The End of Net Neutrality is Here.

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

trunkage:

Worgen:

Zontar:
The internet was fine before 2015, and this was not net neutrality to begin with given how much was excluded from it that should have been a part of it.

Except your wrong, the internet had a ton of issues before 2015. There are a lot of cities in the US that only have one isp, making that ISP a monopoly. Meaning they can pull all sorts of shit on their customers, like data caps, which tended to show up in markets where there was no competition. Thats not even mentioning the issues with Americans paying more for worse internet, again, because of monopolies where the companies had no real incentive to actually improve their infrastructure. We really didn't see speed improving much till Obama really started to push net neutrality.
https://bgr.com/2016/01/02/us-internet-speeds-average/

And you are totally ignoring the fact that the network landscape is much different today then it was before we had a president pushing for net neutrality. Now large ISPs are not only media conglomerates, but they also are also building up their own streaming services. I would be very surprised if they haven't already started to squeeze services like Netflix for extra cash or face throttling. After all, Netflix is competition. Why would they let competition access eyes on their service without paying extra.

Net Neutarlity didn't provide any competition though. That would have been another policy that would have helped reduce monopoly. Yes it reduces the power the monopolies had, and that is important. It was a bandaid IMO, and another policy was need to reduce the actual monopolies.

Of course it didn't provide competition. Its not another ISP. What it does is force companies to play by a set of rules that benefit other people and businesses besides just themselves and their shareholders. Unless we start really trying to break up these big ISP's like we did with Ma-Bell, which we wont. Then we need regulation to make them play nice.

09philj:

Zontar:

09philj:

In America, you've got the Democrats, who are right wing, and the Republicans, who are right wing and also view you with contempt.

I love the "America is right wing compared to everyone else" meme, it really shows how little people actually follow Canadian and European politics even in our own countries.

The left sold out to megacorporations over the past few years. It's hilarious to watch, sure, especially seeing socialists fight for corporatism, but it's also kind of sad seeing liberalism die not from the right winning but illiberal elements of the left stabbing it in the back.

Guess this is why Gen Z is overwhelmingly small government conservative.

The behaviour of the modern left is depressing, sure. The intercene squabbling, the concessions to corporations in exchange for minimal social and financial returns, the focus on short term quick fixes over long term change, but even with all that it's far from being as bad as what the right is mutating into. Filled with impotent bile and utter disregard for their fellow man, the right is growing like a cancer at the heart of the west. Decadent, degenerate, rotten to the core, content to let any number of people suffer and die as long as they can cling to guns, God, and the almighty dollar. Something vital inside you died, leaving only hate and rage and malice. I look upon the world suffer and turn away, retreat from it because I cannot bear to watch. You look at it and smile, safe in the knowledge that unlike everyone else, you're not a puppet, when in reality you're dancing like an epileptic donkey on the end of a string connected to Donald Trump's impotent cock. You're bending over with your arsehole ready to let corporate America bugger you until it's spunk comes spewing out your overfed mouth and you will love it, because they're doing it in the name of capitalism. You disgust me. Fuck you and goodnight.

Lol, this is the most creative insult I've ever seen on this site.

What I'm finding funny is all the escapist doomsayers... this site is going to outlast the free internet as a whole. As one of the 8% of people who live in an area of the US where there is not a monopoly of "high speed" internet service... I may be able to wrangle decent service for a while. But as internet prices skyrocket and speeds get throttled, places like my apartment will increase so much in value I'm going to get priced out of my home. And then, I'll only be able to afford to live in the zone where you have to be a millionaire to afford internet as we know it now. I'll only get whatever throttled slow-drip they allow the "common people" to pay for.

Zontar:

The interesting thing about Capitalism is that unlike its competitors, it works.

Okay joking aside (though the statement is true), another thing that makes it unique is that there's nothing stopping people from forming communistic or socialistic group within it. There is nothing preventing a group of people pooling their resources and manpower to start a company as a worker's collective. In fact one could argue that libertarians are all for that type of attitude, so long as that system isn't forced onto other private entities.

