Internet Neutrality after Dec 14 and its impact

[Genesis.5169]

@"Coulter.2315"

Thanks for ignoring 90% of my post, and also strawman the chili arguement reducing it to just the dictatorship instead of the process of how the economy was structured under said leader. I no longer want to debate this with you, your clearly entrenched in your belief in free market capitalism which America it self has never ever enacted in the history of our country.

[Spurnshadow.3678]

> @Genesis.5169 said:

> > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > Shouldn't people that use more bandwidth pay for it?

>

> No internet is now a public utility do you believe people should pay extra for electricity if your using it to use your pc, instead of your refrigerator? Do you really thing compartmentalizing the internet is a good thing? I swear to god ever time i hear thing it annoys me please look past 2 steps before you make assumptions because electrical utilities and phone companies were doing this before we rained them in.

>

> Charging more for business calls and to heat your home via electricity etc. Companies left up to there own devices do not protect the consumer the milk them why can't people understand that.

 

Without going through the thread, this is the 2nd time I've hear the internet referred to as a public utility or should be. The internet is not a utility. A utility is a necessity that is owned and operated by the government or a private entity that is subcontracted by the government. It has massive regulation and needs to be always on at least reasonably so, available to everyone. These are things like electricity, sewage, water, garbage, etc. The things that are an absolute necessity to make communities run.

The internet is not that. It is an infrastructure owned and operated by private companies with some government regulation. It is not a necessity of daily life, as much as we've gotten used to data over cell phones, and gaming, there's a fuck-ton of people who don't have it and don't need it.

 

Now, if the internet _should_ be a public utility is another argument. That would require government take over of all the internet, switchers, routers, lines, etc. There's be a lot of market volatility over this and massive tax increase to pay for it all. Plus, there's the trust factor, would there be innovation, would it be politicized, would it be maintained? Different argument, but as of now, the internet is not a utility. Stop it.

[Genesis.5169]

> @Spurnshadow.3678 said:

> > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > > Shouldn't people that use more bandwidth pay for it?

> >

> > No internet is now a public utility do you believe people should pay extra for electricity if your using it to use your pc, instead of your refrigerator? Do you really thing compartmentalizing the internet is a good thing? I swear to god ever time i hear thing it annoys me please look past 2 steps before you make assumptions because electrical utilities and phone companies were doing this before we rained them in.

> >

> > Charging more for business calls and to heat your home via electricity etc. Companies left up to there own devices do not protect the consumer the milk them why can't people understand that.

>

> Without going through the thread, this is the 2nd time I've hear the internet referred to as a public utility or should be. The internet is not a utility. A utility is a necessity that is owned and operated by the government or a private entity that is subcontracted by the government. It has massive regulation and needs to be always on at least reasonably so, available to everyone. These are things like electricity, sewage, water, garbage, etc. The things that are an absolute necessity to make communities run.

> The internet is not that. It is an infrastructure owned and operated by private companies with some government regulation. It is not a necessity of daily life, as much as we've gotten used to data over cell phones, and gaming, there's a kitten-ton of people who don't have it and don't need it.

>

> Now, if the internet _should_ be a public utility is another argument. That would require government take over of all the internet, switchers, routers, lines, etc. There's be a lot of market volatility over this and massive tax increase to pay for it all. Plus, there's the trust factor, would there be innovation, would it be politicized, would it be maintained? Different argument, but as of now, the internet is not a utility. Stop it.

 

The internet is subcontract by the government, the internet started as a government program and the internet is needed for any citizen to lead a productive life. Your whole post just gave one giant tell on how little you know about the subject at hand. And no the government wouldn't need to take over because phones and electricity and water are public utilities that is private owned.

 

Do some research man.

 

_(this is why we so many people in america who vote against there own interests)_

[Coulter.2315]

> @Genesis.5169 said:

> @"Coulter.2315"

> Thanks for ignoring 90% of my post, and also strawman the chili arguement reducing it to just the dictatorship instead of the process of how the economy was structured under said leader. I no longer want to debate this with you, your clearly entrenched in your belief in free market capitalism which America it self has never ever enacted in the history of our country.

 

Well the rest of your post was being upset that people weren't buying what you wanted them to buy. I thought other people would have noticed that and I didn't need to point it out. There is a general crisis in many creative industries now but we'll need to see what creative solutions everyone finds - these solutions will be guided by what people buy.

 

You don't debate to convert the other side, you debate to show the audience your position and they decide. Free market capitalism has provided you with a country which is the hyper power of the globe, I am all for certain regulation but I see no threat in deregulating the ISP market - if it turns out shit you can elect someone willing to regulate again - a bit of experimentation is fine. Think of small businesses getting reduced rates for less consumption - I would point out that productivity is a major issue across the Western world right now, maybe a more flexible market in the internet could boost it.

