Internet Neutrality after Dec 14 and its impact

[Genesis.5169]

> @Sky.7610 said:

> > @Genesis.5169 said:

> > There a thread about it and we need your help been spending 2days trying to convert the people who are for removing net neutrality, maybe you can succeed where i failed because these folks are throwing objectivity out the window in favor of and ideology that isn't in there best interest.

>

> What ideology can possibly justify this? Free market? That would be a good argument... if it was actually a free market and regulations weren't rigged to prevent any new startups.

>

 

Yep people are arguing free market take a read your self earlier posts in this thread pointed it out.

[TEKnowledgy.1760]

> @Genesis.5169 said:

> There a thread about it and we need your help been spending 2days trying to convert the people who are for removing net neutrality, maybe you can succeed where i failed because these folks are throwing objectivity out the window in favor of and ideology that isn't in there best interest.

 

Some sheep can not be guarded, only when the wolf is ripping the flesh from their mutilated body will they become aware of the situation. By that point the rest of the pack has gathered around and it is to late to be saved.

 

 

[otto.5684]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> Wouldn't the free market take effect? If a certain company starts doing all the bad stuff won't you all just switch your provider? I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a company screws its customers it will find it has less customers, you'll get more inovation and experimentation with payment/service models with less regulation and the market will make the best of those popular and profitable (which encourages everyone to keep doing better).

>

> I would rather everyone gave the reduction of regulation a chance and if it turns out to be a kitten show vote in a government promising to regulate (yay you live in a democracy).

 

We did in 1980, late 80s economic down turn and stock market crash.

Again in the early 1990s, 92 economic slow down.

Late 90s, IT bubble (IT was new and there where little regulations).

2000s, largest economic crash since the great depression 2007-2009, primarily due to lack of regulations in the financial and real estate industries.

 

Do you see a trend? Without regulations companies will do whatever they can for quick buck, even if it results in a long term for loss for them and for everyone else. And the idea of "free market" is cool and all, but we do not live in a free market (we used to like 50 years ago), but a quasi monopoly, where 2-4 companies control majority (if not the entire) specific industry. These companies in turn co-operate to increase profits and reduce quality. The only thing that holds them back is government regulations, that specify the minimum quality product service they can offer and provide the consumer legal retribution if the companies do not offer that quality.

 

ISP industry has 4 major players, of which 2 control over 50% of the industry. If you are not expecting they will collude to maximize profits, at the cost of quality, you are naive. They rarely even compete in territory, so where is the competition to hold them from throttling what they do not like, and speeding-up what they do? What prevents this and ensures that we (the customer) do not get fucked over is net neutrality, since competition in the ISP industry (like most other industries nowadays) is none-existent.

[Ayakaru.6583]

I haven't been able to get a clear answer on how it will affect internet in Europe though. Lots of people speculating and doomsinging but i haven't gotten like clear answer yet

[Sojourner.4621]

Glad about the merge, but wish it had been merged to the other thread as the lead instead, as that one has better detailing and links to appropriate courses of action.

[Sky.7610]

> @phys.7689 said:

> > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > Wouldn't the free market take effect? If a certain company starts doing all the bad stuff won't you all just switch your provider? I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a company screws its customers it will find it has less customers, you'll get more inovation and experimentation with payment/service models with less regulation and the market will make the best of those popular and profitable (which encourages everyone to keep doing better).

> >

> > I would rather everyone gave the reduction of regulation a chance and if it turns out to be a kitten show vote in a government promising to regulate (yay you live in a democracy).

>

> providing broadband access is mostly a big game. 51% of people in US have only one option for high speed internet. Companies block/buy competition, and abandon low profit markets.

>

>

> it is a fallacy that less regulation increases competition. It entirely depends on what type of regulations.

 

To add to your point,

 

Generally speaking, less or no government intervention does allow increased market competition which ultimately drives cost and brings choices to consumers. The problem is, as you pointed out, certain legislation that are greatly in favor of the well-established players kills competition, such as the case for ISPs. In other words, **true competition/free market never existed for ISP** for the invisible hand and proper free market principles to take effect.

[Coulter.2315]

> @otto.5684 said:

> > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > Wouldn't the free market take effect? If a certain company starts doing all the bad stuff won't you all just switch your provider? I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a company screws its customers it will find it has less customers, you'll get more inovation and experimentation with payment/service models with less regulation and the market will make the best of those popular and profitable (which encourages everyone to keep doing better).

> >

> > I would rather everyone gave the reduction of regulation a chance and if it turns out to be a kitten show vote in a government promising to regulate (yay you live in a democracy).

>

> We did in 1980, late 80s economic down turn and stock market crash.

> Again in the early 1990s, 92 economic slow down.

> Late 90s, IT bubble (IT was new and there where little regulations).

> 2000s, largest economic crash since the great depression 2007-2009, primarily due to lack of regulations in the financial and real estate industries.

