So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Algo Star SystemMember EpicPosts: 2,023

I'm reposting from: https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/comment/7252641/#Comment_7252641

It's a simple question. I won't dilute with my personal stance in the OP. I just figured since we're ALL gamers, no matter our political/social/economic stances this effects us all and should be a hot topic. Discuss.
Net Neutrality Poll
  1. Where Do You Stand In Regard to Net Neutrality?141 votes
    1. I'm For
      68.09%
    2. I'm Against
      21.28%
    3. I'm Not Concerned Either Way
        6.38%
    4. I'm Not Aware of the Topic
        4.26%
«13456713

Comments

  • AbimorAbimor McAllen, TexasMember UncommonPosts: 412
    Im torn on the subject to be honest i voted im for it but it seems like a company should be able to do what they want with there services. What I mean by this is if i have to choose between spectrum or comcast as my service provider and one slows access down to people for not paying and one does not im going to vote with my wallet. The problem with that is some people only have one provider to choose from. So  I just don't know
    thunderCjayheld90
  • VicodinTacoVicodinTaco Member UncommonPosts: 801
    I say do whatever cause no one can give me the facts of the situation without putting their weak political bias into it.  
    jayheld90
  • HorusraHorusra maryland, MDMember RarePosts: 3,722
    For me has less to to with political bias and more to do with economic belief.  I believe free market capitalism is the driver of innovation.  When someone can make some cash people will compete for it.  Net Neutrality removes that drive.  While without there is, I hope, a desire for companies to provide new and better service than someone else to get your money.
    YashaXMrMelGibsonTenohiraMyrdynnEldurianjayheld90
  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKMember LegendaryPosts: 17,131
    edited November 27
    For 100%

    Giving big corporations a green light to do whatever the F they want without any recourse for their actions is exactly what the problem is with the world today.

    Because without regulations on large corporations - the consumers are screwed, since the big corps don't operate from "whatever is best for the customer" - but "whatever is best for our bottom line" even if it screws over the customers

    Throttling down or downright blocking access to sites that belong to your competitor is an extremely shitty practice. Net neutrality is here to prevent that, without it - Comcast, Time Warner etc... they will have free reign of how they are going to control your internet access.

    I don't care about the politics behind it at all - just want to prevent my ISP from throttling or blocking content from me.

    I want to surf the web with complete freedom, to choose whatever sites I want to go to without my ISP meddling (as long as I am not breaking any laws obviously, I am not talking about illegal stuff, just web surfing).



    Post edited by DMKano on
    Kilranecranthugdragonlee66Asm0deusMellowTiggerYashaXLoke666cameltosisSovrathAvarixand 12 others.
  • laxielaxie UK - Leamington SpaMember RarePosts: 903
    I heard an interesting argument today, about running cables. I'm not sure how true this is, feel free to englighten me.

    If you want to run a cable through a street, it requires a lot of plans, permissions and ultimately approval. It is not feasible to have every company run their own cable. As such, it is not really a free market, as some companies will be the ones running the cables. The net neutrality law is, therefore, an important aspect. It makes sure the customers' experience is unrestricted in this inherently already regulated system.
    Relampagojayheld90
  • HorusraHorusra maryland, MDMember RarePosts: 3,722
    laxie said:
    I heard an interesting argument today, about running cables. I'm not sure how true this is, feel free to englighten me.

    If you want to run a cable through a street, it requires a lot of plans, permissions and ultimately approval. It is not feasible to have every company run their own cable. As such, it is not really a free market, as some companies will be the ones running the cables. The net neutrality law is, therefore, an important aspect. It makes sure the customers' experience is unrestricted in this inherently already regulated system.

    In the US it depends on the area.  Urban area with lots of providers share access cable lines.  New areas that have no service are different.  The company that runs the new lines get access for a set amount of time after that then the lines are shared.  This is suppose to spur the companies to move out in to new areas to get a monopoly for a little while to get there money back from running lines.
  • AlbatroesAlbatroes Member EpicPosts: 3,685
    I'm for Net Neutrality because companies will go crazy if its done away with, prove fact that if companies are left to their own judgment they will push until bad press (loot box issue is proof of that). Not to mention that abolishing it will increase prices across the board. Caps will lowered which strains both businesses and consumers, especially gamers given how almost every game these days has a day one patch. So if you like streaming and gaming, well you're gonna be paying extra. So its just good to have around.
    MrMelGibson
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Algo Star SystemMember EpicPosts: 2,023
    The problem in most cases is local government corruption and palm greasing or cheating by the big cable companies. I feel like the regulation must exist federally in light of this truth to balance the scales.