[Genesis.5169]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > @"Coulter.2315"

> > Thanks for ignoring 90% of my post, and also strawman the chili arguement reducing it to just the dictatorship instead of the process of how the economy was structured under said leader. I no longer want to debate this with you, your clearly entrenched in your belief in free market capitalism which America it self has never ever enacted in the history of our country.

>

> Well the rest of your post was being upset that people weren't buying what you wanted them to buy. I thought other people would have noticed that and I didn't need to point it out. There is a general crisis in many creative industries now but we'll need to see what creative solutions everyone finds - these solutions will be guided by what people buy.

>

> You don't debate to convert the other side, you debate to show the audience your position and they decide. Free market capitalism has provided you with a country which is the hyper power of the globe, I am all for certain regulation but I see no threat in deregulating the ISP market - if it turns out kitten you can elect someone willing to regulate again - a bit of experimentation is fine. Think of small businesses getting reduced rates for less consumption - I would point out that productivity is a major issue across the Western world right now, maybe a more flexible market in the internet could boost it.

 

Productivity is at a major high in the usa the issue is that productivity and wages were decoupled in the 1980's when reagan deregulated a shit ton of things coming out of the 1970 and the hyperinflation we went there under Carter due to the saudi fucking the oil game up, and ww2 made us a super power nothing else. You know nothing about this subject or economics or modern political theory please do me a favor and stop peddling disinformation to people.

 

And what your arguing isn't a more flexible market is the ability to price gouge, which in NO WAY AFFECTS PRODUCTIVITY, and to add ISP HAVE HAD NO ISSUES AT ANYTIME IN THE PAST UPGRADING NETWORKS AND PROVIDING BETTER SERVICES.

 

[Spurnshadow.3678]

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > > Shouldn't people that use more bandwidth pay for it?

> >

> > No internet is now a public utility do you believe people should pay extra for electricity if your using it to use your pc, instead of your refrigerator? Do you really thing compartmentalizing the internet is a good thing? I swear to god ever time i hear thing it annoys me please look past 2 steps before you make assumptions because electrical utilities and phone companies were doing this before we rained them in.

> >

> > Charging more for business calls and to heat your home via electricity etc. Companies left up to there own devices do not protect the consumer the milk them why can't people understand that.

>

> Guess what, people that use more electricity pay more for it. That's why people in Arizona have larger electric bills in the summer than in the winter. If you use too much water you pay a premium for the extra water.

> Please don't swear to god. It's blasphemous and offensive.

>

> We reigned in phone companies? Have you seen your cell phone bill lately?

 

OK, it's not a good analogy. Paying your utilities is a necessity and it's determined by your local (as you point out) and how much you use at a nominal or no-profit. The internet is a thing that provides access to stuff around the globe. If you use a little, you're paying extra to be able to have access to that stuff. I'd say it's more akin to a library. Like only reading Stephen King? You want to pay a lower price to only read Stephen King stuff? K. Pay this small amount. Wait, you want to read horror by some other guy? Can't. Pay some more. OK. Want to read some fantasy fiction now by Robin Hobb? Sorry, we don't agree with some of her works, so we're only going to let you read one page a day to discourage you from reading her stuff.

 

Currently, anyone who doesn't use the internet much is subsidizing the people who use it a lot. That makes the internet pretty cheap. Getting rid of net neutrality is a ploy in order to get people to pay more for stuff they already are using. I haven't looked for a while, but I get non-pay cable HD bundled with high speed internet for about $110/month. I think the cable alone is $90. Of course, I'm getting a "bundle" but that's pretty damn cheap. You're on crack if any of you think you're gonna be paying for internet as cheap as that paying a la carte. And if someone doesn't want to pay for high speed internet, uh, cause they don't need it, well, they can pay even less.

 

And to the argument that ISPs bitch about their infrastructure costs, well, raise the price by $5 bucks or whatever. Currently, I don't see their profits taking any dip, so, that's a load or horse crap too.

[Spurnshadow.3678]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

> > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > > @"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

> > > >

> > > > > @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> > > > > An ISP has to maintain an infrastructure and constantly make improvements. Why do you guys think it's a bad thing to pay more if you're using more bandwidth than everyone else?

> > > >

> > > > It goes beyond charging more for more bandwidth. They will have the power to block or slow down sites or services which they disagree with politically, or because the site/service in question doesn't pay them kickbacks, or because they are supporting a competitor of the site, or because they feel like it. For example, what if your ISP contracts with Google, and slows down or blocks services from Google competitors? What if your ISP is run by the same corporation that owns Hulu, and they decide to slow down Netflix? What if your ISP is run by a CEO or organization with strong religious leanings, and blocks any content that conflicts with their religious beliefs? What if the ISP is run by political right- or left-wingers who will block news websites whose coverage leans the 'wrong' way?

