• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

FCC is to vote on net neutrality

Very, very disappointed in this ruling (though not surprised). This will not end well for us, the consumers.

All people have to do is stand up, stick together and vote with your dollar. Don't buy any of the shit if it goes down like that. Trust me, you can go without. I cut the obnoxious cable cord quite awhile back and I don't even miss it. I've just simply found other things to do. And more productive to be honest.
 

Evil Carrot

Has anyone seen Cloud?
All people have to do is stand up, stick together and vote with your dollar. Don't buy any of the shit if it goes down like that. Trust me, you can go without. I cut the obnoxious cable cord quite awhile back and I don't even miss it. I've just simply found other things to do. And more productive to be honest.

The internet isn't just an entertainment tool though, people use it for work, family, information, it's one of the best things we have as a resource. It will be a shame if it is ruined over time from this. It would be one thing if you could just choose a different provider, but typically even if many options exist they all band together and do the same awful practices.

We just have to hope more local governments decide to protect the consumer here.
 

shpankey

not an idiot
All people have to do is stand up, stick together and vote with your dollar. Don't buy any of the shit if it goes down like that. Trust me, you can go without. I cut the obnoxious cable cord quite awhile back and I don't even miss it. I've just simply found other things to do. And more productive to be honest.

I cut the cord years ago and don't miss it, but this is not quite the same as that. In fact, this is what is replacing that. I also work from home on the regular and VPN into my company, so it's a critical service. Not to mention most of my shopping and research.
 

RiccochetJ

Gold Member
The internet isn't just an entertainment tool though, people use it for work, family, information, it's one of the best things we have as a resource. It will be a shame if it is ruined over time from this. It would be one thing if you could just choose a different provider, but typically even if many options exist they all band together and do the same awful practices.

We just have to hope more local governments decide to protect the consumer here.

Screw hope. Actively engage your local government.

I stand firm in thinking that rolling back Title II was the correct decision. The problematic part was what happened a decade ago when the state and local governments allowed these ISPs to draft anti-competitive laws that makes it hard to enter.
 
I cut the cord years ago and don't miss it, but this is not quite the same as that. In fact, this is what is replacing that. I also work from home on the regular and VPN into my company, so it's a critical service. Not to mention most of my shopping and research.

So wouldn't that be your employers concern?
As far as the shopping and stuff, I mean, hey if we dont want this we're gonna have to stick together and part of the process will be having to drop some conveniences. Hell, let's all start now, fire the first shot. We dont NEED your services. They NEED us as customers. Boy I wish one damn time people would just stand up together. This is something EVERYONE could get in on together. Old, young, white, black, male, female.
SHUT IT DOWN! Start with your internet provider/satellite/cable companies. Cancel it! Watch how fast everyone involved would STFU about this. They'd be begging us back.
 

shpankey

not an idiot
My work would just say to come in to the office ;)

No, but seriously, I feel you. I would like to be a part of something like that, for true change. I am sickened by this decision and am behind any kind of peaceful protest. I would definitely get on that bandwagon if enough people did, for sure. I would manage without.
 
wow, the second it was removed my connection to games and services turned to crap... thanks Trump!

Ha, that's funny, because:

a.) It hasn't been removed yet. There's still a process of appeals.

b.) No one was expecting your connection to turn to crap. Without net neutrality, companies are able to charge more money to be able to access certain websites.
 
No? Meaning not?



Absolutely, hence why government should stay out of it. Corporations can't influence the masses as easily as they can the government...
So you're denying that the infrastructure used by these companies was funded by tax breaks and special treatment by the government?

These companies who want to strip NN rules have taken nearly half a trillion dollars from the government to have control over the market. What are you trying to argue, here? That those same companies shouldn't be regulated despite their monopolistic positions created by government funding?
 

DTC

Member
Absolutely. Amazing how common sense eludes some people. They've been conditioned to believe that they need the government for everything, unaware that government is usually the problem and not the solution.