>

 

You need to accept crashes are part of the system, overall everyone has superior standards of living now than they did in the 80s. The 2008 crash was because of companies making bad loans, not lack of regulation, they were making stupid decisions then trading debt which was worthless as if it would be paid back. You need to allow for chaos because it is from chaos you get new things, innovation does not come from bound people.

 

Your point about new entries to the market struggling is correct, but the reason they struggle is because of the regulation of the market. When a company gets big enough it demands regulation to its own specs, this forces new companies to conform to a set of requirements that are either only profitable at scale or require a supply chain currently dedicated to their larger competitor, where they will lose. Cheering for regulation is what allows the larger companies to manipulate the allowed space in the market to their advantage, there is a reason the job "lobbyist" exists.

[Drarnor Kunoram.5180]

> @Zok.4956 said:

> > @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:

> > > @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?

>

> The Internet is the whole, worldwide Internet. The FCC does not regulate the Internet, only a small part of the Internet.

>

> >This is true, but Arena Net is an American company and thus bound first and foremost by US law and policy

>

> Tell me, how will this change of the FCC policy affect the A-Net servers that are hosted in the Frankfurt-datacenter and that are bound to German and EU law and that are using local ISPs that are bound first and foremost by German and EU law?

>

>

 

Simple. ANet, needing to pay the American ISP's more just to continue development (and US server hosting) will have to do something to raise more money or drastically cut back on services. Development in particular is what would directly affect all players of the game, regardless of country. This might even lead to the undesirable effect of needing to start a subscription (ANet doesn't want to do this, but they do have the opening for it in their ToS).

 

If they didn't have a subscription and they didn't drop development, you would 100% see other changes. Maybe Living World is no longer given away during its active period. Maybe new types of items become account bound gemstore purchases. Maybe there will be a "Fractal pack" where you get access to 10 new Fractals, but only if you paid for them.

 

None of these are attractive prospects and they would affect literally every player of GW2.

 

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> > @otto.5684 said:

> > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > Wouldn't the free market take effect? If a certain company starts doing all the bad stuff won't you all just switch your provider? I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a company screws its customers it will find it has less customers, you'll get more inovation and experimentation with payment/service models with less regulation and the market will make the best of those popular and profitable (which encourages everyone to keep doing better).

> > >

> > > I would rather everyone gave the reduction of regulation a chance and if it turns out to be a kitten show vote in a government promising to regulate (yay you live in a democracy).

> >

> > We did in 1980, late 80s economic down turn and stock market crash.

> > Again in the early 1990s, 92 economic slow down.

> > Late 90s, IT bubble (IT was new and there where little regulations).

> > 2000s, largest economic crash since the great depression 2007-2009, primarily due to lack of regulations in the financial and real estate industries.

> >

>

> You need to accept crashes are part of the system, overall everyone has superior standards of living now than they did in the 80s. The 2008 crash was because of companies making bad loans, not lack of regulation, they were making stupid decisions then trading debt which was worthless as if it would be paid back. You need to allow for chaos because it is from chaos you get new things, innovation does not come from bound people.

>

> Your point about new entries to the market struggling is correct, but the reason they struggle is because of the regulation of the market. When a company gets big enough it demands regulation to its own specs, this forces new companies to conform to a set of requirements that are either only profitable at scale or require a supply chain currently dedicated to their larger competitor, where they will lose. Cheering for regulation is what allows the larger companies to manipulate the allowed space in the market to their advantage, there is a reason the job "lobbyist" exists.

 

Congratulations on being incorrect on everything.

 

Do you know why companies were making bad loans and trading in debt? Because the regulations preventing them from doing so were rolled back (happened during the Clinton and Bush administrations).

 

Do you know why it is nigh impossible for new entries in the ISP market? Because regulations preventing large companies from blocking/buying them were not put in place.

 

The point of regulations is to maintain safety and fair business practices. The point of lobbyists is to corrupt those points in favor of the guys who are already in control, usually by making sure regulations don't get passed or in getting existent ones repealed, though sometimes by writing it themselves.

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

> @"Korgan Dunblane.4907" said:

> Hey All,

> 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?)

> If we are having to pay our ISP's extra to access a free to play game, does that mean Anet will get reimbursement for content creation? or that legal action will have to be put into action as people will be making money from Anet's work? How will intellectual property be defined?

>

> As far as pricing goes it is suggested: $5 to access youtube (that pesky jump puzzle!) another $5 for paypal (need them Gems!) and another $5 for steam ( potentially for guildwars a similar price???) every month makes for a very expensive free to play game.

>

> This is only USA so far, but will possibly spread to all countries in the end, having been attempted in India already but failed.

>

> Any other info out there?

 

The problem with this sort of rhetoric is that people have little to no understanding of the law or regulation, no less it's impacts. They, like your post above have lots and LOTS of propaganda to talk about, but zero facts and act as if NN has always existed and is why we have the internet we have today, when in reality it is the exact opposite. NN main impact is regulating ISPs under Title II, ISPs were already regulated before, and if you want to understand the limited choices in ISPs you would do yourself a big favor to read and understand ROW restrictions, which are government enforced monopolies or duopolies.

