• 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

Can someone explain this whole bruhaha to me? Is it just millenials wanting to be able to stream Netflix without having to pay for it?

Without having to pay their ISP for access. Understand the difference? With the rule removed, your ISP can block you from pretty much ... everything and force you to pay for access.

What happened to the FCC? Weren't their purpose to keep shit like this from happening?

Republican president, the Republicans control the FCC now, and they hate Net Neutrality.
 

pramod

Banned
Without having to pay their ISP for access. Understand the difference? With the rule removed, your ISP can block you from pretty much ... everything and force you to pay for access.



Republican president, the Republicans control the FCC now, and they hate Net Neutrality.

Will they actually do that? I don't remember ISPs ever blocking Netflix before. But even if they do, why can't you just sign up with another ISP?
 
Image from Portugal, which does not have these rules in place:

750x422


Via LA Times.

Yes, that's $6 a month for Facebook. An additional $6 a month for skype. Another $6 for youtube, and yet another $6 a month for G-Mail/Google Drive.
(Well, as the Euro -> Dollar conversion goes right now...)
 

tkscz

Member
Will they actually do that? I don't remember ISPs ever blocking Netflix before. But even if they do, why can't you just sign up with another ISP?

While someone like me (urban area) can have that option, people who live in some suburbs and rural areas don't. They have one provider. I can switch over to Cincinnati Bell who were against the removal of NN. While Spectrum, who is Comcast owned, can't wait to start charging us extra.
 

Shouta

Member
Will they actually do that? I don't remember ISPs ever blocking Netflix before. But even if they do, why can't you just sign up with another ISP?

It's not guaranteed but considering how bad companies can get in this day and age then combine it with various examples around the world where net neutrality rules don't exist, there's a huge possibility that they'll do something scummy like it.
 

i-Lo

Member
Image from Portugal, which does not have these rules in place:

750x422


Via LA Times.

Yes, that's $6 a month for Facebook. An additional $6 a month for skype. Another $6 for youtube, and yet another $6 a month for G-Mail/Google Drive.
(Well, as the Euro -> Dollar conversion goes right now...)

Which countries in EU have preserved net neutrality?
 

BrettWeir

Member
Will they actually do that? I don't remember ISPs ever blocking Netflix before. But even if they do, why can't you just sign up with another ISP?

Yeah. Where I live, we only have one ISP. Please start installing more ISP's for us without a choice.
 
Will they actually do that? I don't remember ISPs ever blocking Netflix before. But even if they do, why can't you just sign up with another ISP?


They have throttled Netflix demanding higher pay from Netflix.
This was during a time when Comcast and ISP's weren't in the media business.
However, Verizon and Comcast have broken into the media business, with both buying media networks.

They have a history of blocking their competitors products such as Google wallet -- Verizon was blocking usage of Google Wallet because they have their own mobile payment called Isis.


http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm


This is a huge win for ISP providers as they are expanding their business into media, social networks etc and can control the flow of traffic as they like.


http://variety.com/2017/digital/new...ital-network-steps-into-spotlight-1202476689/


The ones that are going to get crushed are the smaller players.
For example Facebook can bid for all the social network server fast lanes essentially buying all the fast lanes for a huge sum of money and leave only the slower lanes for snap-chat. This will be a "legal way" to make sure competition is only left with really slow lanes. Smaller companies won't be able to compete against these companies.
 

Fbh

Member
Can someone explain this whole bruhaha to me? Is it just millenials wanting to be able to stream Netflix without having to pay for it?

Since I would like to think you aren't trolling.

This could basically give ISP's way more power over what content the users can access and would allow them to give priority to companies that are willing to pay.

One scenario is that they could limit access to certain apps and services unless you pay more. So you'd have to pay extra to access streaming services like Netflix and Spotify or to access online gaming like PSN (on top of the actual subscription cost of these services)

Another scenario is that, for example, Sony could have to pay fees to the various ISP's in order for PSN to continue to work well for consumers. These costs would them probably be forwarded to the consumers, so you'd see PS+ get a prise increase in order to cover those fees.



Will any of this happen ? We don't know . But giving ISP's power to, at least in theory, legally do this is never going to be a good thing and should definitely be fought
 

shpankey

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

RPGCrazied

Member
What if they never went away in your area? =o

Alaska, 2 places in Oregon and 1 in Texas has them still, I think. lol

I'm in Texas, and the area I'm in doesn't have any video rental place but redbox, but if Net Neutrality is really gone they might have a comeback, specially when Netflix gets fucked with.
 

