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.

You know I want to keep NN repealed just to piss people off now

Sounds like a healthy way to make policy choices.

 Spinner wrote:
Sounds like a healthy way to make policy choices.

I’ve been calling it the made problem of American policy for about a year. Spite is a horrible policy position.

stigginit is the only right way to vote, no matter how much it hurts your own interests.

 Ouze wrote:
stigginit is the only right way to vote, no matter how much it hurts your own interests.

I don't know if it was intentional or not, but man did I get a good chuckle out of the wording here.

 LordofHats wrote:
The issue is that functionally there's little meaningful difference technologically between internet and cable services. Everyone basically offers the same thing. The only thing to do is either steer clear of each other or get into a price war with limited means of offsetting costs. Two is probably fine. Three even. What I mean is that this isn't a market where we're going to have a bunch of options, and we don't necessarily want it that way cause who really needs a half dozen different brands running around that all really just do the same thing? The closest similarities really are with utility companies who are under stricter regulations than most for the very reason that they exist in a market sector with limited room for competition and far too much potential for abuse.

I agree. I think the utility analogy is a good one here, especially because at this point internet is a utility. Sure we don't -need- internet, but we don't -need- electricity either. But it's a basic standard that people are expected to have.

Personally Im happy they killed it. My area is gonna get better internet, talked to a friend in the biz here. Finally I can get rid of my crappy stuff and play video games and watch Netflix far better than before, and guess what, piss you off at the same time

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Personally Im happy they killed it. My area is gonna get better internet, talked to a friend in the biz here. Finally I can get rid of my crappy stuff and play video games and watch Netflix far better than before, and guess what, piss you off at the same time

...except when you don't, the current company starts charging you more, then divides the internet up into cable style packages.

There’s literally nothing in net neutrality preventing anyone from offering you better internet. If your getting better and someone is saying it’s because of the repeal they’re ileither idiots or lying straight to your face. Or your just telling which to be fair seems to be your current binge around here.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Personally Im happy they killed it. My area is gonna get better internet, talked to a friend in the biz here. Finally I can get rid of my crappy stuff and play video games and watch Netflix far better than before, and guess what, piss you off at the same time

While we're dreaming I want a pony!

I just, seriously man, ISP's take home billions in profits every year, the reason they haven't expanded into your area isn't because they can't shut down websites they don't like and force you to pay more for services that they shouldn't be allowed to overcharge for.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Personally Im happy they killed it. My area is gonna get better internet, talked to a friend in the biz here. Finally I can get rid of my crappy stuff and play video games and watch Netflix far better than before, and guess what, piss you off at the same time

I bet they are going to have the money to pay for the infrastructure upgrades after they charge you twice as much for the same crappy internet.

Or they will just pocket that cash and keep on using the same stuff they have been using forever.

I WONDER WHAT THEY WILL DO

Hey man, wanna buy a timeshare?

It doesn't even matter what the ISPs do or how much they upgrade your last mile lines as long as the lines beyond that remain the same (which they have for awhile). The bottleneck will remain.

While I was reading this thread from my phone earlier, it got me wondering. What effect will this have on mobile internet service?

I so far haven't seen anything to support your doomsday crap anyway, just speculation for something that only existed for three years and hasn't down really anything at all.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
I so far haven't seen anything to support your doomsday crap anyway, just speculation for something that only existed for three years and hasn't down really anything at all.

 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.

Do you only post one line responses with nothing of value? Are you trying to be a less eloquent Gwar! ?

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
I so far haven't seen anything to support your doomsday crap anyway, just speculation for something that only existed for three years and hasn't down really anything at all.

Sssooo instead of reading and acknowledging a full thread of evidence you just dig in your heels and stick your fingers in your ears and say were all wrong cause screw us.

Yeah thats about right, god I hate this country.

NenkotaMoon wrote:Personally Im happy they killed it. My area is gonna get better internet, talked to a friend in the biz here. Finally I can get rid of my crappy stuff and play video games and watch Netflix far better than before, and guess what, piss you off at the same time

On what basis would that be? There's quite literally nothing preventing them from offering you that now.

NenkotaMoon wrote:I so far haven't seen anything to support your doomsday crap anyway, just speculation for something that only existed for three years and hasn't down really anything at all.

Then you're intentionally not paying attention.


#lowefforttroll

 Vaktathi wrote:

NenkotaMoon wrote:Personally Im happy they killed it. My area is gonna get better internet, talked to a friend in the biz here. Finally I can get rid of my crappy stuff and play video games and watch Netflix far better than before, and guess what, piss you off at the same time

On what basis would that be? There's quite literally nothing preventing them from offering you that now.

NenkotaMoon wrote:I so far haven't seen anything to support your doomsday crap anyway, just speculation for something that only existed for three years and hasn't down really anything at all.

Then you're intentionally not paying attention.


#lowefforttroll

Based on the number of posts he has, I agree with you

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The difference with gaming DLC is that is a requirement for game development to actually function. The price of a AAA game has gone down significantly since the 90s because $60 is worth less due to inflation, yet the development costs are tens times more. That money has to come from somewhere. Cable companies don't have anything analogous to that. So instead of an inevitable but unavoidable creep that undeniably has benefits, we will see a creep into charging more and more just for customers to get back to what they originally had.