 

The big thing to take away from NN is that Title II is what allowed the monster we know as Ma Bell to come about, without Title II it would not have been possible. There is without fail the claim that if NN is over turned that ISPs will charge more for given content etc etc (with zero proof of this ever happening), except Title II allows for this VERY thing, Title II allows for reasonable discrimination, which also allows them to charge for data termination to end users, yes, NN under Title II PROTECTS ISPs and allows them to do the VERY thing people claim it is meant to stop, even though it was not even happening before.

 

"Reclassification turns edge providers into “customers” of Broadband Service Providers. This new “carrier-to-customer” relationship (as opposed to a “carrier-to-carrier” relationship) would then require all BSPs (i.e., telephone, cable, and wireless broadband providers) to create, and then tariff, a termination service for Internet content under Section 203 of the Communications Act. Critically, this termination service would be separate and apart from any carrier-to-carrier agreements to deliver traffic. Because a tariffed rate cannot be set arbitrarily, and since a service cannot be generally tariffed at a price of zero, reclassification would require all edge providers (not their carriers)—as customers of the BSP—to make direct payments to the BSPs for termination services.

 

That is, all content providers, whether Netflix or a church website (or its host company), would be on the hook to pay every broadband service provider a positive termination fee. Most importantly, the agency would likely be prohibited from using its authority under Section 10 of the Communications Act to forbear from such tariffing requirements because the Commission has labeled all BSPs as “terminating monopolists.” In the presence of a terminating monopoly in the relevant market (i.e., each BSP is “dominant” for terminating access to their customers), competition—a key prerequisite for invoking section 10—cannot be used as a basis for forbearance for “terminating services.”"

 

So rather than the so called "fast lanes", if you don't pay the termination fee you don't get your content delivered at all. The FCC it self also admits that their required tariffs to be filed with the FCC actually results in providers charging the same prices.

 

The FCC's own opinion and data on the matter that NN will ALLOW ISPs to charge sites to be terminated to end users, nothing in NN stops them from doing this, but not only does it not stop them, it protects them when they do, as it's been covered by case law over and over again under Title II. But what do facts and laws matter? We have this imaginary dystopian future....Or past? I mean think to 2015 and last year, where NN had no effect! Oh the horror of having to pay to access every site to the ISP.....Oh wait, that's not reality.

 

What is reality is the 25-30 billion reduction in ISP investment into networks after NN passed, great progress there people. Which is a direct result of how Title II and the FCC tariff system works.

[Coulter.2315]

> @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:

> > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > @otto.5684 said:

> > > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > > Wouldn't the free market take effect? If a certain company starts doing all the bad stuff won't you all just switch your provider? I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a company screws its customers it will find it has less customers, you'll get more inovation and experimentation with payment/service models with less regulation and the market will make the best of those popular and profitable (which encourages everyone to keep doing better).

> > > >

> > > > I would rather everyone gave the reduction of regulation a chance and if it turns out to be a kitten show vote in a government promising to regulate (yay you live in a democracy).

> > >

> > > We did in 1980, late 80s economic down turn and stock market crash.

> > > Again in the early 1990s, 92 economic slow down.

> > > Late 90s, IT bubble (IT was new and there where little regulations).

> > > 2000s, largest economic crash since the great depression 2007-2009, primarily due to lack of regulations in the financial and real estate industries.

> > >

> >

> > You need to accept crashes are part of the system, overall everyone has superior standards of living now than they did in the 80s. The 2008 crash was because of companies making bad loans, not lack of regulation, they were making stupid decisions then trading debt which was worthless as if it would be paid back. You need to allow for chaos because it is from chaos you get new things, innovation does not come from bound people.

> >

> > Your point about new entries to the market struggling is correct, but the reason they struggle is because of the regulation of the market. When a company gets big enough it demands regulation to its own specs, this forces new companies to conform to a set of requirements that are either only profitable at scale or require a supply chain currently dedicated to their larger competitor, where they will lose. Cheering for regulation is what allows the larger companies to manipulate the allowed space in the market to their advantage, there is a reason the job "lobbyist" exists.

>

> Congratulations on being incorrect on everything.

>

> Do you know why companies were making bad loans and trading in debt? Because the regulations preventing them from doing so were rolled back (happened during the Clinton and Bush administrations).

>

> Do you know why it is nigh impossible for new entries in the ISP market? Because regulations preventing large companies from blocking/buying them were not put in place.

>

> The point of regulations is to maintain safety and fair business practices. The point of lobbyists is to corrupt those points in favor of the guys who are already in control, usually by making sure regulations don't get passed or in getting existent ones repealed, though sometimes by writing it themselves.

 

They were banks, their very business is making good loans to people, they didn't, they failed in their business.

 

You want regulations to stop companes buying others? Who are you to command other people not to sell or buy from each other?!