I live in rural America. We have one service provider. Before NN, I would get throttled really hard on Netflix and Youtube. I am very greatful for NN and it has made our internet service better.

Please don't insult rural America by disapproving of NN. There may not be many people here, but we matter. We deserve our voices to be heard over corporations. And us people in rural America need NN to help stop the tyranny of monopolistic internet companies in places where there is no competition and will likely never be.
 

BANGS

Banned
So you're denying that the infrastructure used by these companies was funded by tax breaks and special treatment by the government?

Not at all. But it was their money that paid for it. They government didn't give them a grant, they gave them the privilege of using their own money to build the infrastructure, under the agreement that the government can oversee it all via the FCC. This is far different that the government collecting tax money and using it to build something themselves...

These companies who want to strip NN rules have taken nearly half a trillion dollars from the government to have control over the market. What are you trying to argue, here? That those same companies shouldn't be regulated despite their monopolistic positions created by government funding?

Exactly. The only reason they are monopolies is because the government is allowing it. The goverment "invested" in them and put them on the pedestal. Without the government, there would be far more competition and the free market would be regulating these businesses. But in many areas they are the only game in town, so consumers bend over and take it...

I live in rural America. We have one service provider. Before NN, I would get throttled really hard on Netflix and Youtube. I am very greatful for NN and it has made our internet service better.

Please don't insult rural America by disapproving of NN. There may not be many people here, but we matter. We deserve our voices to be heard over corporations. And us people in rural America need NN to help stop the tyranny of monopolistic internet companies in places where there is no competition and will likely never be.

See above. The government in the reason you only have one service provider. The FCC is who you have a problem with, not net neutrality or lack thereof...
 
Exactly. The only reason they are monopolies is because the government is allowing it. The goverment "invested" in them and put them on the pedestal. Without the government, there would be far more competition and the free market would be regulating these businesses. But in many areas they are the only game in town, so consumers bend over and take it...

See above. The government in the reason you only have one service provider. The FCC is who you have a problem with, not net neutrality or lack thereof...
Quite the contrary, local governments are the issue.
In order to create an ISP, companies have to pay fees to build on private and public property, as well as fees for using the poles.

The FCC attempted to change that.

Not having net neutrality is still an issue.
 
Not at all. But it was their money that paid for it. They government didn't give them a grant, they gave them the privilege of using their own money to build the infrastructure, under the agreement that the government can oversee it all via the FCC. This is far different that the government collecting tax money and using it to build something themselves...



Exactly. The only reason they are monopolies is because the government is allowing it. The goverment "invested" in them and put them on the pedestal. Without the government, there would be far more competition and the free market would be regulating these businesses. But in many areas they are the only game in town, so consumers bend over and take it...



See above. The government in the reason you only have one service provider. The FCC is who you have a problem with, not net neutrality or lack thereof...
You just contradicted yourself. The reason these companies have a monopoly is because the government gave them special treatment by letting them dodge taxes (which, by the way, is not fundamentally different from receiving a grant). It was deferred taxes (aka government money) that allowed them to get a strangle hold on the market, along with legislation that limits competition in their market bought with lobbying efforts.

Those companies that you say accepted this money with the understating that it would come with oversight from the FCC just bought the Republican party. They will no longer have said oversight in the use of tax-paid infrastructure. This is bad, yes? Do we agree on that?

NN protects competition in the cable market. These companies want NN gone. I'm questioning your motives in this thread if you agree that npr competition I'd good bit also think NN is bad. It's like your thought process doesn't account for the result of the legislation in question but instead defaults to government=bad, in which case I'd point you to the long and storied history of corporations in America poisoning and killing Americans because they could profit from it.

The government can create monopolies, yes, but they can also protect consumers. It's very obvious that NN was a benefit to consumers, so telling people that the government is the real enemy when it's very obvious that the cable companies who benefit from this rollback (and paid for this decision) is just ludicrous. The government, in this case, is at the very least the lesser of two evils.
 