Maybe with a different system of government it may work. But right now the U.S. isn't really an example of how capitalism is sustainable. We've been here for... only a little over 2 centuries. We've been a hegemonic power for less than half of that. We didn't even make it a century and a half before we had to ditch total free market capitalism and place anti-trust laws on the books to avoid a "peasant" revolution or a change to a fascist oligarchy. And as awful as income inequality and its continuing growth is, that looks more like a Band-Aid than a cure. Tell someone how our system of capitalism works... when it manages to at least make it work as long as Rome did. Or at least half that long. Because we aren't really even a quarter of the way there yet and the cracks are really starting to show.

Ajit Pai is a cunt but wasn't he appointed under Obama? Or was he reappointed by Trump?(In that case fuck him too).

ex951753:
Ajit Pai is a cunt but wasn't he appointed under Obama? Or was he reappointed by Trump?(In that case fuck him too).

Mitch McConnell recommended Pai for a Republican position on the commission under Obama, it was Trump who promoted him to Chairman. So yes, you can thank the Republicans for this Monster.

In 2011, Pai was then nominated for a Republican Party position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Minority leader Mitch McConnell.[18] He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012, and was sworn in on May 14, 2012, for a term that concluded on June 30, 2016.[2] Then Pai was designated chairman of the FCC by President Donald Trump in January 2017 for a five-year term.[19] He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate for the additional five-year term on October 2, 2017.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai

Zontar:

09philj:

Zontar:

So he's Obama 2.0?

In America, you've got the Democrats, who are right wing, and the Republicans, who are right wing and also view you with contempt.

I love the "America is right wing compared to everyone else" meme, it really shows how little people actually follow Canadian and European politics even in our own countries.

The left sold out to megacorporations over the past few years. It's hilarious to watch, sure, especially seeing socialists fight for corporatism, but it's also kind of sad seeing liberalism die not from the right winning but illiberal elements of the left stabbing it in the back.

Guess this is why Gen Z is overwhelmingly small government conservative.

Because we are the most right wing when it comes to economics? Try having a Republican run on repealing the NHS in the U.K. I'll doubt he'll even get even 5 votes. Heck I'm sure he'll be called Satan over there. Yet America acts like Single Payer is some kind of communist plot to take over our freedoms. The left in America is pretty much centrists in some european countries. Even the Uk conservative party is pro single payer then the Democratic party is. The party of FDR and JFK is gone, they were replaced by the party of Bill Clinton and the new democrats.

Also, I rather not have Comcast screw up my internet speeds while I'm watching netflix. Thank you.

WolvDragon:

Zontar:

09philj:

In America, you've got the Democrats, who are right wing, and the Republicans, who are right wing and also view you with contempt.

I love the "America is right wing compared to everyone else" meme, it really shows how little people actually follow Canadian and European politics even in our own countries.

The left sold out to megacorporations over the past few years. It's hilarious to watch, sure, especially seeing socialists fight for corporatism, but it's also kind of sad seeing liberalism die not from the right winning but illiberal elements of the left stabbing it in the back.

Guess this is why Gen Z is overwhelmingly small government conservative.

Because we are the most right wing when it comes to economics? Try having a Republican run on repealing the NHS in the U.K. I'll doubt he'll even get even 5 votes. Heck I'm sure he'll be called Satan over there. Yet America acts like Single Payer is some kind of communist plot to take over our freedoms. The left in America is pretty much centrists in some european countries. Even the Uk conservative party is pro single payer then the Democratic party is. The party of FDR and JFK is gone, they were replaced by the party of Bill Clinton and the new democrats.

Also, I rather not have Comcast screw up my internet speeds while I'm watching netflix. Thank you.

I'm going to point out that FDR really tried to change the face of the Dems. Using some economic policies from Hitler (obs before WW2) and combining it with helping minorities (which Wilson was dead against not that long before - and being very anti-Hitler), he turned the Right into the Left. It didn't stay Left for very long, and has slowly slumped back into the Right. I can't point out when Republicans turned right, but I dare say they always were. It just so happened that freeing slaves benefited Lincolns friends economically, so he did that for them. LBJ pushed through the Civil Rights Act, so the Dems didn't go completely Right straight away

That fucking bullshit better keep itself to the US along with the sad impotent manbaby failure in the White House. Such devout stupidity.

