web Net Nuetrality?

[Rainbow Dash 1,472]

Sorry in advance if theres already something like this one the forums. I used the search bar and nothing popped up.

Anyways, I havent really been paying attention to the whole affair. Mainly because I thought this was a no brainer issue. I also figured by the time voting on it took place, id either be in another country or so busy with work it wouldnt matter. However, i was just informed it failed. Soon everyone will be subjected to insane package deals, and throttling. No longer are you able to stream youtube unless you pay an additional amount of money. So to get connected to the information super highway now we as consumers must:
Pay for electricity.
Pay for the modem
Pay for installation
Pay for line activation
Pay a fixed rate every month
and now|
Pay for websites
pay for data
pay for the ability to download and save onto your PC.

Now, I would love to be corrected if im wrong, and please dont be mad if it sounds like I know whats what. I know a little...just enough to form an opinion. I wonder, what does this mean for small websites? What does this mean for foreign countries? Do they get taxed for accessing American ran websites? Why is there not a bigger outcry over this? I often joked that if our government took away the internet it would be the end of the free world....the end of the people obeying the government.

[Guest]

What does it mean? The answer is... We don't know yet. It could go bad, it could go worse, we don't know yet. It depends on how badly ISPs want to abuse this new freedom.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,596]

People don't care now because there are no immediate effects, which that's not what we expected anyways. This opens the floodgates though. If people think these giant corporations will not take any further opportunities to squeeze more money from us, well, I don't know what to say to them. They will always want more money and they will destroy our experiences to get it if the law allows them to. Companies are always looking for ways to cut corners to maximize profits. Kinda like Activision. The public will continue to exist in ignorant bliss until this finally affects them and they wake up. That is how things go in this country. Nothing is done until it is too late.

[Lord Valtasar 12,690]

i'm not from america so thats the first time i hear about this,but won't you be able to just make your sites in different domains?or use proxies etc?

[Rainbow Dash 1,472]

9 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

What does it mean? The answer is... We don't know yet

Yeah, most of my concerns are speculations. For example, it is said they can charge us for different speeds. So that means they can charge 200 or more for decent internet while there most affordable internet service is slow and times out a lot(Verizon did this in 2010 to me and other customers).

Then again, they kinda did that before. Charter used to send me adverts saying for only this much more you get faster internet for your business. Also it is said they can police us now...or rather decide what we see and what we cant see. I find that a breach of the first amendment. Like...what if the omitted MLPforums because Hasbro said so?

[GrimGrimoire 4,973]

It remains to be seen what the future holds. However I did get a letter from Comcast not too long ago discussing changes to their service and how they operate, nothing bizarre though with everything remaining the same. They did want to assure me though they have big plans for the future and as always looked forward to servicing me better over the coming months...

Uh oh....

But seriously, time will tell, no point in speculating and rattling the bushes.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Rainbow Dash said:

Yeah, most of my concerns are speculations. For example, it is said they can charge us for different speeds. So that means they can charge 200 or more for decent internet while there most affordable internet service is slow and times out a lot(Verizon did this in 2010 to me and other customers).

Then again, they kinda did that before. Charter used to send me adverts saying for only this much more you get faster internet for your business. Also it is said they can police us now...or rather decide what we see and what we cant see. I find that a breach of the first amendment. Like...what if the omitted MLPforums because Hasbro said so?

Yeah it's speculation but as @Kyoshi has said... It's safe assumption that ISPs which have proven time and time again that they are money hungry enough to screw over the customer whenever they are given the opportunity to do so without retribution. So it's safe to say... the effects may not be immediate, but they will more than likely be negative.

[Jedishy 3,548]

33 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

They will always want more money and they will destroy our experiences to get it if the law allows them to. Companies are always looking for ways to cut corners to maximize profits. Kinda like Activision. The public will continue to exist in ignorant bliss until this finally affects them and they wake up. That is how things go in this country. Nothing is done until it is too late.

You do realize that they need the most customers possible in order to remain profitable. That destroying peoples net is a sure way to get a competitor to come into the market that wont throttle their customers and destroy them right?

18 minutes ago, Rainbow Dash said:

Then again, they kinda did that before. Charter used to send me adverts saying for only this much more you get faster internet for your business. Also it is said they can police us now...or rather decide what we see and what we cant see. I find that a breach of the first amendment. Like...what if the omitted MLPforums because Hasbro said so?

1

People are now used to a particular internet speed. Screw with it and people will go to a company that wont mess with that. Just like Sony did to Microsoft with the always online xbox fiasco. 

6 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

It's safe assumption that ISPs which have proven time and time again that they are money hungry enough to screw over the customer whenever they are given the opportunity to do so without retribution. So it's safe to say... the effects may not be immediate, but they will more than likely be negative.

The only way there would be no repercussion is if customers were lazy. STEAM rolling back their rules and Xbox changing the always online feature after outcry and STILL losing money to Sony prove that 

 

The reality is that Congress is fighting this with a CRA ( Congressional review act ) and it passed Senate. So its likely to be put back in place anyhow. 

Edited June 23, 2018 by Jedishy

[Guest]

Just now, Jedishy said:

You do realize that they need the most customers possible in order to remain profitable. That destroying peoples net is a sure way to get a competitor to come into the market that wont throttle their customers and destroy them right?