> > > >

> > > > And, yeah, you can sit there and say it's not going to happen, but if it isn't going to happen, why legalize it? Why spend millions lobbying Congress to legalize it?

> > > >

> > >

> > > The answer to every question you asked is *change ISP!* That is literally how capitalism works, you choose what you want and the market punishes/rewards behaviour.

> >

> > You live in a big city, don't you? Guess what? Most of the country does not HAVE more than one ISP provider available. There is no second choice. There is nobody to switch to.

> > Where I live, I can get Time Warner cable internet. Or I can go online and sign up with some other company, who will sell me Time Warner internet with their own company's charges added on. Or I can go through the local phone company, who will route me through Time Warner internet. So many choices.

>

> Technically, the other option is to go with a satellite internet cable/internet service. Although I never used satellite internet, I did used to install it and I would recommend staying away from sat internet if you want to stream it play online games. It has improved over the years but it is still not in the ballpark of cable broadband not as reliable as radio cell towers... I'd only recommend for rural.

>

> Just a PSA for those on the outside looking in on this issue. In non-metro areas, there is either the 1 standard broadband option or the suboptimal (and possibly more costly) option.

 

I have not seen one satalite internet company that provides a flat rate for high speed. Usually it's limited to say 50G then turned down to dial up speed. Just like your phone. Also, anyone in an apartment, condo, or city building usually doesn't even allow satalite internet. You're locked into your cable provider.

[Spurnshadow.3678]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> > @"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

> > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > > @"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

> > > >

> > > > > @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> > > > > An ISP has to maintain an infrastructure and constantly make improvements. Why do you guys think it's a bad thing to pay more if you're using more bandwidth than everyone else?

> > > >

> > > > It goes beyond charging more for more bandwidth. They will have the power to block or slow down sites or services which they disagree with politically, or because the site/service in question doesn't pay them kickbacks, or because they are supporting a competitor of the site, or because they feel like it. For example, what if your ISP contracts with Google, and slows down or blocks services from Google competitors? What if your ISP is run by the same corporation that owns Hulu, and they decide to slow down Netflix? What if your ISP is run by a CEO or organization with strong religious leanings, and blocks any content that conflicts with their religious beliefs? What if the ISP is run by political right- or left-wingers who will block news websites whose coverage leans the 'wrong' way?

> > > >

> > > > And, yeah, you can sit there and say it's not going to happen, but if it isn't going to happen, why legalize it? Why spend millions lobbying Congress to legalize it?

> > > >

> > >

> > > The answer to every question you asked is *change ISP!* That is literally how capitalism works, you choose what you want and the market punishes/rewards behaviour.

> >

> > You live in a big city, don't you? Guess what? Most of the country does not HAVE more than one ISP provider available. There is no second choice. There is nobody to switch to.

> > Where I live, I can get Time Warner cable internet. Or I can go online and sign up with some other company, who will sell me Time Warner internet with their own company's charges added on. Or I can go through the local phone company, who will route me through Time Warner internet. So many choices.

>

> Well say Time Warner decides to screw its customers, it suddenly loses all its customers in the cities (likely crippling it), then your patch becomes ripe fruit for another company to start competing for. Competion is what drives better products, I can understand you feel vulnerable but companies don't get rich and stay rich by producing something people don't want to buy - good quality internet is something people want to buy.

 

Sigh, OK. I'll try explaining this to you and others who have this idea. There is no competition here. A small handfull of ISPs own all the infrastructure because they built it. Many of us are locked into what service provider we can use, like apartments and condos, because they are under contract or they are the only cable service provider. If you happen to live in a place where someone else provides you with an alternative, it really isn't. They're still using the infrastructure of the large ISPs. They lease them and try to provide better service at a slightly reduced cost. The mobile phone market is exactly like this. A google phone doesn't use google cell towers, they use towers built by Sprint, or AT&T, so they still control most of what the phone can do. So, no, there is not a viable option for a lot of people, especially folks who live in cities.

[Genesis.5169]

> @Spurnshadow.3678 said:

> > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > @"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

> > > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > > > @"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> > > > > > An ISP has to maintain an infrastructure and constantly make improvements. Why do you guys think it's a bad thing to pay more if you're using more bandwidth than everyone else?

> > > > >

> > > > > It goes beyond charging more for more bandwidth. They will have the power to block or slow down sites or services which they disagree with politically, or because the site/service in question doesn't pay them kickbacks, or because they are supporting a competitor of the site, or because they feel like it. For example, what if your ISP contracts with Google, and slows down or blocks services from Google competitors? What if your ISP is run by the same corporation that owns Hulu, and they decide to slow down Netflix? What if your ISP is run by a CEO or organization with strong religious leanings, and blocks any content that conflicts with their religious beliefs? What if the ISP is run by political right- or left-wingers who will block news websites whose coverage leans the 'wrong' way?

