Can someone explain how it would limit development?
I don't understand how giving the government the power to dictate what can and can't be done on the internet is really a good thing. Also the fact that the regulation plan isn't going to be made public is strange.
Please explain to me as a consumer how this is at all good for us without mentioning throttling.
[QUOTE=Kidd;47218991]Can someone explain how it would limit development?[/QUOTE]
It won't, a bunch of corporations are just heavy aggro that now they're actually gonna have to provide a half decent service.
[editline]26th February 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=X12321;47218997]I know our generation is fully for this type of shit but the only thing I ever see is "oh no fast lanes!", something that doesn't directly effect the consumer because if I recall netflix and whatever ISPs were involved settled it. I don't understand how giving the government the power to dictate what can and can't be done on the internet is really a good thing. Also the fact that the regulation plan isn't going to be made public is strange.
Please explain to me as a consumer how this is at all good for us without mentioning throttling.[/QUOTE]
Look don't dumb the guy, actually explain the shit for him if he wants to know.
The whole idea is this:
If you allow corporations to essentially buy resources for the internet, then they can have people pushed into using their services which pushes smaller companies out of the market because they have preferential traffic control.
Meaning that smaller businesses are gonna get fucked over royally because they just can't compete with the money of larger businesses that are competing for the same traffic. So imagine facebook gets super shit for example and everyone wants to jump ship, but they can't because all the competitors have been pushed out of the market.
At least that's what I think it is from my admittedly limited understanding.
[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47218999]It won't, a bunch of corporations are just heavy aggro that now they're actually gonna have to provide a half decent service.
[editline]26th February 2015[/editline]
Look don't dumb the guy, actually explain the shit for him if he wants to know.
The whole idea is this:
If you allow corporations to essentially buy resources for the internet, then they can have people pushed into using their services which pushes smaller companies out of the market because they have preferential traffic control.
Meaning that smaller businesses are gonna get fucked over royally because they just can't compete with the money of larger businesses that are competing for the same traffic. So imagine facebook gets super shit for example and everyone wants to jump ship, but they can't because all the competitors have been pushed out of the market.
At least that's what I think it is from my admittedly limited understanding.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for an actual explanation. I just want to read some thought out opinions but of course I just get boxxed for asking.
[QUOTE=Swiket;47218908]They're already salty.
[url]http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet[/url]
[img]http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-yxV3uW8AAcBnO.png[/img][/QUOTE]
I've gotta admit this is actually pretty funny. The message is stupid and this is just a company throwing a hissy fit but god damn is it funny.
So many obama hating bandwagoners saying how bad this is for the US.. HAHAHAH
[QUOTE=X12321;47219047]Thanks for an actual explanation. I just want to read some thought out opinions but of course I just get boxxed for asking.[/QUOTE]
Yeah no worries man, facepunch has a tendency to build people box forts over nothing.
But yeah basically without net neutrality it just adds another tool to the arsenal of big businesses to crush competition before it can become a threat instead of them being forced to deal with the changing market and improving their services as a result, as such it basically enforces stagnation cause after all if it ain't broke you ain't gonna fix it.
[QUOTE=X12321;47219047]Thanks for an actual explanation. I just want to read some thought out opinions but of course I just get boxxed for asking.[/QUOTE]
Net Neutrality is great for competition and entrepreneurship. It allows tiny little startups to displace entire industries. Imagine if AOL's news website paid for fast-lane priority access. What chance would there be that a site like MSN or any other variety of news-hub sites could displace it? Zero. They'd have to fork over more money to companies like Comcast and Verizon in order to have that priority, too, and only then would they be on an even playing field.
Comcast and Verizon are only fighting against this because it ensures that the barrier of entry for competitive business on the internet are kept low.