BANGS

Banned
NN was just a band-aid the government used to keep everyone from losing their shit. We can argue semantics all day long, but fact is the government is who gave the power to the corporations to screw us. They teamed up on this, there is no "one is the lesser evil" in this situation...

I never said NN was bad, just that it was a part of this grand monopoly scheme. Taking it away without fixing any of the underlying problems is indeed a bad thing, but I'd rather just fix the underlying problems...
 
So strange, then, for you to enter this thread downplaying the repeal and deflecting discussion when you agree it's an objectively bad decision.

You're also mischaracterizing NN as part of some scheme to give these companies a monopoly when in reality it was a reaction to the monopoly that already existed.

By deflecting criticism of this repeal to general discussion about government = bad and your tendency to ignore arguments or mischaracterize them, I don't think you're posting in good faith.
 

BANGS

Banned
You're also mischaracterizing NN as part of some scheme to give these companies a monopoly when in reality it was a reaction to the monopoly that already existed.

I actually believe it was more of a PR band-aid to help string along the status quo... that's the part you seem to misunderstand...
 
I actually believe it was more of a PR band-aid to help string along the status quo... that's the part you seem to misunderstand...

You're such a purist in your beliefs that you can't look at a a contending argument logically. You manipulate your arguments around what you believe, even advocating absolute fiction. It's quite funny, the strongest echo chamber possible.
 
I actually believe it was more of a PR band-aid to help string along the status quo... that's the part you seem to misunderstand...
But that makes zero sense, because if that were true these companies wouldn't have fought it. It's not a logically consistent idea.

Wild conspiracy theories are fun, but using logic and common sense would help your position. The fact that you ignored the majority of my post again is adding to my certainty that you're trolling.
 
Not being 100% invested in a debate isn't trolling, but I see your point...
Don't respond if you don't want to discuss. Simple as that.

Ignoring people's responses to your posts or only partially addressing them while continuing to make the same claims makes for shitty conversation.
 

BANGS

Banned
You were expecting a well thought out political discussion on a video game internet forum? lol, has that ever happened, ever?
 
Neogaf used to post more relevant information. I'm here to give you guys a little history because I'm old enough to remember the good ol' days.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Before the internet, to obtain data, you had to go out and obtain a physical copy of it. If you wanted to sell data, you had to produce a physical copy of it. This was burdensome. Nobody wanted to wait. Everyone was a spoiled child and couldn't handle the drive to the store, and the time to install or otherwise use this data. It was obvious something needed to be done. Enter the commercial internet. Which now all the whiny babies believe they have a right to because you can't actually go buy a disk copy of anything anymore. What a bunch of ninnies.

So now that I've gotten the standard Neogaf idiot language out of the way, I'm going to be serious.

Before MA Bell (AT&T) was the worst monopoly in the world, we had the railroad. Now the railroad was by FAR AND AWAY faster than horse and buggy for delivering goods to people and for transporting people around. Everyone wanted the railroad in their hometown, or as close to it as they could get. Imagine the railroad is the internet and physical media at a store are the horse and buggy. Since the railroads were so extremely expensive to build and everyone wanted one, the peoples (governments) decided to help the railroad guys build out their tracks. The railroad companies received huge swaths of public land for free in return for, well, building a railroad. Free land wasn't enough however and a lot of the rail companies received grants as well as other exclusive rights.

After being constructed out and making a lot of money (as everyone wanted to use the railroads for everything they could), the rail companies decided to invest in other businesses. Let's say they bought into textiles (clothing), agriculture (beef, grains, etc.), and whatever else they wanted. Now nobody stopped these guys because, hey why not, they gave us the railroad and it's a free country to invest however you want.

So now these companies were selling other products that weren't transportation. And in true capitalist form (I support capitalism and free markets 100% btw), these guys decided to maximize their profits as everyone should in a capitalism derived society. They understood they had a competitive advantage and they were going to use it. The discounted shipping charges for their own goods and increased shipping charges or refused to ship the goods of their competitors. Pretty soon there weren't any competitors as they were all run out of business. The free market died. (For reference go wikipedia "robber baron" and see how many on the list are related to the railroads).