> > > > >

> > > > > And, yeah, you can sit there and say it's not going to happen, but if it isn't going to happen, why legalize it? Why spend millions lobbying Congress to legalize it?

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The answer to every question you asked is *change ISP!* That is literally how capitalism works, you choose what you want and the market punishes/rewards behaviour.

> > >

> > > You live in a big city, don't you? Guess what? Most of the country does not HAVE more than one ISP provider available. There is no second choice. There is nobody to switch to.

> > > Where I live, I can get Time Warner cable internet. Or I can go online and sign up with some other company, who will sell me Time Warner internet with their own company's charges added on. Or I can go through the local phone company, who will route me through Time Warner internet. So many choices.

> >

> > Well say Time Warner decides to screw its customers, it suddenly loses all its customers in the cities (likely crippling it), then your patch becomes ripe fruit for another company to start competing for. Competion is what drives better products, I can understand you feel vulnerable but companies don't get rich and stay rich by producing something people don't want to buy - good quality internet is something people want to buy.

>

> Sigh, OK. I'll try explaining this to you and others who have this idea. There is no competition here. A small handfull of ISPs own all the infrastructure because they built it. Many of us are locked into what service provider we can use, like apartments and condos, because they are under contract or they are the only cable service provider. If you happen to live in a place where someone else provides you with an alternative, it really isn't. They're still using the infrastructure of the large ISPs. They lease them and try to provide better service at a slightly reduced cost. The mobile phone market is exactly like this. A google phone doesn't use google cell towers, they use towers built by Sprint, or AT&T, so they still control most of what the phone can do. So, no, there is not a viable option for a lot of people, especially folks who live in cities.

 

I tried to explain that earlier, they don't understand because they don't want to, if it aligned with there political ideology its fine even if its against there own interest objectively.

[Coulter.2315]

> @Genesis.5169 said:

> > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > > @"Coulter.2315"

> > > Thanks for ignoring 90% of my post, and also strawman the chili arguement reducing it to just the dictatorship instead of the process of how the economy was structured under said leader. I no longer want to debate this with you, your clearly entrenched in your belief in free market capitalism which America it self has never ever enacted in the history of our country.

> >

> > Well the rest of your post was being upset that people weren't buying what you wanted them to buy. I thought other people would have noticed that and I didn't need to point it out. There is a general crisis in many creative industries now but we'll need to see what creative solutions everyone finds - these solutions will be guided by what people buy.

> >

> > You don't debate to convert the other side, you debate to show the audience your position and they decide. Free market capitalism has provided you with a country which is the hyper power of the globe, I am all for certain regulation but I see no threat in deregulating the ISP market - if it turns out kitten you can elect someone willing to regulate again - a bit of experimentation is fine. Think of small businesses getting reduced rates for less consumption - I would point out that productivity is a major issue across the Western world right now, maybe a more flexible market in the internet could boost it.

>

> Productivity is at a major high in the usa the issue is that productivity and wages were decoupled in the 1980's when reagan deregulated a kitten ton of things coming out of the 1970 and the hyperinflation we went there under Carter due to the saudi kitten the oil game up, and ww2 made us a super power nothing else. You know nothing about this subject or economics or modern political theory please do me a favor and atleast stop peddling disinformation to people.

>

> And what your arguing isn't a more flexible market is the ability to price gouge, which in NO WAY AFFECTS PRODUCTIVITY.

 

For the last 10 years the USA's productivity rate has averaged 1.2% (better than us) but still lower than before, this year there has been a big jump - perhaps down to the deregulation in other sectors with the "1in 2 out" policy? I think you're seriously talking yourselves down if you think WW2 was the only source of your power, your commitment to liberty and free market capitalism is key to your success. When the UK was the hyper power it was trade that got us there as well as the military, look at South Korea compared with North, look at Botswana compared with Zimbabwe, look at Chile compared with its surroundings. Free market capitalist nations do better and pretending you have any clue as to my knowledge on any subject is ridiculous.

 

[Spurnshadow.3678]

> @Genesis.5169 said:

> > @Spurnshadow.3678 said:

> > > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > > > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > > > Shouldn't people that use more bandwidth pay for it?

> > >

> > > No internet is now a public utility do you believe people should pay extra for electricity if your using it to use your pc, instead of your refrigerator? Do you really thing compartmentalizing the internet is a good thing? I swear to god ever time i hear thing it annoys me please look past 2 steps before you make assumptions because electrical utilities and phone companies were doing this before we rained them in.

> > >

> > > Charging more for business calls and to heat your home via electricity etc. Companies left up to there own devices do not protect the consumer the milk them why can't people understand that.

