So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

1678911

Comments

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 15,001
    YashaXMadFrenchieSedrynTyros
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Howard Blake, Peter Auty (vocalist)
    Album: The Snowman
    Featured Tracks: Walking in the Air
  • YashaXYashaX Baldurs GateMember RarePosts: 2,002
    Kyleran said:
    YashaX said:
    Cleffy said:
    Actually it would be freer for the ISPs to remain title 1 companies. Although the ISPs seem to have a lot of power, they are limited in their ability to abuse it by other means. There is no stopping an abuse of power by the US government without a revolt. By the FCC taking less authority over the net they are letting the private sector and citizen retain more power.  Equality does not equal freedom.
    That said, there is a quite a bit of fear mongering on the subject that is quite odd if you don't understand the infrastructure of the internet. It would be freakishly slow for an ISP to examine every single packet that comes through their network and deny access depending on who it is going to. What makes the internet run optimally is the simple structure of routing a packet in a timely manner. How they throttle a service like peer to peer sharing is by throttling a specific port universally across their network. This port was typically shared with game networks so they were also throttled. This check could be executed in a single line of code. Checking where a packet is coming from and who it is going to is a much more complicated check.
    Doing such a check would also violate licensing contracts with regional ISP providers like Cogent and Level 3. It may also violate FTC rules.


    Don't you dare lump "private sector" and "citizen" into one bucket my friend. They are NOT the same. I'm not clear on what equality vs freedom even has to do with the conversation either. Care to expound?
    I notice that some Americans sadly don't seem to realize that in a democracy at least, the government represents the citizens of a country, while a listed company is obligated to work in the best interest of the company/shareholders, not of citizens (unless forced to by some kind of government regulation).
    You also realize that in many cases the employees of a listed company are citizens and their livelihoods depend on the success of said firm.

    Also many citizens are stockholders of companies including "evil" ISP firms.

    A balance needs to be struck and maintained to provide sufficient benefit to all concerned.

    I don't think ISP or other firms are evil. Firms work to maximize their own gains, which can benefit employees. However, they don't need to think about society as a whole; that is not necessarily bad, and can in fact be very good, as long as the rest of the checks and balances set up in capitalist democracies are functioning correctly.

    What disturbs me is that newsflow out of the US (and posts on this forum) increasingly shows that people don't understand this, and mainly act/think based on partisan lines even on something as clear cut as net neutrality. Seeing people actively support/promote policy that would hurt them is weird.
    Asm0deusMadFrenchie
    ....
  • ChannandlerChannandler Member CommonPosts: 1
    wow, you have so many topics to discuss! I guess this forum gathers fan of all the games! http://mega-moolah-play.com/ may give some extraordinary info about games!
  • postlarvalpostlarval Member EpicPosts: 1,686
    Torval said:
    What did you expect from someone who uses the handle 'bonerfart'?
    MadFrenchie
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus BaatorMember RarePosts: 2,075
    ScotchUp said:
    Makes me laugh after 8 years of Obama, any law no matter what it is called can't be trusted when Government is telling us how great it will be for America. Keep Government out of internet!
    Makes me laugh all the Obama hate, when you got someone like Trump who is only doing his best to line his pockets, and how some people think "Govment" is big bad and evil so lets give all the powa to them nice caring corporations cause they sure have your best interests at heart......lolz
    YashaXOnisDEDullahangrimal

    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


  • postlarvalpostlarval Member EpicPosts: 1,686
    Asm0deus said:
    ScotchUp said:
    Makes me laugh after 8 years of Obama, any law no matter what it is called can't be trusted when Government is telling us how great it will be for America. Keep Government out of internet!
    Makes me laugh all the Obama hate, when you got someone like Trump who is only doing his best to line his pockets, and how some people think "Govment" is big bad and evil so lets give all the powa to them nice caring corporations cause they sure have your best interests at heart......lolz
    You know, we can have this conversation without the usual political bickering.

    How about we do that.
    YashaXScotchUp
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,867
    edited December 5
    Horusra said:
    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.
    Yeah if the sky was going to fall without net neutrality it would have fallen before it became a thing in 2015:



    Funnily enough "net neutrality" is loved by the big corporations, big government, and the many people who's opinions they have swayed using money and deception. It's hated by those who love the free market.

    That's because you're being lied to. 0% of this is about protecting your rights. 100% of this is about government giving unfair market advantages to certain businesses and protecting ISP monopolies.

