In your own words, describe what this Net Neutrality FCC decision means

Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
I'm interested to see what you guys think actually happened today. Without searching for news articles or clicking on someone else's responses, post a couple sentences *in spoilers* of what the decision entails, how it affects the market, and what it means for you, the consumer.

Remember, type your answers in spoilers to prevent bias.


 
big sponge
| PP
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Lord Commissar
IP: Logged

11,899 posts
 
Spoiler
Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 12:40:45 AM by LC


BrenMan 94 | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL: BrenMan 94
PSN:
Steam: BrenMan 94
ID: BrenMan 94
IP: Logged

1,886 posts
 
Spoiler


 
Luciana
| Mythic Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Luciana
IP: Logged

13,228 posts
 
Spoiler
Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 12:36:47 AM by Luciana


 
big sponge
| PP
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Lord Commissar
IP: Logged

11,899 posts
 
Spoiler

Spoiler


BrenMan 94 | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL: BrenMan 94
PSN:
Steam: BrenMan 94
ID: BrenMan 94
IP: Logged

1,886 posts
 
Spoiler


 
Hahahaha very funny Zonda
| p o l l o
 
more |
XBL: banjo my honey
PSN:
Steam: BanjoKazooie
ID: ねこ
IP: Logged

18,560 posts
RIP ENDIE
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


Mad Max | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: madmax0808
ID: Mad Max
IP: Logged

7,519 posts
 
Spoiler


Mad Max | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: madmax0808
ID: Mad Max
IP: Logged

7,519 posts
 
Spoiler
Spoiler


 
Luciana
| Mythic Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Luciana
IP: Logged

13,228 posts
 
Spoiler

Spoiler
That makes me soooooooooo happy. All your posts bring good news or agreement for me.


 
Luciana
| Mythic Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Luciana
IP: Logged

13,228 posts
 
The FCC is not Congress.
And thank Zeus for that


ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: TrussingDoor
IP: Logged

7,667 posts
"A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us'."
-Saint Anthony the Great
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


Mad Max | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: madmax0808
ID: Mad Max
IP: Logged

7,519 posts
 
Spoiler
Spoiler


ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: TrussingDoor
IP: Logged

7,667 posts
"A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us'."
-Saint Anthony the Great
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


Anonymous (User Deleted) | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Kupo
IP: Logged

6,364 posts
 
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
I'm inclined to think that won't be the case. They've enforced net neutrality for years now, and that hasn't happened yet. In a way, Title II is more like legal maneuvering than a substantial policy change--same concept as always, but the technicalities of the rules mean that it is now better insulated from lawsuits.

On the other hand, would you really prefer freedom of speech be placed in the hands of corporations? Obligated to maintain a positive public image, profits, and happy stockholders before the Constitution (or an approval rating for that matter)? Unlike with politicians, removing corporate executives from power isn't exactly a publicly democratic process.
Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 07:51:33 AM by Kupo


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,937 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.
Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 10:21:04 AM by Mr Psychologist


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
Is there any evidence that service providers will, or ever did, throttle speed or prices for access to certain sites?


 
 
Mr. Psychologist
| Imperial Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Mr Psychologist
IP: Logged

17,214 posts
<.<
Is there any evidence that service providers will, or ever did, throttle speed or prices for access to certain sites?
http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-reaches-streaming-traffic-agreement-with-comcast/

This is the thing that comes to mind <.<


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
Is there any evidence that service providers will, or ever did, throttle speed or prices for access to certain sites?
http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-reaches-streaming-traffic-agreement-with-comcast/

This is the thing that comes to mind <.<

If anything, that's evidence of the market's ability to self-correct. Netflix is a competitor to Comcast, yet they reached a deal to provide non-preferential partnership wherein Netflix pays a fee for the use of Comcast's infrastructure.

I'm worried this FCC decision has done little except cement the existent monopolies.
Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 10:30:58 AM by HurtfulTurkey


 
 
Mr. Psychologist
| Imperial Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Mr Psychologist
IP: Logged

17,214 posts
<.<
Is there any evidence that service providers will, or ever did, throttle speed or prices for access to certain sites?
http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-reaches-streaming-traffic-agreement-with-comcast/

This is the thing that comes to mind <.<

If anything, that's evidence of the market's ability to self-correct. Netflix is a competitor to Comcast, yet they reached a deal to provide non-preferential partnership wherein Netflix pays a fee for the use of Comcast's infrastructure.

