Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Necros wrote: Yeah I don't think you're gonna suddenly have Dakka stop working. It will probably be more service or network based, like add the netflix elite package for $5 on top of your netflix fee, bundle in Hulu on top of their fee for just $4 more. Stupid stuff like that.
But I think think the biggest reason is that cable TV is slowly dying and they know it. With smart TVs becoming the norm, and consoles having streaming apps, and roku and all that stuff, Comcast and other providers know they can only sell you TV for so many more years.. Since they know they will make less money off of TV and the internet is here to stay, they wanna make more money off that. Not defending them, but I think that's the root of the issue. The more money they can get out of us the better for them. And we can't vote with our wallets, cuz in most cases you only have 1 cable company to deal with or your SOL.
Agree. The service monopolies are the bigger problem. If there was more competition in the market then having less Net Neutrality regulation wouldn't be a big problem because there'd be options for people. Giving ISPs more gate keeping powers while letting them maintain their monopolies just makes the imperfect screwed up telcom situation in the US even worse. With cable tv dying there will be a massive increase in content for the internet and funneling that into ISP monopolies is going to really punish consumers.
Easy E wrote: How long until other large corporations go to court to fight ISPs over this?
If Net Nuetrality is retored, it probably will be due to big companies fighting about it, not what us pleebs on the intertubez think.
Why would Google or Amazon go to bat for consumers besides PR fluff? They've already built massive private backbones for themselves, they don't care about neutrality they get their preferential speeds either way.
They care insofar that they'll now likely have to pay more to make their services available (because that free wifi everywhere thing Google is always on about is a pipe dream). Of course they can afford it being multi billion dollar companies.
There's not even a google logo art supporting neutrality.
The larger your customer base the more likely you can negotiate preferential pricing from ISPs, the companies with the most resources to oppose NN are the ones who will be impacted by it the least or may even benefit. Say Netflix negotiates a choice contract from Time Warner, it's to their benefit that a smaller competitor has more trouble negotiating "fast lane" access at an equally competitive rate.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/14 22:01:36
Unit1126PLL wrote: Not sure it's been brought up here, but other people have said "The Internet was fine before the 2015 Net Neutrality ruling, so it should be fine now that that's dead!" Just in case you run into someone who argues that, here's a list of things before the 2015 ruling that WERE NOT fine:
2005 – North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked VoIP service Vonage.
2005 – Comcast blocked or severely delayed traffic using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. (The company even had the guts to deny this for months until evidence was presented by the Associated Press.)
2007 – AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.
2007 to 2009 – AT&T forced Apple to block Skype because it didn’t like the competition. At the time, the carrier had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and even then the net neutrality advocates were pushing the government to protect online consumers, over 5 years before these rules were actually passed.
2009 – Google Voice app faced similar issues from ISPs, including AT&T on iPhone.
2010 – Windstream Communications, a DSL provider, started hijacking search results made using Google toolbar. It consistently redirected users to Windstream’s own search engine and results.
2011 – MetroPCS, one of the top-five wireless carriers at the time, announced plans to block streaming services over its 4G network from everyone except YouTube.
2011 to 2013 – AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon blocked Google Wallet in favor of Isis, a mobile payment system in which all three had shares. Verizon even asked Google to not include its payment app in its Nexus devices.2012 – AT&T blocked FaceTime; again because the company didn’t like the competition.
2012 – Verizon started blocking people from using tethering apps on their phones that enabled consumers to avoid the company’s $20 tethering fee.
2014 – AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” scheme, offering content creators a way to buy their way around the data caps that AT&T imposes on its subscribers.
2014 – Netflix started paying Verizon and Comcast to “improve streaming service for consumers.”
2014 – T-Mobile was accused of using data caps to manipulate online competition.
Thank you for this post! I knew they were shady but didn't have any specific examples.
As a telecomuter I really hope my company ponies up and pays the "toll lane" fee so that I can continue to work remotely.
It would suck if they went after those of us that use VPNs because they can't regulate our traffic flow. I'm not happy about this at all, almost as sad as I am about the terrible SM codex
Easy E wrote: How long until other large corporations go to court to fight ISPs over this?
If Net Nuetrality is retored, it probably will be due to big companies fighting about it, not what us pleebs on the intertubez think.
Why would Google or Amazon go to bat for consumers besides PR fluff? They've already built massive private backbones for themselves, they don't care about neutrality they get their preferential speeds either way.