> >

> > Without going through the thread, this is the 2nd time I've hear the internet referred to as a public utility or should be. The internet is not a utility. A utility is a necessity that is owned and operated by the government or a private entity that is subcontracted by the government. It has massive regulation and needs to be always on at least reasonably so, available to everyone. These are things like electricity, sewage, water, garbage, etc. The things that are an absolute necessity to make communities run.

> > The internet is not that. It is an infrastructure owned and operated by private companies with some government regulation. It is not a necessity of daily life, as much as we've gotten used to data over cell phones, and gaming, there's a kitten-ton of people who don't have it and don't need it.

> >

> > Now, if the internet _should_ be a public utility is another argument. That would require government take over of all the internet, switchers, routers, lines, etc. There's be a lot of market volatility over this and massive tax increase to pay for it all. Plus, there's the trust factor, would there be innovation, would it be politicized, would it be maintained? Different argument, but as of now, the internet is not a utility. Stop it.

>

> The internet is subcontract by the government, the internet started as a government program and the internet is needed for any citizen to lead a productive life. Your whole post just gave one giant tell on how little you know about the subject at hand. And no the government wouldn't need to take over because phones and electricity and water are public utilities that is private owned.

>

> Do some research man.

>

> _(this is why we so many people in america who vote against there own interests)_

 

Right, that's why so many people in rural America, or poor and lower middle income people don't have the internet but are somehow able to still live.

 

And to my knowledge, and I may be wrong, it is private companies, like Google, who lay down fiber optic, Comcast, and Time Warner who do the work, Cisco, etc. There may be subsidies involved, but that doesn't mean the Government owns and operates this stuff. Sure, it started out as a thing to let government scientists and military computers talk to one another, but grew from there. Could be wrong, but I never heard that the government owned and operated the "internet."

[Spurnshadow.3678]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > > > @"Coulter.2315"

> > > > Thanks for ignoring 90% of my post, and also strawman the chili arguement reducing it to just the dictatorship instead of the process of how the economy was structured under said leader. I no longer want to debate this with you, your clearly entrenched in your belief in free market capitalism which America it self has never ever enacted in the history of our country.

> > >

> > > Well the rest of your post was being upset that people weren't buying what you wanted them to buy. I thought other people would have noticed that and I didn't need to point it out. There is a general crisis in many creative industries now but we'll need to see what creative solutions everyone finds - these solutions will be guided by what people buy.

> > >

> > > You don't debate to convert the other side, you debate to show the audience your position and they decide. Free market capitalism has provided you with a country which is the hyper power of the globe, I am all for certain regulation but I see no threat in deregulating the ISP market - if it turns out kitten you can elect someone willing to regulate again - a bit of experimentation is fine. Think of small businesses getting reduced rates for less consumption - I would point out that productivity is a major issue across the Western world right now, maybe a more flexible market in the internet could boost it.

> >

> > Productivity is at a major high in the usa the issue is that productivity and wages were decoupled in the 1980's when reagan deregulated a kitten ton of things coming out of the 1970 and the hyperinflation we went there under Carter due to the saudi kitten the oil game up, and ww2 made us a super power nothing else. You know nothing about this subject or economics or modern political theory please do me a favor and atleast stop peddling disinformation to people.

> >

> > And what your arguing isn't a more flexible market is the ability to price gouge, which in NO WAY AFFECTS PRODUCTIVITY.

>

> For the last 10 years the USA's productivity rate has averaged 1.2% (better than us) but still lower than before, this year there has been a big jump - perhaps down to the deregulation in other sectors with the "1in 2 out" policy? I think you're seriously talking yourselves down if you think WW2 was the only source of your power, your commitment to liberty and free market capitalism is key to your success. When the UK was the hyper power it was trade that got us there as well as the military, look at South Korea compared with North, look at Botswana compared with Zimbabwe, look at Chile compared with its surroundings. Free market capitalist nations do better and pretending you have any clue as to my knowledge on any subject is ridiculous.

>

 

Dude, Genesis is just right. You're comparing YoY growth to all time highs. Also, as he stated in a previous post, our government in the US has always regulated capitalism. Its just gotten more and more regulated over the years, but government has always had "a finger on the scale." Also, our current administration is not adhearing at all to the 1 in 2 out policy. If anything it's 1 in 10 out. There's some serious bad shit that's been happening, but let's not derail off the topic of how this will effect GW2.

[Zok.4956]

> @"Korgan Dunblane.4907" said:

> Just to ask; With the FCC looking to charge extra, censor and limit access to the internet and its usage after December 14 2017 (less than 3 weeks at time of posting this) What is going to happen to Guildwars - (and for that matter any and all gaming on the internet?)

 

The FCC does not regulate the Internet, only the US.

 

> This is only USA so far, but will possibly spread to all countries in the end

 

I do not think so. The leading role of the USA for other countries is decreasing dramatically since Mr. Trump took over, and the EU (as an example) had and has its own regulation and consumer protection laws.