I'm worried this FCC decision has done little except cement the existent monopolies.
It seemed more like Comcast extorting Netflix so that it's customers (Netflix) won't be having throttled/shite connections giving a borderline useless service <.<
Netflix then has to pay a premium to Comcast so that it's customers don't cancel their subscriptions because they get awful quality video.


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
Is there any evidence that service providers will, or ever did, throttle speed or prices for access to certain sites?
http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-reaches-streaming-traffic-agreement-with-comcast/

This is the thing that comes to mind <.<

If anything, that's evidence of the market's ability to self-correct. Netflix is a competitor to Comcast, yet they reached a deal to provide non-preferential partnership wherein Netflix pays a fee for the use of Comcast's infrastructure.

I'm worried this FCC decision has done little except cement the existent monopolies.
It seemed more like Comcast extorting Netflix so that it's customers (Netflix) won't be having throttled/shite connections giving a borderline useless service <.<
Netflix then has to pay a premium to Comcast so that it's customers don't cancel their subscriptions because they get awful quality video.

It'd hardly call that extortion. Despite being internet-based, they're still a direct competitor to Comcast's broadcasting.


 
 
Mr. Psychologist
| Imperial Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Mr Psychologist
IP: Logged

17,214 posts
<.<
Is there any evidence that service providers will, or ever did, throttle speed or prices for access to certain sites?
http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-reaches-streaming-traffic-agreement-with-comcast/

This is the thing that comes to mind <.<

If anything, that's evidence of the market's ability to self-correct. Netflix is a competitor to Comcast, yet they reached a deal to provide non-preferential partnership wherein Netflix pays a fee for the use of Comcast's infrastructure.

I'm worried this FCC decision has done little except cement the existent monopolies.
It seemed more like Comcast extorting Netflix so that it's customers (Netflix) won't be having throttled/shite connections giving a borderline useless service <.<
Netflix then has to pay a premium to Comcast so that it's customers don't cancel their subscriptions because they get awful quality video.

It'd hardly call that extortion. Despite being internet-based, they're still a direct competitor to Comcast's broadcasting.
Then that would be even more of an issue, strangling the competition who are forced to use your infrastructure just reeks of unfair practice and monopolisation.


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
They're not forced. Google is laying down their own fiber, and cell providers build their own network. The infrastructure is an investment, and allowing other companies to use it freely, as this FCC decision does, isn't preventative of monopolies, it's destructive to fair competition. Why should anyone build any more of this infrastructure if they don't benefit from its exclusivity?


Mad Max | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: madmax0808
ID: Mad Max
IP: Logged

7,519 posts
 
They're not forced. Google is laying down their own fiber, and cell providers build their own network. The infrastructure is an investment, and allowing other companies to use it freely, as this FCC decision does, isn't preventative of monopolies, it's destructive to fair competition. Why should anyone build any more of this infrastructure if they don't benefit from its exclusivity?
But it's talking about existing infrastructure. Currently, many cities [including my own] only have one ISP you can have because no other ISP is allowed to run cables. That's anti-competitive.


 
 
Mr. Psychologist
| Imperial Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Mr Psychologist
IP: Logged

17,214 posts
<.<
They're not forced. Google is laying down their own fiber, and cell providers build their own network. The infrastructure is an investment, and allowing other companies to use it freely, as this FCC decision does, isn't preventative of monopolies, it's destructive to fair competition. Why should anyone build any more of this infrastructure if they don't benefit from its exclusivity?

Except IIRC google fibre is going to take a few years to reach most major cities, let alone people who live outside of state capitals <.<

I'm not going to speak for the motives of the cable companies in the states, as far as I know in the UK it's BT that owns most of the infrastructure but even then you have companies like Virgin media, Google and BT laying down superfast broadband/fibre optic stuff because the demand is high and the current infrastructure is pretty poor. So competition is driving the investment because you have a range of suppliers offering their services and people are going to go with the best one. From what I understand of a lot of the USA, that's not the case. You have states with one, maybe two companies and it's a matter of 'don't like it? tough shit' The monopoly is already kind of there <.<


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
They're not forced. Google is laying down their own fiber, and cell providers build their own network. The infrastructure is an investment, and allowing other companies to use it freely, as this FCC decision does, isn't preventative of monopolies, it's destructive to fair competition. Why should anyone build any more of this infrastructure if they don't benefit from its exclusivity?
But it's talking about existing infrastructure. Currently, many cities [including my own] only have one ISP you can have because no other ISP is allowed to run cables. That's anti-competitive.