Zog

Banned
I'm in Texas, and the area I'm in doesn't have any video rental place but redbox, but if Net Neutrality is really gone they might have a comeback, specially when Netflix gets fucked with.

I think Netflix has already paid bribe money in the past, it was around the time that Net Neutrality was passed a couple of years ago. My memory could be flawed though.

Anyway, Netflix could see this as an opportunity to hurt other streaming services who can't afford to pay the bribe.
 

Nikana

Go Go Neo Rangers!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't telecommunication companies allowed to do all of the hypothetical scenarios before 2015 and they never did?
 
^They have done many shady things before 2015 that led to the implementation of NN in the first place. Here's a good list. https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
I think Netflix has already paid bribe money in the past, it was around the time that Net Neutrality was passed a couple of years ago. My memory could be flawed though.

Anyway, Netflix could see this as an opportunity to hurt other streaming services who can't afford to pay the bribe.
The only opportunity here is for ISPs. Netflix doesn't want to have to pass the cost of this boneheaded decision onto consumers, especially not so soon after raising their prices.

This will stifle competition for every major sector of the internet, but it will be on the ISPs' terms.
 

Nikana

Go Go Neo Rangers!
^They have done many shady things before 2015 that led to the implementation of NN in the first place. Here's a good list. https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

The only opportunity here is for ISPs. Netflix doesn't want to have to pass the cost of this boneheaded decision onto consumers, especially not so soon after raising their prices.

This will stifle competition for every major sector of the internet, but it will be on the ISPs' terms.

Good link, that answers my question.
 
My only hope is that this can be reversed down the line.... god this admin is setting the US back so far, like a generation or three...
 

ASAP

Member
It’s laughable that some people are in in support of this. The only people this benefits are those in control of ISPs and in the pockets of ISP.

Everyone else is getting shit on, and we’ve left our mouth wide open to it.
 

gohepcat

Banned
Hilarious. Absolutely false.

Regulations doesn't protect anyone. Regulations is just government expanding its power on citizens in the guise of 'caring' and 'fairness'.

Net neutrality in other words, is forced collusion/oligarchy. This is how government is always responsible for high barrier to entry and monopoly. By forcing ISP to provide the exact same service, it will encourage them to merge and form a super corporation and mist importantly, it's eliminating competition. Without net neutrality, a small start up company can enter the business and say "hey, join us because we don't charge you more for connecting to this network, or we don't slow down your Internet speed unlike company X". But with net neutrality, a small company can't distinguish themselves, only through price and they definitely can't compete with big corporations on price, so in other words, government has created a monopoly.

But hey, continue to believe in government, that they love you so much and care about how you feel. They want just want to expand their power on citizens and use this avenue as a way to regulate what content we the people can consume. But don't take my word for it, please keep on worshipping government.


Anything that eliminates or impinges on competition is terrible.

Oh my God. It’s like a 19 year-old’s Rage Against the Machine T-shirt became sentient and started posting on NeoGaf.

I actually know people who work for regulatory agencies and it is frightening how warped your perception is. You need to stop reading conspiracy websites or whatever the fuck you’re doing. Participate in your local government and you’ll see a microcosm of what actually happens in most government agencies.

I honestly and desperately want you to believe me here. My colleagues at the FDA and the CDC are awesome, super smart people with PhD‘s who could be earning more money in the private sector, but choose to serve their country, and serve humanity, by being a public servant.

What you describe doesn’t jive with reality. I’m telling you this from a first-hand perspective. I have had friends who’ve worked at the copyright office, an ex-girlfriend’s brother who worked for the Pentagon....None of these people are the boogie man.

I’d say most of the successful business people I’ve met tended to be a little bit more on the sketchy side. Probably not as bad as people make them out to be, but way more immoral than your average regulatory agency.
 

RiccochetJ

Gold Member
Image from Portugal, which does not have these rules in place:

750x422


Via LA Times.

Yes, that's $6 a month for Facebook. An additional $6 a month for skype. Another $6 for youtube, and yet another $6 a month for G-Mail/Google Drive.
(Well, as the Euro -> Dollar conversion goes right now...)

You realize that what you posted is alarmist bunk right?

https://www.snopes.com/portugal-net-neutrality/
By virtue of its membership in the European Union, Portugal does have net neutrality regulations; the prepackaged MEO data plans apply only to mobile broadband usage and are add-ons to, not substitutes for, metered plans offering full Internet access.


http://www.9news.com/news/local/ver...-do-with-us-dumping-net-neutrality-/494021679

On the same plans page from Portuguese mobile company MEO, you'll see that the company offers customers several options for internet access ranging from 1GB per month to 30.5GB per month.