 

You seem to be very confident that regulation does what you want, I'm sure you know more about it than the 3 large companies people complain about (even though they sit in their position defended by the regulatory framework you cheer on). If the regulation requires you to provide X coverage but you can only afford X coverage profitably if you are a multistate entity funneling your profits through the best choice, do you think this is helpful or a hinderence to new startups? If I want to create a low bandwidth service for sending order forms I need to still provide bulk data which my customers don't want to buy, it forces me to increase my costs and price even though I don't want to sell into that larger bandwidth market. Do you at least see how a regulation stops the variety of models?

[TheGrimm.5624]

Thanks for bringing this one up. It is quite surprising how many people aren't aware that this is an issue that is out there, be it that they support or object to it. Would recommend to anyone that isn't familiar with Net Neutrality to review and form your own opinion.

 

And have to agree with Laurie, home is also in a pretty much closed market and I wouldn't even count satelite as highspeed since it has such terrible ping and has fine print that that says your access speeds will be throttled for 24 hours if you exceed a specified download size in a given day.

[TexZero.7910]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> You want regulations to stop companes buying others? Who are you to command other people not to sell or buy from each other?!

Yes actually i do.

 

Believe it or not, that's the entire point of the FTC. To protect consumer interest. To make sure companies like Bell/Warner/Spectrum etc... don't merge into a super entity thus ruining any market via monopolistic control and practices.

 

[Drarnor Kunoram.5180]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> > @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:

> > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > > @otto.5684 said:

> > > > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > > > Wouldn't the free market take effect? If a certain company starts doing all the bad stuff won't you all just switch your provider? I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a company screws its customers it will find it has less customers, you'll get more inovation and experimentation with payment/service models with less regulation and the market will make the best of those popular and profitable (which encourages everyone to keep doing better).

> > > > >

> > > > > I would rather everyone gave the reduction of regulation a chance and if it turns out to be a kitten show vote in a government promising to regulate (yay you live in a democracy).

> > > >

> > > > We did in 1980, late 80s economic down turn and stock market crash.

> > > > Again in the early 1990s, 92 economic slow down.

> > > > Late 90s, IT bubble (IT was new and there where little regulations).

> > > > 2000s, largest economic crash since the great depression 2007-2009, primarily due to lack of regulations in the financial and real estate industries.

> > > >

> > >

> > > You need to accept crashes are part of the system, overall everyone has superior standards of living now than they did in the 80s. The 2008 crash was because of companies making bad loans, not lack of regulation, they were making stupid decisions then trading debt which was worthless as if it would be paid back. You need to allow for chaos because it is from chaos you get new things, innovation does not come from bound people.

> > >

> > > Your point about new entries to the market struggling is correct, but the reason they struggle is because of the regulation of the market. When a company gets big enough it demands regulation to its own specs, this forces new companies to conform to a set of requirements that are either only profitable at scale or require a supply chain currently dedicated to their larger competitor, where they will lose. Cheering for regulation is what allows the larger companies to manipulate the allowed space in the market to their advantage, there is a reason the job "lobbyist" exists.

> >

> > Congratulations on being incorrect on everything.

> >

> > Do you know why companies were making bad loans and trading in debt? Because the regulations preventing them from doing so were rolled back (happened during the Clinton and Bush administrations).

> >

> > Do you know why it is nigh impossible for new entries in the ISP market? Because regulations preventing large companies from blocking/buying them were not put in place.

> >

> > The point of regulations is to maintain safety and fair business practices. The point of lobbyists is to corrupt those points in favor of the guys who are already in control, usually by making sure regulations don't get passed or in getting existent ones repealed, though sometimes by writing it themselves.

>

> They were banks, their very business is making good loans to people, they didn't, they failed in their business.

>

> You want regulations to stop companes buying others? Who are you to command other people not to sell or buy from each other?!

>

> You seem to be very confident that regulation does what you want, I'm sure you know more about it than the 3 large companies people complain about (even though they sit in their position defended by the regulatory framework you cheer on). If the regulation requires you to provide X coverage but you can only afford X coverage profitably if you are a multistate entity funneling your profits through the best choice, do you think this is helpful or a hinderence to new startups? If I want to create a low bandwidth service for sending order forms I need to still provide bulk data which my customers don't want to buy, it forces me to increase my costs and price even though I don't want to sell into that larger bandwidth market. Do you at least see how a regulation stops the variety of models?

 

No, banks business is making money, regardless of how that happens. What the repealed regulations prevented were making bad loans and selling the loan to someone else. When you sell a loan, you keep any money already paid back and get the value from whoever you sold it to. Making the money, and shifting the cost onto someone else.

 

Does the requirement to give a minimum quality product keep some out? Yes. I won't deny that. However, the minimum to turn a profit on those results is much lower than you insinuate. There is such a thing as "start up period" which gets leeway under most regulations. Businesses of any sort are not expected to turn a profit immedietly.

 

However, currently there is no protection for new providers in their startup period. **That** is what keeps new competition from really entering the market. The big providers are free to shut them out entirely through purchases or legal battles to keep them out of developing the infrastructure.

[Coulter.2315]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > You want regulations to stop companes buying others? Who are you to command other people not to sell or buy from each other?!

