Forums / Discussion / General

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/trump-team-endorses-fcc-rollback-of-obama-era-net-neutrality-rules/

It's been a good time while it lasted. Welcome to TV 2.0.

>Trump team endorses
People who supported Trump rn:

Not even a fucking year has passed.

Remember that time when Trump said that Bush was a mess?

I sure do love it when corporations are able to enforce government approved monopolies to squeeze more money out of helpless customers who have no other options for decent access to a service that should be guaranteed to them by now.
U-S-A! U-S-A!!

>tfw your third world hellhole has better notions about net neutrality than the US

So our internet is going to slow, depending on what websites we use? What going to happen when the connection to Youtube is slow?

It’s been a good time while it lasted. Welcome to TV 2.0.

no

So our internet is going to slow, depending on what websites we use? What going to happen when the connection to Youtube is slow?

mostly no

Net Neutrality is often played up to be more apocalyptic than it is, which is understandable given that works so well at spreading the message. It is actually a big deal, but it's seriously overhyped.

Companies are not jumping at the gun to instantly turn your internet access into things like this image. In fact, doing so would generate such backlash that in the few areas that are competitive, they'd lose basically all customers. They would also face serious opposition from the companies they are doing it to, as evidenced by now many non-ISP companies came out against removing NN protections. It'd be a very risky move.

What you would see is a very slow shift in that direction. Throttle Netflix here, coerce Facebook there. Major companies would not want to engage in bribing ISPs for faster speeds unless forced, because that would be severe damage to their public image. It'd probably be smaller, relatively new companies trying to push down their competitors.

Over time, this could very well devolve into apocalyptic images like the one linked above. But it will take a lot of time. Quite possibly, enough time for Net Neutrality to be put back into place. I highly doubt we're going to end up like that even with 8 years of no NN. If things start going bad with it, the consumes will notice – and they will want their internet freedom back. Supporting Net Neutrality will probably be a popular position if it starts noticeably impacting the average citizen. So, there'll be political backlash too.

All this to say, chill. It's bad but it's not apocalyptic. Your internet isn't going to fall apart overnight, and there's a pretty good chance at implementing it before it gets too bad, if it even gets very bad at all. Vote and advocate. But please, no more "the internet is going to instantly become like TV!!!" rhetoric.

Is Trump seriously just Anti-Obama on every single issue? From his comments, it seems like his only reason to be against net neutrality is because Obama was for it.

Rip American internet.

I'll be good though. Thank god for Canada.
　 　　　　　　　 　▃▆██████▇▅▃
　　　　　 　　　　　　　　　███████████▆▃
　　　　　 　　　　　　　　 ▃▆▅▃▀▀████████▅
　　　　　 　　　　　　　 ◢█████▇▅▃▀███████
　　　　　 　　 　 　　　　█▀▃▅█████▆██████▉
　　　　　　　　▃ ▅▲　▉　█▅▃◢◣　 ▀██▀▀█████◣
　　　　 　　▃█ █ █▲　　　　　　　　　 █　▆　████▅
　　　 　 　▌█ █ █ ▉　▅▃▋　　　　　 █　▼ ████　█
　　　　　▲█ █ █ ▉ 　▅▆▅▃▂　　　█▅▆█████▅　■
　 　　　▋ ███▌▲　 　█▆█▀▆　▃██▀██████◣　█▍
　　 　 ▋ ███▌█▌　　▼ ▃▂▅█▆▊　　█▀████▅　▼
　　　 ▋ ███▌█▌ 　 ▐▆█████▊　　█ ▐██▆▃
　　 　▲█████　　　▀▀▼　▀██▌　█▃██
　　 ▅█████▀　　　　 　　　▄▅█▌▃▆███
　 ▉ ██████　　　　▃▅▇████████▀
　▉ ███████　　　█████████▀
▐▍▀██████　　▄███████▀
▼　██████▃▆██████▀
　　▀███████████▀
　　 █████████▀
　　███████▀
　 █████▀
　　▀█▀

I other countries will do the opposite just to spite Americans.

You give a company a money, they screw you over.

Well this is shit.

Could a future administration vote to put it back in?

It can go back literally any time. There is no permenancy clause to any decisions of any administration.

He is well known to hold grudges.

does this whole net neutrality only counts for america?

As far as this goes yes. however, other countries have their own version of NN if i remembe correctly.

Deblod100 said:

So our internet is going to slow, depending on what websites we use?