These base plans do not discriminate between different web services. Users are free to burn through all that data allowance however they want.

The add-ons offer customers who use specific kinds of apps the option to add on more data for less money than upgrading to a bigger data plan.

What this mobile company is doing is something I would actually appreciate if it were offered here.

The one thing from the release today I'm trying to find verification of is this part:
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1128/DOC-347980A1.pdf
Another common criticism is that after the plan is adopted, the Internet will become like cable television, and Americans will have to pay more to reach certain groups of websites. George Takei of Star Trek fame recently tweeted an article claiming that this was happening in Portugal, which doesn't have net neutrality, and that this would happen in the United States if the plan were adopted.

There are a few problems with this. For one thing, the Obama Administration itself made clear that curated Internet packages are lawful in the United States under the Commission's 2015 rules. That's right: the conduct described in a graphic that is currently being spread around the Internet is currently allowed under the previous Administration's Title II rules. So, for example, if broadband providers want to offer a $10 a month package where you could only access a few websites like Twitter and Facebook, they can do that today
. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently pointed out that net neutrality rules don't prohibit these curated offerings.

Another thing that I want to see from that release is that they said they're giving back powers to the FTC which were stripped when Title II came into play. I'm more interested in that part tbh. I want the FTC to have some real teeth with any anti-competitive bullshit these companies try to pull.

To be honest, I think people are yelling in the wrong direction. I do believe that Title II was too much and it affected smaller ISPs to keep up with the regulatory requirements that it entailed. I think rolling back is is the correct course of action.

But here's where we need to do work for rolling back to be a good thing. Back in the 2000's these ISPs made deals and laws with local and state to effectively create these monopolies and duopolies. That's where your effort should go.

https://www.theringer.com/tech/2017/12/14/16775296/net-neutrality-fcc-municipal-networks-fiber
 

Lois_Lane

Member
See my last edit.
You'll be blacklisted forever unless you can find new business partners who are ok with using dungeons.

And then there comes the problem from enforcing it. Will you be at your property all day, watching for who steps on your lawn? Where will your money come from?
Why would I not sit on my porch and attack people for trespassing on my property?Especially if I could earn money for it?It would be my new job and would probably pay better.
 

Lois_Lane

Member
Not an argument.



No one is using your road. They've all taken off and founded their own community where you're banned from doing business from.
What if I own all the roads out of town? How do they leave without paying me? What if I get a friend to buy a road in their new community and have it secretly transferred to me? What if I buy all the roads which connect them to other communities?
 
I’m Conservative but this very te really burns my ass. This is not freedom, this is tyranny of select few companies that want to keep their gravy train all to themselves and the whore politicians who let them.

Thank god I’m up in Canada and Harper kicked all the Bell and Rogers cronies out of the CRTC and at least Trudeau is unlikely to fuck that up.
 

tkscz

Member
After reading a little more on AT&T's attempt at buying Time Warner, I have some hope that the Supreme Court will shoot this down. Back in November, the SC shot down AT&T's buyout because they knew it would be bad for costumers. I'm not saying they'll do the same here, but it gives me hope they might.
 

nkarafo

Member
It was fun while it lasted. At least we experienced it. Future generations will look back and be amazed that, for a couple of decades humanity had this amazing tool of freedom of expression. I guess the Internet as we know it proved to be too much of a privilege for common people to use. I'm surprised it lasted that long. More countries will follow soon.
 

appaws

Banned
I have to admit that unlike on most issues, I don't have a firm grasp on this one. Certainly not enough to have an opinion.

I initially leaned towards net neutrality, but find myself swayed by the arguments coming from Congressman Massie and Senator Paul.

I still see the conceptual strength of running the internet as a public utility, however. I think that argument is very persuasive. I guess now the result will be obvious in a few years.
 

tkscz

Member
I have to admit that unlike on most issues, I don't have a firm grasp on this one. Certainly not enough to have an opinion.

I initially leaned towards net neutrality, but find myself swayed by the arguments coming from Congressman Massie and Senator Paul.

I still see the conceptual strength of running the internet as a public utility, however. I think that argument is very persuasive. I guess now the result will be obvious in a few years.

