Well, at least he provided some figures underlying his opinion one has to admit. I guess there‘s no black or white in this discussion.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC Sets End Date for Net Neutrality on June 11 as Democrats Lead Vote to Block Repeal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, at least he provided some figures underlying his opinion one has to admit. I guess there‘s no black or white in this discussion.
No, it's a perfect analogy- I own the network in my house just like I own the pipes.
Again, you're mixing this up.
The water company charges me by the gallon. I can use the water how I wish.
Would you feel you are being ripped off if the water company could charge you depending on what you are using the water for?
Net Neutrality = 1 MB of video data and 1 MB of text data have to be charged the same.
Comcast was trying to charge more for "video data" than "text data" even though data is data, because they wanted to hinder competition against their own video services.
This is literally like a water company trying to charge you more for toilet water usage than shower water usage because they own a public toilet company and want people to use it.
You are actually asking for net neutrality in your analogy. Net neutrality is where you pay based on what you use, not how you use it.
Sorry but the public interest is not “1000 times worse” than private interests. They need to be in balance to have a well functioning society.
No. People pirated video before FCC voted for ‘Net Neutrality’ costumed government scheme.
Video pirating will still be possible in the future, however the burden is always on the pirate for squirreling together whatever barely working tech to squinch by whatever protection barriers.
Or do you mean using a video app to watch your own videos that you own? Kinda thinking not, because why would anyone think an internet connection policy would change that?
And who should oversee the free market according to you? Who should define the rules and the playbook? Who should protect consumers? Who should punish those breaking the rules?
If you leave that to companies whose only goal is to make money you’re asking for trouble. Why would they not pollute, exploit workers and scam consumers if they can get away with it. Competition and the free market only work if every player follows the same rules.
Last edited:
Your VPN traffic has to route to the VPN server. That IP Address can be blacklisted in their routing. ISPs can also use Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) to try and analyze the type of traffic on their works. VPNs only protect the contents of the traffic between you and the server. They don't actually hide where that traffic is going.
You (privet network behind your router) -> ISP (Comcast) -> VPN Server -> VPN's ISP -> Internet
At any point during the Comcast/Cox/AT&T/Verizon step of process the ISP can really do whatever it likes to your network traffic. It is after all their hardware and they are the "man in the middle". Which is one reason why people started using VPNs and encrypted traffic to try and protect themselves form their own ISP.
For course this will start a running fight as VPNs cycle out domain names, and IP addresses to try and stay one step ahead of the blacklisting. ISP will add that use of VPNs will be a violation of the Terms of Service and if they catch you will terminate your account. People will get falsely flagged and have no recourse. And so on.
You already see this done by institutions (schools and business) that don't want people inside their network bypassing blocks on say Netflix, Facebook (especially in school settings), and other services. It's also done by various media services trying to block traffic coming from VPNs IP addresses known to be used to try and bypass Regional media lockouts. Now think if it wasn't only the "edge services" trying to blacklist VPNs.
American media is pretty economically centrist, but socially liberal.
Right wingers think the media is super liberal because they're socially liberal. Left wingers think the media is super conservative because they're generally economically center-right or centrist (depending on the network, and obviously, Fox is far-right).
Net neutrality sounds great if looked at from one perspective. And if looked at from a worst case perspective.
But also remember that these companies need the customers in order to survive. So shifting where we spend money will also shift company policies.
It isn’t unreasonable to some extent for a company to try to balance its load and manage resources. So if you are a heavy data user, and you can’t live without Netflix and YouTube and downloading torrents all day, then I’m happy to let you pay more for your internet usage.
Let the rest of us that aren’t intensive data users have our cheap internet back.
Requiring companies to provide maximum access to everything means they have to build and maintain a network capable of having every single subscriber downloading data at maximum bandwidth simultaneously. That’s a huge cost that they now spread to all of us, instead of just some of us now.
A couple years back, I paid $19 a month for Internet access that provided me with everything I needed.
Now my cheapest Internet option is $99 month, whether I need that level of service or not.
The expense of providing the level of service that net neutrality requires, also decreased competition. My local area went from 40 ISP choices in in a 100 mile range, to now having only 2 options total to cover the entire state.