I honestly don't know, but hte only way to stop a Bad Business with a Monopoly is if it is fought by a Good Business with a Monopoly!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 22:01:51
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Easy E wrote: I honestly don't know, but hte only way to stop a Bad Business with a Monopoly is if it is fought by a Good Business with a Monopoly!
I think Google might rather like that more than their competition. Years ago they already bought a lot of dark fibre that the ISPs were not using. Now ISP can start demanding ransom fees from startups that compete with Google while Google itself has about infinitely more negotiations power (and money to pay them off). And if a startup actually manages to survive in this environment until there's interest from the exiting big tech companies then the small companies are probably already hurting (high demand for their product -> high payoffs to ISP) so if one of the big ones comes along with a acquisition offer they again have a better position to negotiate the smaller company's "value".
Google (and the rest of them) will probably find a way to declare ISP bribes as deductibles while smaller companies probably just won't have a lot of money to spend on that type of "expenses".
The end of net neutrality is kind of a foregone conclusion when a vast majority of the marketplace is already dominated by a handful of ISPs, and frankly that's the bigger problem. If there were room for competition the market in the US wouldn't be quite so pathetic with ancient infrastructure, slow speeds and dearth of options. Municipalities are what actually control the internet AND ISPs in the states, and they make it prohibitively costly to access public rights of way and utilities, which is why only the biggest players can afford to stay in the game. In other developed nations it isn't nearly as costly to build infrastructure so they have better speeds and more competition. Here, there are basically 4 or so ISPs serving the entire nation through cable lines that are as old as 70 years, and telephone lines that may or may not have been installed just after the invention of the telephone itself.
If we had competition this wouldn't even be an issue, but since we're stuck with the few monolithic corporations that we have, they have the power to pull off these types of shenanigans.
Luciferian wrote: The end of net neutrality is kind of a foregone conclusion when a vast majority of the marketplace is already dominated by a handful of ISPs, and frankly that's the bigger problem. If there were room for competition the market in the US wouldn't be quite so pathetic with ancient infrastructure, slow speeds and dearth of options. Municipalities are what actually control the internet AND ISPs in the states, and they make it prohibitively costly to access public rights of way and utilities, which is why only the biggest players can afford to stay in the game. In other developed nations it isn't nearly as costly to build infrastructure so they have better speeds and more competition. Here, there are basically 4 or so ISPs serving the entire nation through cable lines that are as old as 70 years, and telephone lines that may or may not have been installed just after the invention of the telephone itself.
If we had competition this wouldn't even be an issue, but since we're stuck with the few monolithic corporations that we have, they have the power to pull off these types of shenanigans.
How is repealing Net Neutrality a solution to the lack of competition?
Different groups, and companies, are going to take this to the supreme court to get the repeal overturned.
So, in other words, the repealed passed but the fights not over.
The thing is, while the fight's not over, many companies will do everything they can to make as much money as they can before it all gets decided. I guarantee every major company already has a three step plan in place for this situation. It's kind of like the loot box craze in video games this year: the major companies all know it's going to get reined in by the government and/or public outcry eventually, but that won't stop them from milking it as much as they can, while they can. So, we'll still suffer for it in the meantime.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/15 00:56:04
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Luciferian wrote: How did you get from my comment that I provided it as a solution?
Ah, apologies. Interpreted your comment as defending repealing Net Neutrality as a necessary evil.
Nah, just that it or something like it was more or less inevitable when the regulatory climate always favors the incumbent players over newer and smaller ones. Whether that's through Republican-style gladhanding or heavy "regulations" that are a slap on the wrist to large entities and a catastrophic event to small ones. Whatever corporations can afford to pay in order to get away with things they will, and what they can't afford to pay they'll externalize onto the rest of us and do it anyway. The final death knell for market capitalism and perhaps even democracy in the US came when we decided that our corporate institutions were too big to fail, and that we weren't going to do anything about it. Now we're all just being held for ransom.
Kroem wrote: For someone like me who isn't overly bothered about high traffic websites like TwitchTV or Imgur, I can see some merit in the idea that I could reduce my internet bill in exchange for limited access to certain websites that I hardly use.
The problem is two fold;
1) The internet is dynamic. When you sign up you might get the sites you want at high speed, but then in the next 12 or 24 months new sites will emerge that you want to access at full speed.
