Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967

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.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Net Neutrality Poll
  1. Where Do You Stand In Regard to Net Neutrality?188 votes
    1. I'm For
      67.55%
    2. I'm Against
      20.74%
    3. I'm Not Concerned Either Way
        7.45%
    4. I'm Not Aware of the Topic
        4.26%
«13456720

Comments

  • AbimorAbimor Member UncommonPosts: 634
    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
    JeffSpicolijayheld90Thebeastttbobbymcswanson
  • VicodinTacoVicodinTaco Member UncommonPosts: 804
    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 Member EpicPosts: 4,211
    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.
    YashaXMrMelGibsonTenohiraMyrdynnEldurianjayheld90ZenJelly
  • laxielaxie Member RarePosts: 1,065
    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.
    Relampagojayheld90ZenJellyDeddmeat
  • HorusraHorusra Member EpicPosts: 4,211
    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 LegendaryPosts: 7,271
    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.
    MrMelGibsonLeviathon77
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    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.
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Prod1702Prod1702 Member UncommonPosts: 77
    edited November 2017
    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. 
  • mrputtsmrputts Member UncommonPosts: 274
    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-kundrivendawnBodeanG

    Ea is like a poo fingered midas ~ShakyMo

  • SirAgravaineSirAgravaine Member RarePosts: 520
    I voted 'I'm Not Concerned Either Way' because of the lack of the 'I haven't made up my mind' option.
  • XodicXodic Member EpicPosts: 1,138
    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 Member EpicPosts: 4,211
    edited November 2017
    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.
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    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.
    [Deleted User]
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    edited November 2017
    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.


    XodicKilraneYashaXAvarixMrMelGibsonRedempdrivendawnZenJelly
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • bonzoso21bonzoso21 Member UncommonPosts: 364
    edited November 2017
    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. 
    YashaX
  • HorusraHorusra Member EpicPosts: 4,211
    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.
    YashaXWraithonebobbymcswanson
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 3,226
    edited November 2017
    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.
    RexKushmanYashaXKilraneMrMelGibsondrivendawn

    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.





  • TillerTiller Member EpicPosts: 8,874
    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.
    Wraithone
    SWG Bloodfin vet
    Elder Jedi/Elder Bounty Hunter

  • SomethingUnusualSomethingUnusual Member UncommonPosts: 546
    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. 


    Asm0deusRexKushmanMadFrenchie[Deleted User]Avarixbartoni33MrMelGibsonWraithoneVynt
  • SomethingUnusualSomethingUnusual Member UncommonPosts: 546
    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. 
    RexKushmanWraithone
  • malikhigh1978malikhigh1978 Member UncommonPosts: 45
    Net Neutrality is where it's at. I have witnessed a friend go from no connection in the country, to where him and his family can run a few netflix accounts, a phone, and he can be gaming at the same time. I think that's progress. I don't want the government involved with the internet, especially in an age where everyone gets butthurt over not being politically correct. Censorship is at an all time high. Make it a rule of law, and we may as well say goodbye to the first amendment. Politicians were already positioning to remove net neutrality, hence why Obama gave the keys over the China back in October of 2016. 
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    I hear what folks are saying about some regulations being a bit heavy handed, but we're not talking about new regulation. We're talking about the rollback of something that was already in place, something we already have.

    If the regulation gets rolled back it would be a companies fiduciary responsibility to take advantage, because capitalism. Assuming that Comcast/AT&T/Verizon/Spectrum or even Google would not take advantage is being willfully obtuse.
    Asm0deusAvarixMrMelGibson
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • PsythosPsythos Member UncommonPosts: 124
    Give us complete control, I promise we won't abuse it.................
    [Deleted User]AllerleirauhMrMelGibson
  • ScotchUpScotchUp Member UncommonPosts: 228
    Against, the whole idea is smaller Government, not bigger! Plus once Government controls something they screw it all up for the citizens. We already have laws on the books to control companies, along with consumers pocket books.
    TillerAsm0deusMrMelGibson
    “The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
    George Carlin
  • aRtFuLThinGaRtFuLThinG Member UncommonPosts: 1,387
    The problem with this entire Net Neutrality debacle is because this issue is not really up for vote, the people really have no say in this.

    That douchebag Ajit Pai can propose whatever he wants.

    You can only only hope the Supreme Court makes the sensible call.
This discussion has been closed.