Still don't mean that garbage like "Day One DLC" isn't a dick move on the part of the big publishers, like Electronic Arts. DLC, at one time, customarily came after a game had been out for a few weeks.

Greed still plays a part in it. Because they know that suckers will go for it. And it all isn't all about covering development costs, since the biggest offenders are the ones where the development studio don't call the shots, and are owned by a big publisher.

You have good points but I really just meant to say that game companies =/= cable companies so comparisons between the two aren't hugely helpful.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, elections have consequences.

Yep. Because when you vote in one person and one party, you raise up all the underlings along with them, and oh man has that drawn some people out from under the rocks. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, the guy leading the move to end Net Neutrality, put out this video. Beyond the sheer horribleness of the video, it's worth noting who Pai worked with to make the video. The guy who made the video with Pai is The Daily Caller's Ben Johnson. This guy got fired from Buzzfeed for plagiarizing Yahoo Answers. A guy who was too crap to work at Buzzfeed is now working hand in hand with the Chairman of the FCC to sell the policy ending Net Neutrality. And then it gets worse, the girl dancing in the bottom right of the video, she's one of the pizzagate lunatics.

So yeah, elections have consequences.

 whembly wrote:
The Portugal comparison is nonsensical because it's a lie tailored to generate hysteria.

No, the comparison to Portugal is terrible because Portugal's land mass is smaller than just the state of Oregon. It is much cheaper to deliver when the population is more concentrated. So your article saying 'oh give me Portugal's basic package prices' is a really crap argument.

So instead we can look at Portugal's crappy micro-pricing schemes as being horrible, note that despite being a much smaller area to cover the place still isn't that cheap to get a provider, and realise it's pretty obvious ending net neutrality is pretty obviously a bad thing.

The point was, NN as envisioned by previous ruling adds regulatory burdens that the big guys can shoulder, which creates barriers for startups.

That's an absurdly terrible argument with absolutely no basis in any economic or financial reality. It's crude ideology reheated and served up to the gullible. There was a competitive market in internet provision, made possible by a ban on telephone operators bundling parts of their network. That FCC was undone in 2005 and the number of internet providers dropped by two thirds.

Regulation can, at times, be used to produce a barrier for entry to new competitors. Other times it is essential to producing a competitive market with many players. Both happen, but the latter is much more common. Any time someone just says 'regulation is killing competition' but they give no real examples of how, it's almost certainly because they're trying to bs you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:
This regulation was two years old. It's not like the internet came into immaculate existence in 2015 by some kind of miracle wrought by a Democrat's pen, and now is in danger of fading back into the realm of fairies and unicorns, beyond the grasp of mortals. This type of rule doesn't even exist in some countries, including EU members, and in those where it does exist it has only been introduced very recently.

You don't understand. The FCC decision two years ago wasn't a sudden beginning of net neutrality where no attempts at net neutrality had ever existed before. Really since 2004 the FCC has looked to enforce net neutrality. All that happened two years ago is that the FCC lost a case against Verizon, where the court said the FCC couldn't enforce net neutrality against internet providers unless those providers were deemed common carriers. So the FCC said fine, then they're common carriers, as this allowed them to enforce the regs they'd been applying before then.

Now the Republican appointments to the FCC have reversed that decision, meaning the FCC is going to have little ability to enforce neutrality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
There’s literally nothing in net neutrality preventing anyone from offering you better internet. If your getting better and someone is saying it’s because of the repeal they’re ileither idiots or lying straight to your face. Or your just telling which to be fair seems to be your current binge around here.

No, I don't think you read his post. He has a friend in the biz. How can you doubt the word of a friend in the biz, given to us by someone on the internet?

Next thing you'll be telling me that some people in the News and Rumours threads might only be claiming they know people in GW headquarters.

In Ajit Pai's defense, if he hadn't posted that video we wouldn't have this.

PS I know a lady who works in an office with a different lady who is dating a guy who delivers packages to a FLGS, and he said the plastic Thunderhawk is being released imminently. Checkmate, libs.

That video is what you get when people outside internet culture tries to hang out with the cool kids.
And to be honest I find funny how he says he wants to bring "internet freedom" when NN is based on the premise of hallowing a equal playing field to everybody, where internet providers cant influece the internet... But I assume thats bad, because is socialism!
Regulations are a tool. As every tool they can be used for good or for bad. But regulations are a neccesity. The level and size of those regulstions is always open to discussion, but I dont understand this boogeyman abot ALL regulations being bad.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Personally Im happy they killed it. My area is gonna get better internet, talked to a friend in the biz here. Finally I can get rid of my crappy stuff and play video games and watch Netflix far better than before, and guess what, piss you off at the same time

With your gaming and Netflix packages?