2) It won't be as simple as picking and choosing specific sites you want access to. Everything will come in bundles, pay for this package and get these 10 sites at high speed, or pay for that package which has 15 sites, with some cross over between the old package and the new. If you want one site in the first package, and one site in the second package, but none of the other junk, then you have to go to a premium package with 35 high speed sites and a stupid price tag. There's a great term called 'confusopolies', its when companies build bizarre sets of packages with various features arbitrarily added and taken out, entirely for the purpose of making the whole thing so confusing that customers can't actually price compare between what should be identical products. Cable does this already, so do phone companies, banks and pretty much every organisation that people generally hate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: How long until other large corporations go to court to fight ISPs over this?
If Net Nuetrality is restored, it probably will be due to big companies fighting about it, not what us pleebs on the intertubez think.
This repeal passed on party lines. If Net Neutrality is restored, it will be because people voted Democrats back in to office, returning to them a majority on the FCC. But even then there's no promises, once the horse has bolted then money will flood in to both parties from the ISPs to help them keep their new monopolies. So people will have to vote Democrats in, and then make sure those newly elected Democrats know that they're there on condition they reverse this repeal, among other things, and they have to deliver.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
avantgarde wrote: Why would Google or Amazon go to bat for consumers besides PR fluff? They've already built massive private backbones for themselves, they don't care about neutrality they get their preferential speeds either way.
Amazon, Hulu, Apple, Youtube, Netflix and all the rest are in a really competitive market. Someone might want Amazon, but if they can only get it at low speeds so that it buffers even at low resolution, then consumers will just go to Youtube Red or something else. Theoretically you could move to a different ISP that had Amazon at high speed, but lots of people have little or no ISP choice.
Amazon knows this, and the ISPs know this. And so the ISPs will charge Amazon a fee, called something obnoxious like 'premium alliance partner', which will mean that service will be accessible to customers at top speed. And of course the customer will be paying extra to access Amazon at that high speed.
The ISP makes money both ways, and everyone else pays more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luciferian wrote: If we had competition this wouldn't even be an issue, but since we're stuck with the few monolithic corporations that we have, they have the power to pull off these types of shenanigans.
If there was strong competition between ISPs this would be less of a problem but it would still be a big problem. Right now there's competition between banks, but walk in to five banks and get five loan offers, and see if you can figure out which is actually the best for you. The loans are constructed in such a way as to give and take various features seemingly at random,so it become mindbendingly hard to keep track of which is actually a good deal. ISPs are chasing the removal of regulation to let them do the same with internet packages. This one is cheaper but the average speed is bleh although I get Netflix at this speed, and with a special option to increase one other non-premium site from this bundle if I want at a later date (sites in that bundle able to be changed without warning, price to add a site from that bundle subject to change without warning).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/12/15 02:50:48
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Well, it's done. We'll see if anything changes drastically.
On an optimistic note, it should be noted that over half of all web traffic in the country goes through about 30 content providers (Google, Facebook etc.) and those providers have such a need for bandwidth that they have basically already been paying for "fast lanes" by routing their traffic directly through ISPs. So it's possible that not much will really change.
Then again, we are talking about Comcast, so I wouldn't put it past them to turn internet service into a piecemeal Cable package deal where you get access to Facebook with one package and Amazon with another, like sebster said above.
In any case, the main problem is still exactly the same as it was yesterday: there is no competition in the ISP market.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/15 02:57:09
There's still 60 days before the new rules (or lack thereof) go into effect. During which I suspect just about everybody and their mother (or atleast the groups like the ACLU) will be filing a lawsuit, which will probably either rest on "ignoring the will of the america people" or "blatant sellout to the telecoms." Perhaps both. Congress could also do something, as iirc there was a lot of support there for net neutrality regardless of party.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/15 04:48:11
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
whembly wrote: Ya'll know that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would still be the oversight entity... right?
Only if the company promises something then fails to uphold it.
So, as long as none of the companies promise to uphold net neutrality, they're in the clear to be scumbags (example, look at comcast's changing stance on net neutrality)
Personally, I prefer preventative measures to a slap on the wrist afterwards, which would never come anyways.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/15 05:08:11
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
The FTC has almost no enforcement authority and that’s beside the point anyway. The FCC is supposed to regulate telecommunications and they just voted to abdicate their own responsibility for... a bunch of reasons that make no sense whatsoever. If the FCC isn’t going to do it’s job under its current leadership then the leadership should be replaced but that isn’t going to happen. The repeal of the NN rules isn’t just a failure of basic reason it’s ancomplete failure of governance.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Galas wrote: Congrats USA! You are now at the same level as Portugal!
