|
|
Post by castletonsnob on Nov 22, 2017 20:57:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Sponsored by Groose Wipes on Nov 22, 2017 21:22:02 GMT -5
You can not see this post because you are not a member of the Proboards package. Click here to subscribe for only $10 a month!
|
|
Juice
El Dandy
Wrong? Oh he can tell ya about being wrong.
I'm the one who raised you from perdition.
Posts: 8,172
|
Post by Juice on Nov 22, 2017 22:48:22 GMT -5
I just keep hoping netflix puts kabosh on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giul T. on Nov 22, 2017 23:06:35 GMT -5
Prepare for lawsuits, with this proposal, because there are going to be a lot of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 23:19:15 GMT -5
Well. The internet was fun while it lasted.
|
|
Perd
Patti Mayonnaise
Leslie needs to butt out for fear of receiving The Bunghole Buster
Posts: 31,952
Member is Online
|
Post by Perd on Nov 22, 2017 23:27:47 GMT -5
Yeah, this...this isn’t good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Nov 22, 2017 23:46:48 GMT -5
Prepare for lawsuits, with this proposal, because there are going to be a lot of them. I'm sure the Electronic Frontier Foundation, among other organizations, is prepared to fight tooth and nail in the courts if this happens. |
|
Powerline
ALF
I'm a pale imitator of a boy in the sky, with a cap on his head and a knot in his tie
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by Powerline on Nov 22, 2017 23:47:01 GMT -5
I remember thinking everyone was flying off the handle with the whole SOPA/PIPA thing and everyone jumping to conclusions as to what it meant. But this...THIS...could be a game-changer, and not in a good way.
I like to think it wouldn't split the internet into packages or forces people/companies onto different services (and if this is all for money and businesses, imagine the logistical nightmare of finding an ISP that matches the services your company uses or swapping services because of the ISP), but you can already see it in places w/o their form of the net neutrality laws.
Not to mention the flow of information being stifled in so many ways...
...I get it's all a play for money, but they're really willing to do a TON of fixing to something that isn't broken to get that payday.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323 
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 22, 2017 23:48:08 GMT -5
Text the word "resist" to 504-09. A script bot will provide you a series a questions and just follow the instructions. This is something that doesn't need to happen at all. Now is not the time to be apathetic.
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,037
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Nov 22, 2017 23:50:40 GMT -5
My favorite part of this whole argument are the people who are trying to frame this conversation as if rolling back Net Neutrality protections is "True freedom."
Yeah, for the providers who probably pay a portion of your salaries through legalized bribery. Or, in the case of the new FCC chairman, used to pay his entire salary when he worked for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Nov 22, 2017 23:57:09 GMT -5
Net neutrality laws wouldn't be as necessary if consumers had a true choice of competitive ISP's, but that simply isn't the case. I'm fortunate to live in an area that has two major ISP's (Verizon FIOS and Optimum) that have no love for each other and so would have incentive not to dick over their consumers, but I'm in a minority. But for many Americans, they only have one real choice in a broadband provider.
These rollbacks, if they go through, would only strengthen that stranglehold.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Nov 23, 2017 0:15:00 GMT -5
I'm incredibly confused by what is being said and what I've read on this.
What I've heard from some people is the internet is going to be monopolised by groups saying you're restricted to doing only what you are paying for.
What I've largely read is that this is essentially going to allow for ISPs to run whatever speed they want and charge what they want. Where we're at now is everyone gets everything at the same speed. I can definitely see how this can be a problem with smaller markets or places that only have one ISP provider.
But am I missing anything else? Again what I've mostly read has been largely attributed to speed and charges that apply. I guess ISP providers have the ability to limit where you can and can't go on the internet but I can't see that happening, even if it's a possibility.
I don't favor a bill going forward unless the FCC can clearly show me the benefits this will have through innovation and competitive market.
I apologize if any of that broke any politics rules, I tried to refrain from much else. I just feel in the dark about a lot of this since there's different angles I keep hearing about.
|
|
lionheart21
Patti Mayonnaise
Once did a thing...
