FCC Votes to Kill Net Neutrality

[Forum Wars]

Before you panic about this, consider the following:

Do you remember any problem using the internet in 2014 which net neutrality fixed in 2015?

You don't?

Not panicking, but...what about this one...

http://fortune.com/2017/11/23/net-ne...hy-it-matters/

Proponents of the 2015 regulations say Pai is merely clearing the way for Internet service companies to charge users more to see certain content and to curb access to some websites—a “fast lane” and “slow lane” for the Internet. It’s not an unfounded concern. In 2008 the FCC sanctioned Comcast for interfering with traffic from BitTorrent, the file transfer service. The commission eventually lost the fight, owing to a lack of legal basis for its complaint—basis it later achieved with the 2015 reclassification.

If it truly happened like that, I believe this is a quasi example of a problem for some (BitTorrent users who were getting throttled by a big cable company, but couldn't do anything about it because there were no laws protecting them) that net neutrality laws fixed.

[PLOL]

You offered a sum that is a large amount to hold in escrow for over 6 months. I offered a more reasonable but still significant amount. Now you're backing down. I'm guessing because your original offer was a bluff because you know you're wrong, and you're now scared of losing $3k.

Clearly I'm terrified and couldn't possibly have made the offer just to get Blundermaker to reveal that he's broke.

Gotcha, so you didn't actually want to bet on this, you were just trying to make fun of somebody's financial situation.

Let me know if you do want to make a bet. i'm guessing you don't, since you're obviously not correct.

[DirtyB]

Clearly I'm terrified and couldn't possibly have made the offer just to get Blundermaker to reveal that he's broke.

Gotcha, so you didn't actually want to bet on this, you were just trying to make fun of somebody's financial situation.

Let me know if you do want to make a bet. i'm guessing you don't, since you're obviously not correct.

Let's walk through the timeline-

You make a bullshit claim.

I ask you to back up your bullshit.

Blundermaker completely misses the point of my post and offers a bet.

I fuck with him for it.

You jump in as an excuse not to back up your bullshit.

[PLOL]

Gotcha, so you didn't actually want to bet on this, you were just trying to make fun of somebody's financial situation.

Let me know if you do want to make a bet. i'm guessing you don't, since you're obviously not correct.

Let's walk through the timeline-

You make a bullshit claim.

I ask you to back up your bullshit.

Blundermaker completely misses the point of my post.

I fuck with him for it.

You jump in as an excuse not to back up your bullshit.

You claim I made a bullshit claim. I offer to back up my claim with a bet. You decline, because... reasons?

[SrslySirius]

Basically, a few huge companies -- namely Google, Facebook, and Netflix -- are hogging a highly disproportionate amount of internet bandwidth, and profiting hugely from it.

How do you figure these companies are hogging bandwidth? Isn't that what the customers are doing?

You run this website (at a loss!) by paying a hosting company for storage and bandwidth on the server side. If this site's popularity explodes, you'll pay that company more for using more upload bandwidth.

So if some ISP demands payment from you because users in their region are hammering PFA and using a lot of data, how is that fair? Their customers already paid them for that. Why should you be double charged, and why should the ISP get to double dip?

[tommyt]

Boy do I love America.

[DirtyB]

Let's walk through the timeline-

You make a bullshit claim.

I ask you to back up your bullshit.

Blundermaker completely misses the point of my post.

I fuck with him for it.

You jump in as an excuse not to back up your bullshit.

You claim I made a bullshit claim. I offer to back up my claim with a bet. You decline, because... reasons?

The details are irrelevant and paying per tweet is obviously ridiculous. But you claimed that Comcast will definitely not do something the government is now letting them do. Are you on their executive board?

[Nina]

And no, Comcast isn’t going to start charging you $1.99 to compose a tweet or whatever LOL propaganda I’ve seen about it.

What are you basing that claim on?

You seriously think ppl will be asked to pay 2 bucks a tweet?

[v12cl]

You offered a sum that is a large amount to hold in escrow for over 6 months. I offered a more reasonable but still significant amount. Now you're backing down. I'm guessing because your original offer was a bluff because you know you're wrong, and you're now scared of losing $3k.

Clearly I'm terrified and couldn't possibly have made the offer just to get Blundermaker to reveal that he's broke.

So to confirm, you don't want the bet?

[PLOL]

You claim I made a bullshit claim. I offer to back up my claim with a bet. You decline, because... reasons?

The details are irrelevant and paying per tweet is obviously ridiculous. But you claimed that Comcast will definitely not do something the government is now letting them do. Are you on their executive board?