CrazyGirl17:

Lil devils x:

CrazyGirl17:
...So... are we all totally screwed then? Is there anything we can do? Because I'm not going down without a fight on this...

Tomorrow there are supposed to be protests, and some states are passing their own laws. You can also petition, write your state and federal legislature because your states laws only help your state, however, as we know the internet does not exist in your state alone, thus meaning there can be issues when accessing servers and across shared lines in other states, thus making it a federal issue by crossing state lines.

Contacting your state and federal representatives is probably the best thing that can be done.

Thanks, I'm already working on it. Is there any way of finding out what states are passing their own laws? And should I be worried in the short term?

Though I am sure this should be updated, I have this map from April so you can have an idea where states are at:
http://www.govtech.com/civic/Map-As-Net-Neutrality-Officially-Ends-States-Rush-to-Pass-Workarounds.html

I think the first targets of ISP's will be against competitors. If you use a competing VoIP phone service, or a competing service that utilizes another ISP's lines, that is where the impact will be first felt as they have been itching to go on the offensive for quite some time there. They will likely target numerous small targets before sinking into the big ones.

trunkage:

Zontar:

trunkage:

I can understand why Gen Z are tired of governments when both parties are corrupt and don't take care of its populace. Having your data stolen all the time and sold off to the highest bidder is ridiculous too.

Exactly, hell it's happening up here too. Last year when the conservatives had their party leadership race, the libertarian candidate was winning for the first 12 rounds, and lost only in the final round when the social conservative candidate won with 51% of the vote. It took every wing of the party coming together against the libertarians, and they only won by 1%. If Trudeau beats the odds and manages to win the next election, a libertarian is going to be the PM after him.

When you say rounds, do you mean polls? If I remember correctly, you have preferential voting, so the lowest voted group loses and their votes split per round? Is that what you mean?

One thing that Canada has above the US is multiple parties. The system is set up so lots of people gets a voice and not two. Different parties can rise and fall or even disappear depending on how people like them. In the US, you only ever get two. Also, Liberrtarians don't play well with others. Until they do, they will probably always lose.

Also, many Libertarians are far too Authoritarian in my opinion. Forcing Capitalism down people's throat isn't any better than forcing Soailism or Communism. It's the first major misstep of Libertarians. Just becuase you like Capitalism, doesn't mean everyone else does. If you want Capitalism to succeed, you have to convince them. Also, don't hold up the Gilded Age as Laissez-Fairre when the government was used to pay for railways, block migrants from working, armies were sent in to clear areas for settlers and workers rights were diminished. That's the opposite of Laissez-Faire

Interesting fact about Hoover, he set a policy for mass deportations of Mexicans, which ended up being closer to an attempted ethnic cleansing of hispanics (Note that ethnic cleansing does not necessarily involve killing), including US citizens. Some estimates even suggest that more than 50% of the people deported while the policy was in effect were citizens of the US.

Also he was against federal laws prohibiting lynchings, a policy which I can't totally rule out of being at the back of some GOP politicians minds.

09philj:
Interesting fact about Hoover, he set a policy for mass deportations of Mexicans, which ended up being closer to an attempted ethnic cleansing of hispanics (Note that ethnic cleansing does not necessarily involve killing), including US citizens. Some estimates even suggest that more than 50% of the people deported while the policy was in effect were citizens of the US.

Also he was against federal laws prohibiting lynchings, a policy which I can't totally rule out of being at the back of some GOP politicians minds.

Wilson didn't prohibit lynching either. He also really loved a Birth of a Nation and was the historian who wrote the Lost Cause book. So he beats Hoover there.