    This video really sums up the issue nicely:

    https://www.facebook.com/AP4Liberty/videos/1629669957091978/
    Post edited by Eldurian on
    HorusraYashaXDullahanGrintchgrimal
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,974
    Eldurian said:
    Horusra said:
    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.
    Yeah if the sky was going to fall without net neutrality it would have fallen before it became a thing in 2015:



    Funnily enough "net neutrality" is loved by the big corporations, big government, and the many people who's opinions they have swayed using money and deception. It's hated by those who love the free market.

    That's because you're being lied to. 0% of this is about protecting your rights. 100% of this is about government giving unfair market advantages to certain businesses and protecting ISP monopolies.

    This video really sums up the issue nicely:

    https://www.facebook.com/AP4Liberty/videos/1629669957091978/
    The big corporation ISPs (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) absolutely do not want net neutrality on the books.

    As for being lied to...  There are multiple incidents in the past of those same ISPs committing acts in violation of net neutrality that have been well-documented.

    Don't have time right now to watch the video you linked, but acting as if nobody truly understands this that wants net neutrality is being deceptive.  The ISP positions and historical records indicate a clear need for the oversight provided by net neutrality.  To think otherwise, at this point, is to ignore ore the reality of the situation with regards to major ISPs.
    YashaXAsm0deusAvarix

    image
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Algo Star SystemMember EpicPosts: 2,017

    Eldurian said:
    Horusra said:
    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.
    Yeah if the sky was going to fall without net neutrality it would have fallen before it became a thing in 2015:



    Funnily enough "net neutrality" is loved by the big corporations, big government, and the many people who's opinions they have swayed using money and deception. It's hated by those who love the free market.

    That's because you're being lied to. 0% of this is about protecting your rights. 100% of this is about government giving unfair market advantages to certain businesses and protecting ISP monopolies.

    This video really sums up the issue nicely:

    https://www.facebook.com/AP4Liberty/videos/1629669957091978/
    What certain business are getting unfair market advantage under Net Neutrality?
    How is throttling innovative competitors NOT protecting ISP monopolies?

    Also why are these idealogue trucker hats (who apparently identify with billion dollar corporations) ignoring bold faced evidence of what ISPs have done? 

    Is it blind ideology or absolute stupidity? With the facts RIGHT THERE it can't be anything else.
    YashaXAsm0deusAvarix
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,867
    Netflix and Youtube for one. Under net neutrality ISPs can't charge more for high bandwith services than low bandwith services.

    That's like if shipping companies were told they couldn't charge a different rate to deliver a pocket watch and a grand piano.

    If people's grandparents want to get a cheaper internet package because all they do is play solitaire and check their e-mail that should be an option. 

    I'm perfectly fine with paying for the services I use. I don't need the government to force people to subsidize the fact I game and watch Netflix.

    This protects monopolies because this is a stifling business environment to new ISPs. They can't compete in this market because the costs of remaining NN compliant are so high.
    YashaXAsm0deusDullahanGrintch
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Algo Star SystemMember EpicPosts: 2,017
    Eldurian said:
    Netflix and Youtube for one. Under net neutrality ISPs can't charge more for high bandwith services than low bandwith services.

    That's like if shipping companies were told they couldn't charge a different rate to deliver a pocket watch and a grand piano.

    If people's grandparents want to get a cheaper internet package because all they do is play solitaire and check their e-mail that should be an option. 

    I'm perfectly fine with paying for the services I use. I don't need the government to force people to subsidize the fact I game and watch Netflix.

    This protects monopolies because this is a stifling business environment to new ISPs. They can't compete in this market because the costs of remaining NN compliant are so high.
    • A pocket watch and grand piano aren't the same as 0s & 1s
    • ISPs already cap and charge overage for bandwidth usage
    • You already are paying for the services you use
    • Your tax dollars went to laying fiber optic lines and others lines before this (of which big ISPs didn't even really spend on infrastructure)
    • Smaller ISPs aren't spending money to be compliant, they are spending dollars on PROVING they're compliant. The majority of them have 0 problem with the fair play aspect of the regulation and are actually FOR Net Neutrality.
    • Read the letter 40 ISPs wrote to Ajit Pai. Don't take my word for it.
    YashaXAsm0deusMadFrenchie
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,435
    The debate is a question of 'payment for access to what your paying for'

    not 'price for what your paying for'

    The conversation is not about how much the truck stop is charging, the question is about the freeway that goes to it.