Teddy Roosevelt came along with the big trust busting of the early 20th century and regulated, yes I said regulated, the railroad. The result was that a monopoly on distribution was not allowed to exist and all LEGAL distribution of goods and services was required to be indiscriminate. The railroad could no longer use it's monopoly to "add value" to the goods of their choice. The free market returned!! HURRAY!!!

Now with that of the way, the new hotness was the telephone. Everyone wanted a to talk over great distances. Those letter of paper things were for plebians. Every town wanted access to this new awesomeness but it was expensive to build the infrastructure. So once again, the people (governments) gave the land and grants to the people willing to build out the telephone network.

Now because politicians weren't of the fool me once fool me twice variety, they understood now that the telephone was a distribution service for information goods. They created the Title 2 Utility designation forever and a half ago in the early 1900's requiring the telephones to be neutral and non-favoring any customer, nor itself. If they hadn't done this, the phone company could have gotten into equities trading and blocked communication of everyone but those it preferred and royally screwed the free market of this country. They could have stopped the buying and selling of things over the phone (yes that used to happen before the internet) or at the very least favored their own stores. They were never allowed to do so. The free market held strong.

Now the new hotness became the internet. Everyone wanted their internet. It was sooooo cool and amazing. BUT DUM DUM DUM!!! The regulated network was in place for it to exist on. There wasn't any need for public funds and public utility easements. The internet existed over the REGULATED phone lines.

Now, some of you are too young to remember, but imagine this. I once switched my ISP and had it working in less than an hour. True story. The phone companies couldn't give privilege to their own internet service over any joe shmoe that payed their phone bill. Literally anyone could start up an ISP over the phone network without the phone company having any ability whatsoever to stop them in favor of their own service.

SOOOOOOOOOO the internet was born in a regulated environment that provided a free market and choice for the consumer.

Now the new hotness was broadband, REALLY FAST INTERNET!!!! I know, I didn't have it until I was in my 20's and I'd almost have traded my left testicle for 1.5mbps. Now the phone network was built out of old lines and didn't have the ability for modems to transmit much faster than 56kbps. My online gaming was severly limited. I tried bridging modems over two separate phone lines to speed it up even. Where I grew up didn't have better than dial-up until 2005 or so.

Now the cable companies had a network of information services distribution (entertainment TV). Cable TV was only ever in competition with broadcast TV prior to the internet revolution. Nobody was going to regulate cable when you could get TV over the air for free. Competition was already in place.

Cable recognized their infrastructure (which was also built in public utilities easements, sometimes with grant money, and monopoly rights to regions), could provide better internet than dial-up. Along came cable internet. There were some other competition, such as ISDN and DSL that came along as well. Cable internet WAS NOT REGULATED the same as the phone line internet. The cable company itself was not going to let their system be used by independent ISP businesses, they would make the profits themselves.

Now the free internet had set a precedence of free market principles and competition reigned supreme. The cable ISPs couldn't really just handcuff their customers who were used to the freedoms of choice provided by dial-up. So they more or less kept the internet neutral willingly without regulation.

But then Netflix, Youtube, etc. happened. You see, these were in direct competition with the cable companies primary product, which was television. The cable company was in the business of selling content first, internet access second. Because they had monopolies in various regions, they decided to THROTTLE NETFLIX DOWN. The excuse may have been, "it uses most of the bandwidth", but let me remind you that Netflix paid, and pays, good money to get their packets onto the network and Netflix's customers pay good money for an advertised rate of speed from their ISP to receive those packets. Comcast was making a lot of money, just not as much as they'd have liked. Netflix was growing while cable tv was shrinking.

