Board 8 > So that Net Neutrality vote is happening now right?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Tomba42 posted...

I think the FCC chairman wants to deregulate things and I want them to not do that. Im not honestly sure what this vague fascist threat you seem so scared of is.

....the FCC ruining net neutrality is an obvious and valid threat when you're worried about it, but when I worry about the exact same threat it's vague and fascist? You really do need to learn how to discuss things better
---

fuck Bell
---

Regaro posted...

Hey foolmo quick question. If the answer isn't giving the FCC more power, then do you believe that giving ISPs etc more power is the answer?

New ISPs yes. Current monopolized ISPs acquire a ton of power from FCC regulations which extend down to the local level, so depowering the FCC will depower those ISPs and actually allow new ones to be created.
---

Forgive my ignorance, but we lost Net Neutrality. What does that mean?

literally nothing
---

This is all a long con to start charging Trump billions of dollars per tweet.
---

Punnyz posted...

Forgive my ignorance, but we lost Net Neutrality. What does that mean?

We have to pay for internet twice now?

Basically, ISPs could throttle things like Netflix to push their own streaming service if they wanted to. Or just flat out create new pricing tiers, requiring you to purchase a more expensive tier for things like streaming and the like. Or flat out block certain websites.

That's what they COULD do

Will they? Probably not.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Punnyz posted...

Forgive my ignorance, but we lost Net Neutrality. What does that mean?

We have to pay for internet twice now?

Basically, ISPs could throttle things like Netflix to push their own streaming service if they wanted to. Or just flat out create new pricing tiers, requiring you to purchase a more expensive tier for things like streaming and the like. Or flat out block certain websites.

That's what they COULD do

Will they? Probably not.

Why probably not? Are there big hurdles they have to jump through?
---

Why probably not?

Because customers don't want that. And, unlike the FCC, ISPs are market entities that actually give a shit what customers want.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

ISPs are market entities that actually give a shit what customers want.

holy shit
---

barreldragon88 posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

Punnyz posted...

Forgive my ignorance, but we lost Net Neutrality. What does that mean?

We have to pay for internet twice now?

Basically, ISPs could throttle things like Netflix to push their own streaming service if they wanted to. Or just flat out create new pricing tiers, requiring you to purchase a more expensive tier for things like streaming and the like. Or flat out block certain websites.

That's what they COULD do

Will they? Probably not.

Why probably not? Are there big hurdles they have to jump through?

The argument is that no company would want to take the PR hit from actually enacting such a policy.

This falls apart once you realize that vast swaths of the country have literally one ISP available, and it also ignores what happens when all the major ISPs together just decide they don't care about PR as much as they do about money.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Why probably not?

Because customers don't want that. And, unlike the FCC, ISPs are market entities that actually give a shit what customers want.

lol actually believing this
---

When has the cable company ever given a shit about what i want?

They don't. It's just muffin being even more detached from reality (and the basic concepts of civilized society) than usual.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

ISPs are market entities that actually give a s*** what customers want.

what ISP do you have because that sounds p good
---

I've had Comcast, AT&T, and Time Warner.

All three are about 1000x more pleasant to deal with than the state. And none of them force me to do business with them if I'd prefer not to.
---

Punnyz posted...

Forgive my ignorance, but we lost Net Neutrality. What does that mean?

We have to pay for internet twice now?

It means the internet is back to how it was 2 years ago

well not yet, first they have to go through court and stuff most likely
---

I could see some areas with only one ISP available to them potentially being in trouble

"All the major companies will band together and fuck us" is pretty tin-toil hat, though
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I could see some areas with only one ISP available to them potentially being in trouble

If the problem is no competition, what's stopping them from just raising prices across the board? What's the point of tiers and throttling when they can just set absurdly high prices in general?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

1000x more pleasant to deal with than the state

I'd take state over comcast actually
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

1000x more pleasant to deal with than the state

I'd take state over comcast actually

100%

Also there's no major state ISP so I'm not sure where this comparison is even coming from.
---

MZero11 posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

I could see some areas with only one ISP available to them potentially being in trouble

If the problem is no competition, what's stopping them from just raising prices across the board? What's the point of tiers and throttling when they can just set absurdly high prices in general?

