Net Neutrality - National Protest Day



  • If you're not already aware, today, July 12th, is a national protest day for Net Neutrality in the US.

    https://www.battleforthenet.com/

    If you're unfamiliar with the issues surrounding Net Neutrality, here is a quick video illustrating the topic and there problems therein.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6UZUhRdD6U

    Here's another.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K88BU3kjZ-c

    Seeing as this is a streaming service, dependent on the internet, ending net neutrality would potentially affect us all. Just thought I'd share for awareness' sake.

    Ps- I realize I'm not on the ball in posting this as the day is almost over already, but I literally found out today was an important day for activism from a video with only a few hundred views, so I figured I'd share anywhere I can.



  • @MyOnlyFarph said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    Seeing as this is a streaming service, dependent on the internet, ending net neutrality would potentially affect us all. Just thought I'd share for awareness' sake.

    Well, more like CR/FUNimation would be just fine if not dandy, as they would be "paying the ransom" in order to keep their sites prioritized; the pirate sites be neerfdd. Mabye the PS4 app will work? Who knows....



  • You can't tell me to be for Net Neutrality without presenting the other side.

    Am I the only person that's concerned about the fact that its pretty much all the big companies that want to keep Net Neutrality?

    And for a group that seems to hate government oversight, they want... more government oversight? What?

    So what if the telecoms will promote their content over others, I'd hate to break it to you, but that's already being done. The EU recently made Google promote themselves less.



  • @darthrutsula40 The "big sites" in support of net neutrality have different interests than cable providers. This is not an argument for an increase in government oversight, it's an argument against an attempt at deregulation that literally benefits no one besides ISPs like Comcast and Verizon. Long story short, most businesses that depend on the internet as well as you the consumer, lose.

    If you want more details on why its bad for the open market, for free speech, for the consumer, for basically everyone that uses the internet, the links provided will convey that better than I can.

    If you want someone to play devil's advocate and tell you why it's supposedly good somehow, well, there are plenty of paid shills out there who would be happy to. The bill is called the "restoring internet freedom act" so at least the title sounds pleasant in an Orwellian doublethink sort of way.



  • @thegrandalliance Possibly, but it's also putting that decision in the hands of your ISP, instead of the open market.



  • @MyOnlyFarph Idk, seems to me that the likes of Amazon or Google did well when the interwebs wasn't under Title II. As the way it currently is didn't occur until (based on what I'm seeing) 2015.

    Long story short, most businesses that depend on the internet as well as you the consumer, lose.

    The foundation of capitalism is that the consumer wins.

    Having it be classified as a utility would ruin a lot of prospective competition from ISPs. If they're all required to be the same there wouldn't be new "things."

    And it wouldn't be all that bad. Take T-Mobile for example, they had a service or whatever with music streaming that wouldn't count as your data (this violates net neutrality). And wanting to classify internet as a utility means that there will be government oversight.

    If you want someone to play devil's advocate and tell you why it's supposedly good somehow, well, there are plenty of paid shills out there who would be happy to. The bill is called the "restoring internet freedom act" so at least the title sounds pleasant in an Orwellian doublethink sort of way.

    Seems to me that capitalists and hardware companies, as well as ISPs, are in favor of eliminating net neutrality. All the ones for keeping it are internet services like Netflix where their bottom line relies heavily on paying as little as possible for the network traffic that they gobble up. I shouldn't be paying for equal access to Netflix even though I don't even use it. Service sucks ass, why would it change if the status-quo remains the same?

    If you're an internet power-user it probably does benefit you to be pro neutrality, but if you are a casual user, your best interest would indeed be the not neutral side.

    And hurling insults (even implied) won't work for me. Kthx.



  • @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    Having it be classified as a utility would ruin a lot of prospective competition from ISPs. If they're all required to be the same there wouldn't be new "things."

    What do you mean by this? How would it "ruin" prospective competition? Seems like if anything it will further cement current monopolies/duopolies.

    @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    And wanting to classify internet as a utility means that there will be government oversight.

