If the net neutrality repeal vote goes through

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

There's no competition. That's the problem. There's very little that can be done about that. It's just how the utility works. That's why we need regulation.

We shouldn't be regulating the internet then. They should be breaking up the monopolies.

Net Neutrality did nothing for the last 2 years. Right after it got enacted my in the state I lived at the time added a 300GB data cap to everybody, and charged $150 extra for a 750 GB data cap. That may as well have been throttling me - four people in a house cannot use the internet for a month with only 300 GB.

I moved since then and now am in a state with gigabit internet, no caps, no contracts, no bundles, the dream ISP, but the states they cover have a population less than a fraction of LA.

I feel like nothing's going to change with or without net neutrality as long as monopolies are around. And no Time Warner, a dial up company shouldn't count as competition...

"

Gilgamesjh wrote:

"

If they can then split up the internet service like a cable service (as in package "deals") then they will do that too.

That’s their end game. They have done that with phone lines, charging more for “long distance”, who initiated the call, voice mail, visual voice mail, sms, and on and on. They don’t want to just give you bandwidth. Which is what everything is now.

They want to parcel things out. They make way more money that way. And it has nothing to do with which sites consume more data. It’s all the same in the end to them. They already have data caps. They don’t care if Netflix consumes lots of bandwidth, they care about what most people use and how to leverage that into more cash. Basically it’s going to screw the consumer. If Netflix pays more for bandwidth then they’ll just charge you more. So it’ll be a 2-part scam: your ISP will be charging you more and so will Netflix.

Losing NN is hella bad.

Right now it’s only the US, but it won’t be long till Canada follows suit. And then other parts of the world. The FCC is hella shady.

This is Day 1 without Net Neutrality. I will be posting in this thread every day until all the doom and gloom that the left promised would happen actually does happen. Remember, we were told our internet will now come in packages and we will have to pay every time we dl something or post on a forum. As of today that has not happened. So far they are liars. We'll see how tomorrow goes.

"

pannra wrote:

This is Day 1 without Net Neutrality. I will be posting in this thread every day until all the doom and gloom that the left promised would happen actually does happen. Remember, we were told our internet will now come in packages and we will have to pay every time we dl something or post on a forum. As of today that has not happened. So far they are liars. We'll see how tomorrow goes.

United States broadband is already in a sorry state compared to the rest of the developed world. Those extreme examples you mention are brought up because they are plausible possibilities of how a profit-driven company with a pseudo-monopoly might try to maximize that profit. Thankfully, there are several interest groups dedicated to ensuring those sorts of things don't happen, and they have been engaged in litigation and lobbying surrounding this topic since the early days of the internet. The most recent Net Neutrality regulations were a direct response to abuses of ISPs and related corporate entities.
I have already posted examples of those ISP abuses in this thread. Useful idiots like yourself will not be granted any favors by ISPs, regardless of how much you apologize for their behavior.

This is not a partisan issue. It only appears that way because one side of the isle sold out.

"

Tykero wrote:

United States broadband is already in a sorry state compared to the rest of the developed world. Those extreme examples you mention are brought up because they are plausible possibilities of how a profit-driven company with a pseudo-monopoly might try to maximize that profit. Thankfully, there are several interest groups dedicated to ensuring those sorts of things don't happen, and they have been engaged in litigation and lobbying surrounding this topic since the early days of the internet. The most recent Net Neutrality regulations were a direct response to abuses of ISPs and related corporate entities.
I have already posted examples of those ISP abuses in this thread. Useful idiots like yourself will not be granted any favors by ISPs, regardless of how much you apologize for their behavior.

This is not a partisan issue. It only appears that way because one side of the isle sold out.

It kind of is a partisan issue. one side wants regulation, the other doesn't. The one that doesn't won, so the regulation goes away.

USA's a large country with lots of land to cover and some places have sparsely populated locations, it makes sense why decent internet is harder to achieve than in a place like Britain where a couple cell towers and fiber lines are enough to cover 90% of the populace (not that Britain has any high ground with their desired censorship laws). Canada has a similar story, their companies kinda suck and they're even less populated than USA. But of course, as always, it depends where you live. USA has some great providers. Also has some extremely crappy ones.

I'm still interested to see when the doom and gloom will come. So far I've noticed no difference.

"

Imaginaerum wrote:

"

Tykero wrote:

United States broadband is already in a sorry state compared to the rest of the developed world. Those extreme examples you mention are brought up because they are plausible possibilities of how a profit-driven company with a pseudo-monopoly might try to maximize that profit. Thankfully, there are several interest groups dedicated to ensuring those sorts of things don't happen, and they have been engaged in litigation and lobbying surrounding this topic since the early days of the internet. The most recent Net Neutrality regulations were a direct response to abuses of ISPs and related corporate entities.
I have already posted examples of those ISP abuses in this thread. Useful idiots like yourself will not be granted any favors by ISPs, regardless of how much you apologize for their behavior.

This is not a partisan issue. It only appears that way because one side of the isle sold out.

It kind of is a partisan issue. one side wants regulation, the other doesn't. The one that doesn't won, so the regulation goes away.