So with the loss of competition, guess who suffers. The consumer.
So yeah, bring back the open market. Let the ISP’s fight for our use. Let the little guys back in, even if they can’t meet the load that the big guys can carry. If they can offer a better price and provide a level of service sufficient for my needs, then great.
Get enough of those little guys back in operation, and the big guys will start dropping prices again.
So I’d say open the market back up. Let it balance itself. We’re the consumers. And our spending will control the big guys (as long as you are willing to move your spending to enact change).
We don’t need the government limiting our options. Voting with your wallet is power.
But also remember that these companies need the customers in order to survive. So shifting where we spend money will also shift company policies.
It isn’t unreasonable to some extent for a company to try to balance its load and manage resources. So if you are a heavy data user, and you can’t live without Netflix and YouTube and downloading torrents all day, then I’m happy to let you pay more for your internet usage.
Let the rest of us that aren’t intensive data users have our cheap internet back.
Requiring companies to provide maximum access to everything means they have to build and maintain a network capable of having every single subscriber downloading data at maximum bandwidth simultaneously. That’s a huge cost that they now spread to all of us, instead of just some of us now.
A couple years back, I paid $19 a month for Internet access that provided me with everything I needed.
Now my cheapest Internet option is $99 month, whether I need that level of service or not.
The expense of providing the level of service that net neutrality requires, also decreased competition. My local area went from 40 ISP choices in in a 100 mile range, to now having only 2 options total to cover the entire state.
So with the loss of competition, guess who suffers. The consumer.
So yeah, bring back the open market. Let the ISP’s fight for our use. Let the little guys back in, even if they can’t meet the load that the big guys can carry. If they can offer a better price and provide a level of service sufficient for my needs, then great.
Get enough of those little guys back in operation, and the big guys will start dropping prices again.
So I’d say open the market back up. Let it balance itself. We’re the consumers. And our spending will control the big guys (as long as you are willing to move your spending to enact change).
We don’t need the government limiting our options. Voting with your wallet is power.
Not like America, as the most advanced democratic country in the world, the Internet is not regulated. I am confident to say your guys internet will be essentially similar to China in terms of accessibility, and just imagine you cannot watch YouTube because ISP think watching video is way too much to their poultry infrastructure.
Source?
How long ago are you talking? If you are counting all the dial up ISPs from the late 90s to early 2000s then you should know that they were in business because the big telcos were forced to lease their phone lines at competitive rates by the "wait for it" government.
NN didn't destroy your ISP choices, new/better technology and outdated regulation did. When copper lines fell out of the limelight you were left with cable deployments which didn't fall under title 2 regulations and no one had to share. So good luck thinking that the loss of NN is going to magically make one of the big companies suddenly start competing with each other when they already have agreements in place to not compete in each other's service areas.
Hoping for the open market in regards to America's ISP situation is like pissing in the wind.
Last edited:
I believe that net neutrality should be protected. The Internet has long ceased to be a luxury and it is a necessity, much like any other utility like electricity, gas, water and transportation that is regulated.
There is also really no such thing as a pure free market. It is an idealistic concept which just cannot exist because of corruption and the constant attempts of major players to neutralize competition whenever and wherever they can. In this way the free market and communism are very similar. They are two idealistic extremes that will always fail because of human greed.
For those on the fence, just consider who is for NN and who is against it. The majority of those in favor of it are innovative companies mainly from Silicon Valley and regular people like you and I. Who is against it? ISPs and the telecom giants who look for any opportunity to squeeze every cent they can out of their customers. The public comments in favor of NN on the FCC’s website were mostly from real people. The comments left against it were from bots. The FCC even buried the heck out of the comments this time around.
There is also really no such thing as a pure free market. It is an idealistic concept which just cannot exist because of corruption and the constant attempts of major players to neutralize competition whenever and wherever they can. In this way the free market and communism are very similar. They are two idealistic extremes that will always fail because of human greed.
