|
Post by Starshine on Dec 15, 2017 4:46:19 GMT -5
While I do understand that its not the end of the Internet, it paved the way for ISP's to block websites and charge fees for website access if they so wish. I feel that no corporation should have the ability to control such a free outlet of information. And also, no longer treating the Internet as a utility is cold. It'll just lead to the expansion of the haves and have nots gap. The big problem with this is that- again, this DOES NOT pave the way for ISP's to block websites or charge fees for website access if they so wish. That power is nowhere NEAR what this specific law entailed the rights to do. And from the obvious "But Net Neutrality will hinder new technology!" viewpoint, if anything- the law that passed today is a BENEFIT to new technology, not a hindrance- because the law allows streaming services to sign contracts with ISPs to be added to packages to their services. Since cable companies, by and large, run most of the ISPs in America- that may actually be a good thing, as it allows cable companies to deal with streaming services as they would normal cable network packages. If this goes through after the lawsuits, you will NOT see in two years "You have to pay money to go on FAN, or you're blocked from X site because we don't like what they're saying." That's a different battle that has to come up later, and which we have to fight for starting now to make sure it doesn't go there. What you WOULD see in two years is that your ISP will be able to package streaming services together and band them in packages like a package on regular cable networks. We've already seen that can lower the prices dramatically with VRV being able to do that for a number of smaller streaming services. Would you mind expanding on your comment about the benefits to new technology, because I don't quite follow. How exactly does taking up the cable TV model lead towards benefit for technological advancement? I'd more assume where distribution deals were to become norm through streaming packages, the competitive structure is essentially restrained when compared to an equal and open internet market structure. What encourages development, and what makes you confident that this wouldn't stagnate the medium similarly to how cable TV has been for the past 10 or so years?
|
|
Mecca
Wade Wilson
Posts: 25,101
|
Post by Mecca on Dec 15, 2017 6:48:23 GMT -5
While I do understand that its not the end of the Internet, it paved the way for ISP's to block websites and charge fees for website access if they so wish. I feel that no corporation should have the ability to control such a free outlet of information. And also, no longer treating the Internet as a utility is cold. It'll just lead to the expansion of the haves and have nots gap. The big problem with this is that- again, this DOES NOT pave the way for ISP's to block websites or charge fees for website access if they so wish. That power is nowhere NEAR what this specific law entailed the rights to do. And from the obvious "But Net Neutrality will hinder new technology!" viewpoint, if anything- the law that passed today is a BENEFIT to new technology, not a hindrance- because the law allows streaming services to sign contracts with ISPs to be added to packages to their services. Since cable companies, by and large, run most of the ISPs in America- that may actually be a good thing, as it allows cable companies to deal with streaming services as they would normal cable network packages. If this goes through after the lawsuits, you will NOT see in two years "You have to pay money to go on FAN, or you're blocked from X site because we don't like what they're saying." That's a different battle that has to come up later, and which we have to fight for starting now to make sure it doesn't go there. What you WOULD see in two years is that your ISP will be able to package streaming services together and band them in packages like a package on regular cable networks. We've already seen that can lower the prices dramatically with VRV being able to do that for a number of smaller streaming services. It's most likely not going to be good for consumers at all. ISP's have proven time and time again generally with their other practices that they will nickle and dime the hell out of you for every penny they can. You'll see shit like Netflix being throttled like a mofo till they agree to pay more money while Comcast will let you stream Hulu for free since they own it. And like has been proved with Verizon and Comcast both, if you take a bundle deal you are getting hosed, there is no way around that. I'll also bring up there's one other argument I keep seeing over and over that is irritating me. The one group of people who are supporting this are the older folk who seem to think gamers and streamers "aren't paying their fair share" which is frustrating. We have a section of the population that really thinks this will make their bill go down and we should pay for what we use like it's electricity.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Dec 15, 2017 8:30:37 GMT -5
If scrapping Net Neutrality really was something that would be a good thing for streaming services, Netflix sure aren't thrilled about it.