    It's already classified as a utility. Supporting net neutrality = keeping things as they are now, not adding new regulations.

    @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    All the ones for keeping it are internet services like Netflix where their bottom line relies heavily on paying as little as possible for the network traffic that they gobble up.

    And widespread public grassroots efforts across the political spectrum (though maybe excluding certain elements of the extreme right).

    @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    I shouldn't be paying for equal access to Netflix even though I don't even use it.

    I'm not sure what you mean by this. Net neutrality means equal access to any website whether you personally use it or not. To borrow the analogy from the video, it sounds like you're saying your neighbor shouldn't get their magazine subscription delivered on time (or at all) because you don't personally subscribe to it yourself.

    This issue goes beyond even that scenario though, because it would give ISPs the ability to legally censor content as well. So not only could your hypothetical mail carrier refuse to deliver because they consider your package too costly or heavy, but simply because they don't like its contents. Their reasons could be any number of things, such as silencing criticism, stifling political movements that don't align with their interests, or pushing the scale between two competing businesses through backdoor deals.

    @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    And hurling insults (even implied) won't work for me. Kthx.

    I'm sorry, but I don't recall insulting you at any point.



  • @MyOnlyFarph

    Seems like if anything it will further cement current monopolies/duopolies.

    That is currently how it is being done.

    What do you mean by this? How would it "ruin" prospective competition?

    I mean that ISPs aren't willing to commit as much to infrastructure as they can because they are afraid the government will appropriate their investments.

    It's already classified as a utility. Supporting net neutrality = keeping things as they are now, not adding new regulations.

    Which means that the ISPs can't do things that can be good for us consumers. Like being able to offer certain internet services for free.

    I'm not sure what you mean by this. Net neutrality means equal access to any website whether you personally use it or not. To borrow the analogy from the video, it sounds like you're saying your neighbor shouldn't get their magazine subscription delivered on time (or at all) because you don't personally subscribe to it yourself.

    No the line of logic is more in line with having a cable subscription. You pay to have all these different sorts of channels but in actuality you only really use like 4. Why should I pay for ESPN or Discover or History channels but not use them? ESPN uses the highest amount of any cable subscription that includes it whether or not you use it. I guess it would be better for me to say that we should be paying for how much internet we use as opposed to me being throttled because someone decided they needed to use all their bandwidth at once.

    This issue goes beyond even that scenario though, because it would give ISPs the ability to legally censor content as well.

    Yes but you know what you could theoretically do? Switch to a different carrier where they won't do that. Or use a VPN. And this can actually be a good thing because that means they would be able to take a more active role in lowering criminal activity like pirating anime. If AT&T were to have control over what goes through them then they'd have an active interest in discriminating anime piracy since they own Crunchyroll.

    I'm sorry, but I don't recall insulting you at any point.

    Your diction reads like you are insulting me for even considering the other side of your arguement. And now you just bold everything which, not only makes it harder to read, but makes it seem like you want to yell at me.

    Have you ever actually read any editorials talking about the other side without really being all that biased? Have you actually read/watched anything about net neutrality that isn't riddled with conflict of interest? Because it wasn't until about a month ago when I heard a piece on NPR (that was against neutrality) that made me realize "wow, I've only heard about net neutrality from those who want to maintain it." I never even looked up even the wikipedia page.

    Keeping it as if it is a utility means that we will almost never have competition. This is why many people are against regulation because when you allow a legal monopoly then prices have no reason to drop and customer service can go to shit because they know that there's no where else you can turn to except if you move.



  • In reality, the so-called "Net Neutrality" is a myth perpetrated by people who don't know WTF Internet works. The Internet was never structurally build to transmit all TCP/IP packets across the network at the same effective rate. Nor is is able to distribute all likewise content at same rates.

    If you live closer to it, it is always going to be inherently faster. No need to nerf one speed to 70ms+ lag just because something local can get 25ms. Nor can the T1 cables near popular sites such as Netflix servers can be expected to share quite literally all the traffic bandwidth load for the entire country, as one located in lower traffic geography.

