Net Neutrality Bandwagon

[Deleted member 490433]

They're trying to screw us again!
I understand if this gets deleted or sent to the wasteland but I hope Sherdog helps raise awareness on the Homepage.

 

[chitoortiz]

I'm blocked from viewing that Twitter user's profile.

I wonder what i did?

 

[nostradumbass]

I'd have to do some more research, but it kind of seems like net neutrality is just a way for the bigger websites to get more powerful.

 

[Deleted member 490433]

I'm blocked from viewing that Twitter user's profile.

I wonder what i did?

<45>
Well you're not missing anything unique, he's just posting one of the many negative consequences that would come from repealing net neutrality.

 

[Deleted member 490433]

I'd have to do some more research, but it kind of seems like net neutrality is just a way for the bigger websites to get more powerful.

Definitely look into it, there is so much more to it than that and it's all bad.

 

[NoContest]

I'd have to do some more research, but it kind of seems like net neutrality is just a way for the bigger websites to get more powerful.

I thought that was the opposite. Net neutrality is about keeping everything the way it is now. What some big corporations want is to squeeze the internet for money and control information.

 

[Scheme]

Definitely look into it, there is so much more to it than that and it's all bad.

I thought that was the opposite. Net neutrality is about keeping everything the way it is now. What some big corporations want is to squeeze the internet for money and control information.

Net neutrality is 2 years old. Do you think the Internet was so horrible before that?

 

[AldoStillGoat]

go to https://www.battleforthenet.com/

if you support net neutrality

 

[sissypunch]

I'm blocked from viewing that Twitter user's profile.

I wonder what i did?

 

[blaseblah]

Net neutrality is 2 years old. Do you think the Internet was so horrible before that?

What are the positives of repealing net neutrality?

Comcast is regularly rated the worst company in America and yet there are still some idiots who think it's a good idea to give them control over our internet content.

 

[nostradumbass]

Definitely look into it, there is so much more to it than that and it's all bad.

There's a reason google, facebook and twitter all support net neutrality. It protects all the biggest sites and ISPs.

 

[Deleted member 490433]

Net neutrality is 2 years old. Do you think the Internet was so horrible before that?

Net neutrality is just a term you have to go past the headline.
The consequences are too broad to write an opus on Sherdog but the FCC is going to give providers control over which websites we can see like youtube for example AND if we should pay for them.

 

[nostradumbass]

I thought that was the opposite. Net neutrality is about keeping everything the way it is now. What some big corporations want is to squeeze the internet for money and control information.

Which corporations don't support net neutrality? Google, youtube, facebook, twitter, amazon all support it. They're specifically the ones who benefit from it, smaller websites certainly don't.

 

[LockardTheGOAT]

Charging us extra to visit certain websites? I'm wholly against them doing that, but I'm really surprised they don't make us already. I can't believe how much I take a site like Youtube for granted.

 

[Scheme]

What are the positives of repealing net neutrality?

Let's not overlook what this is in essence: the government getting more involved in Internet.

What incentives do ISPs actually have to screw over customers/content providers? The root of the problem is the fact that there is a monopoly in certain zones on ISPs. However, that number is growing smaller each year, and we already have laws in effect to provide protection against monopolistic practices.

Net neutrality just allows the US government to intervene in ISP practices, making this less efficient and more costly on the ISPs who have been pretty hammered by things like Netflix changing the scale of the Internet greatly. Also it allows the US government to have more of a say into what is 'fair' and 'unfair'. So you've essentially shifted your trust for what is 'fair' from the ISP to the US government.

Now I'm not against most of net neutrality, in fact I support it for the most part. There's just consequences of being labelled at Title II service that are not in line with what everyone is claiming for net neutrality. Ones that hurt both large and small ISPs, which at the end of the day will cost consumers either way. The barrier to entry to becoming an ISP is so gigantically high, that anything that hurts small ISPs is exponentially worse for the market.

ISPs have gotten so much shit when the real fact is that 20 years ago, the internet was mostly static documents. Nowadays we have 4K streaming and sites like Netflix have completely shattered the traditional throughput of the Internet, which ISPs have had to build around.

 

[rob mafia]

I thought that was the opposite. Net neutrality is about keeping everything the way it is now. What some big corporations want is to squeeze the internet for money and control information.

sort of. the problem is that the legislation was kind of lame, so the net neutrality law isn't exactly what most people think it means/is/does.

like someone else said, facebook is already a shining example of how to be horrible hypocrites and orwellian as fuck, regarding control of information (and censorship, and selling user data...). of course, they supported the legislation, so...

 

[Headkicktoleg]

I'd have to do some more research, but it kind of seems like net neutrality is just a way for the bigger websites to get more powerful.

Basically allows ISP to block whatever content they don't want you to see. For example if you use time warner for your ISP there is a good chance you won't be allowed to access one of their competitors streaming services.

 

[Scheme]

Net neutrality is just a term you have to go past the headline.
The consequences are too broad to write an opus on Sherdog but the FCC is going to give providers control over which websites we can see like youtube for example AND if we should pay for them.

Net neutrality just shifts that responsibility to the American government (almost like what China does) from the ISP. ISP's have very little reason to actually block sites from their users, and an unfiltered ISP will beat ones that blocks sites in a fair market. Website blocking wasn't a problem in the free market 2 years ago, so why should it be now?

 

[NoContest]

Net neutrality is 2 years old. Do you think the Internet was so horrible before that?

Which corporations don't support net neutrality? Google, youtube, facebook, twitter, amazon all support it. They're specifically the ones who benefit from it, smaller websites certainly don't.

Not sure what the problem is here. I guess the term "net neutrality" is just making this whole thing very confusing. Is it kinda like "Citizens United" where they called it that but it was actually just to make lobbies more powerful?

 

[nostradumbass]

Basically allows ISP to block whatever content they don't want you to see. For example if you use time warner for your ISP there is a good chance you won't be allowed to access one of their competitors streaming services.

When has that ever happened? Cite one case, please. I will just use their competitor instead and they lose business. I know that's what people keep saying will happen, but it makes no sense for any ISP company to do that.