OT: Net Neutrality
- Thread starter WDE_Tarp
- Start date
I really don't understand it other than the extremes of it. And even that's a basic understanding. But essentially, big websites like google, facebook, twitter etc. will pay to make their sites load faster than others so you'll have more incentive to visit them. Any up and coming website will have to pay a premium to the cable service to make their site load at a regular rate. At least that's how I understand it.
Cable companies though will eventually package the internet just like they package television cable. You get you basic shit to load quick, but for premium, quick streaming, you'll have to pay extra for certain cites.
It seems to work both ways. Like internet businesses will pay cable companies to keep their speeds the same, and we'll have to pay cable companies to make sure our favorite streaming sties (netflix, amazon, spotify etc) all still load the same.
I could be totally wrong though. But essentially it allows the internet providers to fvck everyone if they want to.
Cable companies though will eventually package the internet just like they package television cable. You get you basic shit to load quick, but for premium, quick streaming, you'll have to pay extra for certain cites.
It seems to work both ways. Like internet businesses will pay cable companies to keep their speeds the same, and we'll have to pay cable companies to make sure our favorite streaming sties (netflix, amazon, spotify etc) all still load the same.
I could be totally wrong though. But essentially it allows the internet providers to fvck everyone if they want to.
I have mixed feelings on it, but anyone who tells you the ISPs built the infrastructure is only telling you part of the truth. Tax dollars subsidized large portions of the current internet delivery services.
Last edited:
the thing is that it opens the door for an internet provider to offer internet as it currently is. Since there are so many providers out there, then we'll see how it works out. But if some of charter, turner whatever start trying to package internet and people get pissed and leave, then will any of it really matter? The customers will just flock to somewhere else immediately.
It's not a mandate that all internet providers have to act like that. It just allows them to. I, mean, ultimately, the market will determine what people want, right?
Anyways, it's not over. Congress still has to agree to it. But I don't think it's the end of the world like the whiners on twitter are making it out to be.
It's not a mandate that all internet providers have to act like that. It just allows them to. I, mean, ultimately, the market will determine what people want, right?
Anyways, it's not over. Congress still has to agree to it. But I don't think it's the end of the world like the whiners on twitter are making it out to be.
looks like I was kind of right. I think, no matter what, this will open the door for someone to make some money challenging the big providers.
It the backbone providers are throttling then it doesn't matter if the last mile ISPs are doing so or not, it'll be throttled. This isn't about Mom and Pop DSL provider, it's about the Level3s and AT&T backhaul providers.
They are building a network, bit not "the internet". A million mom and pop ISPs could spring up but they have to be connected to the rest of the world at some point, and this is where the throttling will likely take place.
Granted, I could be missing something.
All I know is if the big social media and search companies are for it, then it's obviously something that will benefit them the most. They are all in favor of net neutrality. Therefore it doesn't make sense when people say killing it will lead to them paying for faster access. Isn't faster access in their best interest?
Something doesn't add up
Something doesn't add up
A
anon_xdkqbpnrbtnct
Guest
JMO but something like this in the first place needs to be decided in the legislature.
I don’t like wide sweeping changes to our life being handled by unelected officials that face no accountability.
I don’t like wide sweeping changes to our life being handled by unelected officials that face no accountability.
Yeah, but those companies can afford to pay the piper either way. Service providers charging more for access will hurt the startups and the SMB market as well as non-commercial sites.
On a related note, if you want to see how your tax dollars are subsidizing infrastructure, Google FIRSTNET. Yet another grand ide that is going to turn into a boondoggle for AT&T and a lot of downstream providers.
Could hurt the startups. I tend to agree with the arguement that it's bad for the internet.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/18613/7-reasons-net-neutrality-idiotic-aaron-bandler
I'm a complete moron on this level of tech stuff, but here's my completely unprofessional guess at this just knowing how our systems tend to work:
- it won't be as bad as the "Internet is screwed and it's all going to hell and the megacompanies are about to screw everyone" people think it will be
- it also isn't as big of a deal as the anti-NetNeutrality people think it is and they didn't just make some huge positive impact for the free market that consumers are going to be so excited about in a few years. The good from this action will probably be met with just about the same amount of bad.