This resulted in a series of lawsuits (I followed all of them as they progressed) that landed ultimately with the FCC deciding to regulate the internet DURING BUSH JR'S term as president. The FCC told cable networks that they couldn't throttle or slow down netflix. This made the cable companies mad. They in turn sued the FCC. After years and years of lawsuits, utlimately ending with the FCC and Verizon, the federal courts decided that while the net neutrality principles the FCC was trying to enforce were in fact the way things should be, the FCC had no ability to enforce them against the ISP (at this time ISP is a different term from what it was during the dial-up era as now it is the owner of the wire and not an independent company). Now the FCC had no choice but to classify the internet as a public utility similar to the telephone. They did so using the law that forbid discrimination with the telephone service. The free market still reigns supreme.

Now along comes Ajit Pai and the Trump administration. They decide goverment is bad. Regulation is bad. The distributor of goods and services being handicapped is bad. They repeal Net Neutrality so that the ISP's can prefer certain people, businesses, products, and services over others. They can behave just like the railroad robber barons.

Now the rhetoric is that they just returned the internet to freedom. That the dark age of the internet was averted. That the internet won't just fail and blow up in a doomsday scenario. That freedom reigns supreme (but they won't mention free markets apparently don't).

I'm a fairly staunch conservative and I've never in my life (well there was the Patriot Act, so maybe I have) felt like my conservative representatives are a bunch of idiots. Nobody vote for anyone who is anti-Net Neutrality and rally everyone you have to get it reinstated. This is the stupidest thing this current administration could do outside of war. Anyone defending this has no clue.

BTW, you can't actually give people "fast lanes". These ISPs are last mile. That's like saying you are paying for first class postage, but the actual speedup of the traffic can only be from your post office to you. They can only slow down and throttle packets after the traffic is most of the way to you already.
 
Neogaf used to post more relevant information. I'm here to give you guys a little history because I'm old enough to remember the good ol' days.

Informative post. I want to add that particularly in the Midwest, essentially freight was heavily mafia controlled. Yes it was the free market place of ideas (people transported chemicals in glass milk cartons, etc), but there were all sorts off issues with the industry. Anyone could get in, and there were no standards so overhead was lower, but the industry was choking itself. But then the government seized control, introduced regulations out the ass, and suddenly a lot of doors were opened. That was needed at the time, and some of the giants you see today are in existence because of it. Regardless of demand or technology, the industry was improved much faster.
 
You were expecting a well thought out political discussion on a video game internet forum? lol, has that ever happened, ever?
Ok, so everyone posting in good faith should ignore you in the future. Thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure to quote this whenever people try to discuss with you so they don't waste their time.
 

finowns

Member
I appreciate that post coldfriction.

It seems the main opposition to net neutrality is ignorance coupled with low trust of news. Sprinkled in with liars and obsfucaters.
 

BANGS

Banned
I appreciate that post coldfriction.

It seems the main opposition to net neutrality is ignorance coupled with low trust of news. Sprinkled in with liars and obsfucaters.

Can you blame the public at large? The media created the worst kind of distrust, where if someone tells you something is good/bad, it's almost a knee jerk reaction to believe the opposite...

People need to stop "believing" the media or not. Pretty much anything they talk about is a non-issue anyway... ignore them like the trolls they are...
 

BANGS

Banned
It's being rendered worthless, but you can still find the truth if you seek it. There's a lot of shit, but there's a lot of gems too.

Unfortunately truth is all relative, and it all comes down to those "gems" just fitting perfectly into your narrative. You have no way of knowing those are actual truths other than you accepting them as such...
 
Unfortunately truth is all relative, and it all comes down to those "gems" just fitting perfectly into your narrative. You have no way of knowing those are actual truths other than you accepting them as such...

This is wrong depending on the topic. Geopolitics and conflicts? Sure, because it's very complicated, everyone is a player and we can't collect information. But if it is statistical, we can find the truth, or point out shortcomings. It just depends on what it is.
 

nkarafo

Member
Now the rhetoric is that they just returned the internet to freedom. That the dark age of the internet was averted. That the internet won't just fail and blow up in a doomsday scenario. That freedom reigns supreme (but they won't mention free markets apparently don't).
Freedom for ISPs to do what they want.
 

gatti-man

Member
Screw hope. Actively engage your local government.