[QUOTE=cody8295;47219060]So many obama hating bandwagoners saying how bad this is for the US.. HAHAHAH[/QUOTE]
You know maybe if you actually read the comments instead of just dismissing them under the blanket assumption that we're all "Obammy hatin' queer kickin' redneck sumbitches" you'd realize we have a very valid point: The fact that the FCC adamantly refuses to release the contents of the bill to the public DOES NOT bode well.
[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47219066]Yeah no worries man, facepunch has a tendency to build people box forts over nothing.
But yeah basically without net neutrality it just adds another tool to the arsenal of big businesses to crush competition before it can become a threat instead of them being forced to deal with the changing market and improving their services as a result, as such it basically enforces stagnation cause after all if it ain't broke you ain't gonna fix it.[/QUOTE]
He got dumbed because he chose to word his question so aggressively. Like this part
[quote]I know our generation is fully for this type of shit but the only thing I ever see is "oh no fast lanes!"[/quote] just makes him sound like a douche. He could have just been like "How does this benefit us consumers?" and it would have been fine.
[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;47219053]I've gotta admit this is actually pretty funny. The message is stupid and this is just a company throwing a hissy fit but god damn is it funny.[/QUOTE]
It talks about how it's bad but never says why or gives any examples.
[QUOTE=Rika-chan;47219141]He got dumbed because he chose to word his question so aggressively. Like this part
just makes him sound like a douche. He could have just been like "How does this benefit us consumers?" and it would have been fine.[/QUOTE]
Again though, instead of addressing the problem people saw fit to just dumb him and move on.
[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;47219132]You know maybe if you actually read the comments instead of just dismissing them under the blanket assumption that we're all "Obammy hatin' queer kickin' redneck sumbitches" you'd realize we have a very valid point: The fact that the FCC adamantly refuses to release the contents of the bill to the public DOES NOT bode well.[/QUOTE]
Or, y'know, the fact that the FCC rarely releases anything to the public until after it's voted on. The last time they did so was in 2007.
Their new rules are going to be the grounds for lawsuits for decades to come. They need to get this shit 100% perfect before their future opponents know anything about it. There is strategic value in keeping it a secret, which is why they do it so often.
Not releasing the rule publicly is nothing new.
[QUOTE=Kidd;47219147]It talks about how it's bad but never says why or gives any examples.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah it's a hissy fit. They don't make sense.
This is the economic equivalent of a 5 year old throwing himself on the floor, flailing his arms and legs, crying, and farting, because his mommy won't buy him a candy bar.
I'm glad it all turned out alright.
So how soon until Garry has to get a license for Facepunch?
Last I herd, this isn't the Net Neutrality you actually want, but more like the US government trying to grab more power.
You may not have to worry so much about fast lanes, but you more than likely will be facing higher prices for all internet.
[QUOTE=Glaber;47219488]So how soon until Garry has to get a license for Facepunch?
Last I herd, this isn't the Net Neutrality you actually want, but more like the US government trying to grab more power.
You may not have to worry so much about fast lanes, but you more than likely will be facing higher prices for all internet.[/QUOTE]Pretty sure that information has come from literally thin air and the assholes of companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon.
[QUOTE=Glaber;47219488]So how soon until Garry has to get a license for Facepunch?
Last I herd, this isn't the Net Neutrality you actually want, but more like the US government trying to grab more power.
You may not have to worry so much about fast lanes, but you more than likely will be facing higher prices for all internet.[/QUOTE]
I've been trying to piece together (and reading a lot about) how to create an ISP. If they want to suck my neighbors', and my wallets dry, then I think its time people start to get educated on this stuff and create local ISPs that service small areas.
Just gotta find the capital.
I don't know if they actually have the same idea. But I do have a couple articles that warned againt this thing.
[url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567[/url]
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/02/09/republican-fcc-member-warns-net-neutrality-is-not-neutral/[/url]
Look, I don't want to get screwed over for my internet any more than you guys do. I just Don't Trust the government.
how many people read it?
