Howdy, Stranger!

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

FCC killed net neutrality. What does it mean for gamers?

13567

Comments

  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,694
    Hulluck said:
    Albatroes said:
    Hulluck said:
    Meh, Reddit got people riled up. Competition will keep balance for the most part in the U.S. people seem to ignore that. Example: In the past few years it's gone from Google going on about bringing their 1000Mbps lines to major cities then now various companies offering those lines. I don't live in some major city. There's 2 companies atm in my neighborhood that offer 1000Mbps lines. The kicker is At&t (wow) is the cheapest at ($80) beating the other company by $10. I don't really have a need for a line like that personally. I'm happy at 250Mbps up and down at $45 total, fees included. While a lot of rural area's may not see fiber for awhile it's definitely spreading. Heck my tablet and phone can't even take advantage of a 250 line. Usually topping out at around 100Mbps. S6 edge and some random tablet. Could be my router which is not the best but not junk either. Point being companies will have to be competitive to keep customers. If companies start doing stuff that people don't like they'll switch companies. If they all start doing it upsetting enough people I'm sure at that point something will be done. All the end of days stuff is way over the top.
    Sounds like a response from one of the millions of fake accounts the news has been reporting that were submitted to the FCC because this decision had to be made public and accept open feedback before it was concluded.
      Really? That's a first. Slightly hilarious you just called me a fake account or even a FCC bot?  I can't actually believe it. lmao! How did the internet ever survive or innovate prior to 2015. Rolls eyes.

    Added: The doomsdayers atm are way over the top. Competition does work where you have plenty of choices! And if not which is a big if people will be all over ISP's who mess up. Then I'll worry about it. As of right now. Life goes on.
    I don't know if this is the case here but large companies do hire agencies to employ people to post in forums to help influence public opinion.  Very easy to find those companies on the internet looking to hire people to post in forums.
    PhryYashaX

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 2,745
    edited December 2017
    so does this only involve the U.S??? or does it include the whole world??
    I havent got teh foggiest of anything significant about any of this but maybe thats cos i live in the EU but from my understanding this rule was only put in 2yrs ago and its just been scrapped (and i gather) going back to what it was previously so why all the hoo haa wam wam??

    So, net neutrality revolves around one single definition - is the internet a "common carrier" or an "information provider"?


    It used to be classified as an information provider. This essentially means it is a luxury service and you can easily live without it. Being a luxury service, providers were sort of allowed to do what they wanted, including tiered services, throttling / blocking etc. 

    However, the internet was founded on open principles - all traffic is equal - and most people adhered to that principle without needing too many regulations. The FCC also had some powers to curtail excessive behaviours. 

    What happened, though, is that from about 2005 - 2014, ISPs were steadily getting worse and worse. More and more blocking or throttling of services, usually without informing the public. The FCC stepped in where it could, but each case involved long drawn out court cases (which were very expensive to the tax payer) and most just resulted in the ISP altering their behaviour - no fines, nothing punitive, so no disincentive to do it again. 


    So, Obama implemented net neutrality - changing the internet from an information provider into a common carrier. This essentially recognised the importance of the internet in modern America, how it was no longer a luxury but virtually essential for modern life. By changing it to a common carrier, it brought it inline with other utilities, like gas and electric. 

    Being a common carrier means everyone has to be treated equally. No tiered pricing / services. You cannot pay more to get electricity before your neighbours, my water is not better because I pay more than you. Now, with net neutrality, you cannot pay more to get priority access to the internet. All electricity is treated equally. All water and gas is treated equally. Now, all internet traffic is treated equally. 


    This change empowered the FCC to enforce net neutrality and made it simpler to understand. 


    Now, we're taking a step backwards. The internet is once again being treated as a luxury in America, not as something essential for modern life. The FCC will once again have to return to complicated expensive cases to discourage ISPs from blocking content they don't like. ISPs can start offering tiered pricing, so if you want to stream 4k Netflix you'll have to make sure your ISP doesn't block it and that your package includes it. ISPs can use this change to screw over their competitors, but more importantly they can use their power to influence elections (e.g. by blocking / throttling prominent democratic sites). 

    The worst part about this whole thing is that Ajit Pai, the FCC guy pushing these changes, is flat out lying to the public, used to work for the ISPs so is already a corporate shill, and has ignored the public outcry. No doubt he will go back to working for ISPs once he's done with the FCC, enjoying some crazy big money from them. Essentially, ISPs have bribed their way to a law that lets them make more money at our expense. 


    Is it the end? 


    No. The FCC will still have some powers and if ISPs go too far, too fast then consumers will cry out, forcing change. Also, when Trump gets booted out in 2020, the next President will re-implement net neutrality anyway. 
    I read in you earlier post your from the UK and as such big ISP like BT must share their lines, it's the same here due to rules enforced by the CRTC which view ISP like utilities and force them to force their lines with smaller 3rd party ISP to ensure true competition and availability of choice for consumers.