> Yes actually i do.

>

> Believe it or not, that's the entire point of the FTC. To protect consumer interest. To make sure companies like Bell/Warner/Spectrum etc... don't merge into a super entity thus ruining any market via monopolistic control and practices.

>

 

Well that is extremely illiberal, why do you get to decide that I cannot sell my company? What gives you the right to decide what I do with my property?

[TexZero.7910]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> > @TexZero.7910 said:

> > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > You want regulations to stop companes buying others? Who are you to command other people not to sell or buy from each other?!

> > Yes actually i do.

> >

> > Believe it or not, that's the entire point of the FTC. To protect consumer interest. To make sure companies like Bell/Warner/Spectrum etc... don't merge into a super entity thus ruining any market via monopolistic control and practices.

> >

>

> Well that is extremely illiberal, why do you get to decide that I cannot sell my company? What gives you the right to decide what I do with my property?

 

Lets see, because you as a business 99% of the time utilize government services. As a tax-payer you submit to the will of the tax-paying populous who have decided that regulations to prevent monopolies from existing are in-fact good.

 

In other words, I don't care if you sell your start-up that has 1% market share to a company that has 1% share. I care when you think its a good idea to sell your 30% market to a company with 69% marketshare thus creating a monopoly which effectively removes any possibility of competition for newer entities because the barrier to entry is astronomical. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws

[Vulf.3098]

> @YoukiNeko.6047 said:

> $175/month O_o that's really bad.

 

When there is zero competition involved is when things get really really bad for the consumers.

 

Back when I lived in a rural area on a farm my only option was Time Warner Cable for $150 a month for 1mbps down and 1mbps up.

 

Now that I live in downtown Austin TX I am paying $70 a month for 1gb per sec with Google Fiber but I also have the choice of Spectrum, Verizon, AT&T and Sudden Link who all except for Sudden link offer the same speed as Google for a similar if not a lower price.

 

[otto.5684]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> > @otto.5684 said:

> > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > Wouldn't the free market take effect? If a certain company starts doing all the bad stuff won't you all just switch your provider? I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a company screws its customers it will find it has less customers, you'll get more inovation and experimentation with payment/service models with less regulation and the market will make the best of those popular and profitable (which encourages everyone to keep doing better).

> > >

> > > I would rather everyone gave the reduction of regulation a chance and if it turns out to be a kitten show vote in a government promising to regulate (yay you live in a democracy).

> >

> > We did in 1980, late 80s economic down turn and stock market crash.

> > Again in the early 1990s, 92 economic slow down.

> > Late 90s, IT bubble (IT was new and there where little regulations).

> > 2000s, largest economic crash since the great depression 2007-2009, primarily due to lack of regulations in the financial and real estate industries.

> >

>

> You need to accept crashes are part of the system, overall everyone has superior standards of living now than they did in the 80s. The 2008 crash was because of companies making bad loans, not lack of regulation, they were making stupid decisions then trading debt which was worthless as if it would be paid back. You need to allow for chaos because it is from chaos you get new things, innovation does not come from bound people.

>

> Your point about new entries to the market struggling is correct, but the reason they struggle is because of the regulation of the market. When a company gets big enough it demands regulation to its own specs, this forces new companies to conform to a set of requirements that are either only profitable at scale or require a supply chain currently dedicated to their larger competitor, where they will lose. Cheering for regulation is what allows the larger companies to manipulate the allowed space in the market to their advantage, there is a reason the job "lobbyist" exists.

 

"You need to accept crashes are part of the system," they are not. They are caused by human errors. What errors specifically, is something even the smartest economist argue over, but that does not make them "natural occurrence." There is no question that lack of regulation, like with the financial industry in the 2000s, is the main catalyst of the crashes.

 

As for lobbyist, sure they lobby to remove regulations, and if you remove all regulations you will not have any lobbyist. But that is arguing that removing rain will stop floods. It will, but it will also render everything dry and dead. Without regulations will be under a totalitarian regime ruled by multi billion dollar corporations, not much different then a communist regime.

 

Internet should remain neutral and open for everyone for everything.

 

[usnedward.9023]

Listen. First it is the FCC who will pass or not pass the the regulation on Net Neutrality. Nothing to do with congress. What the FCC wants is to basically let the ISPs set their own rates without interference. They also want to make sure that individual states do not create their own neutrality policies/bills.

 

What does this mean to you the consumer? The ISPs WILL be able to dictate your traffic as they see fit and charge YOU the consumer extra for certain "un-throttling" if you so desire. It will allow the ISPs to throttle it's competitors if they so choose. If ISP A offers some type of streaming service that competes with Neflix they can then ensure the 56k days of "buffering... please wait".

 

It remains to be seen what the ISPs will in effect do. Will they charge you more for internet? Streaming? Certain websites that go against the ISPs political or social views? I doubt gaming will be impacted as once the game installs or updates the bandwidth used is minimum. Blocking porn or sites that promote hate regardless where you stand on "free speech", I have no problem with ISPs blocking this type rhetoric.