    I think this topic is far to detailed for a gaming forum to handle so I am trying to stay out but I thought I might at least try to keep it on track
    YashaXpostlarval

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • Asm0deusAsm0deus BaatorMember RarePosts: 2,075
    edited December 6
    It's pretty simple.... companies should be Internet Service Providers or  content providers....not both period.

    When I surf the web whether I am skyping, watching youtube, using facebook, streaming movies, tv or music or gaming it's not any of the ISPs damned business and they shouldn't have any right trying to charge me more or less because of what I am doing or block content cause it's their competition etc etc.

    They can already cater to certain groups by offering certain packages, exactly for old folks that just facebook and do emails  or groups that game or groups that game and stream etc etc etc.


    It's the same thing with Trumps BS idea of trying to make monument changes in the US, it has nothing to do with giving back to the people and all to do with taking control and removing protections, that protect the interest of the PUBLIC, to give more control to his company cronies so they can rape and pillage their way to big $$$$ like big ISP and big oil. 

    It's a recurring theme with Trump and anyone with half a working brain cell can see this and it's influencing everything he does.

    Why bring Trump into this?  Well for one he's the one that designated Ajit Pai as FCC Chairman and no one is going to tell me there's no conflicts of interest for a Verizon shill to be in that position.
    Post edited by Asm0deus on
    YashaX

    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


  • FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Manchester, NHMember RarePosts: 3,736
    I'm for net neutrality at least until there is adequate competition across a large portion of the country's population.  Removing it before that is asking for trouble
  • sayuusayuu glendale, AZMember RarePosts: 572
    All I know is my gut says maybe. . .
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,410
    edited December 10
    The real problem is that big ISPs sue the daylights out of smaller ISPs that attempt to trespass on their territory. That is a much bigger threat to our internet access, as well as the reason US infrastructure is crap and why we pay twice as much for internet than anyone else in the world.

    If this wasn't happening, net neutrality wouldn't even be an issue; the free market would take care of it. As is, we have an oligopoly and the chances of competition becoming a thing in the US are almost nonexistent. Since that probably won't be changing, net neutrality is basically the best we can hope for.

    Net neutrality isn't a good thing - regulation almost never is. Anyone that thinks these giant providers have suddenly become virtuous or freedom-loving have their head in the sand. Likewise, of course Google, the kings of sensorship, are happy about net neutrality. When their customers can't be throttled, it guarantees they get more clicks and ad revenue...
    Post edited by Dullahan on
    Asm0deus


  • linadragonlinadragon Emmaus, PAMember UncommonPosts: 488
    Asm0deus said:
    ScotchUp said:
    Makes me laugh after 8 years of Obama, any law no matter what it is called can't be trusted when Government is telling us how great it will be for America. Keep Government out of internet!
    Makes me laugh all the Obama hate, when you got someone like Trump who is only doing his best to line his pockets, and how some people think "Govment" is big bad and evil so lets give all the powa to them nice caring corporations cause they sure have your best interests at heart......lolz
    Don't mind the uneducated hack that is ScotchUp. @Scotchup Clearly you don't understand that the internet is still regulated by the government and always has been. During the 1990's ISPs were regulated under Title II and even in the very onset stages of the 2000's it was not until Bush's FCC classified them as Title I that there was a change in regulation.

    The change in regulation came at the behest of the DSL providers when Cable started to be useful for internet service as a means of making it harder for cable to compete with incumbent DSL providers. Cable still managed to find a way (as many already had lines) and the DSL providers quite literally sat on their ass not really improving (that's why DSL speeds are shit in most of the US and yet other countries have faster ADSL based speeds).

    Regulation was never switched back to title II until the point of net neutrality came up when verizon sued the FCC for enshrining net neutrality rules as something that needed to be followed. The ISPs were quite literally put back into the regulatory bracket they should of belonged in in the first place and Tom Wheeler didn't even take a heavier handed approach to the Title II regulations he could of put in place such as price fixing, local-loop unbundling (this would actually give us competition if local loops were forced to carry multiple isps), and a few other things. 

