What Thursday's FCC Vote Means for Gaming - Super Bunnyhop - General

[video]https://youtu.be/MhpKG0FN1CA[/video] I'm not American, so I'm watching from the sidelines, but this looks pretty bad. Hopefully after Trump's term finishes you guys will get the opportunity to repeal net neutrality, just don't give up hope.

The problem is the countless local regulations make the ISP business anything BUT a free market. If I was able to buy service from a local broadband provider Net Neutrality wouldn't really be an issue. If a company throttled some protocol or service I liked I would just switch. He even made this argument without realizing it with the Comcast and Google Fiber story. As a regulatory body I dont think the FCC has the power to remove these local regulations, so hopefully there can be some law passed to remove them

Would this mean that Steam and co would have to start trying to figure out extreme compression methods, game devs have to become efficient size-wise, and/or games will go back to physical discs?

[QUOTE=toaster468;52982496]The problem is the countless local regulations make the ISP business anything BUT a free market. If I was able to buy service from a local broadband provider Net Neutrality wouldn't really be an issue. If a company throttled some protocol or service I liked I would just switch. He even made this argument without realizing it with the Comcast and Google Fiber story. As a regulatory body I dont think the FCC has the power to remove these local regulations, so hopefully there can be some law passed to remove them[/QUOTE] It's far more complicated than that. The cable companies that serve as ISP's have been using their lobbiests for years, decades to get subsidies to reduce all sorts of their costs. The problem comes that these funds aren't properly used, they're used to prop up artificial monopolies, snuff out competition, and they've altered the rules in hundreds of ways across these small districts to their benefit. So regulation is the problem on one side of the equation. The regulation is bad, inefficient and counter productive. Net Neutrality, and title 2 regulations didn't change any of that, however it did give claws and teeth to the regulators to actually fight oversteps. Unfortunately, as government is just made of people, each faction of a regulatory agency can have different levels of zeal for their job. Under Wheeler, Title 2 regulations allowed the FCC to essentially fight the misuse of power through fast lanes/slow lanes and the like to make a more fair internet. This was good regulation as it actually got to the point of the problem. However, it wasn't perfect, as it didn't undo the former problems. This is the issue. We have a black and white mind set that I've seen you demonstrate, and that I've seen others here demonstrate about the concept of "regulation" and "Government intervention". Sometimes thoughtful interventions are required, but often there's interventions we really don't need, the subsidies and the like.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52982813]It's far more complicated than that. The cable companies that serve as ISP's have been using their lobbiests for years, decades to get subsidies to reduce all sorts of their costs. The problem comes that these funds aren't properly used, they're used to [B]prop up artificial monopolies[/B], snuff out competition, and they've altered the rules in hundreds of ways across these small districts to their benefit. So regulation is the problem on one side of the equation. The regulation is bad, inefficient and counter productive. [/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you mean by this, if you mean they use the lobbyists to create local regulations to make themselves a monopoly in an area then I agree with you. But it would be incredibly silly for a company to spend their money undercutting the competition below their own bottom line to snuff out the competition in a truly free market. They would lose incredible amounts of money and when they finally become a monopoly they will raise prices and then someone else will move in to compete. That's why I think less regulation would be pretty good. [quote] Net Neutrality, and title 2 regulations didn't change any of that, however it did give claws and teeth to the regulators to actually fight oversteps. Unfortunately, as government is just made of people, each faction of a regulatory agency can have different levels of zeal for their job. Under Wheeler, Title 2 regulations allowed the FCC to essentially fight the misuse of power through fast lanes/slow lanes and the like to make a more fair internet. This was good regulation as it actually got to the point of the problem. However, it wasn't perfect, as it didn't undo the former problems. This is the issue. We have a black and white mind set that I've seen you demonstrate, and that I've seen others here demonstrate about the concept of "regulation" and "Government intervention". Sometimes thoughtful interventions are required, but often there's interventions we really don't need, the subsidies and the like.[/quote] My views are more nuanced than you give me credit for. Look I agree with this, I think that removing Net Neutrality and Title II while keeping the other regulations only serves the needs of the big ISPs. I also think the higher up regulations happen the worse they often are. I'm not sure if this is being considered but maybe if municipalities could lay their own fiber and connect them to local ISP locations and then get routed through their network like that, it would allow people to switch ISPs much more easily and allow new comers in because they don't need to run their own lines.

What's the MGS3 reference about (camera angles)? Is it spoilery? Like that staircase section everybody keeps talking about?

[QUOTE=halfer;52983094]What's the MGS3 reference about (camera angles)? Is it spoilery? Like that staircase section everybody keeps talking about?[/QUOTE] Maybe because MGS3 originally had an overhead camera?

[QUOTE=halfer;52983094]What's the MGS3 reference about (camera angles)? Is it spoilery? Like that staircase section everybody keeps talking about?[/QUOTE] He's just bringing up how shit the original camera was before Subsistence fixed it

[QUOTE=toaster468;52982866]and when they finally become a monopoly they will raise prices and then someone else will move in to compete. That's why I think less regulation would be pretty good.[/QUOTE] Could you share some regulations that have been a main reason for stifling American startup ISPs in the past?

[QUOTE=toaster468;52982496]The problem is the countless local regulations make the ISP business anything BUT a free market. If I was able to buy service from a local broadband provider Net Neutrality wouldn't really be an issue. If a company throttled some protocol or service I liked I would just switch. He even made this argument without realizing it with the Comcast and Google Fiber story. As a regulatory body I dont think the FCC has the power to remove these local regulations, so hopefully there can be some law passed to remove them[/QUOTE] I remember where I lived in michigan there was a grand total of one service provider, being some version of Brighthouse Networks.. They treated everything like absolute dog shit and the connection was always 1/10th the speed promised. A new company moved in after about 15 years of that service and everyone jumped ship to the point the original provider started begging door to door to come back.