 

Ajit Pai is the FCC chairman and he is a republican. It is my understanding (i can't find where I read it so correct me if I am wrong) that along with the chairman there are two more republicans and two democrats so it is safe to say that this will pass. NOW once this passes, sure the people and congress and others can put up a fight and request an injunction, a vote or what have you.

 

When it does pass we have to sit back and wait to see just what the ISPs have planned. Remember that they compete against each other so sticking it to the consumer I personally don't believe is their true intentions as it is to increase revenue. If increasing revenue means forcing the consumer to pay more for content then there will be backlash or we will fold and just pay it.

 

There is a reason that the top largest countries have Net Neutrality in place and for the likes of me I do not understand why the FCC wants to go this route of repealing it.

[Sky.7610]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > You want regulations to stop companes buying others? Who are you to command other people not to sell or buy from each other?!

> Yes actually i do.

>

> Believe it or not, that's the entire point of the FTC. To protect consumer interest. To make sure companies like Bell/Warner/Spectrum etc... don't merge into a super entity thus ruining any market via monopolistic control and practices.

>

 

Buying and selling is fine is there is true free market but there isn't. A wealthy dude can not just decide to make a ISP tomorrow. There is too many roadblocks that can't be bypassed. Take a look at Google fiber. Even with the nearly unlimited resource Google has, they have to fight tooth and nail for years to just gain a single city due to legislations. Imagine a smaller entity. A true free market would not have such roadblock but the problem is we don't have true free market.

[Danikat.8537]

> @Ayakaru.6583 said:

> I haven't been able to get a clear answer on how it will affect internet in Europe though. Lots of people speculating and doomsinging but i haven't gotten like clear answer yet

 

There won't be any direct effect because the EU has it's own Net Neutrality laws (and contrary to what some Americans believe the rest of the world is not so desperate to mimic them that they're going to drop those laws just because the USA does). And apparently in at least some countries we have a lot more competition between ISPs too. If it does have an impact it will be through how it affects US based companies and websites. But it's difficult to say exactly what that will be because removing Net Neutrality doesn't actually change anything - it just means the ISPs can make all the rules instead of being required to treat everyone fairly.

 

For example, the owners of one or more of the major US ISPs could decide they're not going to allow their service to be used to access content they don't approve of. So Anet has to (for example) remove Necromancers as a playable profession and all references to the 6/5 gods, the Spirits of the Wild and the Eternal Alchemy, and run all future storylines past the ISP for approval, or lose 1/4 of their American customers.

 

Although, since the EU servers are in Germany and therefore subject to German and EU law, not US law, it might be possible to split them from the NA servers and run two different versions of the game. But for things like future story content that might well be far more work than it's worth (imagine if it had happened before - if Europe got the PoF story they wanted to tell and they had to make a 2nd version for the US with no reference to gods...they would just do a different storyline).

[Sky.7610]

> @usnedward.9023 said:

> Listen. First it is the FCC who will pass or not pass the the regulation on Net Neutrality. Nothing to do with congress. What the FCC wants is to basically let the ISPs set their own rates without interference. They also want to make sure that individual states do not create their own neutrality policies/bills.

>

> What does this mean to you the consumer? The ISPs WILL be able to dictate your traffic as they see fit and charge YOU the consumer extra for certain "un-throttling" if you so desire. It will allow the ISPs to throttle it's competitors if they so choose. If ISP A offers some type of streaming service that competes with Neflix they can then ensure the 56k days of "buffering... please wait".

>

> It remains to be seen what the ISPs will in effect do. Will they charge you more for internet? Streaming? Certain websites that go against the ISPs political or social views? I doubt gaming will be impacted as once the game installs or updates the bandwidth used is minimum. Blocking kitten or sites that promote hate regardless where you stand on "free speech", I have no problem with ISPs blocking this type rhetoric.

>

> Ajit Pai is the FCC chairman and he is a republican. It is my understanding (i can't find where I read it so correct me if I am wrong) that along with the chairman there are two more republicans and two democrats so it is safe to say that this will pass. NOW once this passes, sure the people and congress and others can put up a fight and request an injunction, a vote or what have you.

>

> When it does pass we have to sit back and wait to see just what the ISPs have planned. Remember that they compete against each other so sticking it to the consumer I personally don't believe is their true intentions as it is to increase revenue. If increasing revenue means forcing the consumer to pay more for content then there will be backlash or we will fold and just pay it.

>

> There is a reason that the top largest countries have Net Neutrality in place and for the likes of me I do not understand why the FCC wants to go this route of repealing it.

 

Congress can mandate internet as a utility or pass legislation that net neutrality be in place.

 

ISPs in the USA is hardly competitive and is more like providing illusion of competition. They do the 'nod head, wink eye' collusion where they don't leave paper trail and when one ISP decide to raise or keep price high the other follow suit. Think back to the practice of throttling where ISP say not enough infrastructure to support otherwise and all the major ISPs jump on that bandwagon of excuse despite being contradictions to field experts and as soon as they are required to remove throttling, suddenly they all have the infrasture to support it.