We probably need some parts of the previous standards we had and could probably lose some of the other parts we lost today and that would be the correct compromise but we don't live in a compromising time so that's not likely to happen.
I'm more concerned about the sections that allow the executive branch broad powers to censor the internet than I am tiered internet pricing, tbh. I think the ruling was the correct one, but I don't think the FCC should've been the group to make the call. Whole government's f'ed though, so who are we kidding talking about trying to make good laws?
I think you guys are missing the trees through the forest. What does this all mean for the GREG?
Potentially, it means Rivals might have to pay for faster access (probably causing sub prices to rise), and if they don't everyone's experience will be like trying to load the boog bored once @Jay G. Tate has throttled your load times.
I think the biggest thing that's being lost on everyone is the fact that whether Net-Neutraility exists or not, is no one is forcing you to use any of these services. These services are nothing more, for the average tronzer, than a mere source of entertainment. This is the age of the internet, and business thrives via the mass exposure that the internet provides, but it's not mandatory to exist. There are tons of variables for every circumstance that you can imagine to argue both sides of the fence, but reality is that life will go on and everything in life is a choice. You don't have to stream to be entertained, you don't have to have a business that relies solely on the internet to survive. You can always watch a dvd, get a hobby that takes you outside, find another job. You just have to figure out what is a priority. If the internet goes to shit and the cost of everything goes up, pay the cost of whatever it is to do what it is that you're wanting to do or find something else. If you don't like the content being suppressed or the limited access, create your own content and take control of its accessibility. If you don't like the speeds being throttled, create your own ISP and install your own infrastructure. If you can't afford to do any of this and still hate the environment of the interwebz, find a new hobby that doesn't involve tronzing on any level.
Last edited:
I'm neutral on this decision but I respectfully disagree that this merely affects my tronz. The interwebz are a huge part of the way our society functions and is becoming far more integrated into our daily lives. I'm a bit apprehensive about turning this over to the "industry" and hope it all shakes out for the best.
They just better not touch the @GREG.
They just better not touch the @GREG.
This assumes people have access to multiple high speed ISPs. Most don't. As far as creating your own ISP, I've been involved in that. To assume the average American could do it is laughable.I think the biggest thing that's being lost on everyone is the fact that whether Net-Neutraility exists or not, is no one is forcing you to use any of these services. These services are nothing more, for the average tronzer, than a mere source of entertainment. This is the age of the internet, and business thrives via the mass exposure that the internet provides, but it's not mandatory to exist. There are tons of variables for every circumstance that you can imagine to argue both sides of the fence, but reality is that life will go on and everything in life is a choice. You don't have to stream to be entertained, you don't have to have a business that relies solely on the internet to survive. You can always watch a dvd, get a hobby that takes you outside, find another job. You just have to figure out what is a priority. If the internet goes to shit and the cost of everything goes up, pay the cost of whatever it is to do what it is that you're wanting to do or find something else. If you don't like the content being suppressed or the limited access, create your own content and take control of its accessibility. If you don't like the speeds being throttled, create your own ISP and install your own infrastructure. If you can't afford to do any of this and still hate the environment of the interwebz, find a new hobby that doesn't involve tronzing on any level.
My tax dollars helped subsidize Big ISP infrastructure. I Should have a say in how it's utilized.
I am stopping my self ban to interject my opinion.
Net neutrality had its benefits and it's issues. Getting rid of it will also have benefits and issues.
Forcing comepitition for bandwidth could lead to better compression formats from video providers. Could lead to infrastructure upgrades or alternatives. We made greater advances in mobile internet delivery without regulations than we have during the regulations. I can see them turning on and off the regulations in years to come much like the raising and lowering of interest rates to balance out bubbles in the industries and spurn growth and advancements.
Net neutrality had its benefits and it's issues. Getting rid of it will also have benefits and issues.
Forcing comepitition for bandwidth could lead to better compression formats from video providers. Could lead to infrastructure upgrades or alternatives. We made greater advances in mobile internet delivery without regulations than we have during the regulations. I can see them turning on and off the regulations in years to come much like the raising and lowering of interest rates to balance out bubbles in the industries and spurn growth and advancements.
The interwebs was originally a DARPA project. I love socialism.