USA's a large country with lots of land to cover and some places have sparsely populated locations, it makes sense why decent internet is harder to achieve than in a place like Britain where a couple cell towers and fiber lines are enough to cover 90% of the populace (not that Britain has any high ground with their desired censorship laws). Canada has a similar story, their companies kinda suck and they're even less populated than USA. But of course, as always, it depends where you live. USA has some great providers. Also has some extremely crappy ones.

I'm still interested to see when the doom and gloom will come. So far I've noticed no difference.

I suppose it depends on how you define party. American citizens overwhelmingly support Net Neutrality. Republican lawmakers are favoring their donors over their constituents.
American geography is certainly an obstacle for any kind of large scale wired network. The issue isn't with a lack of funding, though, but a lack of opportunity for profit. This is part of the reason why Internet services should be classified like a utility, or at least regulated in a similar fashion, if we want Americans to be able to keep up with the rest of the world.

The "doom and gloom" will likely come gradually and mostly unnoticed by the layman. Make no mistake, unless we see some major trustbusting or NN regulation, ISPs will profit at the expense of American businesses and citizens.

"

Imaginaerum wrote:

It kind of is a partisan issue. one side wants regulation, the other doesn't. The one that doesn't won, so the regulation goes away.

Reducing this to a political issue and dismissing anyone who isn't cheering in the streets over Pai's plan as a leftist nut is disingenuous and useless. This is a life issue. You can't have companies that are allowed to exist as a legalized monopoly with all the protections of a utility company but none of the restrictions that prevent utility companies from gouging the lifeblood out of you on something you are obligated to purchase. And no, forgoing the internet altogether is not a viable option. Not in this day and age. The internet is as essential to modern culture as any other utility. Big Telecom should not be given free rein to do whatever they feel like without any oversight, any regulation, any accountability, or anything resembling the possibility of free-market competition.

Why do you believe they should?

"

Imaginaerum wrote:

USA's a large country with lots of land to cover and some places have sparsely populated locations, it makes sense why decent internet is harder to achieve than in a place like Britain where a couple cell towers and fiber lines are enough to cover 90% of the populace (not that Britain has any high ground with their desired censorship laws). Canada has a similar story, their companies kinda suck and they're even less populated than USA. But of course, as always, it depends where you live. USA has some great providers. Also has some extremely crappy ones.

How do you think the death of neutrality is going to make this any better? What incentive do ISPs have now to provide coverage to 'sparsely populated' areas with low profit margins that they didn't have yesterday? ISPs telling us they'll Invest in Infrastructure(TM) when Neutrality goes away is a straight-up fabrication - infrastructure investments are just as expensive, and just as poor a performer on their bottom line, with neutrality dead as it was when they weren't allowed to play Frankenstein with the Internet.

Low-profit areas of the country will be low-profit areas of the country regardless of whether Big Telecom get to be bandit lords or not. Until someone sits them down and MAKES them improve and expand their infrastructure, they will continue to skate by on the minimum possible investment they can make because infrastructure is too expensive to ever be a good investment for these shitheads.

"

Imaginaerum wrote:

I'm still interested to see when the doom and gloom will come. So far I've noticed no difference.

Possibly because of a billion lawsuits challenging Pai's blatantly biased decision, as well as potential action from Congress. Telecom won't start skinning consumers alive until they feel they have a reasonable certainty that the new lack-of-laws will stick around. Right now it's still anyone's guess whether Title II protections will actually be revoked or if Congress will pull its head out of its ass and stop being on the fucking take for long enough to put this to bed.

If they don't do that? If the Title II protections are dropped and this absolutely ludicrous idea of "voluntary compliance" goes through? You can bet your bottom dollar that they'll start the skinning within weeks. Except you may not want to because you'll need that bottom dollar to pay the extortionistic fees that "right-wingers", according to your oddly political view of this situation, are giving Big Telecom explicit, permanent permission to freely charge without any recourse for the consumers they're bleeding out.

Why are you giving Big Telecom express and irrevocable permission to bleed you dry, Imaginaerum?

"

1453R wrote:

How do smaller ISPs "jump in and compete" without billions of dollars of physical infrastructure they're not legally permitted to build even if they could begin to afford to?

Big Telecom controls the equipment. Without the equipment, there is no second choice. Without a second choice, there is no competition.

Capitalism takes as a fundamental truth, an absolutely required core assumption, that "The Market" serves the best interests of the customer in the end because the customer will always take the best deal they can get, so someone coming along and finding a way to offer a better deal gets the business and Society Advances. This is why monopoly laws are passed and why they should be taken more seriously than they are I'm looking at yougle, Google.

One cannot offer a better deal to customers if they are not able to physically build the required equipment. One cannot offer a better deal to customers if they are actively and maliciously prevented from reaching customers to let them know a better deal exists. People keep saying "Ohhh, the end of Neutrality means ISPs will invest in their infrastructure and we'll all get better Internet!"