    The thing you must realize is that this is not so in the USA, the big ISP do not have to share their lines and defend their "territories" vigorously to the point many place have no choice in ISP as there is only one option.  These changes will make this even more so as moving back to title 1 makes any laws forcing them to share their lines even less likely as if I am not mistaken this is something they COULD enforce if ISP were title 2 but not as title 1.

    Last but certainly not least one of the FCC member said in his speech, during the vote to kill NN, that not only was he in favor of throttling it was a must going on in the future.

    Another point is I believe once the court stuff is done if what the FCC wants stand and isn't overturned they will have some laws/rules that will stop the FCC from going back to change all this going forwards into the future not to mention they wish to take away any options from state or local gov to vote to change things for their state.

    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, samsung evo 860 500gb SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,694
    They will make more money and the government will tax them more which they will pass along to consumers.  
    Ridelynnanemo

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,440
    Quizzical said:
    Considering that this only reverts to the rules as they were in early 2015, freaking out only makes sense if you thought the Internet was some dystopian wasteland in 2014 and has gotten massively better since then.

    Either the sky will fall or else it won't.  Most likely, returning to the light-touch regulatory regime that facilitated the rise of the Internet over the course of nearly 20 years preceding the FCC's arbitrary switch to Title II regulations in 2015 will similarly help facilitate future Internet improvements that we don't foresee today.

    But it's also possible that ISPs will commonly roll out abusive and predatory business practices and block legitimate sites that they don't like or some such.  If that happens, then the view that heavier regulation of the Internet is necessary will become prevalent all across the political spectrum rather than the Internet being just another domain in with the left wants more regulation and the right wants fewer.  In that case, heavier regulations will come, hopefully in the form of Congress passing a bill properly authorizing heavier regulations.

    And don't think that Congress is incapable of acting when there's overwhelming public support for an issue.  It's hard to pass laws when half of the public is in favor and half against, and that's by design, but it's much easier to pass laws when there is broad popular support and few people opposed.  For example, consider the CAN-SPAM act of 2003, which passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a vote of 392-5.
    http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent-of-voters-support-keeping-fccs-net-neutrality-rules

    The overwhelming majority of Americans already opposed the repealing of the rules.
    YashaX

    image
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    edited December 2017
    To be fair that's because the American voter is grossly uninformed about everything including net neutrality.

    Half the time I hear people talk about net neutrality they are talking about "More government regulation" and "The FCC putting their greasy fingers on our internet."

    They don't realize that "Net Neutrality" is a series of regulations enforced by the FCC, and the repeal of it means less government regulation, and less FCC involvement in our internet.

    Of course many get this and it's the corporations they demonize, but many seem to feed into this ignorance with intentionally deceitful wording intended to use anti-FCC sentiment to get people to support NN.

    I think the numbers would be very different if the American voter knew what they were talking about for once.

    This is the reason we have a republic and not a democracy. It really is best we have people actually researched on these issues representing our interests rather than the common man voting on every single issue. Our founding fathers shunned direct democracy because of issues like this. It's the system that put Socrates to death after all.
    RidelynnPhry
  • xmentyxmenty Member UncommonPosts: 715
    edited December 2017
    If you study the past on world history, the country with great power will usually destroy themselves internally, lol.  Just pure greed, corruption and racist. 

    Ridelynn

    Pardon my English as it is not my 1st language :)

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,440
    Eldurian said:
    To be fair that's because the American voter is grossly uninformed about everything including net neutrality.

    Half the time I hear people talk about net neutrality they are talking about "More government regulation" and "The FCC putting their greasy fingers on our internet."

    They don't realize that "Net Neutrality" is a series of regulations enforced by the FCC, and the repeal of it means less government regulation, and less FCC involvement in our internet.

    Of course many get this and it's the corporations they demonize, but many seem to feed into this ignorance with intentionally deceitful wording intended to use anti-FCC sentiment to get people to support NN.

    I think the numbers would be very different if the American voter knew what they were talking about for once.

    This is the reason we have a republic and not a democracy. It really is best we have people actually researched on these issues representing our interests rather than the common man voting on every single issue. Our founding fathers shunned direct democracy because of issues like this. It's the system that put Socrates to death after all.
    I would buy into this, if only we didn't have representatives who still deny climate change.

    The representatives aren't informed, they're paid.
    Asm0deusPhryYashaX

    image
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Quizzical said:
    Considering that this only reverts to the rules as they were in early 2015, freaking out only makes sense if you thought the Internet was some dystopian wasteland in 2014 and has gotten massively better since then.

    Either the sky will fall or else it won't.  Most likely, returning to the light-touch regulatory regime that facilitated the rise of the Internet over the course of nearly 20 years preceding the FCC's arbitrary switch to Title II regulations in 2015 will similarly help facilitate future Internet improvements that we don't foresee today.