|
|
Mecca
Wade Wilson
Posts: 25,101
|
Post by Mecca on Dec 15, 2017 8:56:03 GMT -5
If scrapping Net Neutrality really was something that would be a good thing for streaming services, Netflix sure aren't thrilled about it. It sucks for them, it's good for Comcast owned Hulu. What will happen to Netflix can be summed up like this. It's a competitor to something an ISP owns so this is how this works. Hulu gets preferential treatment by going into the fast lane and no additional charge and everything runs flawlessly. However that ISP because they want you to use their product, is going to put Netflix in the slow lane, unless Netflix pays an upcharge which then Netflix will have to charge customers for...And honestly that is just where it starts. It could go to something like "You have to have the 20 dollar streaming package to watch Netflix however Hulu can be watched without it" All this really does is it gives a company like Comcast who honestly is the biggest abuser of all of this..meanwhile it's the company I have cause I don't have any other option...the ability to f*** over customers. They can basically make it where all of the content they own is the stuff that is cheaper and works right pushing everyone to their stuff. Because they are a content creator that owns TV stations they can't stand cord cutters either, wouldn't stun me at all if eventually they make it where you have to take a cable package to get high end internet. Unless you want to pay some stupid rate that makes no sense to pay. This is all about companies like Comcast bringing the cord cutters back to cable, that's their goal.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,296
Member is Online
|
Post by Push R Truth on Dec 15, 2017 9:08:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Dec 15, 2017 9:11:53 GMT -5
If scrapping Net Neutrality really was something that would be a good thing for streaming services, Netflix sure aren't thrilled about it. It sucks for them, it's good for Comcast owned Hulu. What will happen to Netflix can be summed up like this. It's a competitor to something an ISP owns so this is how this works. Hulu gets preferential treatment by going into the fast lane and no additional charge and everything runs flawlessly. However that ISP because they want you to use their product, is going to put Netflix in the slow lane, unless Netflix pays an upcharge which then Netflix will have to charge customers for...And honestly that is just where it starts. It could go to something like "You have to have the 20 dollar streaming package to watch Netflix however Hulu can be watched without it" All this really does is it gives a company like Comcast who honestly is the biggest abuser of all of this..meanwhile it's the company I have cause I don't have any other option...the ability to f*** over customers. They can basically make it where all of the content they own is the stuff that is cheaper and works right pushing everyone to their stuff. Because they are a content creator that owns TV stations they can't stand cord cutters either, wouldn't stun me at all if eventually they make it where you have to take a cable package to get high end internet. Unless you want to pay some stupid rate that makes no sense to pay. This is all about companies like Comcast bringing the cord cutters back to cable, that's their goal. "It gives Comcast more power" should be enough for anyone to oppose it. f***ers should have been given the Standard Oil/Ma Bell treatment ages ago. A strong anti-trust regime would be one alternative way to enforce the same ends.
|
|
Mecca
Wade Wilson
Posts: 25,101
|
Post by Mecca on Dec 15, 2017 9:34:36 GMT -5
This is the way I view it, if you don't think we massive change in this country this is the 1 example than can easily be given. It's not a partisan issue 82% of the country is for net neutrality. Republican, Democrat, whatever the vast majority of people don't want this to end. A government is suppose to serve the people's bidding when they basically stand there with their middle fingers in the air telling us we don't matter....things like that are why we read about rebellions in American History books.