 

FCC chairman have conflict of interest as he was ex isp lawyer still with their contacts and regularly receive donation funds from them. He chose the corporations money over the interest of the consumer that he was suppose to protect because there is no free market in the ISP field.

[Coulter.2315]

> @otto.5684 said:

> > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > @otto.5684 said:

> > > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > > Wouldn't the free market take effect? If a certain company starts doing all the bad stuff won't you all just switch your provider? I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a company screws its customers it will find it has less customers, you'll get more inovation and experimentation with payment/service models with less regulation and the market will make the best of those popular and profitable (which encourages everyone to keep doing better).

> > > >

> > > > I would rather everyone gave the reduction of regulation a chance and if it turns out to be a kitten show vote in a government promising to regulate (yay you live in a democracy).

> > >

> > > We did in 1980, late 80s economic down turn and stock market crash.

> > > Again in the early 1990s, 92 economic slow down.

> > > Late 90s, IT bubble (IT was new and there where little regulations).

> > > 2000s, largest economic crash since the great depression 2007-2009, primarily due to lack of regulations in the financial and real estate industries.

> > >

> >

> > You need to accept crashes are part of the system, overall everyone has superior standards of living now than they did in the 80s. The 2008 crash was because of companies making bad loans, not lack of regulation, they were making stupid decisions then trading debt which was worthless as if it would be paid back. You need to allow for chaos because it is from chaos you get new things, innovation does not come from bound people.

> >

> > Your point about new entries to the market struggling is correct, but the reason they struggle is because of the regulation of the market. When a company gets big enough it demands regulation to its own specs, this forces new companies to conform to a set of requirements that are either only profitable at scale or require a supply chain currently dedicated to their larger competitor, where they will lose. Cheering for regulation is what allows the larger companies to manipulate the allowed space in the market to their advantage, there is a reason the job "lobbyist" exists.

>

> "You need to accept crashes are part of the system," they are not. They are caused by human errors. What errors specifically, is something even the smartest economist argue over, but that does not make them "natural occurrence." There is no question that lack of regulation, like with the financial industry in the 2000s, is the main catalyst of the crashes.

>

> As for lobbyist, sure they lobby to remove regulations, and if you remove all regulations you will not have any lobbyist. But that is arguing that removing rain will stop floods. It will, but it will also render everything dry and dead. Without regulations will be under a totalitarian regime ruled by multi billion dollar corporations, not much different then a communist regime.

>

> Internet should remain neutral and open for everyone for everything.

>

 

The system is made up by and of humans, crashes are part of the system. Bad business practice was the cause of the crash, they made bad loans to people then passed the bad debt around.

 

Lobbyists lobby to create regulations, when you climb a ladder and don't want anyone following you the best action is to put glue and nails and fire on the ladder. True they do not want regulations that cripple them (but they would be bad regulations anyway), what they want is to craft regulations in a manner which gives them an unfair advantage. You have seen people in this thread complaining about $100 monthly fees, that is because a smaller enterprise cannot get into that area and provide a diversity of products. When you take away the requirement to provide a certain level of service you can get insurgent companies providing niche services, these compete and the cream rises to the top. The regulation atmosphere has created stagnation, something none of us should want.

 

I am merely pointing out that everyone crying about the drop in regulation is also crying about a few large companies which control the market, they only control the market because of the regulation. Regulations are literally barriers, right? Some of them are also barriers to entry, and deliberately crafted that way by the giants.

[Sky.7610]

> if you want to help protect NN you can support groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU and Free Press who are fighting to keep Net Neutrality, Privacy and the open Internet.

>

> https://www.eff.org/

>

> https://www.aclu.org/

>

> https://www.freepress.net/

>

> https://www.fightforthefuture.org/

>

> https://www.publicknowledge.org/

>

> https://demandprogress.org/

>

> also you can set them as your charity on https://smile.amazon.com/

>

> also write to your House Representative and senators http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

>

> https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state

>

> and the FCC

>

> https://www.fcc.gov/about/contact

>

> You can now add a comment to the repeal here

>

> https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=17-108&sort=date_disseminated,DESC

>

> here a easier URL you can use thanks to John Oliver

>

> www.gofccyourself.com

>

> you can also use this that help you contact your house and congressional reps, its easy to use and cuts down on the transaction costs with writing a letter to your reps.

>

> https://resistbot.io/

>

> also check out

>

> https://democracy.io/#!/

>

> which was made by the EFF and is a low transaction​cost tool for writing all your reps in one fell swoop.

>

> also this

>

> https://www.regulations.gov/

>

>

[otto.5684]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> > @otto.5684 said:

> > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > > @otto.5684 said:

> > > > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > > > Wouldn't the free market take effect? If a certain company starts doing all the bad stuff won't you all just switch your provider? I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a company screws its customers it will find it has less customers, you'll get more inovation and experimentation with payment/service models with less regulation and the market will make the best of those popular and profitable (which encourages everyone to keep doing better).

