#1
I've been seeing a lot of comments on the internet, newspapers, social networks, etc. about net neutrality lately. Is there some bull shit before congress trying to end that again or something?

Follow up: if so, shouldn't we be like significant some bull shit online petitions or something?

Or should we all just start congregating on the deepnet in the name of la resistance?
BOOM-SHAKALAKALAKA-BOOM-SHAKALAKUNGA
#4
No the courts said that internet providers didn't have to abide by net neutrality rules anymore and they could essentially have websites pay for faster internet connection and better access. They can also block people's access to certain websites if they wanted to. Like say that you're internet provider's ceo doesn't like porn he could just block access to all porn websites for you and then no more porn for you.
Last edited by WaterGod at May 6, 2014,
#5
it's the guy above me shit
Quote by JacobTheMe
JacobTheEdit: Hell yeah Ruben.

Quote by Jackal58
I met Jesus once. Cocksucker still owes me 20 bucks.
#6
i'm a fan of the idea of net neutrality, but at the end of the day, all it is is preventing ISPs from self regulation and determination of pricing and availability. i can see how not having net neutrality could be annoying (and even lead to some measure of something resembling censorship), but i'm not sure what right the government should have to tell ISPs they have no right to regulate their own product.
#7
Quote by progdude93
i'm not sure what right the government should have to tell ISPs they have no right to regulate their own product.

It's not their product though.
Last edited by Dimarzio45 at May 6, 2014,
#8
p sure net neutrality has already been struck down but i havent noticed even a slight change, so i feel like its mostly sensationalist bullshit, or im just on a great ISP (which im not)
#9
lately? you mean like 2 years ago? damn ur late to the party.
My Soundcloud

My beginner rig:

Epiphone Goth G-400 SG
Line 6 Spider IV (Don't judge me, I was young and stupid)
Stagg SW203N
Yamaha APX500
#10
Quote by GuitarGod_92
p sure net neutrality has already been struck down but i havent noticed even a slight change, so i feel like its mostly sensationalist bullshit, or im just on a great ISP (which im not)

That's because it hasn't been implemented in the market yet. Give it a few years and then you'll start to notice how hard it is to get on smaller websites like UG because they haven't paid millions to speed up their internet access.
#11
Quote by WaterGod
That's because it hasn't been implemented in the market yet. Give it a few years and then you'll start to notice how hard it is to get on smaller websites like UG because they haven't paid millions to speed up their internet access.

i figured that could be the case

either way i dont really care i only use a select few websites and my money is worthless anyway so i'll pay more for the services
#12
CGP Grey has done a video on this subject and why we all should care;

Video on net neutrality

The internet is for everyone, not just for the people with money. And it is not only about
that they can regulate what sites you go to. It makes it possible for certain big companies to kill of their competetors.
#13
Quote by progdude93
i'm a fan of the idea of net neutrality, but at the end of the day, all it is is preventing ISPs from self regulation and determination of pricing and availability. i can see how not having net neutrality could be annoying (and even lead to some measure of something resembling censorship), but i'm not sure what right the government should have to tell ISPs they have no right to regulate their own product.

It's not their product. The majority of the internet's infrastructure has been developed by governments around the world. ISPs provide and maintain "the last mile" so to speak. Also, net neutrality is absolutely essential to maintaining an open and free internet, especially with the monopolized market in the U.S.

In the best case scenario, no net neutrality will lead to price gouging(worse than it already is). You'll end up with the cable TV situation that we have in the U.S. now. Want fast Netflix? Sure, pay an extra 3 dollars a month. Want the high speed Social Media package that has premium speed access to Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram? $5 more per month please.

The worst case is that you'll end up with ISPs blocking websites or other traffic flow and completely separating the internet into smaller "internets." Example, AT&T blocks the websites of all it's competition in every service category that it operates in, the websites of all business or organizations that its competitors invest in, and all traffic to torrent websites, gambling websites, etc. You live in a region that is only serviced by AT&T. You now only have access to one "sub-internet," while a customer who lives in a region only services by Comcast has another "sub-internet." The exchange of information and ideas is severely crippled, and everything that makes the internet so powerful is gone.

This is a huge issue, and appropriate action needs to be taken by the gov immediately.
#14
Quote by TheChaz
It's not their product. The majority of the internet's infrastructure has been developed by governments around the world. ISPs provide and maintain "the last mile" so to speak. Also, net neutrality is absolutely essential to maintaining an open and free internet, especially with the monopolized market in the U.S.

In the best case scenario, no net neutrality will lead to price gouging(worse than it already is). You'll end up with the cable TV situation that we have in the U.S. now. Want fast Netflix? Sure, pay an extra 3 dollars a month. Want the high speed Social Media package that has premium speed access to Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram? $5 more per month please.
So, the majority, not all of the internet's infrastructure has been public. Why would you not pay for that last bit of private investment? You're still paying for a product.

And, who by the way, has the monopoly on ISPs in the U.S.? What single entity maintains an iron grip on the market?

You already can pay more for higher speeds what does it matter if it is URL specific? An ISP provider is going to have a tough time if they go around blocking popular websites or treating them too unfairly. All of these doomsday scenarios of rampant censorship are overblown. You don't know that would happen, and it is not likely a business would operate in such a manner. There's no advantage, and marketing is too complicated for a single ISP provider to just boycott all competitors and their "supporters." That's not even how internet ads work.