 

 

 

 

[minion.1987]

if the FCC wins only solution is either obey or boycott everything.

[Drarnor Kunoram.5180]

> @Zok.4956 said:

> > @"Korgan Dunblane.4907" said:

> > Just to ask; With the FCC looking to charge extra, censor and limit access to the internet and its usage after December 14 2017 (less than 3 weeks at time of posting this) What is going to happen to Guildwars - (and for that matter any and all gaming on the internet?)

>

> The FCC does not regulate the Internet, only the US.

As of the reclassification of ISP's as utilities under Title 2 in 2015, the FCC does, in fact, regulate the internet.

 

Or were you trying to say they only regulate it in the US? This is true, but Arena Net is an American company and thus bound first and foremost by US law and policy.

 

 

[Kalibri.5861]

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > @"Zero Day.2594" said:

> > > @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> > > An ISP has to maintain an infrastructure and constantly make improvements. Why do you guys think it's a bad thing to pay more if you're using more bandwidth than everyone else?

> >

> > You must be one of the people that also supports RNG loot boxes

>

> You say that like it's a bad thing. I support RNG loot boxes. I support freedom.

 

So basically what you're saying is that in every way mentioned thus far you support exploitation. And also as a non sequitur, you support freedom. Okay....

 

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> Deregulation is great! we need more of it. Go Trump Go!

 

Broadly speaking, deregulation is great if you're a corporation, but not if you're a person. Unfortunately, you're a person.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> Shouldn't people that use more bandwidth pay for it?

They already do. What is being in question here is ISP's ability to decide _for you_ which part of your bandwith will get allocated to what. Basically, you might find that, depending on your ISP, you may end up paying wildly different rates for the same bandwith, depending on what you watch.

It's not about paying for the bandwith you use. It's about ISP's ability to set a different rate per bandwith depending on what you use that bandwith for.

 

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> Guess what, people that use more electricity pay more for it.

But you don't pay more if you decide to use that electricity for PC than refridgerator. You pay only for volume. Yes, if you use more you pay more, but you don't pay more because you decided to use it for something specific. If we followed the same pattern as the new proposals for 'net, your "energy provider" might decide to allow you only 2 hours of energy for watching TV per day. Or let you light up no more than 2 lightbulbs at the same time. Yes, you'd still get as much total energy as before, but you'd no longer have any say as to how it would get allocated. And if you wanted to change that, you'd either have to pay extra compared to the situation now, or might not even get such an option. Because your "energy provider" didn't get kickback money from the cable network.

Wouldn't that be ridiculous? And yet some people think it would be okay for the net.

 

[Feanor.2358]

> @Genesis.5169 said:

> @"Coulter.2315"

> Thanks for ignoring 90% of my post, and also strawman the chili arguement reducing it to just the dictatorship instead of the process of how the economy was structured under said leader. I no longer want to debate this with you, your clearly entrenched in your belief in free market capitalism which America it self has never ever enacted in the history of our country.

 

OK, let me handle the rest of your post.

You remember video games which aren't 10 hours long and don't cost $60. Fine. But you should also remember their great production values. The glorious pre-HD resolutions. The limited color palettes, if you're old enough. The lack of in-game cinematics, voice acted dialogs... shall I continue? The standards for the video games are constantly going up, because of combination of hardware development and competition. And getting your title up to that standard doesn't come free. Every new feature has to be implemented. All the new high-res textures, detailed animations, voice lines, need to be produced. And it only gets worse when we're talking about gigantic projects like MMOs. Selling DLCs and lootboxes are just mechanisms to cope with the higher costs of production, because users want all the new shinies, all the new tech, all around better games, but they are strangely reluctant to pay for them.

 

Now, just to be clear, I'm not saying pulling back the regulations on the ISPs is something good. I'm only saying your argument on the flaws of the free market is weak. When pondering about the market, you *always* need to consider both sides. You're only thinking from the PoV of a customer. It's understandable, but it makes you jump to invalid conclusions.

[YoukiNeko.6047]

> @Spurnshadow.3678 said:

> > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > > > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > > > Shouldn't people that use more bandwidth pay for it?

> > >

> > > No internet is now a public utility do you believe people should pay extra for electricity if your using it to use your pc, instead of your refrigerator? Do you really thing compartmentalizing the internet is a good thing? I swear to god ever time i hear thing it annoys me please look past 2 steps before you make assumptions because electrical utilities and phone companies were doing this before we rained them in.

> > >

> > > Charging more for business calls and to heat your home via electricity etc. Companies left up to there own devices do not protect the consumer the milk them why can't people understand that.

> >

> > Guess what, people that use more electricity pay more for it. That's why people in Arizona have larger electric bills in the summer than in the winter. If you use too much water you pay a premium for the extra water.

> > Please don't swear to god. It's blasphemous and offensive.