> > > > >

> > > > > I would rather everyone gave the reduction of regulation a chance and if it turns out to be a kitten show vote in a government promising to regulate (yay you live in a democracy).

> > > >

> > > > We did in 1980, late 80s economic down turn and stock market crash.

> > > > Again in the early 1990s, 92 economic slow down.

> > > > Late 90s, IT bubble (IT was new and there where little regulations).

> > > > 2000s, largest economic crash since the great depression 2007-2009, primarily due to lack of regulations in the financial and real estate industries.

> > > >

> > >

> > > You need to accept crashes are part of the system, overall everyone has superior standards of living now than they did in the 80s. The 2008 crash was because of companies making bad loans, not lack of regulation, they were making stupid decisions then trading debt which was worthless as if it would be paid back. You need to allow for chaos because it is from chaos you get new things, innovation does not come from bound people.

> > >

> > > Your point about new entries to the market struggling is correct, but the reason they struggle is because of the regulation of the market. When a company gets big enough it demands regulation to its own specs, this forces new companies to conform to a set of requirements that are either only profitable at scale or require a supply chain currently dedicated to their larger competitor, where they will lose. Cheering for regulation is what allows the larger companies to manipulate the allowed space in the market to their advantage, there is a reason the job "lobbyist" exists.

> >

> > "You need to accept crashes are part of the system," they are not. They are caused by human errors. What errors specifically, is something even the smartest economist argue over, but that does not make them "natural occurrence." There is no question that lack of regulation, like with the financial industry in the 2000s, is the main catalyst of the crashes.

> >

> > As for lobbyist, sure they lobby to remove regulations, and if you remove all regulations you will not have any lobbyist. But that is arguing that removing rain will stop floods. It will, but it will also render everything dry and dead. Without regulations will be under a totalitarian regime ruled by multi billion dollar corporations, not much different then a communist regime.

> >

> > Internet should remain neutral and open for everyone for everything.

> >

>

> The system is made up by and of humans, crashes are part of the system. Bad business practice was the cause of the crash, they made bad loans to people then passed the bad debt around.

>

> Lobbyists lobby to create regulations, when you climb a ladder and don't want anyone following you the best action is to put glue and nails and fire on the ladder. True they do not want regulations that cripple them (but they would be bad regulations anyway), what they want is to craft regulations in a manner which gives them an unfair advantage. You have seen people in this thread complaining about $100 monthly fees, that is because a smaller enterprise cannot get into that area and provide a diversity of products. When you take away the requirement to provide a certain level of service you can get insurgent companies providing niche services, these compete and the cream rises to the top. The regulation atmosphere has created stagnation, something none of us should want.

>

> I am merely pointing out that everyone crying about the drop in regulation is also crying about a few large companies which control the market, they only control the market because of the regulation. Regulations are literally barriers, right? Some of them are also barriers to entry, and deliberately crafted that way by the giants.

 

Let us be clear, lobbyist do not lobby to create regulations, but to remove them. Regulations are not barriers for competition, they are barriers to protect the consumer, like net neutrality, environmental protection and so forth. And the concept of regulations create stagnation has no statistical or scientific backing. It is just a statement some political hypocrites throw out with no basis what so ever, to **SUPPORT** corporations, which these politicians are funded by.

 

If we use the last 25-30 years as evidence (small sample, but most relevant), periods of high regulations were paired with economical success and vice-versa.

 

Note, no one is for regulations that create barriers for competition, but these are as rare as a $2 bill. Yes, there are some, but the the overwhelming majority for regulations are for the general public protection form multi billion dollar corporations and the government itself.

[usnedward.9023]

> @Sky.7610 said:

>

> Congress can mandate internet as a utility or pass legislation that net neutrality be in place.

 

The FCC did this in 2015 (mandated the internet as a utility) and current FCC is trying to repeal this as well. Congress has had some input but really cannot control the vote but the voice of the people and congress will be there IF the ISPs start the whole gouging process. Again we have to wait and see.

 

>

> ISPs in the USA is hardly competitive and is more like providing illusion of competition. They do the 'nod head, wink eye' collusion where they don't leave paper trail and when one ISP decide to raise or keep price high the other follow suit. Think back to the practice of throttling where ISP say not enough infrastructure to support otherwise and all the major ISPs jump on that bandwagon of excuse despite being contradictions to field experts and as soon as they are required to remove throttling, suddenly they all have the infrastructure to support it.

>

 

The FCC never promoted to control ISP speed pricing and for the sake of improving technology and speeds I believe the ISPs should be able to charge for faster service thus increasing income to further advance it's technology. Do you think the government should set pricing? I don't think they should as the consumer will pay what they feel they need or jump ship to lower pricing plans from competitors.

 

> FCC chairman have conflict of interest as he was ex isp lawyer still with their contacts and regularly receive donation funds from them. He chose the corporations money over the interest of the consumer that he was suppose to protect because there is no free market in the ISP field.

 

I totally agree here.