Don Jr. Preaches on Twitter re: Net Neutrality

[MiniCraque]

I'll really really really love the irony of the situation if ISPs with perceived left wing bias start burying independent rightwing media outlets as a result.

I'm not saying rightwingers killed net neutrality (I think something like 75% of Republicans disapproved of it), it was more bought-and-paid-for politicians that did, but it's only among rightwingers that you'll find people moronic enough to support this crap, like Ben Shapiro. And they're the most likely to be hit if ISPs run amok.

 

[Thepaintbucket]

Isn’t this whole issue essentially

Big internet provider companies

Vs

Internet giants like Facebook, YouTube...

Big internet companies want to cash in more on all the traffic Facebook n YouTube get for free

How can it be free if those services pay ISP companies for access, bandwidth , dedicated uptime?

Video streaming has become a huge business and ISP companies are mad that it's hurting their other businesses, which ironically is premium tv access.

 

[Overtures]

TS think about this like the early days of cable TV as this gifts many of the same cable companies a do.over on those oligopoly powers and profits. The good old days.

You get service bundle X which includes the following Y services bundled in. Those bundles are controlled by the big content providers since they kick back enormous money to the ISP and those content providers who cannot afford to pay to play with ISP are left out or ridiculously expensive as stand alone add ins.

Once upon a time it was even hard for channels like Discovery and Nat Geo to compete as they could not crack into the old school cable bundles. And those channels have big backers.

So what's the other side of the story? What are advocates of the repeal saying?

 

[grimballer]

Yes and no.

They can essentially hold these websites at gunpoint and force them to pay or else they'll slow down usage so much that the website becomes unusable. Kind of like what they did to Netflix in 2015.

That fucks the consumer and websites.

However, we both get doubly fucked as they could also double dip and force consumers to pay extra for usage of specific high traffic websites.

So am I suppose to feel bad for Facebook n YouTube cause they won’t be able to make billions in profit anymore?

Also if internet providers do decide to charge extra for websites like Facebook n YouTube, ppl will just look for an alternative, like they did switching from tv to internet

Also those big internet sites then will look to sign exclusive deal with one of those internet providers, which could mean potential loss of millions of subscribers for the competitor

I don’t think it’s worth it changing drastically how things are done.

The most likely scenario is internet providers will charge Facebook/YouTube more cause of the size of traffic, they then will transfer the cost to the consumer which means they’ll increase the price of their subscription or will have more adds

 

[grimballer]

On the contrary it benefits those big corporations because they are bigger than the ISPs so threatening to throttle them may not work.

Its the startups who are fucked and can be extorted.

You mean they’ll charge them more if they generate more traffic?

What’s the problem?

 

[grimballer]

How can it be free if those services pay ISP companies for access, bandwidth , dedicated uptime?

Video streaming has become a huge business and ISP companies are mad that it's hurting their other businesses, which ironically is premium tv access.

Well of course, why wouldn’t they want piece of the pie?

Ppl are cutting the cord n switching for cheaper alternatives, internet companies wanna cash in

 

[grimballer]

It's the isps, who should already be looked at for antitrust anyway, against everyone else. They have to give the giants like youtube and their small, upstart competitors the same.

Same what? Quality of service?

Ppl can always switch providers if they feel the service is not good

 

[grimballer]

people act as if this is a war against human knowlege. but in reality, the knowlege part is safe and the entertainment part is what is up for debate.

first world problems.

That’s how it comes across, right?

Millennials won’t be able to get their stuff for free anymore

 

[Thepaintbucket]

Well of course, why wouldn’t they want piece of the pie?

Ppl are cutting the cord n switching for cheaper alternatives, internet companies wanna cash in

Well I am just informing you those services aren't "free".

Those ISP companies were already cashing in by offering TV access.

 

[MikeMcMann]

So what's the other side of the story? What are advocates of the repeal saying?

The big cable/ISP advocates?

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

You mean they’ll charge them more if they generate more traffic?

What’s the problem?

People want to access the internet because of the content though so why should they be allowed to penalize and gouge successful content providers

To my mind the possible downsides far outweigh the possible up sides of doing away with these rules

 

[MikeMcMann]

So am I suppose to feel bad for Facebook n YouTube cause they won’t be able to make billions in profit anymore?

Also if internet providers do decide to charge extra for websites like Facebook n YouTube, ppl will just look for an alternative, like they did switching from tv to internet

Also those big internet sites then will look to sign exclusive deal with one of those internet providers, which could mean potential loss of millions of subscribers for the competitor

I don’t think it’s worth it changing drastically how things are done.

The most likely scenario is internet providers will charge Facebook/YouTube more cause of the size of traffic, they then will transfer the cost to the consumer which means they’ll increase the price of their subscription or will have more adds

No the big purchasers of band width who can GUARANTEE an ISP a certain buy volume will certainly band together and demand a discount rate for bandwidth and speed based on volume. They will also demand that others not get that price unless they are bring similar volumes. They will become the standard 'bundle' available in your ISP package if you want the cheaper ISP price. The smaller guys will have to pay a far higher rate because they are not bulk buying the same bandwidth.

This is exactly how CBS, NBC, etc controlled cable for decades and made it almost impossible for smaller or singular groups or channels (Discovery, NatGeo, etc) to break in.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Same what? Quality of service?

Ppl can always switch providers if they feel the service is not good

Hundreds of millions of people live within markets with only one provider, and millions more live in areas in which there is only one real choice, business or residential.

 

[Higus]

So what's the other side of the story? What are advocates of the repeal saying?

Something along the lines that goberment regulations are bad for job growth. Might be true in a lot of industries, but not true in this one. It's just an excuse to give ISPs a method to extract value from websites (which will trickledown to consumers).

 

[ookii]

Can't wait till they bring us back to the old BBS days where you pay hourly to access the internet through your dial up modem and pay $2 to download a news article

 

[Higus]

So the idea here is that websites with a lot of traffic eat up ISP's bandwidth, so now those ISP's can charge the websites that consume a lot of bandwidth a fee?

More or less. This creates a few issues for consumers.
1. The charges made to websites will likely be absorbed by consumers. In the case of Netflix, you can either expect your subscriptions costs to go up or your streaming quality to go down.
2. It raises the barrier to entry for new internet startups that require lots of bandwidth. This means less competition for established compannies, which again leads to less value for the consumer
3. It give an avenue for ISPs to restrict speech or influence public discourse by pricking and choosing which sites get best service. Imagine Comcast gives NBC, which it owns, better streaming speeds than another news network, for instance. Studies show that even small differences in speeds can drastically alter consumer preference.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

When I want to watch quality media on my 150in projector and 7.1.2 home theater, I pop in a bluray, end of discussion. Streaming does not cut it.

Even with 100Mbs fios, Netflix and Amazon have only decent hi-def experiences. The picture has definitely gotten better over the last couple years but the audio is straight up subpar, even when Netflix officially supports Dolby Atmos (2 or 3 titles), which also includes 7.1.

That said, I am fully against the repeal because in a few years, the top media streaming vendors might actually provide quality that can make bluray or any disc format for that matter, obsolete. Then, we sure as hell dont want Comcast and Verizon concocting schemes.