Net Neutrality is dead, FCC voted to kill it.

[MeatheadMike]

Who are the biggest internet corporations? Is there a single one who's against net neutrality? Why would that be, do you think?

Because if ISPs have the power to throttle or block traffic to their sites for whatever reason they feel like, it obviously impacts their business.

 

[Slick_36]

Hes the only Texan I have liked.

That's cold.

 

[D3THRONED]

People defending this are clueless

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

They are already paying for their own bandwidth. This has been explained in this very thread. Otherwise you couldn't access facebook or google because their interconnect services would fail.

Google, Netflix, Facebook all pay for huge amounts of bandwidth on the internet's backend. They pay it to companies like Level 3, Verizon, AT&T, and others, who run the huge interconnects where the data is routed from source to requester and vice versa.

Consumer ISPs charge normal people for the service of connecting their home to the backend through the commercial ISP's own network, which bridges homes and the backbone. This can be a little confusing because some of the same companies that provide commercial internet service also provide backbone service, but they are internally separated and accounted separately.

So when you request a video from Youtube - it originates on Youtube servers (google pays for), travels from them to the backbone (bandwidth google pays for), and from the backbone through Comcast/Verizon's network to your computer (you pay for).

THERE ARE NO FREE RIDES. EVERYTHING IS ALREADY PAID FOR. The ISPs want to get paid by both you (the requester) and AGAIN by the sender for the privilege of traveling over their network. This is fuckery. Imagine if you had to pay for sending a package and the receiver couldn't open it until they also paid. It's stupid. It's bullshit. It's obviously just them realizing there is no meaningful competition and deciding that they can squeeze some companies to increase their revenue by treating certain traffic differently than others.

You don't know what you're talking about. I'm not insulting here, I'm saying you literally are repeating things that show you don't know about this topic.

Thanks for such a good explanation. It has helped me understand.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Somebody please tell me this will make it more expensive for dumb people to post shit.

 

[Overtures]

Holy shit.



Are you kidding? He has appointed a who's who of corporate executives and lobbyists to his cabinet, has relied on the counsel of bona fide profiteers, and has received his political support from entrenched GOP mainstays like McConnell who have been exploiting their constituents for profit for years (see: McConnell's multiple 1990s and 2000s lawsuits trying to make campaign finance less transparent and less regulated, while voting completely in line with his benefactors' interests and representing the poorest state in the country). TRUMP IS THE SWAMP. He correctly identified a problem with private interests and powerful accumulations of capital infiltrating the government and then, upon election, doubled down on it.



You don't believe that. You're not that stupid.

His only meritorious policy points were (a) TPP and (b) gutting lobbyist and private influence. He followed through on the first and completely, shamelessly reversed on the latter.

The rest of his policy points? Completely contrary to even the most basic grasps on public policy (hence why he was universally opposed by economists, administrative law experts, etc.). Would you like to take a tour of his policy points (at least the few that can be said to be consistent and not explicitly contradicted by later ramblings)? It might take some time, but basically every premise and conclusion within his policy repertoire is fairly easily disproven as spurious, off-point, reductive, or just plain dishonest.



No, it's not. There is no intelligent or informed perspective that believe that Trump's campaign agenda or his presidency thus far were/are anything short of an unmitigated disaster that would yield disastrous results in the short and long term. Unless you're a Marxist like Zizek who believed that a Trump victory might force the Democratic Party to abandon neoliberalism and the shameless corporate-corruptness that has completely taken over the GOP and has held back the Dems' populist platforms since Carter and especially since Bill Clinton, or more extremely would bring an end to Western capitalism itself, there was no logical reason to believe Trump to be a better candidate than Clinton. I do understand that there was some basis to predict he wouldn't be this bad. But that's neither here nor there.

It's only "all about perspective" in the sense that some persons' perspectives are cast with limited information, however often due to willful ignorance, and might thereafter be objectively skewed.

Zizek is a troll though

 

[nostradumbass]

Because if ISPs have the power to throttle or block traffic to their sites for whatever reason they feel like, it obviously impacts their business.

What does "have the power" mean? That they'd sabotage their own business? Grocery stores "have the power" to sell rat turds in the produce section, but we don't need new gov't regulation to prevent something they weren't doing in the first place.

 

[Pupi]

Zizek is a troll though

Zizek is a poor mans Lacan, Foucault, and Sartre.

 

[Overtures]

Zizek is a poor mans Lacan, Foucault, and Sartre.

All those guys are trolls too. Especially Lacan.

 

[MeatheadMike]

What does "have the power" mean? That they'd sabotage their own business? Grocery stores "have the power" to sell rat turds in the produce section, but we don't need new gov't regulation to prevent something they weren't doing in the first place.

I think you misunderstood... the ISPs wouldn't be sabotaging their own business in any way. A non-neutral internet would allow ISPs to sabotage or extort the Internet Companies businesses because ISPs would be allowed to throttle or block traffic their sites. That is why all the Internet companies are against it.

This has already been attempted to a certain degree by Comcast with Netflix, so its not an outlandish idea.

 

[Rod1]

What does "have the power" mean? That they'd sabotage their own business? Grocery stores "have the power" to sell rat turds in the produce section, but we don't need new gov't regulation to prevent something they weren't doing in the first place.