    Corporate autonomy could be a viable thing IF corporate honesty and fairness was a thing, which it's not these days. Too often people confuse a business having consumers by the balls as doing what they want with their services.
  • Prod1702Prod1702 Waconia, MNMember UncommonPosts: 76
    edited November 27
    I am for it. I understand why company's do not want it, but until I have more then one real option for internet were I live, I do not think it should go away. Right now, I pay $100/m for 1g down 70mbps up with Mediacom and the next best option is century-link with only 50Mbps down 10 Mbps up for $50/m with phone. I do not have TV with Mediacom and see no reason to get it with how many options there are for TV online. Yes I could lower my bill and move to a slower speed and spend less a month but I budget for $100 on Cable. Until there is real competition with data services which I do not think we will see for years and years, it needs to stay. 
    Post edited by Prod1702 on
  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKMember LegendaryPosts: 17,131
    Horusra said:
    laxie said:
    I heard an interesting argument today, about running cables. I'm not sure how true this is, feel free to englighten me.

    If you want to run a cable through a street, it requires a lot of plans, permissions and ultimately approval. It is not feasible to have every company run their own cable. As such, it is not really a free market, as some companies will be the ones running the cables. The net neutrality law is, therefore, an important aspect. It makes sure the customers' experience is unrestricted in this inherently already regulated system.

    In the US it depends on the area.  Urban area with lots of providers share access cable lines.  New areas that have no service are different.  The company that runs the new lines get access for a set amount of time after that then the lines are shared.  This is suppose to spur the companies to move out in to new areas to get a monopoly for a little while to get there money back from running lines.

    There are large business campuses in California (for example - this is the case in many areas in US) that control the last mile access - since they have their fiber cables run into the business buildings.

    In CA - AT&T is the last mile provider for many business campuses - so even if your ISP someone other than AT&T - to turn services up - AT&T has to come onsite and run any cables that go into their equipment. This causes a LOT of headaches and delays because - AT&T is not exactly going to be in a hurry to run cables for someone who is not their direct customer but only using their lines as a last mile.

    It sucks - big time - because here you calling your ISP - and they tell you - we can't do anything about it, ATT is the last mile and they have to get their techs onsite, as we can't touch their gear.

    And you call ATT yourself - and they are like "Hmm well you are not a customer, you need to call your ISP" - and you can get the runaround like this for weeks.

    Fun... isn't it? (yes I've been in this exact situation - first hand)
    AvarixMrMelGibson
  • mrputtsmrputts Beaver, PAMember UncommonPosts: 241
    I am torn. Although I voted against NN

    I understand the reason for Net Neutrality, but I really hate government getting involved in private companies, and what they do with their services. 

    I do however realize the need to keep shit bag CEOs from finding new monetization strategies that are predatory ala EA Loot boxes. But it should be the populous not the government keeping them in line.
    Kuroko-kun

    Ea is like a poo fingered midas ~ShakyMo

  • SirAgravaineSirAgravaine Member UncommonPosts: 333
    I voted 'I'm Not Concerned Either Way' because of the lack of the 'I haven't made up my mind' option.
  • XodicXodic RealityMember RarePosts: 708
    I'm against it, because the government can't do anything right. However, considering that the majority of all our network infrastructures are built using tax money via government subsidies, an ISP shouldn't be allowed to screw the tax payers. 

    The good news is, an ISP won't be needed in the some-what near future. The idea of a network of networks is outdated.
    hasho83Kuroko-kun
  • HorusraHorusra maryland, MDMember RarePosts: 3,722
    edited November 27
    DMKano said:
    Horusra said:
    laxie said:
    I heard an interesting argument today, about running cables. I'm not sure how true this is, feel free to englighten me.