For those on the fence, just consider who is for NN and who is against it. The majority of those in favor of it are innovative companies mainly from Silicon Valley and regular people like you and I. Who is against it? ISPs and the telecom giants who look for any opportunity to squeeze every cent they can out of their customers. The public comments in favor of NN on the FCC’s website were mostly from real people. The comments left against it were from bots. The FCC even buried the heck out of the comments this time around.
Last edited:
Nice talking point that’s also still wrong! AT&T tried blocking FaceTime in favor of their own app and theres plenty of other instances of companies maneuvering to favor their own services to the detriment of customers.
[doublepost=1525999892][/doublepost]
Yeah all that competition in the ISP market.
net neutral = yes. what crazy would not want net neutral. stop the insanity
If you read what I wrote, you’d see that I’m saying we would have the option of regaining choices if the little guys could enter the market again.
Right now, the little guys are pushed out because they cannot meet the requirements that are in place.
While the little guys may not be able to individually handle much of a load, enough of them little guys setting up shop will disrupt the big guys enough to lower prices again.
Some of us could have our needs met quite easily by the little mom and pop ISP providers. I liked them. Reasonable rates, and sure sometimes the service wasn’t as fast. But that was fine.
They just can’t operate profitably in the current industry. Since net neutrality kicked in, all the small places had to close. Leaving us with just one or two places to get access at prices that now beyond many people’s affordability.
Allowing the options that used to exist could reduce the entry level price of Internet access again. And let the users who need high bandwidth pay extra.
Do I care if YouTube is slow? No. Do I care if movies online are slow? No. Do I care if anything takes a while to download? No.
If anything, it could benefit us in many ways. Cheaper internet for those that don’t need much more than access to email or the occasional bit of information.
And, perhaps software developers might get back to optimized code. It’s ridiculous that even small apps are gigabytes in size and provide little more functionality than programs that used to fit on a floppy disk.
If they knew that something’s size would again affect its potential marketability, then perhaps they’d start coding more efficiently again.
Even websites are getting bloated these days. It would be nice if websites still focused on loading time. Now they just expect us to have faster connections. I’ve had many sites that don’t even have audio or video sit there and spin wheels while the page draws. Efficiency needs to come back.
You can move a lot of information quite quickly over a slow connection if it’s optimized.
While I’d prefer net neutrality to to be the law of the land the fact of the matter is that it’s not. The Obama Adminstration did through regulation that which can be undone via the Trump Administration through retracting that regulation. I hold the Republican majority in the Senate and House responsible for this as much as I hold the Trump Administration responsible.
What’s the solution? Going to the polls in November. If that doesn’t work then Apple simply needs to bribe more politicians than Verizon, Comcast and their cohorts do. They’ve got more money. They can afford it.
What’s the solution? Going to the polls in November. If that doesn’t work then Apple simply needs to bribe more politicians than Verizon, Comcast and their cohorts do. They’ve got more money. They can afford it.
So you don’t care about getting back to dialup modems of the early 90s? Weird, but ok. Progress isn’t for anyone.
But would you care if a YouTube video or movie critical about your government or political opponent is blocked? Or if your favourite messaging app stops working because your ISP is launching its own?
Net neutrality is not about data limits, it’s about slowing down or blocking content your ISP doesn’t see fit. It opens the door to censorship. And while it might not happen immediately and in an obvious way, there are millions of subtle ways to do it as well.
Smaller ISPs are not hurt by Net Neutrality. They are hurt by poor infrastructure, monopolies and other market regulations
This hits the nail on the head. I've got a choice of two ISP's at my residence. I'm sure my neighbors touting oh free market (despite the govt subsidizing investment into infrastructure) would struggle to grasp that we do not live in a free market.
Second your post, but also the following:
I agree with you, but also: "Real damage is done if there is a monopoly and no competition". The anti NN folks on here claim that getting rid of NN will improve competition, but if there is only one ISP in your area, there's nothing you can do if your ISP throttles yourFavouriteVideoPlatform.com or yourTopPCGame 4.
I agree with you, but also: "Real damage is done if there is a monopoly and no competition". The anti NN folks on here claim that getting rid of NN will improve competition, but if there is only one ISP in your area, there's nothing you can do if your ISP throttles yourFavouriteVideoPlatform.com or yourTopPCGame 4.
