-
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.
CNN: The attempt to roll back net neutrality has officially begun.
- Thread starter Swass
- Start date
- Status
Lord Frieza
Member
Awesome, and I was actually having a good day, too.
Like, is there any precedent at all that this stuff can be fought in court?
Like, is there any precedent at all that this stuff can be fought in court?
BoogieWoogie
Banned
You'll see some huge blowback from some bigger companies like Facebook and Google, that's for damn sure.
RPGCrazied
Member
Can't wait to start getting charged by google just to search for something. Netflix might become a disaster too.
Flying Toaster
Member
There is going to be a huge fight from IT companies. This is absolute garbage.
Netherscourge
Banned
Oh yea? Well, guess what. The less you regulate something, the more expensive what you already have will become.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google should just shutdown for a period of time in protest to kick up word of mouth about this.
Pai is the worst..fuck this asshole is ruining everything and the worst part is he will not listen even if he says so. But if the likes of google,facebook etc are going to fight...shut it all down let's see what happens when people like Pai cannot do anything what they normally do.
What i hate the most about Pai what he is saying just isn't true, he is lobbyist only speaking through the likes of Verizon and other ISP's bidding to there will..not the consumer.
What i hate the most about Pai what he is saying just isn't true, he is lobbyist only speaking through the likes of Verizon and other ISP's bidding to there will..not the consumer.
StopMakingSense
Member
This is more your ISP being able to charge you to use google.
Assuming Congress doesn't pass legislation that the president certainly can sign, yes.
excelsiorlef
Member
Charged by google?
They could do that now if they wanted...
This is about your ISP mostly being able to put sites and services behind pay walls.
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
RPGCrazied
Member
Well, isn't a monthly bill enough? How much more money do these fuckers want?
excelsiorlef
Member
More...
A Serious Man
Member
I don't know, how much you got?
RPGCrazied
Member
If its anymore, I'll cut the fucking cord. I don't need internet. I'm not going to go broke for it.
Not only that ISP will decide on what you can and cannot do..slow and fast lanes. It is ridiculous the internet is a human right just like water and electricity it flows the same way through tubes.
Kirye
Member
As much as you're willing to give. Most people will complain but they'll keep paying. Who cares if your customers are upset if they still pay you a premium to access Netflix on your Internet service.
That's not what this is about. They already technically charge you, you're just not paying them cash, but bartering in browsing data and access.
This is about ISPs wanting a cut from the provider for better access, and eventually from you for wanting better service. If you do not pay them, they will artificially degrade your service untill someone ponies up the cash.
It be like the water company only supplying you with shit infested water unless you buy into their poopless tier. Because fuck you.
Considering an ISP can put netflix behind a paywall, they will certainly fight for it. Anything that further limits their ability to grow their consumer base and hell, even maintaining current customers is something that's not in their best interest.
Goro Majima
Kitty Genovese Member
Makes sense since based on all these data caps, there's obviously only so much internet to go around! We need to conserve the amount of internet we're using so we better charge people more for the privilege until we can mine for more bits and bytes.
Right now people are paying like $40-60 per month for internet. Think about how everyone is cutting the cord and how cable bills were routinely over $100 even 10 years ago. I think that's the long term goal.
Pagusas
Elden Member
That will include cutting off internet to your smart phone.
PeakPointMatrix
Member
I can't wait to pay for my moviebuff internet package for unlimited streaming on Netflix/hulu.
Or my media package for unlimited access to Youtube/vimeo!
Socialbutterfly deal for unlimted Facebook/twitter use for just 29.99 a month.
Or triple-play social/media/streaming package for just $90 a month, woo!
Or my media package for unlimited access to Youtube/vimeo!
Socialbutterfly deal for unlimted Facebook/twitter use for just 29.99 a month.
Or triple-play social/media/streaming package for just $90 a month, woo!
RPGCrazied
Member
Then I'll live in starbucks for free internet, but I bet those goes away too.
The internet is the internet everywhere.
I've found it sad that Republicans literally only cared about net neutrality as of a couple years ago and somehow twisted a rule that functionally DEREGULATES the internet into a regulation.
It just says a bit is a bit, and that's that. Companies actually PREFER this because they don't have the overhead of policing content and being held responsible for content that comes over their wire. What this fuckbasket is doing is actually adding more regulation and overhead to the internet, just offloaded to the private companies because it doesn't count when you can make AT&T pay to give you customized dumps of traffic .
Net neutrality means everyone treats all internet traffic the same, a byte is a byte, they don't care what those bytes "mean" or where they're coming from or going to. So for example Cox Cable couldn't charge you more to watch Youtube by charging more for traffic coming from Google servers.
The analogy I've come up with to explain it to family: imagine if you sent postcards. They all cost the same to mail, no matter what's on them. What Ajit and the GOP wants to do is let the postal service charge you more to send a postcard to grandma, or send postcards with the description of a video, even though it's the same size and weight no matter who it's going to, because "people will want to really mail their grandma" and ask for more money.