Natural monopolies.

 

[nostradumbass]

I think you misunderstood... the ISPs wouldn't be sabotaging their own business in any way. A non-neutral internet would allow ISPs to sabotage or extort the Internet Companies businesses because ISPs would be allowed to throttle or block traffic their sites. That is why all the Internet companies are against it.

This has already been attempted to a certain degree by Comcast with Netflix, so its not an outlandish idea.

Which ones are against it? Google practically owns the internet and they're the biggest proponents of it. If your service starts getting shitty, of course you just go to a competitor, so that is sabotaging their own business.

Natural monopolies.

Who has the monopoly? There's comcast, VerizonFIOS, Spectrum, smart phone service providers. Kind of missing the mono part of monopoly.

 

[Rod1]

Who has the monopoly? There's comcast, VerizonFIOS, Spectrum, smart phone service providers. Kind of missing the mono part of monopoly.

How many ISPs do you have where you live?

 

[nostradumbass]

How many ISPs do you have where you live?

I have my phone service, then there's spectrum, Fios and some smaller company. Some places only have 1 or 2 choices, but that's only because there's not really any problems for any new company to come and take away business.

 

[deviake]

This thread might be Mayberry appropriate, but I made it here just to be safe.

This affects everyone in the United States. The FCC votes on it December 14th.

Details:

https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now



https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/backlash-building-over-plan-gut-net-neutrality-n823436

What you can do:

http://act.freepress.net/cms/thanks...n_id=47469453&akid=.10870773.X_Pxj0&ar=1&rd=1

http://act.freepress.net/call/internet_nn_call_congress/

 

[MeatheadMike]

Which ones are against it? Google practically owns the internet and they're the biggest proponents of it. If your service starts getting shitty, of course you just go to a competitor, so that is sabotaging their own business.

No you misunderstood, Google and all the internet companies are against what is being proposed in the article in this thread... in other words against rolling back net neutrality regulations... in other words those companies are FOR Net Neutrality for the reasons pointed out.

Who has the monopoly? There's comcast, VerizonFIOS, Spectrum, smart phone service providers.
Kind of missing the mono part of monopoly.

Monopoly? I never said anything about a monopoly. Many areas actually only have one ISP providing service to choose from, but that's not what I was discussing. I was just answering your question as to why Google and all the internet companies are against what is being proposed.

 

[nostradumbass]

No you misunderstood, Google and all the internet companies are against what is being proposed in the article in this thread... in other words against rolling back net neutrality regulations... in other words those companies are FOR Net Neutrality for the reasons pointed out.



Monopoly? I never said anything about a monopoly. Many areas actually only have one ISP providing service to choose from, but that's not what I was discussing. I was just answering your question as to why Google and all the internet companies are against what is being proposed.

That wasn't a response to you, it was the dude who said there is a natural monopoly.

If I was against net neutrality cause I'm trying to block certain stuff, and I owned youtube, I would think job 1 would be to block the videos in support of it, yet somehow I can watch them all with 0 lag time. Of course they're for it, it benefits them the most. There's no reason to switch now, cause if your internet runs fine there's no reason to, but if your internet started getting shittier, and some other company showed up and offered better service, of course all of the customers would switch.

 

[nostradumbass]

I'm sorry you get touchy when called out when you're wrong. But you're wrong again. Sawdust in bread as filler was REALLY a thing. Sorry, that was kinda a trap and you fell for it.

https://www.marketplace.org/2017/10...d-got-our-food-then-out-it-then-back-it-again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act


And it is in food again now. Because industry capture.

I chose it as an example because it shows that no, corporations absolutely will fuck with the products you buy from them if not regulated. Sorry, history just shows your faith in them is horrifically misplaced.

And again, how is telling corporations that they can't do stupid shit being "in charge" of that industry?

How does that help your case? The companies that put sawdust in bread just helped nabisco and quaker oats get bigger for not doing it. That just proves what I said.

 

[ChainFlow]

How does that help your case? The companies that put sawdust in bread just helped nabisco and quaker oats get bigger for not doing it. That just proves what I said.

It showed that you don't know what you're talking about, because you claimed that companies would never do that and they actually totally did starting over a hundred years before the Pure Food and Drug Act. It didn't put them out of business, they made tons of money off of it for years and years and years. Britain had it even worse than we did in some ways. And the only reason they made so much money is because there was no regulation of food production.

Eventually, as regulation was enacted, the offending companies suffered.

Why can't you even own up to being wrong about this? This is one of the universally agreed-upon examples of the benefits of regulation. It turns out that anyone that isn't fanatically slavish to the idea of all regulation magically being bad because of magic reasons agrees that it was really great when kids weren't getting fed bread made of chalk, sawdust, alum, and other poisons.

Facts and history are not on your side. You said that companies would never do it, it turned out they totally did it for over a century, and they only stopped when regulators made them. What's next, are you going to debate the moon landing?

 

[WTF2008]

What does "have the power" mean? That they'd sabotage their own business? Grocery stores "have the power" to sell rat turds in the produce section, but we don't need new gov't regulation to prevent something they weren't doing in the first place.

They could slow/throttle traffic to sites they don't like or agree with.

They could redirect or filter search results from sites they don't like or agree with.

They could raise the bandwidth price to get to sites they don't like or agree with.