And I know there are the few out there who think this is great but there are fools I know I live around them..people who've been bullshitted their whole lives into "everyone needs to pay their fair share" which is a phrase I f***ing hate. You know that 1 single phrase is why American's don't give a shit about helping each other and why we are all so greedy and selfish? Yet then I see people saying our country is in trouble due to people being entitled..I think being selfish is worse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 9:53:56 GMT -5
While I do understand that its not the end of the Internet, it paved the way for ISP's to block websites and charge fees for website access if they so wish. I feel that no corporation should have the ability to control such a free outlet of information. And also, no longer treating the Internet as a utility is cold. It'll just lead to the expansion of the haves and have nots gap. The big problem with this is that- again, this DOES NOT pave the way for ISP's to block websites or charge fees for website access if they so wish. That power is nowhere NEAR what this specific law entailed the rights to do. And from the obvious "But Net Neutrality will hinder new technology!" viewpoint, if anything- the law that passed today is a BENEFIT to new technology, not a hindrance- because the law allows streaming services to sign contracts with ISPs to be added to packages to their services. Since cable companies, by and large, run most of the ISPs in America- that may actually be a good thing, as it allows cable companies to deal with streaming services as they would normal cable network packages. If this goes through after the lawsuits, you will NOT see in two years "You have to pay money to go on FAN, or you're blocked from X site because we don't like what they're saying." That's a different battle that has to come up later, and which we have to fight for starting now to make sure it doesn't go there. What you WOULD see in two years is that your ISP will be able to package streaming services together and band them in packages like a package on regular cable networks. We've already seen that can lower the prices dramatically with VRV being able to do that for a number of smaller streaming services. Corporations won't upgrade or enhance their services at all. Your logic is that by giving them more flexibility, they can lower costs and improve services in a competitive marketplace. Except, that's not how it works. Corporations want competition, but only just enough to avoid monopoly/oligopoly claims (granted, there are exceptions, like satellite radio & American pro wrestling, but that's the exception, not the rule), and with your options limited, they can tell you to "take it or leave it". The reason why people thought the 1960s was the golden age of airlines was because each company thought of ways to improve services to give patrons a pleasant & fun experience that would encourage future usage (the airlines that did fail usually failed due to a disastrous ad campaign). Today, the few airlines left charge you $700 to go from Chicago to Dallas, and that's just the fees alone. Not to mention the cramped confinements, the lack of food, and the fear of ornery staff beating you senseless. A modern day service that shows this problem in action is the cable box. Sure, it records stuff, but its space is limited, its somehow an even worse energy vampire than microwaves, and they are easily broken, which violates the terms of agreement to using them, which results in penalties. Ideally, they could make them more efficient & store more, but they won't. The current box is perfect. Also, and I know this is too political, but from what I've seen, those who are happy about this seem to like it only because the administration wanted it, and want to undo every single thing the previous administration because they thought the previous guy in charge was an awful, awful human being while seeing the current guy as the Messiah. Tl;Dr: The companies that support these rollbacks want them so they can force people to accept shoddy service, and those who love this only love it due to political orientation.
|
|
Mecca
Wade Wilson
Posts: 25,101
|
Post by Mecca on Dec 15, 2017 10:12:47 GMT -5
An example of ISP's not adhering to what they said they will do is they took billions of dollars in subsidies from the government to lay fiber all across the nation so everyone could have high speed internet...they pocketed the money and it's why we still have a country where tons of people have no fiber options.
|
|
|
Post by MC Blowfish on Dec 15, 2017 10:36:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Dec 15, 2017 10:52:15 GMT -5
It sucks for them, it's good for Comcast owned Hulu. What will happen to Netflix can be summed up like this. It's a competitor to something an ISP owns so this is how this works. Hulu gets preferential treatment by going into the fast lane and no additional charge and everything runs flawlessly. However that ISP because they want you to use their product, is going to put Netflix in the slow lane, unless Netflix pays an upcharge which then Netflix will have to charge customers for...And honestly that is just where it starts. It could go to something like "You have to have the 20 dollar streaming package to watch Netflix however Hulu can be watched without it" All this really does is it gives a company like Comcast who honestly is the biggest abuser of all of this..meanwhile it's the company I have cause I don't have any other option...the ability to f*** over customers. They can basically make it where all of the content they own is the stuff that is cheaper and works right pushing everyone to their stuff. Because they are a content creator that owns TV stations they can't stand cord cutters either, wouldn't stun me at all if eventually they make it where you have to take a cable package to get high end internet. Unless you want to pay some stupid rate that makes no sense to pay. This is all about companies like Comcast bringing the cord cutters back to cable, that's their goal. "It gives Comcast more power" should be enough for anyone to oppose it. f***ers should have been given the Standard Oil/Ma Bell treatment ages ago. A strong anti-trust regime would be one alternative way to enforce the same ends. And the FCC is supposed to be that anti-trust regime, if only their head wasn't a former Verizon head who I'm assuming is soon to be a very well paid Comcast higher up whenever he's done at the FCC
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Dec 15, 2017 10:53:47 GMT -5
An example of ISP's not adhering to what they said they will do is they took billions of dollars in subsidies from the government to lay fiber all across the nation so everyone could have high speed internet...they pocketed the money and it's why we still have a country where tons of people have no fiber options. And they have laws to where either they're the only ones allowed to lay fiber or other people can't cross their lines, just to be dicks to Google (I think that's mostly an AT&T problem IIRC)
|
|
Mecca
Wade Wilson
Posts: 25,101
|
Post by Mecca on Dec 15, 2017 10:55:30 GMT -5
Did you guys see him yesterday? One of the Democratic women FCC commissioners gave a 20 minute passionate speech about how awful this was and why it shouldn't happen, his reaction..