19 minutes ago, Rainbow Dash said:

Apparently, you don't seem to realize that ISPs don't need customer satisfaction because they don't really HAVE competition. You realize that 30% of the US can ONLY get internet from one provider, right? It's not like you can just go "I'll go to someone else" because there is no one else in your area and you can't just move to get better internet. When you literally know that 30% of the population has no choice but to use you, there is no reason to ever satisfy your customers because you are pretty much ensured you'll get business.

They also have tons of contracts and laws that protect them from rival ISPs from opening up as well, on top of insanely high infrastructure costs that make anyone who is wanting to become real competition to never succeed.

Literally these "competitors" you speak of do not exist. Even the other big ISPs are all doing it as well because they have all realized that if all of them agree not to go in on anyone else's territory they all can get away with charging whatever they like. Verizon has proven corrupt too and they are one of the top ISPs as well. Basically the top ISPs that control well over half the country are all corrupt.

5 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

People are now used to a particular internet speed. Screw with it and people will go to a company that wont mess with that. Just like Sony did to Microsoft with the always online xbox fiasco. 

12 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

Unless you're one of the 100 million Americans who live in a zone where ONLY Comcast services, then you are shit out of luck and jolly well fucked.

6 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

The only way there would be no repercussion is if customers were lazy.

Comcast has been trash for years and people have been demanding change from them and negative reviewing them into oblivion for almost a decade now and nothing has been done. It's not the same as Steam or video games because people can't just buy another ISP in most areas, they are forced to deal with either this terrible ISP that throttles speeds and treats the customers like trash or they are to go without internet entirely. And since Internet is so essential to our current society it would basically be asking them to go live in the stone age. Most people need internet for work or education. It's pretty much a mandatory service now.

[Jedishy 3,548]

4 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

You realize that 30% of the US can ONLY get internet from one provider, right?

You realize that this means 70% of the US can really really hurt their market if they want to. And as municipal ISPs and better cell phone hot spots and things like google fiber enter the market we have more choices and competition. That means we can exert more and more control. So yea, for now, it can be dicey but there are options that are coming to market it so that decreases the likelihood of them trying anything foolish

While I am not happy about the net neutrality loss and I really hope the CRA passes I am not as panicked about it as some for the reasons I already mentioned. 

[Guest]

Just now, Jedishy said:

You realize that this means 70% of the US can really really hurt their market if they want to.

That's not what that means at all...

Some math for you:

30% is 100 million+ people and even if they were all being charged $50 a month (most are being charged way more) that's still $6 billion a year from customers who have no choice but to use your service. Now you tell me... How you propose they go out of business just because the other 70% can go elsewhere?

That being said the remaining 70% actually are not REALLY 70%, they are actually much smaller because outside of the 30% who are stuck with no one but Comcast, a large percent only has the option between either Comcast or another provider that is equally shitty or a small tiny provider who can not provide speeds that are even remotely competent in comparison. Sure you may get the choice between Comcast and some small time ISP, but when the small time ISP can only offer 1Mbps it's not really "competition" because the speeds are so slow that your only REASONABLE choice is Comcast.

Again, I recommend you actually look up a lot of this stuff because how you think this will happen is not how it actually is happening. There's way more too it than you think because this isn't like other markets, the ISPs are the gate keepers so if they don't offer service in your area, there is no competition.

5 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

And as municipal ISPs and better cell phone hot spots and things like google fiber enter the market we have more choices and competition.

Cell phone hot spots are not even close to a replacement for proper ISPs. They are not that reliable and they almost always have data caps, on top of that they are very expensive if you tried to use them like normal internet connections at home.

Google Fibre may shake up the market but as it stands now they are still a good decade or so from being any real threat to major ISPs, and with the FCC in the ISP's back pocket they can push to have laws and regulations passed that block Google from making headway.

7 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

That means we can exert more and more control. So yea, for now, it can be dicey but there are options that are coming to market it so that decreases the likelihood of them trying anything foolish

Not true at all. The options coming are limited and slow in their arrival.

They are ALREADY trying these "foolish" things you speak of, just go look up Comcast's video about how they are introducing data caps to their customers for no arbitrary reason. People are already catching ISPs throttling services.

12 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

While I am not happy about the net neutrality loss and I really hope the CRA passes I am not as panicked about it as some for the reasons I already mentioned. 

And I have now explained why you should be far more concerned. How you seem to view this all is not how it actually is. You've been fooled, sorry to say.

[Jedishy 3,548]

23 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

And I have now explained why you should be far more concerned. How you seem to view this all is not how it actually is. You've been fooled, sorry to say.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe I am too optimistic. I can see your viewpoint based on what you put forward. Since we dont know the outcomes for sure yet I cant say you do not have a valid point. So all I can say is fair enough and that I see where your concerns come from. 

[Lucid_Nightlight 923]

I doubt the companies will do anything too crazy. I don't think they are stupid enough to tarnish their reputations.

Even if they were stupid enough, people would leave them and they's be left with two choices.

1. Stop charging and blocking sites

2. Shutdown the company because of lack of consumers.

[EpicEnergy 23,218]

I don't know, I can still gain access to a ton of legitimate information on the internet for free so I don't see what the problem is here. All it sounds like is a bunch of drama and rumors meant to scare people.