    But it's also possible that ISPs will commonly roll out abusive and predatory business practices and block legitimate sites that they don't like or some such.  If that happens, then the view that heavier regulation of the Internet is necessary will become prevalent all across the political spectrum rather than the Internet being just another domain in with the left wants more regulation and the right wants fewer.  In that case, heavier regulations will come, hopefully in the form of Congress passing a bill properly authorizing heavier regulations.

    And don't think that Congress is incapable of acting when there's overwhelming public support for an issue.  It's hard to pass laws when half of the public is in favor and half against, and that's by design, but it's much easier to pass laws when there is broad popular support and few people opposed.  For example, consider the CAN-SPAM act of 2003, which passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a vote of 392-5.
    http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent-of-voters-support-keeping-fccs-net-neutrality-rules

    The overwhelming majority of Americans already opposed the repealing of the rules.

    Well the government knows best :) 

    Hey North American's already have some of the highest fees for Internet in the World. Why not make it worse? 

    At least our government has recognized Internet as an essential service, which means, hopefully, fewer shennanigans? Feel free to move to Canada, a lot of your brethren already have! If Trump wasn't enough, maybe this will help push you over the border? :) 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    edited December 2017
    And honestly that seems to be an element of democracy creeping it's way into our republican government. There are many people who believe climate change is a hoax and they want representatives who will run on that platform. I don't believe half the representatives believe the crap coming out of their own mouths anymore but when everything they say and do is going to end up on facebook feeds consumed by their uninformed voter block they have to pander to those people constantly.

    I think there is a reason that the quality of government has gone consistently down as people have had more access to political media has gone up. Unfortunately I don't see a better option other than some basic changing like moving to a ranking based voting system like Australia as opposed to the one we have right now that ensures only two parties can compete.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,440
    CrazKanuk said:
    Quizzical said:
    Considering that this only reverts to the rules as they were in early 2015, freaking out only makes sense if you thought the Internet was some dystopian wasteland in 2014 and has gotten massively better since then.

    Either the sky will fall or else it won't.  Most likely, returning to the light-touch regulatory regime that facilitated the rise of the Internet over the course of nearly 20 years preceding the FCC's arbitrary switch to Title II regulations in 2015 will similarly help facilitate future Internet improvements that we don't foresee today.

    But it's also possible that ISPs will commonly roll out abusive and predatory business practices and block legitimate sites that they don't like or some such.  If that happens, then the view that heavier regulation of the Internet is necessary will become prevalent all across the political spectrum rather than the Internet being just another domain in with the left wants more regulation and the right wants fewer.  In that case, heavier regulations will come, hopefully in the form of Congress passing a bill properly authorizing heavier regulations.

    And don't think that Congress is incapable of acting when there's overwhelming public support for an issue.  It's hard to pass laws when half of the public is in favor and half against, and that's by design, but it's much easier to pass laws when there is broad popular support and few people opposed.  For example, consider the CAN-SPAM act of 2003, which passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a vote of 392-5.
    http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent-of-voters-support-keeping-fccs-net-neutrality-rules

    The overwhelming majority of Americans already opposed the repealing of the rules.

    Well the government knows best :) 

    Hey North American's already have some of the highest fees for Internet in the World. Why not make it worse? 

    At least our government has recognized Internet as an essential service, which means, hopefully, fewer shennanigans? Feel free to move to Canada, a lot of your brethren already have! If Trump wasn't enough, maybe this will help push you over the border? :) 
    If you know of an insurance company hiring, let me know.

    Not reference this issue specifically, but a life goal of mine is to live somewhere other than the US to take a look at the country from the outside perspective as opposed to being right in the middle of it.  

    I would also need to be able to bring my pets.  I have....  Quite a few uncommon pets (two rats, two guinea pigs, two hamsters, a corn snake, and a dog) lol.  So I would need to be able to bring them along! :D

    image
  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,129
    Eldurian said:
    To be fair that's because the American voter is grossly uninformed about everything including net neutrality.

    Half the time I hear people talk about net neutrality they are talking about "More government regulation" and "The FCC putting their greasy fingers on our internet."

    They don't realize that "Net Neutrality" is a series of regulations enforced by the FCC, and the repeal of it means less government regulation, and less FCC involvement in our internet.

    Of course many get this and it's the corporations they demonize, but many seem to feed into this ignorance with intentionally deceitful wording intended to use anti-FCC sentiment to get people to support NN.

    I think the numbers would be very different if the American voter knew what they were talking about for once.

    This is the reason we have a republic and not a democracy. It really is best we have people actually researched on these issues representing our interests rather than the common man voting on every single issue. Our founding fathers shunned direct democracy because of issues like this. It's the system that put Socrates to death after all.
    I think you misunderstood Frenchie. The link he posted stated 83% of Americans are in favour of net neutrality, not opposed to it. 


