OT: Net Neutrality

Submitted by LandryHD on November 21st, 2017 at 5:50 PM
I think this is an important issue that will affect all of us and traffic for this site if this actually happens. There are plenty of Reddit posts educating people on what's going on and what to do to stop something like this. Here is a link you guys can go to: https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/7ek4q6/join_the_battle_for_net… Mods delete if this doesn't belong. Go Blue!

Comments

Occam's Razor

November 21st, 2017 at 5:56 PM ^

This issue is the epitome of what’s wrong with modern politics. Ajit Pai and his cronies have been shut down over and over again and now are going to secretly try to pass this garbage on the holidays when the public is busy with other things.

All it takes is one yes vote to dismantle everything.

Wanna watch Netflix? Better pay a premium for that! Wanna go to MGoBlog? Nope Brian will have to pony up cash to whatever ISP is willing to allow traffic there.

What a farce.

goblueram

November 21st, 2017 at 6:08 PM ^

For an ISP to not allow traffic to any site (especially a popular one) would be crazy, and against their best interests.  Simply, it would be bad business.

But damn those ISPs for spending billions over the years upgrading global networks to get the internet to the advanced state it is in today!  What right do they have!

The Harbaughnger

November 21st, 2017 at 11:12 PM ^

Summary of all posts that follow below:

Group 1: "Party A can't be trusted- their interests are not representative of the people because they are controlled by XYZ"
Group 2: "Party B can't be trusted- their interests are not representative of the people because they are controlled by XYZ"

Reality: Both groups are 100% correct, the vast majority of each group does not realize this, party A and party B FULLY realize this and want nothing more than a forever 50/50 fight because that guarantees they'll both retain every ounce of power they already have to keep the cycle ever healthier than the day before.

Stunning how easily the words 'government' and 'corporations' can be interchanged in every argument below. It's like algebra...XYZ just seems so fitting.

Occam's Razor

November 21st, 2017 at 6:25 PM ^

They make that money back and then some. 

Companies like Comcast have already been caught throttling connections in the past. This passing will enable that kind of behavior screwing the customer over. It will be the new norm. 

Your argument has no merit when there are only 2 companies to choose from when it comes to internet in most places, both of which throttle connections already. 

If there were 10+ ISPs battling it out in every market, then I would be all for lifting net neutrality because competition = win for consumers. 

That is not the case when most places have very few options to pick from. 

goblueram

November 21st, 2017 at 6:29 PM ^

I think we actually are pretty close to agreement here.  But the question I would ask is why are there only 2 companies to choose from?  Why are there monopolies on utilities in many areas?

We'd both agree that's a problem.  But anyway this discussion has already gotten a bit too political so we will just leave it there. 

Occam's Razor

November 21st, 2017 at 6:32 PM ^

I agree cronyism enabled there to be less competition, but at this point we are far too down the rabbit hole. 

If you lift regulations now, do you think big mega-corporations will allow for small companies to make it? What stops them from routing out any form of competition due to sheer resources at their disposal? 

I don't think that is viable anymore. Enforce anti-trust laws and keep the regulations we got in the books already. 

goblueram

November 21st, 2017 at 6:38 PM ^

Just posted this below, but I am actually hopefully that wireless access could be somewhat of an answer to the problem.  There are more than enough ISPs out there - the problem is really local access.  Let's hope one way or another competition can be increased (which would also make net neutrality a non-issue, and was my original point).

ppToilet

November 21st, 2017 at 8:24 PM ^

The "I trust the market" rhetoric sounds great, but we're not talking about a free market. We're talking about ISPs that are essentially monopolies in each of their respective markets. What you have posted is what ISPs would have us all believe (i.e. NOT allowing ISPs to run their monopolies as such is "govt. control"). That is hardly the case. What net neutrality does is prevent the ISPs from double dipping - they can't charge both the content provider (e.g. Netflix) and the consumer (i.e. you) twice for the same thing. 

If you think of the ISP as a railroad, they want to charge the coal mine to deliver the coal to your doorstep and charge you for receiving it. This drives costs up, antithetical to your stated trust in "the market". I don't blame ISPs for wanting to exert their monopolistic practices. I do blame those who choose to inflict the monopoly upon all of us and those who fall too easily prey to their nonsense arguments over bogeyman goverment control.

Mack Tandonio

November 21st, 2017 at 10:33 PM ^

You really should look into what net neutrality is and educate yourself about this issue. It's incredibly important and your comment about the government controlling the internet leads me to believe you are mistakenly supporting the wrong side.
 
The whole point is to keep the handling of internet traffic free and equal. You should be able to use the bandwidth you pay for however you want. That's the only control the net neutrality folks are interested in. Net neutrality ideals are what kept the phone company from telling you that you werent allowed to hook an answering machine up to "their" phone lines. Look no further than ISPs attempts to block p2p protocols if you need an example of the innovation squashing control they're after. Don't let the internet go the way of pharmaceuticals in this country.
 

1464

November 21st, 2017 at 7:34 PM ^

Utliities have monopolies because it is impossible to run ten sewer systems, ten sets of power lines, ten lilnes of cable, etc.

It's a shitty system because of the requirement for the phyiscal infrastructure.  There is not an elegant solution.  That is why utilities are heavily regulated.

Far FAR fucking scarier than paying extra for Netlfix is that this is just one component of a concerted effort to control the news that gets to the general population.  We are hurdling backwards as a country, and it is sad and scary to see - especially due to the fact that my kids are going to live in the aftermath of the god-awful mess we are making right now.

befuggled

November 21st, 2017 at 10:24 PM ^

I had to change doctors I liked back in the nineties when I was in Wisconsin. The first time was because my employer changed HMOs; the second time was when I changed employers; and the third time was when I changed employers again (I wound up back at the second HMO).

In Canada I can keep my damn doctor.

bluepow

November 21st, 2017 at 8:56 PM ^

Public utility means much less expensive because you eliminate the need for ever-increasing profits and proper investment is motivted by helping the community rise above others.  Case in point: Longmont Colorado just rolled out a public municipal internet service that offers 1000Mbs speed for $49 per month (go ahead, google it!).  For-profit ISP's are greedy pigs that fatten themselves in lieu of making adequate infrastructure investment.  They want to throttle now because they know they are falling ever further behind with more 4k and other high-bandwidth needs in the pipeline.

bluesalt

November 21st, 2017 at 6:33 PM ^

So Tennessee, paid off by Comcast, passed a law saying they couldn’t. Then the FCC passed a rule saying that Chattanooga could (in a 3-2 vote), but that was overturned by the Sixth Circuit. Chairman Wheeler was legit disappointed. He spent a lot of political capital pursuing that rule.

goblueram

November 21st, 2017 at 6:35 PM ^

Not going to discuss the public utility thing, however the whole country being wireless is a great point.  A lot of the lack of competition for ISPs stems from local monopolies due to infrastructure, easement rights, etc.  So in theory removing the need to run wires to certain areas will help everyone.  I mean, think how many ISPs are really out there, there's no shortage.  It's just a matter of local access.