    Thus, the argument supporting it, is false to begin with.

    No matter...



  • Why would the ISPs pushing for this bill do so if the result would be a loss of their current near-monopolies?

    @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    Which means that the ISPs can't do things that can be good for us consumers. Like being able to offer certain internet services for free.

    But that's just an argument for cronyism...

    @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    No the line of logic is more in line with having a cable subscription. You pay to have all these different sorts of channels but in actuality you only really use like 4. Why should I pay for ESPN or Discover or History channels but not use them? ESPN uses the highest amount of any cable subscription that includes it whether or not you use it. I guess it would be better for me to say that we should be paying for how much internet we use as opposed to me being throttled because someone decided they needed to use all their bandwidth at once.

    I'm still not sure where this reasoning is coming from. Are you expecting to be paying less because you use less? That cable prices will go down for lower users?

    @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    Yes but you know what you could theoretically do? Switch to a different carrier where they won't do that.

    Now seriously, that has to be a joke. Where I live, most areas have 1-2 providers at most. The area I live now has literally only one option. Even if there were several, that doesn't mean they wouldn't all share the same problems.

    @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    If AT&T were to have control over what goes through them then they'd have an active interest in discriminating anime piracy since they own Crunchyroll.

    Sure, they would have the power to censor "bad" things, just as they'd be able to censor "good" things too. They could censor those illegal streaming sites just as they could censor dissenting points of view, competitors, or whatever so choose. Either way, you, the consumer, would have no say. You can't point to this as a positive and just ignore all the negatives that go along with it.

    @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    And now you just bold everything which, not only makes it harder to read, but makes it seem like you want to yell at me.

    I was trying to make it easier to read between all of the quotes. Never though such a thing would be considered offensive...

    @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    Have you ever actually read any editorials talking about the other side without really being all that biased?

    Plenty, though from what I've seen, the negatives overwhelmingly outweigh any of the supposed positives.

    @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    Keeping it as if it is a utility means that we will almost never have competition. This is why many people are against regulation because when you allow a legal monopoly then prices have no reason to drop and customer service can go to shit because they know that there's no where else you can turn to except if you move.

    Again, I'm just finding it incredibly hard to buy that the current monopolies/duopolies would actively push for legislation that would supposedly end their own ideal position. Do you think these ISPs WANT to lose your business?

    Overall it seems like you're disregarding all of the definite negatives in favor of possible positives.



  • Why would the ISPs pushing for this bill do so if the result would be a loss of their current near-monopolies?

    Because they'd be able to make their way into markets where they have zero presence.

    But that's just an argument for cronyism...

    Still stands as a positive.

    I'm still not sure where this reasoning is coming from. Are you expecting to be paying less because you use less? That cable prices will go down for lower users?

    Do you pay the same amount of $$$ as your neighbor for using less water than they do? Do you pay more $$$ for using more electricity? You should pay for internet usage, not X bandwidth. Look I know i'm kind of jumping different examples on this one. I guess I should say that cable subs are more like what net neutrality currently is... this whole arguement gets a little confusing.

    Now seriously, that has to be a joke. Where I live, most areas have 1-2 providers at most. The area I live now has literally only one option. Even if there were several, that doesn't mean they wouldn't all share the same problems.

    If they could be allowed to penetrate into other markets there will be better services because people will flock to what is perceived to be better.

    Sure, they would have the power to censor "bad" things, just as they'd be able to censor "good" things too. They could censor those illegal streaming sites just as they could censor dissenting points of view, competitors, or whatever so choose. Either way, you, the consumer, would have no say. You can't point to this as a positive and just ignore all the negatives that go along with it.

    Based on my understanding of how a VPN is, a simple circumvention would simply be getting a VPN. However you are thinking that they will actually take the time to read through what millions of people are posting or doing. Unless you're saying they'd just flat out IP block Facebook. But also think about other public forums, like this one. Sure Funimation can exclude any sort of bad publicity on their own forums right here but they won't. Word of mouth is either benevolent or deadly for a company.