Also, Theodore started a coup in Panama, just so they could build a canal for the benefit of the US. And I'd point to the Gilded Age with all its political corruption. Lincoln was not an abolitionist, he was a Free Soiler. Moving African American back to Africa was probably his first choice. (What I don't know is Liberia's stance, as I think they were still taking freed slaves up to the Civil War but I don't know about after. OR if Lincoln could continue this or enforce freed slave removal.) This was to protect white men from former slaves 'stealing' their land. So the Republicans have been interfering with lots of people for their friends economic gain for a long time.

It's hilarious watching people who previously supported net neutrality turn against it because the Trump administration is against it. The right stands for nothing beyond "suck it libtards!" and by god they'll shoot themselves in the foot in pursuit of that one ideal over and over again. It's funny because this was a bipartisan issue 4 years ago. Even opposing sides of GG were in agreement on this one

CheetoDust:
It's hilarious watching people who previously supported net neutrality turn against it because the Trump administration is against it. The right stands for nothing beyond "suck it libtards!" and by god they'll shoot themselves in the foot in pursuit of that one ideal over and over again. It's funny because this was a bipartisan issue 4 years ago. Even opposing sides of GG were in agreement on this one

you want to know whats extra funny? according to trumpets big business (expect fox news) is owned by "libtards"and now they are fighting tooth and nail to give those same corporations the power to censur whoever they want.
i swear to god if the democrats set up a suicide prevention hotline these people would start killing themselves just to spite "libtards"

lionsprey:

CheetoDust:
It's hilarious watching people who previously supported net neutrality turn against it because the Trump administration is against it. The right stands for nothing beyond "suck it libtards!" and by god they'll shoot themselves in the foot in pursuit of that one ideal over and over again. It's funny because this was a bipartisan issue 4 years ago. Even opposing sides of GG were in agreement on this one

you want to know whats extra funny? according to trumpets big business (expect fox news) is owned by "libtards"and now they are fighting tooth and nail to give those same corporations the power to censur whoever they want.
i swear to god if the democrats set up a suicide prevention hotline these people would start killing themselves just to spite "libtards"

The other way of looking at it is that the people who throw around words like "cuck" will only do what the big strong man tells them to do. There's so many layers of being big dumb pussies to this.

Not sure if any of you know, but something similar is going on in Europe. Because governments hate the internet apparently. Dunno if anyone here is from Europe, but just a heads up.

CheetoDust:
It's hilarious watching people who previously supported net neutrality turn against it because the Trump administration is against it. The right stands for nothing beyond "suck it libtards!" and by god they'll shoot themselves in the foot in pursuit of that one ideal over and over again. It's funny because this was a bipartisan issue 4 years ago. Even opposing sides of GG were in agreement on this one

When are the right wing ever consistent? They never are.

CrazyGirl17:
Not sure if any of you know, but something similar is going on in Europe. Because governments hate the internet apparently. Dunno if anyone here is from Europe, but just a heads up.

I thought it was more around how copyrights and data mining works, not giving monopoly power to ISPs

Zontar:

Samtemdo8:

Zontar, as laymen can you please speak more plainly to me as to why it has to be repealed?

To make a long explanation short the bill accomplished nothing, gave no power to stop throttling that the FCC and the FTC didn't already have between them, and only effected ISPs, leaving out tech companies who, in a real net neutrality bill, would be included.

Hell even looking at the examples used in this very thread, they're all from before the bill was passed where the outcome was the same as if it hadn't, it is at best a redundant bill that could easily be removed just on the justification that you need to attrition two regulations to bring in a new one now, and calling it redundant is very charitable in my mind. Until someone can propose a bill for net neutrality that will actually be more then just forcing ISPs to not throttle internet (which is far from the only thing net neutrality is), then no one's actually discussing net neutrality any more so then discussing the PATRIOT Act is discussing laws that will ensure safety for the country.

In 2014, Verizon got the courts to rule that the FCC didn't actually have the power it was using to enforce net neutrality, hence why the FCC reclassified internet carriers under Title 2

So if ISPs go back to the shenanigans that the FCC used to be able to shut down, the FCC, well, can't.

ex951753:
Ajit Pai is a cunt but wasn't he appointed under Obama? Or was he reappointed by Trump?(In that case fuck him too).