 Galas wrote:
That video is what you get when people outside internet culture tries to hang out with the cool kids.
And to be honest I find funny how he says he wants to bring "internet freedom" when NN is based on the premise of hallowing a equal playing field to everybody, where internet providers cant influece the internet... But I assume thats bad, because is socialism!
Regulations are a tool. As every tool they can be used for good or for bad. But regulations are a neccesity. The level and size of those regulstions is always open to discussion, but I dont understand this boogeyman abot ALL regulations being bad.

Honestly freedom has at this point become a meaningless word in America. People throw it out so much whenever they can squeeze it in that it can mean "free to do as you want" at the same time it means "free to do as I demand."

Net Neutrality isn't about freedom. It's about equality and equity, and the massive power disparity between common people and massive faceless uncaring corporations. Somehow the later have been remarkable successful in convincing the former that their "freedom" is at stake even though it isn't, while using the inequity of their massive financial resources to goad and lobby politicians into putting out whatever policies benefit them often with no real regard for how it effects the rest of us.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You have good points but I really just meant to say that game companies =/= cable companies so comparisons between the two aren't hugely helpful.

Oh, I know. I just can't resist taking a swipe at EA whenever the opportunity arises.


And I agree. Two different animals here. The issues surrounding the practices of game developers/publishers and cable providers are like apples and oranges.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Galas wrote:
That video is what you get when people outside internet culture tries to hang out with the cool kids.
And to be honest I find funny how he says he wants to bring "internet freedom" when NN is based on the premise of hallowing a equal playing field to everybody, where internet providers cant influece the internet... But I assume thats bad, because is socialism!
Regulations are a tool. As every tool they can be used for good or for bad. But regulations are a neccesity. The level and size of those regulstions is always open to discussion, but I dont understand this boogeyman abot ALL regulations being bad.

Honestly freedom has at this point become a meaningless word in America. People throw it out so much whenever they can squeeze it in that it can mean "free to do as you want" at the same time it means "free to do as I demand."

Net Neutrality isn't about freedom. It's about equality and equity, and the massive power disparity between common people and massive faceless uncaring corporations. Somehow the later have been remarkable successful in convincing the former that their "freedom" is at stake even though it isn't, while using the inequity of their massive financial resources to goad and lobby politicians into putting out whatever policies benefit them often with no real regard for how it effects the rest of us.

BINGO. This is it in a nutshell.


Too bad many can't see it. It's funny, but some of the same people I know who hate Net Neutrality, and bought into the fatcat line of BS, are the same union types that would piss themselves if the Clayton Act were to be repealed tomorrow. Or laws protecting unions from union busting.


It's uncanny and hilarious at the same time.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The difference with gaming DLC is that is a requirement for game development to actually function. The price of a AAA game has gone down significantly since the 90s because $60 is worth less due to inflation, yet the development costs are tens times more. That money has to come from somewhere. Cable companies don't have anything analogous to that. So instead of an inevitable but unavoidable creep that undeniably has benefits, we will see a creep into charging more and more just for customers to get back to what they originally had.

Still don't mean that garbage like "Day One DLC" isn't a dick move on the part of the big publishers, like Electronic Arts. DLC, at one time, customarily came after a game had been out for a few weeks.

Yeah, and "back in my day..." DLC was a whole other game purchase called an Expansion Pack! It cost almost as much as the actual game in some cases...

Greed still plays a part in it. Because they know that suckers will go for it. And it all isn't all about covering development costs, since the biggest offenders are the ones where the development studio don't call the shots, and are owned by a big publisher.

Ignorance plays a large part in comments like yours.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The difference with gaming DLC is that is a requirement for game development to actually function. The price of a AAA game has gone down significantly since the 90s because $60 is worth less due to inflation, yet the development costs are tens times more. That money has to come from somewhere. Cable companies don't have anything analogous to that. So instead of an inevitable but unavoidable creep that undeniably has benefits, we will see a creep into charging more and more just for customers to get back to what they originally had.

Still don't mean that garbage like "Day One DLC" isn't a dick move on the part of the big publishers, like Electronic Arts. DLC, at one time, customarily came after a game had been out for a few weeks.

Yeah, and "back in my day..." DLC was a whole other game purchase called an Expansion Pack! It cost almost as much as the actual game in some cases...

Greed still plays a part in it. Because they know that suckers will go for it. And it all isn't all about covering development costs, since the biggest offenders are the ones where the development studio don't call the shots, and are owned by a big publisher.

Ignorance plays a large part in comments like yours.

You had both expansion packs AND a little something known as micro-transactions. And the micro-transactions didn't cost as much as an entire game. But you already know that.


As for the last....nice b8, m8. I r8 it an 8.

IN THREAD GENERAL WARNING TIME!

RULE #1 AND RULE #2.

OR...lose your ability to post in the OT FORUM (and possibly Dakka Dakka in general) for quite some time...

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Personally Im happy they killed it. My area is gonna get better internet, talked to a friend in the biz here. Finally I can get rid of my crappy stuff and play video games and watch Netflix far better than before, and guess what, piss you off at the same time

If you lived in South Korea or Japan, you would already have way better speed and reliability, up and down, than a lot fo the USA, thanks SOCIALISM.

if you lived in the UK, you would have moderately gakky speed up and down, with a wide choice of providers to switch between, thus limited prices.