    If you want to run a cable through a street, it requires a lot of plans, permissions and ultimately approval. It is not feasible to have every company run their own cable. As such, it is not really a free market, as some companies will be the ones running the cables. The net neutrality law is, therefore, an important aspect. It makes sure the customers' experience is unrestricted in this inherently already regulated system.

    In the US it depends on the area.  Urban area with lots of providers share access cable lines.  New areas that have no service are different.  The company that runs the new lines get access for a set amount of time after that then the lines are shared.  This is suppose to spur the companies to move out in to new areas to get a monopoly for a little while to get there money back from running lines.

    There are large business campuses in California (for example - this is the case in many areas in US) that control the last mile access - since they have their fiber cables run into the business buildings.

    In CA - AT&T is the last mile provider for many business campuses - so even if your ISP someone other than AT&T - to turn services up - AT&T has to come onsite and run any cables that go into their equipment. This causes a LOT of headaches and delays because - AT&T is not exactly going to be in a hurry to run cables for someone who is not their direct customer but only using their lines as a last mile.

    It sucks - big time - because here you calling your ISP - and they tell you - we can't do anything about it, ATT is the last mile and they have to get their techs onsite, as we can't touch their gear.

    And you call ATT yourself - and they are like "Hmm well you are not a customer, you need to call your ISP" - and you can get the runaround like this for weeks.

    Fun... isn't it? (yes I've been in this exact situation - first hand)
    He was talking about through public streets.  The cable lines that they would tear up a street for are done with public private cash.  There they run a tube for any cable lines to go through if there is no other access lines large enough to run the cables.  In metro area there are service tunnels under streets.  In suburbia they lay down piping with feeder access to run feed new lines through if needed.  In rural areas it is up to a provide to come up with the cash.  Now to private campuses and building complexes it usually is whoever won the bid for running lines when the place was built or if enough time has passed who has taken over the contract to support the lines or renovate them.  Companies do not like to give up the support fees they charge.  Different companies are big in different areas.  In the Washington DC area Verizon controls most of your private stuff.
    Post edited by Horusra on
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Algo Star SystemMember EpicPosts: 2,023
    Cable companies get to randomly rearrange and change folks packages, add bizarre surcharges, throttle service speeds, have terrible customer service, have Five Family Mafia meetings with other large competitors AND muscle out or take over smaller competitors.

    When a company does something I don't like, I like to be able to take my money elsewhere. More than likely this is not an option anymore. If/when the regulation goes away, what are the choices? Deal with it or get off the grid? 

    It really wouldn't be a conversation in a fair and competitive market but it's simply not that. I just don't see how any of "us" could be for more unmitigated sodomy by cable giants.
    SedrynTyros
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Algo Star SystemMember EpicPosts: 2,023
    edited November 27
    Also, I see people talking about political bias as part of the convo. We're all gamers and this effects us across party lines. I'm a little lost how the following infographic isn't pretty straight forward. I don't think it's a lefty/righty issue.


    Post edited by FlyByKnight on
    XodicKilraneYashaXAvarixMrMelGibsonRedemp
  • ElidienElidien Atlanta, GAMember UncommonPosts: 1,176
    When you look at a history of regulation, going all the way back to railroads and shipping in the USA in the mid to late 1800s, the idea behind regulation is primarily cost reduction and consumer protection. The opposing argument is that it does the opposite and creates other issues such as government overreach, slows production, etc...

    There is truth to both sides. I can provide you time and time again that we all love regulation. I can also provide you examples of government regulation that went bananas. 

    This issue goes beyond regulation though depending on how you define the Internet. Is the internet a service or is it a commodity and therefore a luxury? In today's world, especially in the last 15 years, its much more of a service. I can remember getting dial-up, then ISDN, then 1.5 meg DSL and now we have 100 meg cable. And we live in the middle of nowhere GA. And yes all of that was since 2001. 