Business sense

If you just flat out set the price at something nobody can afford, you're never going to get business to begin with. The point is to hook them in and then raise prices either with slow, set increases, or based on offering more services.

It's much easier to take something away and then charge more for it than to just charge more to begin with

EDIT: You're not gonna make money if you start high and then nobody has Netflix accounts because they don't have internet. But if you take it away once they have the accounts and have been using it? That changes things.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

This is great news. Net neutrality was nothing more than an excuse to censor.

WTF did it censor? Ever?

NN prevented ISP discrimination, not allowed censorship of the internet.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

EDIT: You're not gonna make money if you start high and then nobody has Netflix accounts because they don't have internet. But if you take it away once they have the accounts and have been using it? That changes things.

isn't the problem that that's exactly what they're in position to do now?
---

StealThisSheen posted...

"All the major companies will band together and fuck us" is pretty tin-toil hat, though

Territory deals [which should be illegal anyway]
---

Please don't quote or reply to Ulti.
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

EDIT: You're not gonna make money if you start high and then nobody has Netflix accounts because they don't have internet. But if you take it away once they have the accounts and have been using it? That changes things.

isn't the problem that that's exactly what they're in position to do now?

Yeah, which is why I said places with only 1 ISP available may be in trouble

Places with competition are probably safe
---

So happy to be Canadian right now. <__<;
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

This is great news. Net neutrality was nothing more than an excuse to censor.

please elaborate on this definitely valid point
---

MikeTavish posted...

So happy to be Canadian right now. <__<;

Is Canada known for having faster, cheaper, and less censored internet than the US?
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

I'd take state over comcast actually

How to tell you're painfully white
---

StealThisSheen posted...

"All the major companies will band together and fuck us" is pretty tin-toil hat, though

The extra implication is "but the FCC can save us from the major companies because they are righteous and benevolent!" so it's less tin-foil hat, more flat-out idiotic
---

SmartMuffin posted...

MikeTavish posted...

So happy to be Canadian right now. <__<;

Is Canada known for having faster, cheaper, and less censored internet than the US?

Yeah?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Tom Bombadil posted...

I'd take state over comcast actually

How to tell you're painfully white

the easier method would be to just look at me, although eye protection is recommended
---

Good news!
It's dead!
Net neutrality is dead!
The most neutral net there ever was
The enemy of all of us here in States is dead!
Good news!
Good news!

---

Tom Bombadil posted...

the easier method would be to just look at me, although eye protection is recommended

I don't see color
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

This is great news. Net neutrality was nothing more than an excuse to censor.

It's literally the exact opposite of that?

Like...literally the exact opposite. Net neutrality is the rule that prevents internet censorship.

With net neutrality gone, hypothetically an ISP could now decide to block, say, Reddit, give some bullshit excuse like "reddit hosts child porn" (which...I mean, technically isn't wrong, that has happened on Reddit).

And like...I don't want Reddit blocked.

Before saying "ISPs would never do that"--I mean, they have already done stuff like that; there's been usually one big court case per year for the last 10 years or so:

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

And granted, maybe they won't be as explicit as blocking a website, but I work in videogames, on games that are played online. Comcast can now legally extort money out of Rockstar Games by saying "pay us extra money or we'll make your game lag." This could very well cost profits for the company I work for, and cut directly into my paycheck.
---

you actually responded to ulti...
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Regaro posted...

Hey foolmo quick question. If the answer isn't giving the FCC more power, then do you believe that giving ISPs etc more power is the answer?

New ISPs yes. Current monopolized ISPs acquire a ton of power from FCC regulations which extend down to the local level, so depowering the FCC will depower those ISPs and actually allow new ones to be created.

What regulations, specifically?
---

VintageGin posted...

What regulations, specifically?

Title II common carrier and last mile stuff
---

foolm0r0n posted...

VintageGin posted...