"I'll mark you as a no then" With a big smile on his face.
The guy is a dickbag.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,296
Member is Online
|
Post by Push R Truth on Dec 15, 2017 11:24:37 GMT -5
Did you guys see him yesterday? One of the Democratic women FCC commissioners gave a 20 minute passionate speech about how awful this was and why it shouldn't happen, his reaction.. "I'll mark you as a no then" With a big smile on his face. The guy is a dickbag. He's basically that Martin Skriririrkrikri pharmacy dude turned up to 11
|
|
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Dec 15, 2017 12:50:25 GMT -5
Did you guys see him yesterday? One of the Democratic women FCC commissioners gave a 20 minute passionate speech about how awful this was and why it shouldn't happen, his reaction.. "I'll mark you as a no then" With a big smile on his face. The guy is a dickbag. He's basically that Martin Skriririrkrikri pharmacy dude turned up to 11 Roman Reigns would get unanimous face cheers if he speared that FCC guy.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 15, 2017 14:05:06 GMT -5
Would you mind expanding on your comment about the benefits to new technology, because I don't quite follow. How exactly does taking up the cable TV model lead towards benefit for technological advancement? I'd more assume where distribution deals were to become norm through streaming packages, the competitive structure is essentially restrained when compared to an equal and open internet market structure. What encourages development, and what makes you confident that this wouldn't stagnate the medium similarly to how cable TV has been for the past 10 or so years? The big reason is the fact that...as said before. Cable companies, by and large, are also the ISPs in this instance, and they don't want cord cutters. However, at the same time, there's so many streaming services and subscriptions available that, as it stands now, streaming is going to be an a la carte version of cable, at best. You may not spend $100 on cable networks you don't use anymore, but you probably will be spending that $100, or more, on streaming services- not counting your Internet connection. It's not much of a difference to the consumer as it is. By this law, all it does is rolls Net Neutrality back to the standards it had in 2015, and fixes one small glitch in the Net Neutrality law that made it illegal for cable companies to offer subscriptions to streaming services with their services. As it stands, all that is dead is the days of video on demand, since now there's no use for it- if your cable company wanted to offer WWE 24/7, now you can offer the WWE Network. Your cable company wanted to offer Anime Network, now they can offer Crunchyroll. If anything, keeping this loophole for Net Neutrality is propping up a dead service of cable companies in video on demand, not hindering a future service in streaming. That's what this law allows. ABSOLUTE WORST CASE SCENARIO, and by worst case scenario I mean "Dystopia Scenario" here, goodbye Sling and Playstation TV. Likewise, the cable packaging for streaming services is not a bad thing itself- again, VRV is the example. Instead of paying $100+ for the channels on VRV as separate entities, you're paying $10 a month for them and getting 12 channels. It's more likely we see more connections like that. That's where the cable packaging is a good thing for it- it'll allow cable companies to do it. Yes, maybe Comcast will offer Hulu for free, but Comcast DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO THROTTLE NON-HULU SITES. Granted, this is a YET, but that's why the fight needs to continue from hereon out. The law does not completely end Net Neutrality. It does not allow a cable company to throttle your services yet. I cannot stress those things enough. It is a bad sign, and it's a sign that if you give them this inch, one day they WILL take a mile- but THE FIGHT IS STILL GOING ON TO KEEP THEM FROM TAKING THIS MILE. "It gives Comcast more power" should be enough for anyone to oppose it. f***ers should have been given the Standard Oil/Ma Bell treatment ages ago. A strong anti-trust regime would be one alternative way to enforce the same ends. In defense, this alone is a reason for the potential weakness with "make Internet a standard utility" as well: Ma Bell was the example of it where you could not buy a telephone until deregulation happened. You would have to have your telephone given to you by Ma Bell and that WAS your phone. If it broke, they'd give you another one of the same type. You wanted more than one...well, tough. If they declare Internet a standard utility like water and electricity, then it would be a basic standard need/right, which is reasonable...but at the same time, you would, by definition, need to give EVERYONE a computer (since they'd need one to use the Internet.) Sounds good...but it's not like everyone would be getting top of the line gaming computers. In all likeliness they'd be getting bottom of the line netbooks computers for this one- just enough to check your emails and go on Facebook. Don't expect there to be that much of an improvement with time for those computers- and if it's a utility, there's a good chance that your ISP would REQUIRE YOU to use that computer so you couldn't get a better computer or build one yourself.