Probably not. Remember that until 2015, there were no net neutrality regulations on the books, meaning that ISPs could have implemented "fast lanes" anytime they wanted to. They knew it would be a bad PR move then just as it is now. And as Microsoft well knows, if your competitors don't make the same bad PR move, you're left holding the bag. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone was waiting for someone else to implement it, so they could point at them and laugh.

It looks like ISPs are really not that interested in the fast lane stuff and are instead focusing their attention on leveraging their services and content. For instance, AT&T lets its mobile users stream their Direct TV without it counting against their data limits. This encourages Direct TV users to get AT&T mobile services and vice versa. It's likely if they succeed in buying Time Warner, they'll extend that to direct TV programs.

It's overhyped as in people were legitimately believing that literally right after Net Neutrality was repealed everything would go to shit, which it won't.

It'll be just like the times before it was implemented, which back then wasn't that bad either. It's just with Net Neutrality we had assurance that no "fast lane" bullshit would happen. We just don't have that assurance anymore. It's like not having insurance, just because you don't have doesn't mean you're guaranteed to have something horrible happen to you that'll cost a small fortune to fix.

Sounds like rather then being used to throttle access to certain sites, aside from ones that blatantly break the law I would imagine, what this really is, is an attempt to pressure people into more monopoly style deals. The only companies who might risk their services throttled are ones that refuse to "play ball" as it were, to joint deals like that.

That's not a comforting thought, but at the same time, I doubt things are going to change more then how they already are. Internet Speeds are already done via packages, Comcast for example sells different speeds ranging from 10 Mbps for 29.99, with additional packages goin 50, 100, and the 200 mbps "Performance Plus Internet + speed increase to Blast!® Pro Internet".

Internet access speed is already divided by internet providers, and they try to get you to pay for additional services like Land Lines and Cable Packages, and do stuff like letting you access that phone line or cable service via your computer, for more money. The Apocalypse I'd say is already here, people just missed it because its not taking the shape they want.

For example, let me ask this. Cable companies also do land lines, yes? Do you need to purchase different packages in order to call different places? In order to call out of state do you need to purchase the "performance premium land line package"?

They've had the ability to do this for decades, but they don't. Because they know people won't buy their service if they do. And if you think another company won't take advantage of that by offering the opposite of unlimited internet access, you're wrong. This oligarchy isn't stable, and back stabbing is part of the game as well. Comcast did it with their no contract deal just to stick it to Dish, you think Time Warner, or AT&T depending on the buy out, won't do the same against Comcast if Comcast busts out its new internet speed site packages?

Black Graphic T said:

The Apocalypse I’d say is already here…

Companies have been offering bundles for decades. It's hardly a new thing and I'd hardly call it an apocalypse. You can always purchase a single service--it'll just cost more than if it were part of a bundle (Internet and cable for 49.99 whereas just Internet's 39.99), just as buying a single carton of broth's 2.99 whereas a dozen is 12.99.

…by offering the opposite of unlimited internet access, you’re wrong.

I'm a little confused by this. If you mean "ISPs will offer throttled internet for cheap" then okay, why is that a bad thing? If the customer knows upfront the deal is they get cheap internet, but certain sites could be slow as hell loading, I don't see anything wrong with that. If that's the plan they want to buy, they'll buy it. It actually sounds like a good plan for those who may only use the internet to surf and not consume video/audio content.

…won’t do the same against Comcast…

Given the fact Comcast owns NBC Universal, no I don't. If the Warner deal goes through, I have no doubt the FTC will put the same restrictions they did on the NBC deal: no restricting competitors access to the media division's assets.

I think you misread literally my entire posts, due to the fact you quoted me, and then reiterated points I was making.

We're already in the phase of companies altering internet speeds with different packages, and it's not the end of the world. The Apocalypse of companies charging you for different internet packages is already done, and people saying this will happen only now are foolish.

Comcast won't offer a throttled internet packages were certain sites are banned, because other isps will jump on that to offer unlimited internet access. That's generally how this works, and why Comcast has no contract packages in direct response to direct TV.

>I read the title

I actually had a thought that, sadly, this userbase would be most likely to discuss.

If states start enforcing neutrality, will the Republicans that be actually fight against decentralization as they've been fighting second-level decentralization (example, St. Louis increases minimum wage. Jeff City says "REEEEE" and passes a law that says cities can't have their own minimum wage)?

Well it determines. If it's countries that more or less copy our laws then there's a chance that NN will be thrown out the window. If it's just a country that doesn't copy our laws then they'll be fine. Just gotta be patient to see if they'll copy us is all.

>"people were legitimately believing that literally right after Net Neutrality was repealed everything would go to shit"

Can you me one person who said that? You can't though, so idk why I even bother asking.