    You are likely right in that most Americans are tragically uninformed when it comes to making decisions (much like the rest of the world really) but at least in this instance, the public are on the right side of things. It's just a shame the FCC ignored them. 
    YashaX
  • LuidenLuiden Member UncommonPosts: 249

    They don't realize that "Net Neutrality" is a series of regulations enforced by the FCC, and the repeal of it means less government regulation, and less FCC involvement in our internet.

    Do you really think that?  You really think that Net Neutrality which very basically says that the ISPs have to treat all content equally would have more FCC oversight/overhead than what is to come?  That's being very naive. 

    If you want to know where we are heading, all you have to look at is the current state of Cable TV.. which is highly regulated by the FCC... or more correctly the content is regulated.  This decision sets up a future where we will see the FCC expanded 10x fold as it tries to police what the internet will become.  Saying that repealing Net Neutrality == less government is a ignorant statement fabricated by Republicans who are using this tag line to justify the payments that they have taken from companies like Verizon and Cox.  It's crooked politics 0003 and you have taken the bait hook line and sinker.

    And others who say that it will be the same thing as before 2015.. no.. no it wont.  The internet has seen massive changes in how it's used, specifically with streaming video services cutting into the cable tv market.  This push is those same providers like Cox trying to protect their earnings and providers like Verizon who are just slobbering at the potential revenue growth.

    You want to know what will happen?  Look at your Direct Tv bill, that is what is going to happen.  You want basic cable.. sure 30 bucks.  Wait, you what DVR.. that's another 10 a month.. you want HD, that's another 10.  You want 'premium channels'.. another 20.  You want HBO.. another 10.  You want Showtime, another 10.  A second TV, another 10.  You want it all, your Direct TV bill is going to be well over 200 dollars a month.. I know because I subscribe to this crap.  :)

    This is the future without Net Neutrality.  The speed at which you download content does not matter, this is because they are providing service that is so fast that most people don't use up all what is allotted to them.  So the ISP's now will have the ability to monetize in a similar fashion as TV does which is they will pick and choose what you are able to do.  Let's peak into the future shall we?

    Basic internet for e-mail and html surfing = 30 dollars a month
    Streaming Netflix = 40 dollars a month
    Streaming Amazon = 40 dollars a month
    Blizzard Gaming package (includes WoW, Starcraft, Overwatch, Hearthstone = 25 dollars a month
    EA package = 25 dollars a month
    Steam Package = 30 dollars a month
    Music Streaming with Spoitify = 10 dollars a month
    Music streaming with Pandora = 10 dollars a month
    Real time streaming Twitch package = 15 dollars a month.

    10 years now it will cost you over 200 to 300 dollars a month to get what you get today for well under a 100.  This is the future, this is why people say goodbye to the internet as we know it.
    Asm0deusPhryYashaX
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,765
    Daranar said:
    It's nice to hear some reasonable people talking about this.  The sky isn't falling, we've merely gone back to pre 2015 regulations, when the internet was....virtually the same it is today.  
    There's a difference between the Internet now, and the Internet of the 90's and early 00's.

    Technically - it's the same series of tubes that the late Ted Stevens famously described back in 2006 (which, ironically, was also a Net Neutrality discussion, back then).

    What has changed is the way society uses the Internet. This past Black Friday helps to illustrate that - Brick and Mortar stores saw sales fall from 2016, while online shopping exploded (and you saw nearly the same headline in 2016, and 2015 ecommerce reached parity with B&M).

    That's just one aspect, but a powerful one - the Internet has become a strong part of the US Economy.

    Then there are the day to day tools. A lot of phone service (maybe most of the land line, I don't have a statistic for that) has shifted to VOIP. Video conferencing has expanded into medical service for non-threatening followups and rural community care. Netflix and other streaming services have done for the TV & Movie industry what Spotify and Pandora did for the music industry. Gaming has gone online in a big way - so much so now that developers are emphasizing the online shared experience over (and at the expense of) the single player game. How many AAA games are shipped now (apart from Nintendo) that are not heavily online based, if not almost exclusively online based?

    And that list goes on.

    The Internet is now a part of life in America. It's like electricity and telephone were in the 1930s - not quite everyone has it yet, and you can live without it, but "living" takes on a whole new definition without having it available. Internet (while maybe not a utility) is reaching that level of impact, it's around the corner. It's become so deeply ingrained into people's lives that to not have it will alienate you from a large part of America (and the world).

    That is what has changed since "light touch" regulations allowed the Internet to thrive. Now, maybe the Internet would continue to thrive under light touch regulations for several more years. After all, Bell was founded in 1877, and the government didn't feel the need to step in and heavily regulate that until 1974 (and even then, the "breakup" wasn't official until 1982). And ironically, you could also very well say, Bell only became a monopoly in the first place because other government regulations discouraged competition. 