Where do you live that restricts laying cable?


Mad Max | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: madmax0808
ID: Mad Max
IP: Logged

7,519 posts
 
They're not forced. Google is laying down their own fiber, and cell providers build their own network. The infrastructure is an investment, and allowing other companies to use it freely, as this FCC decision does, isn't preventative of monopolies, it's destructive to fair competition. Why should anyone build any more of this infrastructure if they don't benefit from its exclusivity?
But it's talking about existing infrastructure. Currently, many cities [including my own] only have one ISP you can have because no other ISP is allowed to run cables. That's anti-competitive.

Where do you live that restricts laying cable?
Irvine, CA. The only ISP available to us is Cox Communications. Luckily, they aren't complete assholes so it's not so bad, but since there's no competition, there's no reason for them to lower costs or provide better service.


Anonymous (User Deleted) | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Kupo
IP: Logged

6,364 posts
 
Irvine, CA. The only ISP available to us is Cox Communications. Luckily, they aren't complete assholes so it's not so bad, but since there's no competition, there's no reason for them to lower costs or provide better service.
I'd like to point out that local monopolies are a very common thing, and losing net neutrality would have only made things worse for start-up ISPs.

It'd hardly call that extortion. Despite being internet-based, they're still a direct competitor to Comcast's broadcasting.
Comcast and Verizon, aside from having their own Internet services, also offer television. Netflix is one of their biggest competitors in that context. Virtually every major TV and Internet provider has its own on-demand service that directly competes with Netflix, and Netflix is beating them.

So what if they all charged Netflix? They only made $220 million in 2013. While we don't know the financial details, we can assume the telecommunications companies would want a lot. The last time Netflix raised the subscription cost, their stock and subscriber growth took a hit.

The perfect storm would be all of the ISPs ganging up on Netflix. Netflix would have to agree to the deals, or suffer half-assed streaming speeds, of which they would certainly take the fall, or there would be some absurd feud like what happens all the time between TV channels and providers where both sides point fingers and nobody can watch the channel until an agreement is reached.

Netflix would hike their prices again just to keep up, then their growth sputters and they get bought out or, worst case, go bankrupt. Either way, Netflix as we know it would cease to exist, and the TV companies would conveniently have their common enemy out of the picture.

If that's not extortion, then I don't know what is.


Mad Max | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: madmax0808
ID: Mad Max
IP: Logged

7,519 posts
 
Irvine, CA. The only ISP available to us is Cox Communications. Luckily, they aren't complete assholes so it's not so bad, but since there's no competition, there's no reason for them to lower costs or provide better service.
losing net neutrality would have only made things worse for start-up ISPs.
Right, which is why this is good.


BrenMan 94 | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL: BrenMan 94
PSN:
Steam: BrenMan 94
ID: BrenMan 94
IP: Logged

1,886 posts
 
Is there any evidence that service providers will, or ever did, throttle speed or prices for access to certain sites?
http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-reaches-streaming-traffic-agreement-with-comcast/

This is the thing that comes to mind <.<

If anything, that's evidence of the market's ability to self-correct. Netflix is a competitor to Comcast, yet they reached a deal to provide non-preferential partnership wherein Netflix pays a fee for the use of Comcast's infrastructure.

I'm worried this FCC decision has done little except cement the existent monopolies.
It seemed more like Comcast extorting Netflix so that it's customers (Netflix) won't be having throttled/shite connections giving a borderline useless service <.<
Netflix then has to pay a premium to Comcast so that it's customers don't cancel their subscriptions because they get awful quality video.
Netflix streaming accounts for 35% of all U.S. web traffic. [Sauce]

Comcast was forced to either (a) build new infrastructure to support the growing Netflix traffic, (b) not build new infrastructure, slowing everyone down or (c) throttle Netflix streams so that the other 65% of traffic isn't slow as fuck.