> >

> > We reigned in phone companies? Have you seen your cell phone bill lately?

>

> OK, it's not a good analogy. Paying your utilities is a necessity and it's determined by your local (as you point out) and how much you use at a nominal or no-profit. The internet is a thing that provides access to stuff around the globe. If you use a little, you're paying extra to be able to have access to that stuff. I'd say it's more akin to a library. Like only reading Stephen King? You want to pay a lower price to only read Stephen King stuff? K. Pay this small amount. Wait, you want to read horror by some other guy? Can't. Pay some more. OK. Want to read some fantasy fiction now by Robin Hobb? Sorry, we don't agree with some of her works, so we're only going to let you read one page a day to discourage you from reading her stuff.

>

> Currently, anyone who doesn't use the internet much is subsidizing the people who use it a lot. That makes the internet pretty cheap. Getting rid of net neutrality is a ploy in order to get people to pay more for stuff they already are using. I haven't looked for a while, but I get non-pay cable HD bundled with high speed internet for about **$110/month**. I think the cable alone is $90. Of course, I'm getting a "bundle" but that's pretty kitten cheap. You're on crack if any of you think you're gonna be paying for internet as cheap as that paying a la carte. And if someone doesn't want to pay for high speed internet, uh, cause they don't need it, well, they can pay even less.

>

> And to the argument that ISPs kitten about their infrastructure costs, well, raise the price by $5 bucks or whatever. Currently, I don't see their profits taking any dip, so, that's a load or horse crap too.

 

It's off topic but are you really playing $110/month for couple of HD channles and internet access?

 

Here is the cheapest bundle from a random company in my country `55 Mbps download / 18 Mbps upload, 100 channels, 30 HD channels - $12.13/month`.

 

How does your compare to it?

[Genesis.5169]

> @Feanor.2358 said:

> > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > @"Coulter.2315"

> > Thanks for ignoring 90% of my post, and also strawman the chili arguement reducing it to just the dictatorship instead of the process of how the economy was structured under said leader. I no longer want to debate this with you, your clearly entrenched in your belief in free market capitalism which America it self has never ever enacted in the history of our country.

>

> OK, let me handle the rest of your post.

> You remember video games which aren't 10 hours long and don't cost $60. Fine. But you should also remember their great production values. The glorious pre-HD resolutions. The limited color palettes, if you're old enough. The lack of in-game cinematics, voice acted dialogs... shall I continue? The standards for the video games are constantly going up, because of combination of hardware development and competition. And getting your title up to that standard doesn't come free. Every new feature has to be implemented. All the new high-res textures, detailed animations, voice lines, need to be produced. And it only gets worse when we're talking about gigantic projects like MMOs. Selling DLCs and lootboxes are just mechanisms to cope with the higher costs of production, because users want all the new shinies, all the new tech, all around better games, but they are strangely reluctant to pay for them.

>

> Now, just to be clear, I'm not saying pulling back the regulations on the ISPs is something good. I'm only saying your argument on the flaws of the free market is weak. When pondering about the market, you *always* need to consider both sides. You're only thinking from the PoV of a customer. It's understandable, but it makes you jump to invalid conclusions.

 

Cost of production in videos didn't skyrocket, because video-game gens move when they are affordable, its the marketing is whats causing those bloated budgets, i really get tired of people talking about things they know nothing about, just because you read things on the internet doesn't mean its true. and people can still whip out 50 hour games if they wanted to but they can't be bothered to pay for it. Not to say there weren't any increases for the cost to development but to the degree of which 95% of games can be beaten in 1 sitting no, it doesn't warrant it.

 

Games like the witcher 1 2 3. TES. countless other games had lower budgets then the new mass effect BY LARGE MARGINS and are longer and better without those budgets, and they are better games. Its the marketing that causes what you speak of, its very possible to make good games if producers decide to do it but instead what they do is sell you half a game then sell the other half in parts, place micro transactions in it to create new revenue streams so they don't have to worry about making quality products or making new IPs.

 

Man this is tiring.

[mercury ranique.2170]

I think it depends a lot on the choice you have in ISP's AND the actual IAP. To explain. You often have a lot of choice between providers, but they are for a part virtual providers. This means they hire an internet access provider for atleast some parts of the entire service. This can be to get you connected to their datacenter, but also to deliver the entiore service in their name.

 

The more options you have in who is actually providing the routing service, the less problematic a lack off net neutrality will be. Simply cause competition will help to prevent out of hand situations.

 

Also. It is not really up to Arenanet to decide to get their service on a fast lane. They too hire a service (the server hosting). I understand they recently switched the PvP-servers to Amazon. Perhaps this is a way to anticipate to this new situation. Using a big hosting provider to host the servers will mean a better fast lane.