No. No they will not. They did not invest in their infrastructure before, they won't do it now. Building new equipment is enormously expensive. Infiltrating regulatory bodies with their predatory attack lawyer and permanently abolish any sort of regulation or oversight so they're allowed to fleece their customers freely is a vastly better return per dollar for these companies, and since they have no fair and honest competition to try to beat, they have no reason to ever offer service any better than what they do now.

Landline Internet may not be getting any better, but Neutrality kept it from getting worse. Now we're looking at a downward spiral of bullfuckery with no silver lining in sight, and yet people still somehow persist in saying "this is all overblown it's going to be fine. Really, the ISPs aren't out to fuck everyone over and even if they do, a plucky li'l startup will show up to make them eat their decisions!"

How does it feel to be that innocent? I bet it's nice, being able to believe that sort of thing...

1) "Blah, blah, blah, capitalism is da debil, blah, blah, blah..."

2) How do any smaller companies start out?

3) Billions of dollars of infrastructure? LOL

Sure, why not. I'm pissed off enough and work is slow enough I can indulge in some more angerposting.

"

JNF wrote:

1) "Blah, blah, blah, capitalism is da debil, blah, blah, blah..."

Capitalism is not the Devil. It is, to the best of my knowledge, the only currently known form of human society that gives the people living in that society a real stake in said society. If you're clever, innovative, or even just persistent enough, you can Make It Big. That's the principle behind capitalism and the free market.

This system relies on a certain set of assumptions that very large multinational corporations have been doing their absolute goddamned best to circumvent since they became a thing. For one, it relies on all possible competitors in the market having free and equal access to the market. If you can't participate in the market in the first place (POSSIBLY BECAUSE OH SAY i DUNNO A BIG TELECOM COMPANY USES THEIR NEWFOUND ABSOLUTE POWER OVER THE INTERNET TO BLOCK EVERYTHING YOU DO), then you can't compete no matter how clever or innovative your idea might be.

For another, it relies on large, established companies being unable to tamper with the actions of smaller, newer start-ups - i.e. their competition. Again, this is free access to the market; if you start a lemonade stand on a street corner somewhere, you're supposed to have a good-faith guarantee that Minute Maid or Tropicana or whatever aren't going to send pinstriped goons to bust up your stand and force you out of the market through coercive or threatening means. Big companies don't get to punch out small ones; they have to compete fairly.

We have just told Big Telecom they can do whatever they like to smaller competitive companies that try to start up. Big Telecom doesn't have to compete for shit. Want to block their website or services from your system, ensuring it's almost impossible for that competitor to reach the market? Ajit Pai says go for it! Want to deny that competitor service in the first place, block or just outright delete any/all of their data that goes through your nodes at all, and make it impossible for them to function until they can get off the ground. Pai says no problemo, Verizon!

This is equivalent to Chevy being granted free permission to station armed guardsmen outside the entranceways to all car dealerships in the United States, Chevy or not, and give those guards free permission to shotgun anyone who tries to enter a dealership other than Chevy. How well do you figure the other manufacturers could compete with Chevy if Chevy was allowed to physically deny people any access to their locations?

"

JNF wrote:

2) How do any smaller companies start out?

Building a brick-and-mortar consumer product store is different than building a nationwide network of exceptionally expensive electronics from scratch. Even if you had the scratch to do that, the actual backbone of the Internet is under the exclusive control of Big Telecom, and they can simply decide that your big shiny new network with all the improved infrastructure and enhanced service capability you just poured your heart, soul, and a mind-blowing amount of money you probably put yourself and your family in hock for a million years to raise don't get to have access to the fundamental backbone equipment that actually runs the Internet. Because that equipment is theirs, and they are no longer legally obligated to provide equal access to it.

This is exempting the fact that private business are typically not permitted by law to build utility infrastructure, as utility infrastructure is protected and regulated by the government. Except when stupid assholes decide to get rid of the "regulated" part, leaving the "protected" part and sticking us all with a bunch of uncontrolled monopolies.

"

JNF wrote:

3) Billions of dollars of infrastructure? LOL

How expensive do you think all of the physical equipment required to build and maintain the Internet is, Junior Nevada Farmer? All of that equipment is "the Infrastructure"; it's the stuff we've got that's old and shitty compared to most other first-world or emerging nations because it's not in Big Telecom's best interest to upgrade it. Because overhauling the infrastructure is a colossally expensive undertaking even for people with the effectively infinite financial resources these guys have.

You don't just write a program on the Internet and become an ISP. You have to build the equipment. And building the equipment is prohibitively expensive for any startup company, even if they had legal permission to try.

Anything else, Jumping Newt Fraternity?

I personally believe capitalism and human nature are one and the same. The only difference between supposed capitalist and non-capitalist countries is that in the non-capitalist ones, a small group has capitalised so successfully that they are able to take control and thus stop others from capitalising in the same way they have. There will always be others who want this power and eventually they'll capitalise and succeed in toppling the status quo, either taking that power for themselves or returning society to the chaos state where true capitalism exists.

It's just an endless cycle, and what we call capitalism is just the midway stage where no particular group of psychopaths has gained enough power to take over. Which is why I guess capitalism is sort of the best option. I think the US is moving into the non-capitalist stage of this cycle.