    But I'd like to think we learned some lessons from that, and could avoid some of that without taking 100 years to get there. Which is the real root of the issue - lack of competition. Net Neutrality is only needed when competition doesn't exist, and it's largely local laws that are preventing terrestrial ISPs from being able to compete. 
    MadFrenchiePhryYashaX
  • beebop500beebop500 Member UncommonPosts: 217
    Personally, I think it's being blown out of proportion, especially by the "poor" YouTubers who are worried they might actually have to go get a job that requires them to leave the house.  *Gasp!*

    Snarkiness aside, I don't know about everyone else, but my ISP is a massive carrier, and they and the other ISPs like them have been gigantic corporations who essentially play by their own rules for years now, so I doubt much will change for those of us who are their customers.  I would assume that people using budget carriers, or out in the sticks, or what have you, may suffer a bit but probably already do, at least to a certain extent.

    The Internet and its overarching systems and regulatory bodies, like most other systems we live under in this so-called "free world", is corrupt, has been corrupt, and is going to continue to be corrupt until the sun falls from the sky.  So none of this should be a surprise, and I really doubt it's going to change things very much.  Any time human beings run anything, it's basically guaranteed to be (a) a disaster, (b) corrupt, or (c) retarded.  See: social media.
    PhryYashaX
    "We are all as God made us, and many of us much worse." - Don Quixote
  • Razzel333Razzel333 Member UncommonPosts: 1



      Let's peak into the future shall we?

    Basic internet for e-mail and html surfing = 30 dollars a month
    Streaming Netflix = 40 dollars a month
    Streaming Amazon = 40 dollars a month
    Blizzard Gaming package (includes WoW, Starcraft, Overwatch, Hearthstone = 25 dollars a month
    EA package = 25 dollars a month
    Steam Package = 30 dollars a month
    Music Streaming with Spoitify = 10 dollars a month
    Music streaming with Pandora = 10 dollars a month
    Real time streaming Twitch package = 15 dollars a month.

    10 years now it will cost you over 200 to 300 dollars a month to get what you get today for well under a 100.  This is the future, this is why people say goodbye to the internet as we know it.


    If you have such insight of what is going to happen tomorrow. I want lotto numbers now. When is the world going to end? How? Is the world really going to run out of fossil fuels by the year 2000? Will Y2K really cause all the computers in the world to crash and never boot again?  Will the polar ice caps melt and flood half the world by 2012? Will Lassie save Timmy?

    Is the truth here...this is exactly what you would do if you were in charge and had the power? Are you projecting?


  • PopplePopple Member UncommonPosts: 236
    In my day i grew up with no internet and no cell phone. We were slim and built like a ox and walked every where to talk to someone . Not like today where kids are fat and text each other when they are together...But my point is, remember the time when you had a "Party Phone" where you had to wait till the others were off so that you can use your own phone..Then when you wanted a "private line" you HAD TO PAY FOR IT because the Company offered it separate from the party line..Then the break up of Ma bell and it open the door of many different plans for phones and different companies..

    I think with the break up of Net neutrality will be the same as it was with the phone companies.
    Soon it will be the TV programs where you pay to what you want to watch instead of a package with garbage in it like the cable companies have today...Just my 2 cents..
    GhostRider00Asm0deusYashaX

    I retired retroactively..Haha

  • HulluckHulluck Member UncommonPosts: 830
    edited December 2017
    Hulluck said:
    Albatroes said:
    Hulluck said:
    Meh, Reddit got people riled up. Competition will keep balance for the most part in the U.S. people seem to ignore that. Example: In the past few years it's gone from Google going on about bringing their 1000Mbps lines to major cities then now various companies offering those lines. I don't live in some major city. There's 2 companies atm in my neighborhood that offer 1000Mbps lines. The kicker is At&t (wow) is the cheapest at ($80) beating the other company by $10. I don't really have a need for a line like that personally. I'm happy at 250Mbps up and down at $45 total, fees included. While a lot of rural area's may not see fiber for awhile it's definitely spreading. Heck my tablet and phone can't even take advantage of a 250 line. Usually topping out at around 100Mbps. S6 edge and some random tablet. Could be my router which is not the best but not junk either. Point being companies will have to be competitive to keep customers. If companies start doing stuff that people don't like they'll switch companies. If they all start doing it upsetting enough people I'm sure at that point something will be done. All the end of days stuff is way over the top.
    Sounds like a response from one of the millions of fake accounts the news has been reporting that were submitted to the FCC because this decision had to be made public and accept open feedback before it was concluded.
      Really? That's a first. Slightly hilarious you just called me a fake account or even a FCC bot?  I can't actually believe it. lmao! How did the internet ever survive or innovate prior to 2015. Rolls eyes.