I stand firm in thinking that rolling back Title II was the correct decision. The problematic part was what happened a decade ago when the state and local governments allowed these ISPs to draft anti-competitive laws that makes it hard to enter.

You stand firm in the wrong then. The internet is a public utility. Way too much govt money goes into the infrastructure and ISPs purposely divide up areas to avoid competition regardless of exclusivity clauses with local govts. Honestly your post is nonsense.

Can you blame the public at large? The media created the worst kind of distrust, where if someone tells you something is good/bad, it's almost a knee jerk reaction to believe the opposite...

People need to stop "believing" the media or not. Pretty much anything they talk about is a non-issue anyway... ignore them like the trolls they are...

Yes you can blame the public because if you're too damn lazy to fact check things you question in the media and not be a sheep you end up posting like how you are now. The media are not trollls. 99% of them in the center are just doing their jobs. And most CNN/middle of the road News is very factual. Sources are out there even better like NPR. They exist if you care. Just rolling your eyes and being ignorant is not a solution.
 
Freedom for ISPs to do what they want.

In light of what I said above, I am absolutely for as much freedom as anyone can possibly have. ISPs should be free to do what they want, and if they didn't decide to abuse the rights of others, the Net Neutrality regulation would never have happend. The kicker with freedom is that you don't have it to violate the rights of others, and if you decide to see if you can the government should crack down on you hardcore. But If we decide the ISPs aren't free to do what they want, maybe someone will decide we aren't free to do what we want. The only true issue here is that the ISPs have monopolistic powers and can use that position to diminish the free market and the rights of others. Take away the monopoly powers and the regulations can go out the door and everyone will be all the better for it. Unfortunately it's more profitable to have a regulated monopoly than function with unregulated competition.

This could be argued for any private enterprise becoming too big though. Through shear size they are able to command markets. I worked at a factory for a while once that would do absolutely anything Wal-Mart asked. If Wal-Mart wanted a product shipped, everyone else's orders were placed on hold while Wal-Marts products were run. Wal-Mart doesn't have a monopoly, but if a company is big enough, the free market will be distorted by it. I am actually against regulating anyone who doesn't have a locked in monopoly, even big players like Wal-Mart.

That said, I'm a libertarian at heart; give everyone the most freedom they can possibly have without abusing the rights of others. I believe to one degree or another that the primary purposes for governments is simply to protect the rights of people and secure as much freedom for them as possible. I'm very much against unnecessary regulations and I know a whole bunch of existing ones I'd love to put on the chopping block.

The majority of human knowledge is freely available. Don't believe any single source. Remember that everyone is biased, especially yourself. The best conclusion is drawn from a multitude of sources and perspectives considered with careful thought and meditation. Learning to parse what is good information vs what is nonsense is critical. Don't ever outright trust someone who has something to sell at their word; look at what they are selling and judge it of its own merits. The mainstream media outlets are all owned by people selling something, and if there is no apparent product and you are getting something for free, you are probably the product (advertisements fit this category). It's really not hard to avoid being deceived and to find correct information. If everyone just read the Wikipedia articles on Net Neutrality instead of listening to the republican or democrat news outlets, everyone would understand a whole lot more about how this came about. Neither of them are portraying this correctly. The Democrat side is making it look like the ISPs are going to instantly do all sorts of terrible horrible things (they won't, most people have no idea when they are actually abused). The Republican side is saying there was no regulation before 2015. I have Google Fiber, and it really is what the internet should be for everyone minus the data mining that Google does. Google violates my rights to privacy with that.

While I typically vote conservative across the board, this one issue will push me to vote for anyone of any party that promises to restore the Title 2 utility classification of the internet. I really wish I didn't have to vote for people who don't support the rest of my views for it though.
 

BANGS

Banned
The media are not trollls. 99% of them in the center are just doing their jobs. And most CNN/middle of the road News is very factual. Sources are out there even better like NPR. They exist if you care. Just rolling your eyes and being ignorant is not a solution.

Amazing, every word of what you just said is wrong...
 
Top Bottom