Where did I say that? I said they won’t charge people to tweet, which is a real claim I’ve seen people make. What am I basing my info on? Gee I don’t know, common sense

[hongkonger]

First, this is gonna be litigated before the button is pushed.

Second, a generation of cord cutters will no longer reap the financial benefit of streaming. That loss of revenue/that number is etched in the cable companies consciousness and will be made up through an a la carte menu of additional fees.

As right as rain there will be a flurry of new expense for all sides to swallow.

This decision wasn’t argued as some kind of academic exercise - we are about to get porked and it will begin as soon as possible.

No company walks away from incremental revenue.

I remember Ma Bell so my anus is already trained to absorb size.

The phone companies into which Ma Bell was broken up have re-consolidated to the point that Ma Bell is basically back.

[The_Lurker]

This is nothing more than a way to charge people more for the same product

[TheXFactor]

How long until all phone, cable, cellular and ISP's merger into one company?

[BlunderMaker]

Clearly I'm terrified and couldn't possibly have made the offer just to get Blundermaker to reveal that he's broke.

So to confirm, you don't want the bet?

I'm not broke I just am paying a lot for my premium internet connection with the Platinum social media package.

[BeerAndPoker]

It's already starting guys maybe his ISP is blocking scummy people in which case this would be a good thing.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/941320016577880064

He got clowned on 2+2 for this. I screen shot it then remembered Druff might get sued. Not sure why it still shows up as an image but I think it takes the forum a few minutes for that to go away.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...l#post53239599

[BlunderMaker]

The best part of this is that every retard that hits a 404 error or a slow connection is going to think Trump is fucking with them lol

[monsterj]

Before you panic about this, consider the following:

Do you remember any problem using the internet in 2014 which net neutrality fixed in 2015?

You don't?

Then why was there the urgency to pass a law regarding something which hadn't occurred yet?

Here's the truth about net neutrality.

Data usage on the internet has vastly changed over the years, and it was something the cable providers (nor the government) could never have predicted.

Basically, a few huge companies -- namely Google, Facebook, and Netflix -- are hogging a highly disproportionate amount of internet bandwidth, and profiting hugely from it.

The ISPs -- mostly cable companies -- are very upset that they have to keep sinking big money into expanding their network capabilities in order to support these data-hog companies, and are getting absolutely nothing in return.

So they've been pressuring these giant content providers to start paying their fair share of the costs, and the content providers obviously don't want to do that because.... well, profits.

The clever folks at Google/Facebook/Netflix came up with a devious plan to stop this from ever occurring. They framed this entire dispute as "net neutrality" -- that the cable companies simply want to dictate to customers which sites they can and can't access -- or will charge customers extra if they access non-favored sites.

Scare tactics were used such as, "If you try to visit a streaming service which competes with your cable company's streaming service, they will throttle it to where it won't work for you!", and this terrified people into rebelling against the evil cable companies, who, let's face it, are already hated anyway (and for good reason).

So idiot politicians and the idiot public got onboard with "net neutrality" -- framed improperly as a fight for internet freedom -- when in reality they were unwittingly taking sides in a dispute between groups of multi-billion-dollar corporations.

Even worse, they were taking the wrong side. As much as I hate the cable companies, they have a point. The data hogs shouldn't be able to keep hogging massive bandwidth and causing cable companies to spend massive money to upgrade in order to keep up, unless they're willing to share in some of this cost.

Think of the internet like a buffet.

Some people eat very little at the buffet, some eat an average amount, and some eat a lot, but overall nobody eats so much that it would put the owner out of business.

Now say that 3 competitive eaters start showing up at the buffet daily, and for $11.99, they stuff their faces with a massive amount of food that no one thought possible.

Even worse, these guys are chronicling their buffet gorging on video and then uploading it to their popular YouTube channels, profiting from the many views they get.

The buffet owner finally decides he's fed up. He goes to these 3 competitive eaters and says, "You guys are abusing the all-you-can-eat concept here, and are eating so much food every day that I can't afford to run this place. Additionally, you're profiting from what you're doing, as you're making money from these videos you're making of this. You're either going to have to leave or pay extra in the future."

Would you think this buffet owner was reasonable?

If so, substitute the business owner for the cable companies, substitute the 3 competitive eaters for Google/Facebook/Netflix, and you see what's going on here.

Yet the public really believes that asking these 3 competitive eaters to pay their fair share is somehow an assault on everyone's freedom.

LOL sheeple

We aren't talking about amount of data. We are talking about types of data. Please address that rather then your terrible and pointless buffet analogy.

[ToasterOven]

Apparently, Comcast removed this from their net neutrality page today...

