially Zero competition. DSL is not and never will be a competitive product to Cable/Fiber.



Thank you, beat me to it.
I'd say there are some market forces. This is a cell phone provider, lte or whatever. There has been a push again for unlimited data. Tmobile leading the charge has gotten verizon to offer it again. This is what i could consider market forces at work.
In terms of ISPs you're right mainly because of collusion and local market monopoly/duopolies that have been created. This needs to be attacked to give people more offerings.
In the cases in which market forces have influenced offers can be seen whenever google goes into a new territory. The offers that are given out to the customers increase in value and decrease in costs. Obviously the only thing artificially keeping the status quo and or deterioration of services is the lack of competition.
 

dr.stevil

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
9,159
LOL, if you think VPN won't be the first thing they block, you are fucking kidding yourself. They aren't going to leave that enabled, while charging you for access to other services. I'm sure they'll have a 'vpn package' and it will be more expensive than your current monthly internet cost because it takes away their control.


I would bet almost most people arguing against NN has pretty much no knowledge of networking/firewalls. We are seriously heading back to the closed garden AOL days, where they limit/filter everything you have access to, with no bypass. You guys complain about how biassed FB/google/whatever is, now imagine you can only see articles your ISP wants to allow, all while the FCC doesn't do their effing job to regulate because it's run by a corporate shill piece of shit.

lol spare me the scare tactics :) I'm not that gullible. As I said, IF and WHEN this actually becomes an issue, then I'm all for some regulation (or discussing it).... until then, I don't want government regulations anywhere near the internet
 
Top