Yeah exactly. Companies in an actual free market cannot abuse their customers because then the customers will leave. Companies don’t exist without customers.
[doublepost=1526024935][/doublepost]
If a child wants to work, who are you to stop them?
Those heavy data users likely are paying more for their Internet usage - either their desire for higher speeds or their problems of running into monthly bandwidth caps have likely driven them to higher levels of service (Deluxe, Preferred, Ultimate, SuperGreen, whatever), where your ISP charges them more for faster network access and more bandwidth for the month.
Your cheap Internet didn't go away because of people using YouTube and Netflix, your prices didn't go up because of Net Neutrality, they went up because networking technology is changing, because customer's desires are changing, and because the bigger networking companies are merging into ever bigger companies, reducing competition and making it harder for the little guys to compete. Those big networking companies are also lobbying hard at the local, state, and federal level to cut down on competition and put roadblocks in the way of any potential new competitors.
You're blaming Net Neutrality for changes in the network landscape that it is not responsible for.
Net Neutrality doesn't say the companies have to provide unlimited bandwidth access to anything. It doesn't spec any particular levels at all. It only says, they can't decide to block or throttle your access to any part of the Internet. It's about what you can get to. The control over how fast / how much is part of your monthly contract between you and your ISP. You pay for a specified amount of bandwidth at a given speed, and you should be able to "spend" that data transmission allotment wherever, whenever, and however you want on the Internet.
If you pay for a 50mbit/sec connection with a 100 gigabyte/month limit, then you should be able to access whatever you want at 50mbit/sec, up until you hit your 100 GB limit. The ISP decides what levels of service it will offer. If the ISP is advertising a particular level of service, and accepting payment for that, then they're on the hook to provide that level of service. Now, of course, they can study the situation and determine that it's unlikely that all their customers will ever use that maximum amount of bandwidth at the same time, and then only build out their system to handle a lesser amount of traffic, and/or only pay for smaller pipes to the other networking companies. And maybe that works. Or maybe that works for a while and then their customer's usage patterns change. That could spell trouble (the company failing to meet their advertised level of service, customers getting angry, etc.). Now, that is entirely on the ISP - it's not Netflix's fault (they're just making data available), it's not the customer's fault (they're pulling data from Netflix at a speed determined by their contract with the ISP). If the ISP couldn't provide all their customers with that level of service simultaneously, and the customers are trying to use it, that's the ISP's fault for skimping on their back-end infrastructure - they should not have advertised and sold their customers service that they cannot provide. Remember, they decided what speeds and bandwidth allotments to offer, and for what prices.
Before Net Neutrality became a thing, we had ISPs saying, "gee, all this streaming traffic that our customers are pulling from Netflix is really swamping our pipes from the Internet - so... Netflix should pay us for this, if they want it to keep running full-speed". That's absolutely nuts. The ISP's customers are already fully paying the ISP to send/receive data across their network to the Internet, and Netflix is already fully paying for network access and data bandwidth and such at their end. The ISP wants to be paid twice for the same data transmission, both by their customers and by Netflix.
Net Neutrality doesn't demand any specific levels of bandwidth. It only says that the ISP can't prevent you from accessing content from any particular site - either by them deciding to block customer access to something they don't agree with (yes, this kind of thing has actually happened, numerous times), or by them deciding to artificially slow access to some site (because their customers are using it a lot, or because they consider it in their financial interest to do so - e.g. an ISP that has its own movie streaming service they want you to buy so they artificially slow down customer access to Netflix).
The situations we were starting to run into before Net Neutrality became a thing looked an awful lot like protection rackets, except instead of a shady mob character saying, "you've got a nice store here, it'd be a shame if it burned down", it was ISPs saying to sites like Netflix, "that's a lovely movie site you have, it'd be a shame if your videos streamed slowly to our customers". That's a shakedown. Is that what you want to go back to?
Last edited:
They told me I was crazy, but I knew this day would come and I have devoted my life to preparing for this exact situation. I have enough of a stash to get me through the darkest times. Bring it on, I am ready.Please keep net nudity I need my porn