It just says a bit is a bit, and that's that. Companies actually PREFER this because they don't have the overhead of policing content and being held responsible for content that comes over their wire. What this fuckbasket is doing is actually adding more regulation and overhead to the internet, just offloaded to the private companies because it doesn't count when you can make AT&T pay to give you customized dumps of traffic .
Net neutrality means everyone treats all internet traffic the same, a byte is a byte, they don't care what those bytes "mean" or where they're coming from or going to. So for example Cox Cable couldn't charge you more to watch Youtube by charging more for traffic coming from Google servers.
The analogy I've come up with to explain it to family: imagine if you sent postcards. They all cost the same to mail, no matter what's on them. What Ajit and the GOP wants to do is let the postal service charge you more to send a postcard to grandma, or send postcards with the description of a video, even though it's the same size and weight no matter who it's going to, because "people will want to really mail their grandma" and ask for more money.
AwesomeSauce
MagsMoonshine
maniac-kun
Member
Buy bundles of website access like cable channels. Other sites will be slowed down aritificialy.
This also means innovation is pretty much dead at this point.
Isn't it also the ISP charging internet companies like Google and Netflix for the privilege of being put on a fast stream on top of charging customers the privilege to access the fast streams?
Net neutrality is the idea that the internet can be used equally by everyone that has access to it.
For example, without enforcement of net neutrality, the company that owns the internet lines that go to your house can decide to charge you more for using something like Netflix, because that company happens to have a competitor to Netflix that they'd rather you use instead.
Conversely, those companies could simply block or slow down those websites if they don't pay them for the grace of having their content travel through their lines. Either way, it is bad for everyone except the company that owns the lines.
Pop-O-Matic
Banned
You'll have to pay an extra $100 a month to access NYT, WaPo, LA Times etc. but Breitbart and Info Wars will be part of the basic packages.
Essentially the ISP inserting itself between the content provider and the user, and demanding to be paid based on completely arbitrary metrics.
They want to take the cable TV model and apply it to the internet. Be the gatekeeper, charge everyone for very specific access with tiered services and lock down information.
Goro Majima
Kitty Genovese Member
Essentially the IPS inserting itself between the content provider and the user, and demanding to be paid based on completely arbitrary metrics.
They want to take the cable TV model and apply it to the internet. Be the gatekeeper, charge everyone for very specific access with tiered services and lock down information.
There aren't many pictures that make me as angry as that one
What a fucking shitshow
Let me explain it in simple terms... Without Net Neutrality, Comcast, who owns the NBCUniversal content library, could theoretically offer their own version of Netflix neither forcing their own hypothetical version of Netflix to pay or throttling them while they force Netflix to pay them or face throttling. That is why Netflix will fight for Net Neutrality until the end because it could mean the end for them without Net Neutrality.
RPGCrazied
Member
Darryl M R
Member
The NeoGAF package is going to be expensive. We shared too many Bernie and Hillary links.
-shadow-
Member
Essentially the IPS inserting itself between the content provider and the user, and demanding to be paid based on completely arbitrary metrics.
They want to take the cable TV model and apply it to the internet. Be the gatekeeper, charge everyone for very specific access with tiered services and lock down information.
A true wetdream for any of the US big ISP companies. Man I hope we'll never get this crap in Europe...
Netherscourge
Banned
I predict a major resurgence of offline singleplayer gaming.
Essentially the IPS inserting itself between the content provider and the user, and demanding to be paid based on completely arbitrary metrics.
They want to take the cable TV model and apply it to the internet. Be the gatekeeper, charge everyone for very specific access with tiered services and lock down information.
I don't stand with a lot of you guys on many issues, but this is certainly one where I'm on your side. It's insanity to think that this is even a remote possibility.
This image, and things like it, have any of the ISPs actually came out (publicly or even privately), that this is their ultimate goal or is all of this just a complete and total theoretical worst case scenario type of deal?
To Far Away Times
Member
Essentially the IPS inserting itself between the content provider and the user, and demanding to be paid based on completely arbitrary metrics.
They want to take the cable TV model and apply it to the internet. Be the gatekeeper, charge everyone for very specific access with tiered services and lock down information.
How much of a corporate stooge can one man be? The FCC is supposed to protect us from bullshit like this, not enable it.
They have tried to do stuff this like this before the Obama administration stopped them. Obviously, the new administration disagrees with that decision.
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
Cant say much will be lost if these two vanished.
Net Neutrality is fucked for the next few years at best.
Feels kind of weird saying that as only a few years ago I thought this fight was settled for a decade or two at least, but here we are. Hopefully the same combination of corporate and public interest meet up again like they did last time, but I am not holding my breath.
Feels kind of weird saying that as only a few years ago I thought this fight was settled for a decade or two at least, but here we are. Hopefully the same combination of corporate and public interest meet up again like they did last time, but I am not holding my breath.
Ok to say that this is bullshit would be an understatement. That sounds fucking criminal. Like, it doesn't matter if they make it legal, everyone knows it's wrong on every fucking barometer that exists. What's the "official" argument to push something so obviously malicious through?
- Status