    I was trying to make it easier to read between all of the quotes. Never though such a thing would be considered offensive...

    Its not offensive, it just makes it seem like you are flabberghasted that I would even voice an opinion from the other side.

    Again, I'm just finding it incredibly hard to buy that the current monopolies/duopolies would actively push for legislation that would supposedly end their own ideal position. Do you think these ISPs WANT to lose your business?

    Why would we, the consumer, want the status quo to remain? They have literally zero incentive to upgrade any infrastructure. Oh hey you're getting 5 mbps? Sucks to be you then. Oh what you want some other service provider? HA we are the other service provider!

    In economics monopolies are bad. No one is making them lower their prices, no one is making them do the next best innovation. What's after fiber-optics? Why do we even want/need more bandwidth? Why are we focusing on the agenda of the ISPs who are against net neutrality? Is it because its pro them or pro consumer? What about the agenda of the content creators? Is it because its pro them or pro consumer? Content creators have admitted to having code that slowed their site on those who are in favor of open internet, that sounds pretty bad for the consumer. Why am I getting deteriorated services for being associated with a particular group of people? The government has been caught tampering with routers, they also had a botched release of healthcare.gov, are you sure you want them holding the keys?

    I think that your concern over censorship may be a bit dramatic. I understand that it is there and looming, but you can find many examples of where censorship could be applied but was chosen not to. But its also worth noting that the internet is a vicious battlefield and it is unwise to piss it off.



  • 0_1500190968043_manuscript.JPG

    You know, this is just one of those issues where i keep hearing different arguments from people of all "walks of life", yet, i really don't want to take the time to study it. (laughs) ;-) Does anyone else feel this way?

    Sincerely,
    P.J.



  • @darthrutsula40 I think you would make more effective arguments if you wouldn't be so vague and substantiate some of your claims. What other markets? What evidence do you have that prices would decrease or users be charged based on bandwidth? Would that even equate to the average user saving money? What evidence is there that ending NN would help competing ISPs grow or compel innovation in general? Of course market monopolies are bad, but I've seen no credible evidence that this bill will change that.

    The cable TV analogy isn't really accurate because we already have basic/upgraded packages available from these companies where you access a limited number of channels and pay extra for more or premium content. It sounds like you want the internet to become more like that.

    You can't expect hundreds of millions of people to start using VPNs as a solution. Not only is that an extra bill to pay on top of your internet service, but casual users won't catch on to that sort of thing. Earlier you were arguing that shutting down pirate sites would be a positive, but using a VPN would allow access to those pirate sites anyway. So which is it?

    The censorship issue isn't a matter of them "blocking facebook", nor does it have anything to do with reading through what millions of people are doing. It's about having the power to censor say, a grassroots website that threatens their political interests, or a website dedicated to criticism of their company. Even if they don't outright censor something, they could simply slow it down to the point that it barely functions. They could also freely tip the scales for which internet-based business they'd like to do well, vs. which they'd rather see fail. For example, if a new video hosting site began to compete with youtube, they could easily favor youtube, who has the funds to pay the fastlane ransom, and purposely slow the new site, making them tank. There's all kinds of potential for behind-the-scenes cronyism, and I certainly don't trust Comcast, Verizon, or At&T to be remotely ethical.

    @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    What about the agenda of the content creators? Is it because its pro them or pro consumer?

    If you search youtube for example, and see what actual content creators have to say, it is overwhelming pro-NN. It's actually pretty hard to find any youtubers who are in favor of ending it, even among right-leaning ones. There were half a million demonstrably fake accounts astroturfing the FCC's website though...

    @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    Content creators have admitted to having code that slowed their site on those who are in favor of open internet, that sounds pretty bad for the consumer. Why am I getting deteriorated services for being associated with a particular group of people? The government has been caught tampering with routers, they also had a botched release of healthcare.gov, are you sure you want them holding the keys?