I'm not terribly informed about net neutrality, and you probably think I'm wrong, and maybe I am, but I don't think it's as huge a deal as some make it out to be.
#15
Is there an argument against net neutrality, that doesn't boil down to "let's give ISPs more money"?

In the end of it, it would be like you paying more car registration fees to go through certain roads of your city, or to reach certain destinations.
Do you want to go through 5th Street? Well, that's $5 more. Oh, now you want to go through Sunset Boulevard? That's $10 more, sorry (it has a cool view to the beach you see!).
Do you want to go to the library? Sorry, that's $30. Oh, but the casino is only $1 *wink* *wink*!
Do you want to go to McDonalds? Yeah that's $1000, we don't really like them. Oh but Burger King is cool, that'll only be $15.

Now imagine car registration fees and road maintenance were in charge of a 3rd party, but the government can regulate what that 3rd party can do. Would you want your government to give said 3rd party the ability to do the above, even if it's "their roads"?

No you wouldn't, so don't let ISPs do the same by ending net neutrality.

EDIT: It wouldn't even be ALL their roads, just a few (the ones leaving your house).
Last edited by gonzaw at May 6, 2014,
#16
Quote by seanlang01
So, the majority, not all of the internet's infrastructure has been public. Why would you not pay for that last bit of private investment? You're still paying for a product.

And, who by the way, has the monopoly on ISPs in the U.S.? What single entity maintains an iron grip on the market?

You already can pay more for higher speeds what does it matter if it is URL specific? An ISP provider is going to have a tough time if they go around blocking popular websites or treating them too unfairly. All of these doomsday scenarios of rampant censorship are overblown. You don't know that would happen, and it is not likely a business would operate in such a manner. There's no advantage, and marketing is too complicated for a single ISP provider to just boycott all competitors and their "supporters." That's not even how internet ads work.

I'm not terribly informed about net neutrality, and you probably think I'm wrong, and maybe I am, but I don't think it's as huge a deal as some make it out to be.


Of course you still pay for it. I never said you shouldn't.

Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T have monopolies on high-speed internet in huge portions of the U.S. and they actively collude to keep out of each other's space for the most part. Now, Comcast, the biggest ISP, is waiting for approval to purchase Time Warner, the second largest broadband provider.

Obviously it completely fucking matters if it's specific to the type of content you access. That's the entire fucking point. If your access is equally slow, fine. If it's equally fast, fine. When an ISP can discriminate against what types of content it delivers at high speeds it has all the power. Especially in the huge regions of the U.S. where there's no true competition. Why are you even talking about internet ads? That has nothing to do with this. It also has nothing to do with marketing. You don't need to do marketing when you have a monopoly on the market, and collude with the other big players to keep your monopolies.

I will never understand the people who are completely willing to allow themselves to be fucked over by a company. There is no possible positive outcome to ending net neutrality.
#18
Quote by WaterGod
No the courts said that internet providers didn't have to abide by net neutrality rules anymore and they could essentially have websites pay for faster internet connection and better access. They can also block people's access to certain websites if they wanted to. Like say that you're internet provider's ceo doesn't like porn he could just block access to all porn websites for you and then no more porn for you.

Which is kind of a fucking issue.


Obviously, it's not as cut and dried, but still...the idea that money/popularity can determine whether a website gets priority is a problem.

Quote by progdude93
i'm a fan of the idea of net neutrality, but at the end of the day, all it is is preventing ISPs from self regulation and determination of pricing and availability. i can see how not having net neutrality could be annoying (and even lead to some measure of something resembling censorship), but i'm not sure what right the government should have to tell ISPs they have no right to regulate their own product.

Yeah, exactly.


On a slightly different (but related) note:

What I really would like to see, in the US, is more competition between ISPs. US ISPs have basically split up the company into regions. (This is less the case in Chicago and NYC, iirc.) So, you only really have one option -- especially since internet and cable are being viewed as a separate thing now. (10 years ago, internet and cable were part of the same package, largely. That's still somewhat true today, but it's easier to get just internet [without cable] today than it was 10 years ago.) The end result is, if a consumer in an area with a shitty IPS, that consumer has very few options.
In Europe, as I understand it, there's a lot more competition between ISPs. This results in faster internet for cheaper. A consumer also has several choices for an ISP. In a way, this kind of thing helps net neutrality, because consumers are less inclined to sign up for an ISP that limits traffic to certain websites (read: websites that aren't popular enough or that don't pay enough money to the ISP for more bandwidth).
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at May 6, 2014,
#21
Yeah its apparently the first step in the destruction of the internet.

Final step happens in 4 months
ggg1 ggg3

.
#22
Quote by behind_you

Congress spanked them the last time they passed this and told them to redo it. Well they pretty much didn't so I am expecting congress to spank them again.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#23
I get incredibly angry every time I think about it. The internet is an amazing thing and to dumb it down to the controlled level that TV exists in is an insult to the entire history of computing.
#24
Quote by progdude93
but i'm not sure what right the government should have to tell ISPs they have no right to regulate their own product.


The same right they had to do it to phone companies, for the same circumstances.
#25
The thing that gets me about this is the fact that there isn't competition for internet providers. In a lot of areas of the US, at least, there are only one, maybe two providers for any given area. It'd be easier if we could just drop one service and start another if we didn't agree with their policies, but it's not that easy. It's a bit monopolistic.
OBEY THE MIGHTY SHITKICKER
#27
Quote by Lord_Doku
#USAproblems

All joking aside, I feel bad for u.
I live in canada yet I care

If america falls the rest will follow like dominoes
ggg1 ggg3

.