[QUOTE=Glaber;47219555]I don't know if they actually have the same idea. But I do have a couple articles that warned againt this thing.
[url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567[/url]
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/02/09/republican-fcc-member-warns-net-neutrality-is-not-neutral/[/url]
Look, I don't want to get screwed over for my internet any more than you guys do. I just Don't Trust the government.[/QUOTE]
It's funny how the only people arguing against net neutrality are the ISPs, the politicians paid by them, and shithead Tea Party bandwagoners wanting a reason to whine about Obama.
[QUOTE=Glaber;47219555]I don't know if they actually have the same idea. But I do have a couple articles that warned againt this thing.
[url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567[/url]
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/02/09/republican-fcc-member-warns-net-neutrality-is-not-neutral/[/url]
Look, I don't want to get screwed over for my internet any more than you guys do. I just Don't Trust the government.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband’s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density,” the two wrote.[/QUOTE]
who the FUCK wrote this? are they literally retarded? internet in europe is much faster AND cheaper than the US.
Got a counter source? Your flag says you're from the US so it can't be your experience.
It shouldn't be to hard to provide a source. I found one, but I would rather see yours than do the work I asked you to do.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47219621]It's funny how the only people arguing against net neutrality are the ISPs, the politicians paid by them, and shithead Tea Party bandwagoners wanting a reason to whine about Obama.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but when companies like Netflix and Google, who will directly benefit from net neutrality, say it's a good thing, people treat it like the word of god. There's a lot of blind partisanship on both sides here.
[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;47218678]I'm really hopefuly for this, but I'm also nervous as FUCK about the whole "FCC repeatedly refusing to release the bill for public view"
What's in that 332 page bill that they're so adamant about the public not seeing? If they have nothing to hide they shouldn't be keeping the contents a secret.
TBH this doesn't bode well at all. Everyone is doing the victory screech and calling this a win but no one is stepping back and saying "Hold on. We don't actually know WHAT this bill does and why the FCC won't let us read it"
[B]Ten dollars says it has all sorts of tracking and NSA type spying shit aimed at P2P file sharing and other semi-benign websites/media in an effort to 'track terrorism' or some shit like that.[/B] [:v: -elix][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=bord2tears;47218698]It's unacceptable that the bill has not been fully released. WTF[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;47218706]Yea, the fact that we can't read this thing is what worries me. I was agasint it from the beginning because of this one fact. I don't give a single damn what the politicians say it is.
[U][B]LET ME READ IT[/B][/U][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Chronische;47218720]Exactly, that's what I am worried about. Every time the government inserts themselves somewhere they start to want to control shit, even if they say they are there to keep things free. They will likely start requiring ISPs to release info on users, which up until now has mostly been kept secret by the ISPs. I forsee all kinds of breaches of privacy hidden in a massive bill that wasn't released to the public until it passed.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;47218743]I sure am glad that these 5 people that certainly are only working for what is best for the Internet and the American people passed this bill that they refuse to let us read.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;47218768]Yeah I sincerely doubt that. I'd bet money that the ISP's already know what's in the bill. [B]With the amount of money they have there's no way they haven't read the document backwards and forwards.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=catbarf;47218778]It's possible that there are legitimate reasons not to release the bill until it is passed and implemented, like shareholder impact to ISPs in response to the release (so they give them time to prepare statements and inform their management before it releases and their stocks drop), or needing to educate and inform relevant agencies so they can handle public queries, but I wouldn't count on it.[/QUOTE]
The FCC always does this; they vote on regulations and [I]then[/I] release the documents to the public. It keeps the FCC votes from becoming a political shitshow -- which paid-for Republicans are attempting to turn it into here to turn public opinion against the FCC. It is FCC convention to do this, and to do otherwise now would be a break from the norm.
Where were all of you when the FCC didn't reveal its original net neutrality rules (that the court later threw out because the FCC skipped the step of classifying ISPs as subject to its net neutrality regulations) before the vote? Or almost any other thing that the FCC has done in the last 20 years?