[Nokaru.7831]

> @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> No, I'm not really concerned about it right now. It's pulling back regulation to pre-2015 levels of regulation. All the talk about ISPs slowing speeds, blocking websites and slicing up the internet into various access channels isn't concerning because that wasn't a thing in 2015. Could it happen now? Sure, I guess. But did it happen then? Not really... just a few cases in the history of the internet in the USA.

 

What the people parroting the "pre-2015" rhetoric are forgetting is that the amount of data we use since those days has gone up... a lot. Of course Net Neutrality didn't matter as much back when YouTube was young and steaming sites like Twitch or on-demand services like NetFlix weren't a thing. The landscape has changed, but you'll learn that soon enough. Unless you own Comcast, Verizon or AT&T I really don't see the point in arguing in favor of them for essentially wanting to charge more for the same (lackluster) service they're providing now. (Other than being a contrarian/devil'a advocate)

[Feanor.2358]

> @Genesis.5169 said:

> > @Feanor.2358 said:

> > > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > > @"Coulter.2315"

> > > Thanks for ignoring 90% of my post, and also strawman the chili arguement reducing it to just the dictatorship instead of the process of how the economy was structured under said leader. I no longer want to debate this with you, your clearly entrenched in your belief in free market capitalism which America it self has never ever enacted in the history of our country.

> >

> > OK, let me handle the rest of your post.

> > You remember video games which aren't 10 hours long and don't cost $60. Fine. But you should also remember their great production values. The glorious pre-HD resolutions. The limited color palettes, if you're old enough. The lack of in-game cinematics, voice acted dialogs... shall I continue? The standards for the video games are constantly going up, because of combination of hardware development and competition. And getting your title up to that standard doesn't come free. Every new feature has to be implemented. All the new high-res textures, detailed animations, voice lines, need to be produced. And it only gets worse when we're talking about gigantic projects like MMOs. Selling DLCs and lootboxes are just mechanisms to cope with the higher costs of production, because users want all the new shinies, all the new tech, all around better games, but they are strangely reluctant to pay for them.

> >

> > Now, just to be clear, I'm not saying pulling back the regulations on the ISPs is something good. I'm only saying your argument on the flaws of the free market is weak. When pondering about the market, you *always* need to consider both sides. You're only thinking from the PoV of a customer. It's understandable, but it makes you jump to invalid conclusions.

>

> Cost of production in videos didn't skyrocket, because video-game gens move when they are affordable, its the marketing is whats causing those bloated budgets, i really get tired of people talking about things they know nothing about, just because you read things on the internet doesn't mean its true. and people can still whip out 50 hour games if they wanted to but they can't be bothered to pay for it. Not to say there weren't any increases for the cost to development but to the degree of which 95% of games can be beaten in 1 sitting no, it doesn't warrant it.

>

> Games like the witcher 1 2 3. TES. countless other games had lower budgets then the new mass effect BY LARGE MARGINS and are longer and better without those budgets, and they are better games. Its the marketing that causes what you speak of, its very possible to make good games if producers decide to do it but instead what they do is sell you half a game then sell the other half in parts, place micro transactions in it to create new revenue streams so they don't have to worry about making quality products or making new IPs.

>

> Man this is tiring.

 

Mate, I spent the last 14 years in the industry. Please tell me more about how it works.

 

It's just business. The publishers aren't interested in making great games, they are interested in making money. They won't pay more unless they're convinced they can get better ROI from that. They basically want what sells better. Want better games? Then buy them. But you don't. You buy the next triple A because it looks better and then you complain games aren't like they used to be. Yeah, they aren't. They are what the market made them. Not the evil corporations, the users.

[Joshewwah.2956]

There's simply no benefit in us customers paying more. I'm not so sure why people want the big corporations in charge of the internet.

[zombyturtle.5980]

i cant believe people on here are in favour of removing net neutrality. wtf are you thinking. Regulation is in place for a reason. Its because the industry failed to regulate itself.

https://i.imgur.com/mEWBrnZ.jpg HERE is why we CANT let net neutrality die. These companies have been trying to get away with scummy behavior for years and years not only limited to censoring information and blocking access illegally.

Source: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

 

You really think they are paying billions and billions of dollars in lobbying so they can act responsibly and honor their promises to not throttle competitor websites? Then you are naive.


 

 

Weirdly, after making a deal with comcast, netflix speed with comcast rises and netflix admits to throttling data for Verizon and AT&T subscribers. Every single company will do this.

 

To the people suggesting to change providor, thats not possible for many people in USA and other countries where there is literally only 1 provider in their area. This is ALSO due to company corruption where they make deals with other providers to ensure each provider has a regional monopoly, and can thereore act in any way they please, including charging for additional 'data packages' like online gaming, video streaming, social media and even porn.

 

Examples

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/16/tennessee_kills_muni_expansion/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/22/net-neutrality-internet-why-americans-so-worried-about-it-being-scrapped