    None of the regulation from the FCC defines what is and is not allowed to be put on the internet. There is zero censorship and they only regulate what the ISPs are allowed to do to customers in a way to prevent abuses from the industries they are supposed to regulate. Pai hopes to pull back not just net neutrality and title II, but realistically Title I regulations as well and wants to push regulation over to the FTC who take years to be able to do anything and can't do shit until shit has already hit the fan not to mention the FTC has literally no teeth for regulation outside of antitrust suites.

    The Obama era FCC was quite literally ending an unjust period of time that happened during the Bush years in an attempt to protect the telecom industry who at the time were using phone lines (copper) from actual competition sprouting up. And those that want to say "but net neutrality didn't exist on the internet before Tom Wheeler" don't realize that it has been a point of contention since the mid 90's (isps didn't like it then) and yet they have followed the basic tenants of it up until it was broken even despite massive lobbying in the mid 2000's (2005 - 2006 area). So essentially until it was broken the ISPs were literally following it so the internet has always had net neutrality in place save for a 1 - 3 year period there. 

    The change is literally making the FCC just do their god damned jobs properly. ISPs should of never been regulated as information services. They may offer information services/webservices over their lines, but they are telecommunication networks first and foremost and should be regulated as such and no regulation does not mean censoring the internet it means protecting consumers (in this case consumers might be web service companies too) from telecommunications companies acting in bad faith to the detriment of the american people. 
    Asm0deusYashaXgrimal
  • linadragonlinadragon Emmaus, PAMember UncommonPosts: 488
    I'm for net neutrality at least until there is adequate competition across a large portion of the country's population.  Removing it before that is asking for trouble
    For that we'd really need to push for more stringent Title II based regulations such as Local-Loop Unbundling. 
  • DijonCyanideDijonCyanide EarthMember UncommonPosts: 425
    I wish that Ajit Pai would take a long walk off a short pier.  The USA voted-in these type of people, & those that would place them into these positions, so we're sadly getting what we deserve.  The USA will be taking a couple of steps backwards the next few years upon multiple fronts & this will probably be just one example.
    YashaX
  • linadragonlinadragon Emmaus, PAMember UncommonPosts: 488
    Eldurian said:
    Netflix and Youtube for one. Under net neutrality ISPs can't charge more for high bandwith services than low bandwith services.

    That's like if shipping companies were told they couldn't charge a different rate to deliver a pocket watch and a grand piano.

    If people's grandparents want to get a cheaper internet package because all they do is play solitaire and check their e-mail that should be an option. 

    I'm perfectly fine with paying for the services I use. I don't need the government to force people to subsidize the fact I game and watch Netflix.

    This protects monopolies because this is a stifling business environment to new ISPs. They can't compete in this market because the costs of remaining NN compliant are so high.
    Excpet you the customer already pay for access to bandwidth. The ISPs already have peering agreements for data coming into their network from the big guys (level 3 etc) and data going out of their own network. This is the basic premise of how the internet works. The problem is that you are actually heavily uneducated on the matter. Net Neutrality states that all data types of the same kind need to be treated the same. If you have web video on your network you need to treat it all the same (including your own service ultimately) so that eveyone is treated fairly and no one is given a leg up.

    It isn't about charging more for high or low bandwidth services and never has been. Netflix also is not a high bandwidth service in general terms (unless you are streaming 4k video streams) on average a household has a singular netflix account and at most a netflix account can do 4 screens (4 streams at once) you are looking at under 30 mbps used (it's like 26.24 mbps) if everyone in a single household is watching an HD stream at the same time (more if 4k, but 4k isn't the average and there just isn't that much 4k content out there).

    Not to mention that the issue was never about bandwidth and had to do with the interconects (links) between Netflix's isp and comcast etc. Now a small hint for you here Netflix's ISP is a larger tier 1 or tier 2 ISP who people like comcast also buy their bandwidth/data from (comcast etc are tier 3 providers). The interconnects between them are important to all web traffic and comcast was letting those that came in from Netflix's provider degrade and become congested so netflix traffic felt worse off than it would of been while allowing comcast's own traffic out of the network reliably using other interconnects. 