Posts: 30,524
|
Post by lionheart21 on Nov 23, 2017 0:23:37 GMT -5
Net neutrality laws wouldn't be as necessary if consumers had a true choice of competitive ISP's, but that simply isn't the case. I'm fortunate to live in an area that has two major ISP's (Verizon FIOS and Optimum) that have no love for each other and so would have incentive not to dick over their consumers, but I'm in a minority. But for many Americans, they only have one real choice in a broadband provider. These rollbacks, if they go through, would only strengthen that stranglehold. I was thinking the same thing earlier today, how people that have access to different providers probably won't notice much of a difference. However, a large number of people have to rely on Comcast, and there's no telling how bad things could get there. |
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Nov 23, 2017 0:43:26 GMT -5
Net neutrality laws wouldn't be as necessary if consumers had a true choice of competitive ISP's, but that simply isn't the case. I'm fortunate to live in an area that has two major ISP's (Verizon FIOS and Optimum) that have no love for each other and so would have incentive not to dick over their consumers, but I'm in a minority. But for many Americans, they only have one real choice in a broadband provider. These rollbacks, if they go through, would only strengthen that stranglehold. I was thinking the same thing earlier today, how people that have access to different providers probably won't notice much of a difference. However, a large number of people have to rely on Comcast, and there's no telling how bad things could get there. Yeah, Comcast is already evil enough with net neutrality in effect. |
|
Bang Bang Bart
Ozymandius
The King of North America
Posts: 60,584
Member is Online
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Nov 23, 2017 0:46:51 GMT -5
Prepare for lawsuits, with this proposal, because there are going to be a lot of them. The mother of all lawsuits might be levied of the proposal passes, and the FCC will pretty much be the most hated man in America (if he isn't already). |
|
|
|
Post by burdette25159 on Nov 23, 2017 1:07:01 GMT -5
If net neutrality ends, get ready for the return of having to have friends over just to play multiplayer video games via split screen (at the cost of frame rate) and people having to go buy physical media and Nintendo having to make cartridges for the switch with a 64GB capacity.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,898
Member is Online
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Nov 23, 2017 1:36:45 GMT -5
I'm incredibly confused by what is being said and what I've read on this. What I've heard from some people is the internet is going to be monopolised by groups saying you're restricted to doing only what you are paying for. What I've largely read is that this is essentially going to allow for ISPs to run whatever speed they want and charge what they want. Where we're at now is everyone gets everything at the same speed. I can definitely see how this can be a problem with smaller markets or places that only have one ISP provider. But am I missing anything else? Again what I've mostly read has been largely attributed to speed and charges that apply. I guess ISP providers have the ability to limit where you can and can't go on the internet but I can't see that happening, even if it's a possibility. I don't favor a bill going forward unless the FCC can clearly show me the benefits this will have through innovation and competitive market. I apologize if any of that broke any politics rules, I tried to refrain from much else. I just feel in the dark about a lot of this since there's different angles I keep hearing about. You know cable companies might get in a pissing match with say, TBS. So if that’s your cable company you don’t get TBS anymore? It could come that but you won’t be able to get on YouTube or anything Google owns. |
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Nov 23, 2017 1:56:19 GMT -5
I'm just appalled that this thing ever managed to get as far as it already went. There is no justification for it; it's not providing a solution to a problem, it's not companies offering faster connections, it's it's them threatening to make it slower if you don't pay up more. It's literally just allowing companies to make things harder for people so they can tax them. It's holding information and communication for ransom. Gotta love the FCC chairman calling Net Neutrality "burdensome and unnecessary restrictions" while defending companies' desire to add burdensome and unnecessary restrictions on consumers, too. My favorite part of this whole argument are the people who are trying to frame this conversation as if rolling back Net Neutrality protections is "True freedom." Yeah, for the providers who probably pay a portion of your salaries through legalized bribery. Or, in the case of the new FCC chairman, used to pay his entire salary when he worked for them. Why is it that American people's definition of "freedom" so often ends up being "giving a small minority undue privileges to screw over everyone else"? |
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Nov 23, 2017 2:00:11 GMT -5
Prepare for lawsuits, with this proposal, because there are going to be a lot of them. The mother of all lawsuits might be levied of the proposal passes, and the FCC will pretty much be the most hated man in America (if he isn't already). The mother of all lawsuits, which will involve a lot of states, since the FCC wants to stop states from enacting their own Net Neutrality laws to protect consumers. |
|
|
|
Post by OldDirtyBernie on Nov 23, 2017 3:26:38 GMT -5
To try and add a bit of clarity for those who are unsure - this isn't as though cable companies will be further fighting for supremacy or who will be able to provide what.
At the very basic level, if net neutrality is ended then it will no longer be an issue of ISPs offering different tiers of internet speed. Picture a cable company's website, listing which channels are available on which tier of cable service in terms of channels.
Internet services will resemble that package information, with certain websites or web-based services only offered at certain pricing tiers and those tiers will be completely at the whim of the cable companies and ISPs. This means that most streaming services like Hulu and Netflix that are a viable alternative to full-blown cable TV service will likely only be offered at the highest-price tiers, all in addition to being able to cap speeds if they wish.
For a very basic explanation of how this could go even further out of whack and, hopefully, stay within the rules: This also gives Cable companies and ISPs control over what information people are able to get. For example, if a particular area leans heavily toward one political party then an ISP may place websites those people tend to visit in a higher-priced tier that may be out of range for a certain portion of that populace. Same goes for spreading other vital information like healthcare signups, special elections, etc.
|
|