    This is another issue where you are being too vague or your claims are unsubstantiated. I don't know what you are referring to. I'm not ideologically opposed to any sort of government oversight (maybe you are?). The government creating a crappy website has literally nothing to do with this issue whatsoever.

    The censorship issue is real. Comcast just recently tried to shutdown Fight for the Future, a website dedicated to Net-Neutrality activism. This was in May.



  • @P.J. If you just want to get the gist of it, do a youtube search for Net Neutrality. There are plenty of videos which summarize the topic in just a few minutes.



  • Look I'll admit that I'm not completely sold, on either side. Neither side have concrete proof that one or the other will or will not discriminate.

    Ever play a game and suffer from random disconnects or lag? This issue can be addressed/fixed under an open internet. Want lower ping? This can also be done under a non-neutral internet.

    Have videos that are buffering? This can also be addressed.

    Live in an underserved area? Well chances are it will always stay underserved under NN.

    If you search youtube for example, and see what actual content creators have to say, it is overwhelming pro-NN. It's actually pretty hard to find any youtubers who are in favor of ending it, even among right-leaning ones. There were half a million demonstrably fake accounts astroturfing the FCC's website though...

    Actually my comment about them was more about people being Pro NN. Content creators have a stake in this, so is their wanting to keep NN also in our favor?

    What evidence is there that ending NN would help competing ISPs grow or compel innovation in general? Of course market monopolies are bad, but I've seen no credible evidence that this bill will change that.

    I will use my own experience from an mmo, because its the same/similar concept. In star wars the old republic after one of the updates that released new implants, I bought one to reverse engineer so I could gain the blueprint and have a monopoly. Sure enough, I did. I had the monopoly for a week (I assume because I was the only person dumb enough to actually try). I was a dick and charged 1 price, if you didn't like it, you can acquire one the same way I got my original, by playing the game. Next week I think two other players had similar (but not 100% the same) implants going for sale, but they undercut me. So I undercut them. This back and forth went far enough that you could pretty much only sell them for a pretty small (compared to my monopoly prices) profit. I didn't stop on the first one though. I was able to successfully reverse engineer 2 (or 3?) other implants, one of which didn't get any sort of competition so I was able to charge an absurd amount (it was a tank implant for what was considered to be "the weakest tank" so no one really bothered).

    That is why competition is good, because everyone will keep lowering their prices to bring the customers to their side down to the point where they pretty much sell at cost. I lived this lesson. Look at Funimation. They aren't the only anime streaming platform, that's why they don't charge 120$ for 3 months, because I can just take my money elsewhere. Its super hard to even have a monopoly and when you do, you won't have it for long.

    This is also why censorship wouldn't be an issue if there is competition, because if you are being censored, you can just go to a different carrier where they wouldn't.

    The censorship issue isn't a matter of them "blocking facebook", nor does it have anything to do with reading through what millions of people are doing. It's about having the power to censor say, a grassroots website that threatens their political interests, or a website dedicated to criticism of their company.

    Hey you remember what everyone was accusing the media about Bernie Sanders? How the hell did he become so popular? And when the internet has a will, it has a way.

    For example, if a new video hosting site began to compete with youtube, they could easily favor youtube, who has the funds to pay the fastlane ransom, and purposely slow the new site, making them tank.

    How did websites even become so popular given what they had to deal with before Net Neutrality? How did Facebook become more popular than MySpace? How is Twitter even around since Facebook pretty much does more? How did Youtube beat out Vimeo? Google and Yahoo?

    On the flip-side there is only so much bandwidth they can either afford to occupy, or even take up. They will hit diminishing returns at some point, that is where a prospective site could benefit.

    Also found out that net neutrality = open internet (WHICH IS SO GOD DAMN CONFUSING) so when you see me saying open internet, i most likely mean neutral free...



  • @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    Content creators have a stake in this, so is their wanting to keep NN also in our favor?

    Yes, if you enjoy the work they produce.