    If the internet is a service and needed as such, then it needs to be regulated. Worst case scenario we will see things like ads, throttling and down right blocking of sites that do not support your ISP. Worst case scenario - we see an infringement on speech and other liberties. Say your ISP is a big donor of to the campaign of candidate A. Candidate B is critical of your ISP. Your ISP then throttles, slows down and out-right blocks your access to candidate B's website or information. Will it happen? Probably not. Could it....possibly. And it scares the hell out of me too.

    If you have faith in big business an CEO's, then you do not want net neutrality because the system will keep itself in check. If you do not trust them, you want it. I trust big business only to make a profit and put wealth in their shareholders pockets. Guess where I stand?
    SedrynTyrosAvarixMrMelGibsonJamesGoblin
  • bonzoso21bonzoso21 Member UncommonPosts: 140
    edited November 27
    100% for Net Neutrality regulations, and a CWA union member who installs and maintains fiber/telecom cabling for a living (as if that lends any credence to my opinion...sorry). ISPs operate in much of the rural US without direct competition, which is necessary for the free market to work. Even in populated suburbs and cities, they often have exclusivity agreements with certain neighborhoods and apartment complexes where they've already installed their fiber backbone, so you may still be stuck with only 1 or 2 options.

    It's my opinion that a fast and stable internet connection is just about required nowadays in order to maintain a middle-class lifestyle. You need it for higher education, job searching, banking...so many things. And even when it comes to just entertainment, we now have infrastructure giants like AT&T attempting mergers with media giants like Time Warner. If they own the fiber AND much of the content that travels down it, net neutrality may be the only thing preventing them from boosting their content and throttling someone else's content.

    Current net neutrality laws do not apply to mobile carriers, and we've seen evidence of how that lack of regulation can apply to customers recently when Verizon was proven to be throttling the speeds of users on its 4GLTE network when they were using Netflix...speeds that were more than capable of streaming in HD, sticking people with 480p and buffering because the corporation didn't want to deal with managing its bandwidth at the level its customers are paying for. 
    Post edited by bonzoso21 on
    YashaX
  • ElidienElidien Atlanta, GAMember UncommonPosts: 1,176
    DMKano said:
    Horusra said:
    laxie said:
    I heard an interesting argument today, about running cables. I'm not sure how true this is, feel free to englighten me.

    If you want to run a cable through a street, it requires a lot of plans, permissions and ultimately approval. It is not feasible to have every company run their own cable. As such, it is not really a free market, as some companies will be the ones running the cables. The net neutrality law is, therefore, an important aspect. It makes sure the customers' experience is unrestricted in this inherently already regulated system.

    In the US it depends on the area.  Urban area with lots of providers share access cable lines.  New areas that have no service are different.  The company that runs the new lines get access for a set amount of time after that then the lines are shared.  This is suppose to spur the companies to move out in to new areas to get a monopoly for a little while to get there money back from running lines.

    There are large business campuses in California (for example - this is the case in many areas in US) that control the last mile access - since they have their fiber cables run into the business buildings.

    In CA - AT&T is the last mile provider for many business campuses - so even if your ISP someone other than AT&T - to turn services up - AT&T has to come onsite and run any cables that go into their equipment. This causes a LOT of headaches and delays because - AT&T is not exactly going to be in a hurry to run cables for someone who is not their direct customer but only using their lines as a last mile.

    It sucks - big time - because here you calling your ISP - and they tell you - we can't do anything about it, ATT is the last mile and they have to get their techs onsite, as we can't touch their gear.

    And you call ATT yourself - and they are like "Hmm well you are not a customer, you need to call your ISP" - and you can get the runaround like this for weeks.

    Fun... isn't it? (yes I've been in this exact situation - first hand)
    Oh and it was just announced that the FCC chairman has a provision in the bill that states and local governments cannot enforce or have there on version of net neutrality either. They will leave any exisiting provisions alone but new ones will not be allowed.
  • HorusraHorusra maryland, MDMember RarePosts: 3,722
    What makes people think Net Neutrality means more providers and better speeds.  Everyone always paints the rosiest future for Net Neutrality and the worst for the other side.  Maybe Net Neutrality means slow speeds because there is no incentive to make it faster and less providers because there is no cash for providing something better.
    YashaX
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus BaatorMember RarePosts: 2,077
    edited November 27
    Also, I see people talking about political bias as part of the convo. We're all gamers and this effects us across party lines. I'm a little lost how the following infographic isn't pretty straight forward. I don't think it's a lefty/righty issue.