    There is also the fact that netflix provides their openconnect platform which is free hardware they provide to an ISP to lessen their potential burden by bringing things in house a lot more.  This shit was a case of the isps simply wanting more money. Netflix and youtube are all compressed videos and no reasonably designed network should be struggling with them unless they are over subscribing their local loops/nodes heavily or letting their interconnects degrade/become congested on purpose. There is no reason when entering the age where providers are offering 100s of mbps connections that 26 mbps is congesting jack shit. You use more bandwidth downloading a game on your PS4, Xbox One, Switch, or PC. 
    Asm0deusYashaX
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,410
    And who is to say that there will be any transparency? I can tell you right now I have one of the big three ISPs in the US, and they throttle Netflix today - still. My internet package can accommodate 8 simultaneous streams in 4k, yet I cannot stream on two devices simultaneously. Switch to a vpn on one device, I can get 4k on multiple devices again.

    The only logical goal of net neutrality is to stifle competition in the event that their frivolous lawsuits against emerging competition no longer hold up.


  • linadragonlinadragon Emmaus, PAMember UncommonPosts: 488
    edited December 10
    Dullahan said:
    And who is to say that there will be any transparency? I can tell you right now I have one of the big three ISPs in the US, and they throttle Netflix today - still. My internet package can accommodate 8 simultaneous streams in 4k, yet I cannot stream on two devices simultaneously. Switch to a vpn on one device, I can get 4k on multiple devices again.

    The only logical goal of net neutrality is to stifle competition in the event that their frivolous lawsuits against emerging competition no longer hold up.
    Net Neutrality actually does nothing to stifle emerging competition actually nor does Title II in fact the one of the key differences between Title I and Title II is that Title II regulation would actually make it easier for new competition to use poles instead of needing to dig trenches like they do with title I.  Net neutrality is meant to prevent ISPs from treating competition unfairly. Your ISP going against the rules while they are in place are against FCC regulations and your situation just proves that it is a necessity to have Net Neutrality and properly enforce it if anything. 

    Also what you said toward the bottom there shows you don't know what Title II or Net Neutrality are about at all. Title II is actually necessary for competition, but we need to stop the light touch approach for it and go full on with it pushing price controls and local-unbundling while keeping net neutrality intact for those companies that provide the local loop, this would increase competition while allowing providers to build out the lines and rent them out or municpal governments to do the same. 

    Frankly a large part of the reasons the isps could sue in the first place was due to Title I regulations, it was designed to keep competition away from incumbent providers because cable was poised to replace DSL (and it did) regulation was changed to try and give DSL isps a leg up to make cable isps have to dig trenches and loads of other shit that slows them down massively. 
    Post edited by linadragon on
    Asm0deusYashaX
  • HorusraHorusra maryland, MDMember RarePosts: 3,720
    Dullahan said:
    And who is to say that there will be any transparency? I can tell you right now I have one of the big three ISPs in the US, and they throttle Netflix today - still. My internet package can accommodate 8 simultaneous streams in 4k, yet I cannot stream on two devices simultaneously. Switch to a vpn on one device, I can get 4k on multiple devices again.

    The only logical goal of net neutrality is to stifle competition in the event that their frivolous lawsuits against emerging competition no longer hold up.
    Net Neutrality actually does nothing to stifle emerging competition actually nor does Title II in fact the one of the key differences between Title I and Title II is that Title II regulation would actually make it easier for new competition to use poles instead of needing to dig trenches like they do with title I.  Net neutrality is meant to prevent ISPs from treating competition unfairly. Your ISP going against the rules while they are in place are against FCC regulations and your situation just proves that it is a necessity to have Net Neutrality and properly enforce it if anything. 

    Also what you said toward the bottom there shows you don't know what Title II or Net Neutrality are about at all. 

    Net Neutrality does everything to stifle new competition because the new companies can not offer what Net Neutrality requires them to offer cause it costs too much upfront.
    YashaXgrimal
  • linadragonlinadragon Emmaus, PAMember UncommonPosts: 488
    Horusra said:
    Dullahan said:
    And who is to say that there will be any transparency? I can tell you right now I have one of the big three ISPs in the US, and they throttle Netflix today - still. My internet package can accommodate 8 simultaneous streams in 4k, yet I cannot stream on two devices simultaneously. Switch to a vpn on one device, I can get 4k on multiple devices again.

    The only logical goal of net neutrality is to stifle competition in the event that their frivolous lawsuits against emerging competition no longer hold up.
    Net Neutrality actually does nothing to stifle emerging competition actually nor does Title II in fact the one of the key differences between Title I and Title II is that Title II regulation would actually make it easier for new competition to use poles instead of needing to dig trenches like they do with title I.  Net neutrality is meant to prevent ISPs from treating competition unfairly. Your ISP going against the rules while they are in place are against FCC regulations and your situation just proves that it is a necessity to have Net Neutrality and properly enforce it if anything. 