    Added: The doomsdayers atm are way over the top. Competition does work where you have plenty of choices! And if not which is a big if people will be all over ISP's who mess up. Then I'll worry about it. As of right now. Life goes on.
    I don't know if this is the case here but large companies do hire agencies to employ people to post in forums to help influence public opinion.  Very easy to find those companies on the internet looking to hire people to post in forums.
    if there was probably evidence i could understand that. But come on. I have enough post history... I've been around since 04 and can tell people a lot of antics that happened on this site.  I slowed down posting around Jan/feb? Not that I was that active to begin with. Not sure of when actually slowed down completely. I had big, no, massive life changes.  I think me asking about a tablet was the last significant thread I had when I went to FL last year.  Not looked at my post history. From where I am sitting it's genuinely funny.  I'm not a schill, or some FCC bot. Besides they would target places with much more traffic. Like news site comment sections, reddit, Youtube comments.   Schill got thrown out there because I have a different view point  and that's it. Which are similar to ones that were already expressed prior to me saying anything in the A.M. I refuse to scream the sky is falling and assume the worst that is all.  Life goes on. When a company crosses the line people will be all over it! Then I'll worry about it and it will likely change through sheer pressure on the company or by legislation.
    YashaX
  • xmentyxmenty Member UncommonPosts: 715
    Luiden said:

    They don't realize that "Net Neutrality" is a series of regulations enforced by the FCC, and the repeal of it means less government regulation, and less FCC involvement in our internet.

    Do you really think that?  You really think that Net Neutrality which very basically says that the ISPs have to treat all content equally would have more FCC oversight/overhead than what is to come?  That's being very naive. 

    If you want to know where we are heading, all you have to look at is the current state of Cable TV.. which is highly regulated by the FCC... or more correctly the content is regulated.  This decision sets up a future where we will see the FCC expanded 10x fold as it tries to police what the internet will become.  Saying that repealing Net Neutrality == less government is a ignorant statement fabricated by Republicans who are using this tag line to justify the payments that they have taken from companies like Verizon and Cox.  It's crooked politics 0003 and you have taken the bait hook line and sinker.

    And others who say that it will be the same thing as before 2015.. no.. no it wont.  The internet has seen massive changes in how it's used, specifically with streaming video services cutting into the cable tv market.  This push is those same providers like Cox trying to protect their earnings and providers like Verizon who are just slobbering at the potential revenue growth.

    You want to know what will happen?  Look at your Direct Tv bill, that is what is going to happen.  You want basic cable.. sure 30 bucks.  Wait, you what DVR.. that's another 10 a month.. you want HD, that's another 10.  You want 'premium channels'.. another 20.  You want HBO.. another 10.  You want Showtime, another 10.  A second TV, another 10.  You want it all, your Direct TV bill is going to be well over 200 dollars a month.. I know because I subscribe to this crap.  :)

    This is the future without Net Neutrality.  The speed at which you download content does not matter, this is because they are providing service that is so fast that most people don't use up all what is allotted to them.  So the ISP's now will have the ability to monetize in a similar fashion as TV does which is they will pick and choose what you are able to do.  Let's peak into the future shall we?

    Basic internet for e-mail and html surfing = 30 dollars a month
    Streaming Netflix = 40 dollars a month
    Streaming Amazon = 40 dollars a month
    Blizzard Gaming package (includes WoW, Starcraft, Overwatch, Hearthstone = 25 dollars a month
    EA package = 25 dollars a month
    Steam Package = 30 dollars a month
    Music Streaming with Spoitify = 10 dollars a month
    Music streaming with Pandora = 10 dollars a month
    Real time streaming Twitch package = 15 dollars a month.

    10 years now it will cost you over 200 to 300 dollars a month to get what you get today for well under a 100.  This is the future, this is why people say goodbye to the internet as we know it.
    I hope your prediction come true as I want kids to stay away from Youtube.

    Pardon my English as it is not my 1st language :)

  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 20,341
    edited December 2017
    Eldurian said:
    To be fair that's because the American voter is grossly uninformed about everything including net neutrality.

    Half the time I hear people talk about net neutrality they are talking about "More government regulation" and "The FCC putting their greasy fingers on our internet."

    They don't realize that "Net Neutrality" is a series of regulations enforced by the FCC, and the repeal of it means less government regulation, and less FCC involvement in our internet.

    Of course many get this and it's the corporations they demonize, but many seem to feed into this ignorance with intentionally deceitful wording intended to use anti-FCC sentiment to get people to support NN.

    I think the numbers would be very different if the American voter knew what they were talking about for once.

    This is the reason we have a republic and not a democracy. It really is best we have people actually researched on these issues representing our interests rather than the common man voting on every single issue. Our founding fathers shunned direct democracy because of issues like this. It's the system that put Socrates to death after all.
    I think you misunderstood Frenchie. The link he posted stated 83% of Americans are in favour of net neutrality, not opposed to it. 


    You are likely right in that most Americans are tragically uninformed when it comes to making decisions (much like the rest of the world really) but at least in this instance, the public are on the right side of things. It's just a shame the FCC ignored them. 