|
|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Dec 15, 2017 14:25:06 GMT -5
Would you mind expanding on your comment about the benefits to new technology, because I don't quite follow. How exactly does taking up the cable TV model lead towards benefit for technological advancement? I'd more assume where distribution deals were to become norm through streaming packages, the competitive structure is essentially restrained when compared to an equal and open internet market structure. What encourages development, and what makes you confident that this wouldn't stagnate the medium similarly to how cable TV has been for the past 10 or so years? The big reason is the fact that...as said before. Cable companies, by and large, are also the ISPs in this instance, and they don't want cord cutters. However, at the same time, there's so many streaming services and subscriptions available that, as it stands now, streaming is going to be an a la carte version of cable, at best. You may not spend $100 on cable networks you don't use anymore, but you probably will be spending that $100, or more, on streaming services- not counting your Internet connection. It's not much of a difference to the consumer as it is. By this law, all it does is rolls Net Neutrality back to the standards it had in 2015, and fixes one small glitch in the Net Neutrality law that made it illegal for cable companies to offer subscriptions to streaming services with their services. As it stands, all that is dead is the days of video on demand, since now there's no use for it- if your cable company wanted to offer WWE 24/7, now you can offer the WWE Network. Your cable company wanted to offer Anime Network, now they can offer Crunchyroll. If anything, keeping this loophole for Net Neutrality is propping up a dead service of cable companies in video on demand, not hindering a future service in streaming. That's what this law allows. ABSOLUTE WORST CASE SCENARIO, and by worst case scenario I mean "Dystopia Scenario" here, goodbye Sling and Playstation TV. Likewise, the cable packaging for streaming services is not a bad thing itself- again, VRV is the example. Instead of paying $100+ for the channels on VRV as separate entities, you're paying $10 a month for them and getting 12 channels. It's more likely we see more connections like that. That's where the cable packaging is a good thing for it- it'll allow cable companies to do it. Yes, maybe Comcast will offer Hulu for free, but Comcast DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO THROTTLE NON-HULU SITES. Granted, this is a YET, but that's why the fight needs to continue from hereon out. The law does not completely end Net Neutrality. It does not allow a cable company to throttle your services yet. I cannot stress those things enough. It is a bad sign, and it's a sign that if you give them this inch, one day they WILL take a mile- but THE FIGHT IS STILL GOING ON TO KEEP THEM FROM TAKING THIS MILE. This leaves out the context that the rules changed in 2015 because the way the FCC was regulating prior to that was challenged successfully in court.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 15, 2017 14:33:10 GMT -5
This leaves out the context that the rules changed in 2015 because the way the FCC was regulating prior to that was challenged successfully in court. That is a fair case, but at the same time, the point stands. The change to the law that happened did not completely destroy Net Neutrality, and it actually legalized one small piece of the puzzle (Streaming services coming with your Internet subscription) that people would by and large want, but ALSO want Net Neutrality...and as the laws since 2015 had, you could not have both because it was criminalized. That's the whole problem. If people give up now, people are giving up way too early in the fight when it's "you're getting something that honestly may be a net positive here!", and if they give up and say "It's over, it's the end of the world, goodbye Internet!", then you'll let them have the power TO do exactly that, and then it WILL BE OVER, it WILL BE THE END OF THE WORLD, and it WILL BE Goodbye Internet.
|
|
Mecca
Wade Wilson
Posts: 25,101
|
Post by Mecca on Dec 15, 2017 15:04:07 GMT -5
This is frankly about passing shit for the people that matter, giant corporations.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Dec 15, 2017 15:19:39 GMT -5
Phew! It had been almost a week and a half since America last f***ed something up.
|
|