    Indeed!  Net neutrality is a MUST, anyone that thinks otherwise is highly and I mean highly deluded or has his fat CEO hands in the biased cookie jar.
    Post edited by Asm0deus on
    RexKushmanYashaXKilraneMrMelGibson

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.

    case: Coolermaster HAF932
    PSU: Antec EA 750watt
    RAM: 4x2g G-SKILL DDR3-1600mhz 9-9-9-24
    Mb:Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P
    CPU: i5-750 @4ghz
    GPU: gtx msi N760 TF 2GD5/OC
    cooling: Noctua NH-D14
    storage: seagate 600 240GB SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros USMember EpicPosts: 1,986
    Being in favor of net neutrality is the only logical position.  The corporations who are against it want to be able to fleece us for more money without the US government being able to stop them.  That's it.  There's really nothing else to talk about.
    ElidienAvarixKilraneMrMelGibson
  • TillerTiller Member RarePosts: 6,234
    Also, I see people talking about political bias as part of the convo. We're all gamers and this effects us across party lines. I'm a little lost how the following infographic isn't pretty straight forward. I don't think it's a lefty/righty issue.


    It's nothing more than a money making scheme. Information will no longer be free to access and some websites could charge us to access them, or pack them with more adds so they can pay off the internet service provider mafia. You will need a cheat sheet on which ISPs work best with what online games you want to play ect. I mean that's pretty much the worse case scenario, but I imagine it's not far off the mark.





  • SomethingUnusualSomethingUnusual Member UncommonPosts: 522
    Horusra said:
    What makes people think Net Neutrality means more providers and better speeds.  Everyone always paints the rosiest future for Net Neutrality and the worst for the other side.  Maybe Net Neutrality means slow speeds because there is no incentive to make it faster and less providers because there is no cash for providing something better.
    Because net neutrality has literally nothing to do with investment and predictions. Improving the networks requires the same money whether net neutrality is present or not. Investment incentive is also non-existent in the US. These giants are only out to make money, not spend it giving neighborhoods better connection services. 

    The telecomms would just love net neutrality to go away, they can maximize profit without spending a dime on infrastructure investment. And that's all this garbage is that the chairman is pushing through. With net neutrality in place, the telecomms have been trying to skate by wireless investment -- which is still an unstable technology -- where they can do this practice of throttling and service funneling that should also be regulated. In most of the US, cell service still sucks, they still do the unethical service charges, and have barely spent anything other than signal boosting existing towers.

    This doesn't benefit the people, and severely harms small business and startups. In a digital age, there is no Main St. The only street is the internet, and if an ISP can block or slow your storefront it's the equivalent of throwing a brick through a window of a downtown store. No one will shop there until the money is spent repairing the window and clearing dangers. 

    It's purely corporate controlled fascism. Where stockholders and CEO's are the dictators. 

    Net neutrality needs to remain, and broaden to include wireless.

    But, the internet as we know it is out for the count. Remember all those free wifi hotspots everywhere? Gone next year under the proposed and likely pushed agenda. 

    Local libraries can even be devastated -- having to pay huge amounts to maintain services with local ISP's-- and only one example. That's your tax dollars. So this will cost us in another way. Municipality expense to these hacks. 


    Asm0deusRexKushmanMadFrenchieSedrynTyrosAvarixbartoni33MrMelGibson

    Death stalks me... Well, figuratively that is. I get killed and people take my stuff.

  • SomethingUnusualSomethingUnusual Member UncommonPosts: 522
    Addendum:

              Gaming... You know how much everyone hates microtransactions? It's now coming from your ISP after this nonsense is pushed through. 10 dollars a month to access free to play games, on top of what you are already paying, or have no access at all.

    You know how it's kind of nice being able to jump around and trial MMOs? MOBAs? All the other "free to play" games. Gone. Now you have to pay a service charge just to try them. 
    RexKushman

    Death stalks me... Well, figuratively that is. I get killed and people take my stuff.

Sign In or Register to comment.