    FCC was paid to ignore them.

    this post on reddit explains HOW this really works 


    The_Crass-Beagle_Act
    2h

    Nobody pays the FCC or its commissioners directly while they're on the commission. But it's an age old practice government-industrial complexes to do as follows.

    1. Specially-interested corporation (To be hypothetical, let's call it... I don't know... Berizon) takes one of their lawyers (Again, to be hypothetical, let's call him Pajit Ai) and grooms him to become a commissioner of the FCC, pulling strings with allies in congress whom they donate too (Like, let's say, Titch McTonnel) to get a recommondation for his appointment.

    2. Pajit Ai works in the FCC for years, raking in a steady high-ranking government salary, and pretends to be independent of his past life as a lawyer for Berizon. Ultimately, though, he votes in the stated interest of Berizon and companies like Berizon, claiming that it's in the best interest of the public and everyone wants it (even though nobody in the public really does and demonstrates it through millions of "fake" public FCC comments).

    3. After his work is done, and his term is up, Pajit Ai is "coincidentally" snatched back up by his old employer Berizon, now in a much higher position with a much higher salary and bigger benefits/bonus package than he had before, as his meaningful experience as Chairman of the FCC surely makes him very valuable to Berizon (but surely not because of anything he did to favor Berizon while employed there... Surely).

    Edit: For people who want to learn more about this phenomenon, it's called the Revolving Door (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)), and it's a very well-documented phenomenon in the United States and around the world. The premise of the Revolving Door is that the government frequently hires industry professionals as regulators of that same industry, who then eventually go on to be hired again as industry professionals due to their experience as government regulators. When you add in the influence industries have over appointments of government regulators for their industry, a clear pattern of how companies like... ahem... Berizon influence the regulation of their own industry via the FCC.

    t0nydYashaX
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 18,937
    Daranar said:
    It's nice to hear some reasonable people talking about this.  The sky isn't falling, we've merely gone back to pre 2015 regulations, when the internet was....virtually the same it is today.  
    The sky wasn't falling before so why rip the regulations out? What motivation would someone have to do that in a system that was working just fine?
    AvarixYashaX
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 5,922
    Net neutrality was a catch phrase created by democrats to support wide spread internet surveillance. It was created by the Obama area FCC, not FTC. Everything remains exactly the same because nothing monetized is regulated by the FCC.
    So ..... Obama was president back in 2003 was he?  
    TorvalMadFrenchiePhryAsm0deusYashaX
  • TalonsinTalonsin Member EpicPosts: 3,619
    Hulluck said:
    Meh, Reddit got people riled up. Competition will keep balance for the most part in the U.S. people seem to ignore that. Example: In the past few years it's gone from Google going on about bringing their 1000Mbps lines to major cities then now various companies offering those lines. I don't live in some major city. There's 2 companies atm in my neighborhood that offer 1000Mbps lines. The kicker is At&t (wow) is the cheapest at ($80) beating the other company by $10. I don't really have a need for a line like that personally. I'm happy at 250Mbps up and down at $45 total, fees included. While a lot of rural area's may not see fiber for awhile it's definitely spreading. Heck my tablet and phone can't even take advantage of a 250 line. Usually topping out at around 100Mbps. S6 edge and some random tablet. Could be my router which is not the best but not junk either. Point being companies will have to be competitive to keep customers. If companies start doing stuff that people don't like they'll switch companies. If they all start doing it upsetting enough people I'm sure at that point something will be done. All the end of days stuff is way over the top.
    There are many areas where there is no competition.  I live in a suburb that only has room for Time Warner/Spectrum.  AT&T is maxed out on ports and has been for years so my only option was Time Warner.

    My concern is when some ISP parent company buys Hulu and then drastically throttles NetFlix bandwidth through their network to make it practically unwatchable we will have no legal recourse.
    Phry
    "Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game."  - SEANMCAD

  • alkarionlogalkarionlog Member RarePosts: 2,369
    Hulluck said:
    Albatroes said:
    Hulluck said:
    Meh, Reddit got people riled up. Competition will keep balance for the most part in the U.S. people seem to ignore that. Example: In the past few years it's gone from Google going on about bringing their 1000Mbps lines to major cities then now various companies offering those lines. I don't live in some major city. There's 2 companies atm in my neighborhood that offer 1000Mbps lines. The kicker is At&t (wow) is the cheapest at ($80) beating the other company by $10. I don't really have a need for a line like that personally. I'm happy at 250Mbps up and down at $45 total, fees included. While a lot of rural area's may not see fiber for awhile it's definitely spreading. Heck my tablet and phone can't even take advantage of a 250 line. Usually topping out at around 100Mbps. S6 edge and some random tablet. Could be my router which is not the best but not junk either. Point being companies will have to be competitive to keep customers. If companies start doing stuff that people don't like they'll switch companies. If they all start doing it upsetting enough people I'm sure at that point something will be done. All the end of days stuff is way over the top.
    Sounds like a response from one of the millions of fake accounts the news has been reporting that were submitted to the FCC because this decision had to be made public and accept open feedback before it was concluded.
      Really? That's a first. Slightly hilarious you just called me a fake account or even a FCC bot?  I can't actually believe it. lmao! How did the internet ever survive or innovate prior to 2015. Rolls eyes.