He was appointee under Obama because the 7 person FCC board was mandated to require 3 members of each party with the Chair/swing vote mandated by the president. McConell wanted him.

Trump made him the chair.

CheetoDust:
It's hilarious watching people who previously supported net neutrality turn against it because the Trump administration is against it. The right stands for nothing beyond "suck it libtards!" and by god they'll shoot themselves in the foot in pursuit of that one ideal over and over again. It's funny because this was a bipartisan issue 4 years ago. Even opposing sides of GG were in agreement on this one

I can't wait for Comcast to, say, block all access to Infowars through it's fiber as a cheap PR stunt.

I mean, just run adds about how they're blocking conspiracy mongers who think Sandy Hook was fake and it'll take off.

Zontar:
The internet was fine before 2015, and this was not net neutrality to begin with given how much was excluded from it that should have been a part of it.

Why am I not surprised that you're on the wrong side of the issue once again? It's like you enjoy being brainwashed by pro-corporate right-wing corrupt politicians.

Adam Jensen:

Zontar:
The internet was fine before 2015, and this was not net neutrality to begin with given how much was excluded from it that should have been a part of it.

Why am I not surprised that you're on the wrong side of the issue once again? It's like you enjoy being brainwashed by pro-corporate right-wing corrupt politicians.

If you're looking for a fun game to play I've got one called "Go ahead and google "Zontar Net Neutrality" and see how he felt about it before it was the Trump administration telling him it was bad". The title needs work admittedly.

I admit to looking at this with an ideal view, but I think this is a good thing. Prior to net neutrality I had options for internet service providers. The one I went with was called Pioneer Valley net. They were pretty good, they were cheap, about $10 a month. Some sites ran fast, some not so much, though those tended to be sites that ended in urls like .au, .ca, .de, etc. When Net neutrality became a thing they had to make the speeds for those site parity to what Comcast was offering. This intern lead to the company having to raise its prices to almost $60 a month. This lead many people to leave Pioneer Valley net and go to Comcast. After all for $90 a month you get internet, phone, and TV. There was no way to compete so in mid 2016 Pioneer Valley net went out of business.

My hope is that with Net Neutrality legally gone, smaller companies can make a comeback because big companies like Comcast and Time Warner did very well because of net neutrality at the cost of the smaller companies.

kiri3tsubasa:
Some sites ran fast, some not so much

Maybe that's a gamble you like to take. Not me.

kiri3tsubasa:
I admit to looking at this with an ideal view, but I think this is a good thing. Prior to net neutrality I had options for internet service providers. The one I went with was called Pioneer Valley net. They were pretty good, they were cheap, about $10 a month. Some sites ran fast, some not so much, though those tended to be sites that ended in urls like .au, .ca, .de, etc. When Net neutrality became a thing they had to make the speeds for those site parity to what Comcast was offering. This intern lead to the company having to raise its prices to almost $60 a month. This lead many people to leave Pioneer Valley net and go to Comcast. After all for $90 a month you get internet, phone, and TV. There was no way to compete so in mid 2016 Pioneer Valley net went out of business.

My hope is that with Net Neutrality legally gone, smaller companies can make a comeback because big companies like Comcast and Time Warner did very well because of net neutrality at the cost of the smaller companies.

I think you have that backwards. The bigger companies control almost all the physical lines, so they will be able to slow down traffic of competing networks now that Net Neutrality is gone. They are even trying to get the whole " copper line sharing" right now as linked above that gives smaller companies access to their lines, so they would be able to shut down smaller companies all together.

Now they will be able to price gouge competitors for using their lines or shut them out entirely rendering the competing service useless. At&T wanted net neutrality gone so they could eliminate competition and charge more money for existing services. You will notice attacks on competition as the first thing they go after, before they even slow their own services to charge more $.
You have to keep in mind that they have been targeting multiple regulations, not just net neutrality, so consumers and competitors will no longer have the protections they had prior to net neutrality went into affect.

Read a couple of days ago that AT&T wants to buy out time warner.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here