    @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    That is why competition is good, because everyone will keep lowering their prices to bring the customers to their side down to the point where they pretty much sell at cost

    No one is arguing that competition isn't good. I'm just asking for you to substantiate your claim that this bill would increase healthy competition among ISPs or lower average prices.

    @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    Hey you remember what everyone was accusing the media about Bernie Sanders? How the hell did he become so popular? And when the internet has a will, it has a way.

    Okay, this is where I feel you are perhaps confused. Political underdogs like Bernie as well as many grassroots movements would be severely crippled by removing net neutrality. Websites could be directly censored by ISPs, slowed down to the point of dysfunction, or hidden behind paywalls. Many of these activist causes survive thanks to the open internet. Removing NN would make it much easier for the powers that be to hinder/stop them. If you can recognize how the mainstream media was unfair to Bernie Sanders, well, just apply that to the internet.

    @darthrutsula40 said in Net Neutrality - National Protest Day:

    This is also why censorship wouldn't be an issue if there is competition, because if you are being censored, you can just go to a different carrier where they wouldn't.

    Alright, I have responded to this point before, but to further clarify, almost 70% of Americans have only 2 choices available for broadband providers, and about 30% have literally only one. So for most people, "shopping elsewhere" simply isn't a possibility. Even if about 30% have three or more providers, there is no guarantee that any option will behave ethically. I myself have only one option in my area. If my provider screws me, I'd have to move in order to change my service, and even then, it's just changing from one terrible company to another.



  • @MyOnlyFarph

    Alright, I have responded to this point before, but to further clarify, almost 70% of Americans have only 2 choices available for broadband providers, and about 30% have literally only one. So for most people, "shopping elsewhere" simply isn't a possibility. Even if about 30% have three or more providers, there is no guarantee that any option will behave ethically. I myself have only one option in my area. If my provider screws me, I'd have to move in order to change my service, and even then, it's just changing from one terrible company to another.

    This is the one I want to focus on. I am saying that without net neutrality, ISPs will, more readily, invest their own infrastructure into these areas without fear that their infrastructure will be appropriated. And honestly, I feel that if it is likely that they will compete in these areas where your option is Internet from one source or nothing at all, it is worth the risk.

    No one is arguing that competition isn't good. I'm just asking for you to substantiate your claim that this bill would increase healthy competition among ISPs or lower average prices.

    Its not like the other side really has any substance to counter this too... This is all conjecture. Sure it may not create competition, but by keeping NN we also probably won't improve our prices, internet speed, or customer service.

    No source I've found have concrete numerical data, no matter if you are pro or con. Yea sure pro-NN people will say "oh the ISPs have invested into infrastructure" but the anti-NN people will say "but not as much as they otherwise would have"

    Here's mostly what I've been using for sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/#2642d24270d5

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/11/24/why-mark-cuban-opposes-net-neutrality-i-want-there-to-be-fast-lanes/

    https://hbr.org/2010/08/why-business-should-oppose-net-neutrality (this one actually has a sister article on why NN is good)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_against

    Quite honestly, both the HBR articles and the wikipedia articles read to be largely unbiased and have been most of my inspiration. I'm not good at articulating when it comes to certain subjects, primarily Net Neutrality because it is so darn confusing.

    Honestly I find the HBR article on why we should oppose it makes more sense/easier to follow compared to the one on why we shouldn't oppose it.

    I do honestly want to call into view who is for NN (mostly internet based businesses) and who is against (ISPs and Hardware manufacturers).

    Both sides have compelling arguements, ones I can agree with (curse me and my ability to think both ways!).

    My view on it is that we want to force private/public companies to behave like a government institution. Is this good or bad? Well... we don't want the gov't to be reaching beyond their bounds. But also, wouldn't ISPs controlling what goes on on the internet be considered free speech? Money is speech. Corporations are people. The internet is constantly changing. Remember when MSFT had to deal with antitrust laws for Internet Explorer? Now IE is a joke. When will we no longer need underground cabling for internet?


Log in to reply