    Added: The doomsdayers atm are way over the top. Competition does work where you have plenty of choices! And if not which is a big if people will be all over ISP's who mess up. Then I'll worry about it. As of right now. Life goes on.
    I don't know if this is the case here but large companies do hire agencies to employ people to post in forums to help influence public opinion.  Very easy to find those companies on the internet looking to hire people to post in forums.
    companys? try goverments, so they can sway people to support/vote they candidate
    FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,440
    DMKano said:
    Eldurian said:
    To be fair that's because the American voter is grossly uninformed about everything including net neutrality.

    Half the time I hear people talk about net neutrality they are talking about "More government regulation" and "The FCC putting their greasy fingers on our internet."

    They don't realize that "Net Neutrality" is a series of regulations enforced by the FCC, and the repeal of it means less government regulation, and less FCC involvement in our internet.

    Of course many get this and it's the corporations they demonize, but many seem to feed into this ignorance with intentionally deceitful wording intended to use anti-FCC sentiment to get people to support NN.

    I think the numbers would be very different if the American voter knew what they were talking about for once.

    This is the reason we have a republic and not a democracy. It really is best we have people actually researched on these issues representing our interests rather than the common man voting on every single issue. Our founding fathers shunned direct democracy because of issues like this. It's the system that put Socrates to death after all.
    I think you misunderstood Frenchie. The link he posted stated 83% of Americans are in favour of net neutrality, not opposed to it. 


    You are likely right in that most Americans are tragically uninformed when it comes to making decisions (much like the rest of the world really) but at least in this instance, the public are on the right side of things. It's just a shame the FCC ignored them. 

    FCC was paid to ignore them.

    this post on reddit explains HOW this really works 


    The_Crass-Beagle_Act
    2h

    Nobody pays the FCC or its commissioners directly while they're on the commission. But it's an age old practice government-industrial complexes to do as follows.

    1. Specially-interested corporation (To be hypothetical, let's call it... I don't know... Berizon) takes one of their lawyers (Again, to be hypothetical, let's call him Pajit Ai) and grooms him to become a commissioner of the FCC, pulling strings with allies in congress whom they donate too (Like, let's say, Titch McTonnel) to get a recommondation for his appointment.

    2. Pajit Ai works in the FCC for years, raking in a steady high-ranking government salary, and pretends to be independent of his past life as a lawyer for Berizon. Ultimately, though, he votes in the stated interest of Berizon and companies like Berizon, claiming that it's in the best interest of the public and everyone wants it (even though nobody in the public really does and demonstrates it through millions of "fake" public FCC comments).

    3. After his work is done, and his term is up, Pajit Ai is "coincidentally" snatched back up by his old employer Berizon, now in a much higher position with a much higher salary and bigger benefits/bonus package than he had before, as his meaningful experience as Chairman of the FCC surely makes him very valuable to Berizon (but surely not because of anything he did to favor Berizon while employed there... Surely).

    Edit: For people who want to learn more about this phenomenon, it's called the Revolving Door (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)), and it's a very well-documented phenomenon in the United States and around the world. The premise of the Revolving Door is that the government frequently hires industry professionals as regulators of that same industry, who then eventually go on to be hired again as industry professionals due to their experience as government regulators. When you add in the influence industries have over appointments of government regulators for their industry, a clear pattern of how companies like... ahem... Berizon influence the regulation of their own industry via the FCC.

    Don't you know that facts are just the mechanisms by which socialists (aka Democrats) repress the ideals of truth, justice, and the American way???
    DMKanoYashaX

    image
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 2,745
    https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-is-Pushing-For-a-Shitty-Net-Neutrality-Law-It-Will-Write-140896


    In the wake of successfully lobbying the FCC to kill net neutrality, Comcast is pushing for a new net neutrality law. Why? As the lawsuits against the FCC for ignoring comment fraud and the public interest looms, ISPs realize full well it's a legal battle they may very well lose. After all, the FCC will need to prove in court that it not only listened to consumer feedback and expert analysis (it didn't), but that the broadband market changed so substantively in the last two years to warrant such a stark reversal of a popular policy (it didn't).

     Even if the FCC and its ISP BFFs win that court fight, they still have to find a way to keep future FCCs from simply passing new, tough net neutrality rules.

    The solution? For ISPs, it's to push a new law that they know they'll quite literally write, submitted to a Congress all-but owned courtesy of campaign contributions. Such law will profess to put the long-standing debate over net neutrality debate to an end, but will be filled with so many loopholes as to be effectively useless.
    Octagon7711

    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, samsung evo 860 500gb SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


Sign In or Register to comment.