The problem here is history. Most communications companies have a known history of charging people extra for what the rules of Net Neutrality say they aren't allowed to charge for. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint (but only once), and the worst offender Comcast, are all guilty of trying to backhandedly charge extra for visiting specific sites, or outright blocking specific sites or slowing down specific sites (Netflix has sued them all except for Sprint for doing this). These same communication companies have sent lobbyist after lobbyist to create some sort of block on Net Neutrality so that they can get away with this stuff.

Honestly, if these company didn't have this kind of history, I'd probably be on the fence whether or not this was bad. I would see the obvious harm it could cause, but I wouldn't know if companies were greedy enough to add extra charges to connect to specific sites. But I do know that these companies would, and these are the BIGGEST companies of them all.
 

BANGS

Banned
The sky has fallen. We will be ok. Just like the Y2K virus, this was another dramatic show that ultimately is nothing to worry too much about...

Not saying there will be no negative effects from this at all, but nothing worth rabble rousing over. If you don't want to use the services of these giant corporations who built massive infrastructure to provide said service, you don't have to...
 
The sky has fallen. We will be ok. Just like the Y2K virus, this was another dramatic show that ultimately is nothing to worry too much about...

Not saying there will be no negative effects from this at all, but nothing worth rabble rousing over. If you don't want to use the services of these giant corporations who built massive infrastructure to provide said service, you don't have to...
You mean the companies that took billions of dollars from the government to build these infrastructures, yes?

Lmao your post is a waste of space. "It's bad, yes, but by my made up metric it's not THAT bad. You don't need internet anyway."
 
Took money or were given the privilege of keeping their own?
Please tell me the effective difference between getting special tax breaks and rate increases that no other industry received specifically for the building of fiber optic infrastructure (that still does not exist since they've been getting said breaks in the 90's) vs getting a government grant for the same.

Everyone pays taxes. These companies were given tax cuts valued north of $400 billion over the course of decades so they could build fiber all over America. They took the money and ran.

If you're a fan of capitalism, this isn't a good thing. It's called crony capitalism, where the government interferes with the market and picks winners and losers. Surely someone right-wing like yourself is a fan of actual capitalism.
 

Froli

Member
The sky has fallen. We will be ok. Just like the Y2K virus, this was another dramatic show that ultimately is nothing to worry too much about...

Not saying there will be no negative effects from this at all, but nothing worth rabble rousing over. If you don't want to use the services of these giant corporations who built massive infrastructure to provide said service, you don't have to...

I'm sorry but you are a fucking idiot.
 
Please tell me the effective difference between getting special tax breaks and rate increases that no other industry received specifically for the building of fiber optic infrastructure (that still does not exist since they've been getting said breaks in the 90's) vs getting a government grant for the same.

Everyone pays taxes. These companies were given tax cuts valued north of $400 billion over the course of decades so they could build fiber all over America. They took the money and ran.

If you're a fan of capitalism, this isn't a good thing. It's called crony capitalism, where the government interferes with the market and picks winners and losers. Surely someone right-wing like yourself is a fan of actual capitalism.

This is a correct interpretation and one of the problems of having a mixed system, government can't help themselves. It could be argued that they were trying to stimulate the growth of a service and subsequently of the market it entails, almost like an investment to harvest a larger return later on. Personally I don't see it like that and I wish they would just stop picking winners and losers.
 

BANGS

Banned
Please tell me the effective difference between getting special tax breaks and rate increases that no other industry received specifically for the building of fiber optic infrastructure (that still does not exist since they've been getting said breaks in the 90's) vs getting a government grant for the same.

Everyone pays taxes. These companies were given tax cuts valued north of $400 billion over the course of decades so they could build fiber all over America. They took the money and ran.

If you're a fan of capitalism, this isn't a good thing. It's called crony capitalism, where the government interferes with the market and picks winners and losers. Surely someone right-wing like yourself is a fan of actual capitalism.

Oh I agree, government should have stayed far away from this from the beginning. You'll get no argument from me there...

Reminder to please be civil. Inflammatory personal insults are against the TOS.

Please start enforcing this more, it's gotten really out of hand lately...
 
If it wasn't for the government investing in fiber via community and big corporation projects, the industry wold be inferior to what it is now, especially in size.

You gotta remember that we are where we are today because of things that happened, not despite them. Imagining if the government never got involved but still having what you have today, knowing that the internet market needed government investment to accelerate just doesn't make sense.

I think you should spend time understanding how we got here. It wasn't by failed project after failed project.
 
Top Bottom