Do I know for sure that the regulations are nothing to worry about? No, and I suspect it's going to be a compromise between the public good and the big ISPs. I doubt either side is about to receive an ass-ramming, as much as each side would like to see the other get it.
[QUOTE=Swiket;47218908]They're already salty.
[URL]http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet[/URL]
[IMG]http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-yxV3uW8AAcBnO.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I commend them for their damn funny approach, but shut the fuck up Verizon! You're lucky Google fiber isn't available in my area, and your service is damn good.
[QUOTE]Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband's reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density," the two wrote.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=patq911;47219630]who the FUCK wrote this? are they literally retarded? internet in europe is much faster AND cheaper than the US.[/QUOTE]
Those are the words of the FCC Chairman (Tom Wheeler) and the other Republican shill on the board. Technically, they are not without merit, but to blame this on regulatory control is entirely unwarranted and impossible to prove. Big population centers tend to drag down the EU average, while there are some particular outliers - Romania (strangely), Sweden, Netherlands, etc.
Targeting the EU as a whole is baseless because you have both high and low extremes (see below) for countries which are usually the opposite of his assertion - countries with strict net neutrality rules tend to rank higher than those that don't, but this also correlates to how tech-aware the country is in the first place. However, one of the reasons the US lags behind is because it is so immense - snaking fiber across the entire country is a difficult task that even Google is wary of. The US has the most IPv4 addresses of any country in the world, even China.
Keep in mind that the [b]maximum available speed[/b] in many EU countries is far faster than in the US, and internet prices are much cheaper than in the US. Most Americans are satisfied with 25/5 or 50/10 service, but if you went to the Netherlands, you would wholeheartedly expect 100/100, and quite often gigabit, which is unheard of in most of the US. You'd be getting that for roughly the same price.
List of EU member countries with speeds [b]faster[/b] than US ([URL="http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/"]based on Ookla's metrics[/URL]):
- Romania (63.46 Mbps)
- Sweden (55.01 Mbps)
- Netherlands (46.34 Mbps)
- Lithuania (45.97 Mbps)
- Denmark (44.17 Mbps)
- Latvia (42.82 Mbps)
- Switzerland (42.61 Mbps)
- Iceland (candidate) (41.13 Mbps)
- Estonia (39.62 Mbps)
- France (36.41 Mbps)
- Luxembourg (36.41 Mbps)
- Finland (35.72 Mbps)
- Norway (35.62 Mbps)
- Bulgaria (34.43 Mbps)
- Hungary (33.30 Mbps)
US average speed: [b]33.26 Mbps[/b]
EU average speed (by population): [b]27.5 Mbps[/b]
List of EU member countries with speeds [b]slower[/b] than US:
- Belgium (32.89 Mbps)
- United Kingdom (29.68 Mbps)
- Portugal (29.63 Mbps)
- Germany (29.07 Mbps)
- Spain (28.12 Mbps)
- Czech Republic (27.40 Mbps)
- Ireland (27.14 Mbps)
- Austria (26.45 Mbps)
- Slovakia (25.85 Mbps)
- Malta (24.49 Mbps)
- Poland (23.06 Mbps)
- Slovenia (22.72 Mbps)
- Croatia (10.63 Mbps)
- Greece (10.06 Mbps)
- Italy (9.16 Mbps)
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47219905]
- Romania (63.46 Mbps)[/QUOTE]
God DAMN
[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;47219132]You know maybe if you actually read the comments instead of just dismissing them under the blanket assumption that we're all "Obammy hatin' queer kickin' redneck sumbitches" you'd realize we have a very valid point: The fact that the FCC adamantly refuses to release the contents of the bill to the public DOES NOT bode well.[/QUOTE]
That fact also worries me but the people on my facebook wall are beyond stupid in their disagreement. They dont want it because obama said it was good
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