    Also what you said toward the bottom there shows you don't know what Title II or Net Neutrality are about at all. 

    Net Neutrality does everything to stifle new competition because the new companies can not offer what Net Neutrality requires them to offer cause it costs too much upfront.
    Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh quite false so stop spewing nonsense. All Net Neutrality requires is treating all data of a single kind the same way. This does not cost "too much up front" nor does Title II regulations. You are literally buying into shit the ISPs are saying hook line and sinker and you don't seem to grasp that the reason it is expensive has nothing to do with regulation from the federal government under title II or title I and everything to do with local permits, costs to run fiber, equipment costs etc and that's a lot of what it is. Title II won't help bring down costs, title I won't help bring down costs, a full repeal won't help bring down costs, nor will deregulation at the federal level bring down costs. 

    You are in this mindset that treating video packets all the same, treating game packets all the same, treating website packets all the same and applying proper QoS is somehow costing an ISP more. They've been doing this shit forever and it's basically more costly to not follow along with "doing nothing" as you need to start developing systems to prioritize specific traffic from a specific source a certain way or not and that would actually drive up costs. There isn't "increased costs" with net neutrality or title II at all actually Title II isn't costing isps more, it isn't lowering investments, and it isn't making it harder for new isps like fixed wireless Wisps to enter the market despite what some of the larger isps and consortium of isps/industry shills will say about it. 

    These regulations hurt absolutely no one other than squashing a new way isps wanted to make money off webservices that they themselves are not hosting. 
    AvarixAsm0deusYashaXgrimal
  • HorusraHorusra maryland, MDMember RarePosts: 3,720
    Horusra said:
    Dullahan said:
    And who is to say that there will be any transparency? I can tell you right now I have one of the big three ISPs in the US, and they throttle Netflix today - still. My internet package can accommodate 8 simultaneous streams in 4k, yet I cannot stream on two devices simultaneously. Switch to a vpn on one device, I can get 4k on multiple devices again.

    The only logical goal of net neutrality is to stifle competition in the event that their frivolous lawsuits against emerging competition no longer hold up.
    Net Neutrality actually does nothing to stifle emerging competition actually nor does Title II in fact the one of the key differences between Title I and Title II is that Title II regulation would actually make it easier for new competition to use poles instead of needing to dig trenches like they do with title I.  Net neutrality is meant to prevent ISPs from treating competition unfairly. Your ISP going against the rules while they are in place are against FCC regulations and your situation just proves that it is a necessity to have Net Neutrality and properly enforce it if anything. 

    Also what you said toward the bottom there shows you don't know what Title II or Net Neutrality are about at all. 

    Net Neutrality does everything to stifle new competition because the new companies can not offer what Net Neutrality requires them to offer cause it costs too much upfront.
    Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh quite false so stop spewing nonsense. All Net Neutrality requires is treating all data of a single kind the same way. This does not cost "too much up front" nor does Title II regulations. You are literally buying into shit the ISPs are saying hook line and sinker and you don't seem to grasp that the reason it is expensive has nothing to do with regulation from the federal government under title II or title I and everything to do with local permits, costs to run fiber, equipment costs etc and that's a lot of what it is. Title II won't help bring down costs, title I won't help bring down costs, a full repeal won't help bring down costs, nor will deregulation at the federal level bring down costs. 

    You are in this mindset that treating video packets all the same, treating game packets all the same, treating website packets all the same and applying proper QoS is somehow costing an ISP more. They've been doing this shit forever and it's basically more costly to not follow along with "doing nothing" as you need to start developing systems to prioritize specific traffic from a specific source a certain way or not and that would actually drive up costs. There isn't "increased costs" with net neutrality or title II at all actually Title II isn't costing isps more, it isn't lowering investments, and it isn't making it harder for new isps like fixed wireless Wisps to enter the market despite what some of the larger isps and consortium of isps/industry shills will say about it. 

    These regulations hurt absolutely no one other than squashing a new way isps wanted to make money off webservices that they themselves are not hosting. 

    Like your propaganda you are spewing is truth.  For a new company they have to be able to keep up the speeds to everyone.  Take your crap and peddle it to the noob masses.
    Asm0deusYashaXgrimal
Sign In or Register to comment.