What regulations, specifically?

Title II common carrier and last mile stuff

The last mile stuff you're talking about is the regulation that forces ISPs to share infrastructure, right? How are these preventing new ISPs when the primary barrier to entry for new ISPs is the extreme infrastructure costs?
---

I wouldn't be surprised if this decision led to more small local ISPs, yeah. But I think that has less to do with regulatory burden, and more to do with public trust in the big three cable companies is pretty low right now due to the loss of net neutrality and people want alternatives. (Having no net neutrality law is fine if you're buying internet from a company you trust to do the right thing).
---

More broadly about how the FCC has control over who gets the last mile. Which they SAID would mean ISPs would have to share their infrastructure but in practice it's been used to come up with some reason to block last-mile usage and new infrastructure creation by competitors.

In general, take every single fear you have about ISPs and apply it to the FCC. It's not hard. All you need is to realize neither the FCC, nor any gov agency, is immune to the same incentives that inform the actions of evil mega corporations.
---

metroid composite posted...

and more to do with public trust in the big three cable companies is pretty low right now due to the loss of net neutrality and people want alternatives

People have wanted alternatives for decades in the US but it's not happening. It's the same reason why congress has a 9% approval rating but still mostly incumbents win. It's not a free market at all.

At least without Title II the FCC has slightly less power to block local ISPs, and the people will be less complacent. But there's still so many other systems that stifle competition. It's gonna require a sort of revolution, or non-bailed-out industry crash.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

More broadly about how the FCC has control over who gets the last mile. Which they SAID would mean ISPs would have to share their infrastructure but in practice it's been used to come up with some reason to block last-mile usage and new infrastructure creation by competitors.

In general, take every single fear you have about ISPs and apply it to the FCC. It's not hard. All you need is to realize neither the FCC, nor any gov agency, is immune to the same incentives that inform the actions of evil mega corporations.

Can you provide examples of where the last mile stuff was used to block smaller ISPs?

Also, what would repealing/deregulating telecommunication standards do in terms of allowing new ISPs to overcome the infrastructure costs?
---

I don't have time to research for you but if you really would be convinced by a couple of examples then definitely search yourself for recent examples of blocked local ISP (I think there's both municipal and private rural examples)

VintageGin posted...

Also, what would repealing/deregulating telecommunication standards do in terms of allowing new ISPs to overcome the infrastructure costs?

Infrastructure costs are largely regulatory costs. It's expensive to follow the laundry list of rules, which is why only the megacorps can afford it.
---

I wouldn't be surprised if this decision led to more small local ISPs, yeah. But I think that has less to do with regulatory burden, and more to do with public trust in the big three cable companies is pretty low right now due to the loss of net neutrality and people want alternatives.

Your alternative is having the internet controlled solely by someone who is an appointee of the President.

How is "public trust in the executive branch of the US government" doing at the moment?
---

Like, seriously, maybe in all these arguments where you guys loudly insist that "the state" is more moral, just, and fair than Comcast, you consider replacing the words "the state" with "Donald Trump" and see if you still feel that way?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

I don't have time to research for you but if you really would be convinced by a couple of examples then definitely search yourself for recent examples of blocked local ISP (I think there's both municipal and private rural examples)

I actually couldn't find any good examples of this, which is why I asked. Maybe I wasn't searching for the right things.

Infrastructure costs are largely regulatory costs. It's expensive to follow the laundry list of rules, which is why only the megacorps can afford it.

The regulatory costs are also not really related to the FCC or the Title 2/last mile stuff you mentioned as things that were holding new ISPs back. It's just expensive to do stuff that involves digging up public/private property to lay cable.

Considering the major telecom companies were born out of mergers that resulted from it being more cost effective to merge with/buy other companies than create new infrastructure, I don't really see how the free market is the solution here.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Like, seriously, maybe in all these arguments where you guys loudly insist that "the state" is more moral, just, and fair than Comcast, you consider replacing the words "the state" with "Donald Trump" and see if you still feel that way?

It's almost as if you live in a democracy or something
---