-Not throttle back the speed at which content comes to you
-Not prioritize Internet traffic or create paid fast lanes
-Make internet accessible to low income families

[Dan Druff]

Basically, a few huge companies -- namely Google, Facebook, and Netflix -- are hogging a highly disproportionate amount of internet bandwidth, and profiting hugely from it.

How do you figure these companies are hogging bandwidth? Isn't that what the customers are doing?

You run this website (at a loss!) by paying a hosting company for storage and bandwidth on the server side. If this site's popularity explodes, you'll pay that company more for using more upload bandwidth.

So if some ISP demands payment from you because users in their region are hammering PFA and using a lot of data, how is that fair? Their customers already paid them for that. Why should you be double charged, and why should the ISP get to double dip?

Because these ISPs have to keep expanding their capabilities to provide this higher bandwidth and higher speeds, and are basically stuck at the same price point, more or less.

This is only really necessary because of the three big sites (especially Google and Netflix), which are transferring so much data that the old standard of speed and bandwidth was no longer sufficient.

It's one thing if the natural progression of the internet makes old speed and transfer amounts obsolete, but it's another when a few dominant data hogs are rapidly driving that up.

In short, it's not fair that Netflix can start delivering HD movies and shows to a massive number of people, and the ISPs have to keep expanding capacity in order to enable this, yet do not benefit from it.

[Dan Druff]

Before you panic about this, consider the following:

Do you remember any problem using the internet in 2014 which net neutrality fixed in 2015?

You don't?

Then why was there the urgency to pass a law regarding something which hadn't occurred yet?

Here's the truth about net neutrality.

Data usage on the internet has vastly changed over the years, and it was something the cable providers (nor the government) could never have predicted.

Basically, a few huge companies -- namely Google, Facebook, and Netflix -- are hogging a highly disproportionate amount of internet bandwidth, and profiting hugely from it.

The ISPs -- mostly cable companies -- are very upset that they have to keep sinking big money into expanding their network capabilities in order to support these data-hog companies, and are getting absolutely nothing in return.

So they've been pressuring these giant content providers to start paying their fair share of the costs, and the content providers obviously don't want to do that because.... well, profits.

The clever folks at Google/Facebook/Netflix came up with a devious plan to stop this from ever occurring. They framed this entire dispute as "net neutrality" -- that the cable companies simply want to dictate to customers which sites they can and can't access -- or will charge customers extra if they access non-favored sites.

Scare tactics were used such as, "If you try to visit a streaming service which competes with your cable company's streaming service, they will throttle it to where it won't work for you!", and this terrified people into rebelling against the evil cable companies, who, let's face it, are already hated anyway (and for good reason).

So idiot politicians and the idiot public got onboard with "net neutrality" -- framed improperly as a fight for internet freedom -- when in reality they were unwittingly taking sides in a dispute between groups of multi-billion-dollar corporations.

Even worse, they were taking the wrong side. As much as I hate the cable companies, they have a point. The data hogs shouldn't be able to keep hogging massive bandwidth and causing cable companies to spend massive money to upgrade in order to keep up, unless they're willing to share in some of this cost.

Think of the internet like a buffet.

Some people eat very little at the buffet, some eat an average amount, and some eat a lot, but overall nobody eats so much that it would put the owner out of business.

Now say that 3 competitive eaters start showing up at the buffet daily, and for $11.99, they stuff their faces with a massive amount of food that no one thought possible.

Even worse, these guys are chronicling their buffet gorging on video and then uploading it to their popular YouTube channels, profiting from the many views they get.

The buffet owner finally decides he's fed up. He goes to these 3 competitive eaters and says, "You guys are abusing the all-you-can-eat concept here, and are eating so much food every day that I can't afford to run this place. Additionally, you're profiting from what you're doing, as you're making money from these videos you're making of this. You're either going to have to leave or pay extra in the future."

Would you think this buffet owner was reasonable?

If so, substitute the business owner for the cable companies, substitute the 3 competitive eaters for Google/Facebook/Netflix, and you see what's going on here.

Yet the public really believes that asking these 3 competitive eaters to pay their fair share is somehow an assault on everyone's freedom.

LOL sheeple

We aren't talking about amount of data. We are talking about types of data. Please address that rather then your terrible and pointless buffet analogy.

I don't know what you're trying to say by "types of data".

Are you referring to video versus images versus text?

Because ISPs only care about two things:

1) The amount being transferred
2) The speed in which they have to transfer it to you

So if you're downloading 50 megabytes at 100 MBit speed, that's all they really care about. They don't care what data you're getting.

Edit: If you're referring to the concern about BitTorrent, that concern is obsolete, given that BitTorrent users are no longer the bandwidth hogs (compared to everyone else) like they used to be.