Enjoy your future! Or enjoy it NOW for only 9,99$ a month more!
The Portuguese promotions this is based off of are just packages for additional, unmetered mobile data. Cell providers were doing that kind of stuff before 2015 anyway. It's definitely lame, but it's not what "the internet" looks like in Portugal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/15 06:26:50
Kroem wrote: Is that confirmed? Why would anyone agree to pay more for less of a service?
I struggle to believe that demand for internet is so inelastic with respect to price that this wouldn't loose them custom, especially with competition from the high speed internet you can get on mobile phones now.
Yea you are right, they would have to be flexible as everyone has different 'top sites'. If an ISP hit the market with a package say half the price of my current internet, but I could only choose 2 of the top 10 sites to have unlimited access to; I think that could be a successful product in the budget end of the market.
Problem being internet is so hardwired into people's daily life it's pretty hard to NOT have one these days. Dunno how it's in your side of the world but for example I do my banking things via net and _not all have bank office in their town anymore here_. Not sure do I still have. Town I moved out doesn't have(people use net so much it wasn't worth it for bank to keep it) but not sure if this town has. Imagine how easy it would be to do bank things like paying bills(need to do multiple times a month) without access to net bank and nearest office 50km away...
So if provider ups the bill by say 20% I have actually very little room if all the providers do the same.
First thing about this is that there are a load of legal challenges lined up, so it may not end up happening.
Second thing is that it can be reversed if you vote a Democratic government into power. The Republicans did this because their priorities in power are (A) reverse everything Obama did, and (B) Big Business Profits. Vote them out.
There's not even a google logo art supporting neutrality.
The larger your customer base the more likely you can negotiate preferential pricing from ISPs, the companies with the most resources to oppose NN are the ones who will be impacted by it the least or may even benefit. Say Netflix negotiates a choice contract from Time Warner, it's to their benefit that a smaller competitor has more trouble negotiating "fast lane" access at an equally competitive rate.
Google's Net Neutrality Statements
Google definitely has a vested interest in the issue with the formation of Google Fiber, a broadband Internet and TV service company, boosting it further into the ranks of the major ISPs. Google's initial public statements regarding net neutrality, around 2006, were clearly in favor of the policy. It shifted its official position, at least in part, in 2010 when it partnered with Verizon in strongly arguing that net neutrality regulations should not be applied to wireless carriers. At the time, Verizon and Google won their case, with the FCC allowing wireless carriers to discriminate against third-party applications.
Since 2010, Google has largely been silent in the ongoing net neutrality debate. However, in 2014, it did sent out a message to all of its "Take Action" subscribers strongly supporting net neutrality and advocating that the FCC enforce net neutrality rules. The company's statement went so far as to contradict, or reverse, its 2010 position, saying that net neutrality should extend to wireless carriers.
In November 2017, Google did make a statement as FCC's push for a policy reversal gathered steam. "The FCC’s net neutrality rules are working well for consumers, and we’re disappointed in the proposal released today," the statement said. However, it was absent from an open letter many Internet pioneers, including Steve Wozniak, sent to the FCC and Senate and House Committees on Communications and Technology.
Kilkrazy wrote: First thing about this is that there are a load of legal challenges lined up, so it may not end up happening.
Second thing is that it can be reversed if you vote a Democratic government into power. The Republicans did this because their priorities in power are (A) reverse everything Obama did, and (B) Big Business Profits. Vote them out.
Actually, the Obama administration was agaisn't Net-Neutrality too in the first place, but after the public out-rage they changed their policy about that. Not saying this to do the typical what-aboutism, more to show that the green looks equally beautifull no matter you are team blue or team red, what changes is how obviously you are willing to be agaisn't the desire of the population for it. So you can't trust one party to support net-neutrality without the society watching what they are gonna do about it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/15 14:36:07
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Second thing is that it can be reversed if you vote a Democratic government into power. The Republicans did this because their priorities in power are (A) reverse everything Obama did, and (B) Big Business Profits. Vote them out.
Yup.
Hence why I'd advocate for Congress to pass a law to enshrine this.
