Well net neutrality is dead

Yugensoft

Well-known member
#2
I don't think it'll be an issue. My windows machine still sneakily complains about me choosing Chrome in certain places (I assume this is how they plan to repair the bad reputation of IE (now called 'Edge'). I just factor this stuff into whether I'll get a Mac or Linux next time. Same will go for choosing ISPs. It'll probably be good actually; if an ISP wants to cater to people who mostly use the internet to post pictures of cats on Twitter, or stream games on twitch, let them build dedicated lines to those servers so they can offer discounted rates, leaving the "mainstream" bandwidth for everyone else.
 

DragonByte Tech

Well-known member
#4
I don't think it'll be an issue. My windows machine still sneakily complains about me choosing Chrome in certain places (I assume this is how they plan to repair the bad reputation of IE (now called 'Edge'). I just factor this stuff into whether I'll get a Mac or Linux next time. Same will go for choosing ISPs. It'll probably be good actually; if an ISP wants to cater to people who mostly use the internet to post pictures of cats on Twitter, or stream games on twitch, let them build dedicated lines to those servers so they can offer discounted rates, leaving the "mainstream" bandwidth for everyone else.
You don't actually believe this is what will happen, do you?

Here's a quick logic check to run on your argument (or any argument, if you think something that gives corporations / businesses more freedom might be good for consumers):

Is there a law that says the corporation must spend money to improve and/or maintain minimum service?
If no, then this is bad for consumers.

That's it.

Let's be clear about one thing; corporations aren't evil just because I'm a filthy liberal who says they are evil. Corporations have a legal obligation to act in the best interests of the corporation (not the customers of said corporation).

In other words, if the board of directors of a corporation fail to do everything in their power to make as much money while spending as little as possible, then the board of directors will be replaced by people who can do a better job. The board would balance this by ensuring they keep the maximum number of customers they can while spending the minimum they can. This is especially relevant to ISPs in America because in large parts of the country, one ISP has a monopoly. If you have a monopoly on a service that a lot of people regard as a necessity of life (and the EU recognises as a human right), then you can essentially get away with delivering a ****ty service to maximise profits because the customer has no alternative.

Therefore, it stands to reason that if a corporation happens to be an ISP, and they can get away with not spending one billion dollars to improve infrastructure across America, they are not going to do it. Why? Because that is one billion dollars less profit for their shareholders. A difference of a couple million might not be noticed, but one billion? That's going to be harder to explain to the shareholders, especially when the shareholders can say "but we have a monopoly. You didn't need to improve the infrastructure when no-one was threatening to leave."

No "dedicated lines" will be built (ignoring the fact that that's not really possible, but I digress). What will happen is, ISPs will attempt to extort money out of consumers or content providers who take up the majority of bandwidth (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, YouTube). They will do this so that they can continue to advertise fast internet speeds to the consumer, without actually upgrading their lines.

If ISPs can make Netflix pay extra to not be throttled, and ISPs can sell you a "Streaming add-on" that lets you access Netflix in the first place, then this ISP will have gained additional profit at no expense to them whatsoever. In fact, they will probably boast their service is now more reliable than ever, since the people who cannot afford the "Streaming add-on" will no longer access Netflix (because they cannot), and thus no longer take up bandwidth from people who can afford to pay for the "Streaming add-on".

Bandwidth is not an unlimited resource, it is limited by the physical capabilities of the lines installed. Old copper lines cannot be used for high-speed internet to multiple households without running into performance problems. This manifests in things like stuttering while playing online games, random video buffering, and random slow-downs. Newer optical lines can carry much more information, but is extremely expensive to lay down (not to mention all the other expenses such as permits for digging up old lines to replace them).

By the way, this is what Portugal's internet looks like:

1513283975605.png


Please look at that image and tell me this looks like it's good for the consumer. If you can tell me you have never utilised at least one site from each of those categories, thus forcing you to buy them all, then I am going to call you a liar.

There is not a single thing potentially good for consumers in this. Not one.


Fillip
 

Yugensoft

Well-known member
#6
I don't see what's so different between that and any other market. For instance, XenForo could try to price their software as high as possible for the minimum set of features; imagine a phpBB for $500.

Of course, then they will run into an unfortunate fact of life: competition. No one will be their customer, because they could get phpBB for free, or they can get vBulletin for around $250.

They may want to rightly or wrongly (depending on ones politics) put themselves and their families first over faceless consumers, by extorting massive profits, but the market won't offer it.

So unless that "Meo" ISP is the sole national ISP because their government has banned competition in that area, it isn't important how they offer their services in isolation, but what the competition is offering too. If for instance their competitors offer a fixed priced that's the same as the sum of those parts, there's no difference for a customer who wants normal internet.
 

Aayush

Well-known member
#7
Did it occur to you that ISP have a minimum tariff rate which they decided among themselves.

There was a new mobile network entrant in India which gave unlimited cellular calling and unlimited internet. The entire industry shook and lowered their prices by atleast 10x. There hasn't been a price cut since ages, even though the cost of accessing internet is going down. The rest of the industry is complaining that this new entrant is violating fair business practices and offering services at a price lower than what "the telecom" industry agreed to.
 

Yugensoft

Well-known member
#8
The rest of the industry is complaining that this new entrant is violating fair business practices and offering services at a price lower than what "the telecom" industry agreed to.
That new entrant is doing a great service to India, I wish them good luck, and may there be many more new entrants. The issue will be that the rest of the crabs-in-a-bucket industry may try to turn those complaints into lobbying for laws to protect them (and shut down the new competitor). Attempts at colluding and monopoly always fail because they create both an incentive for new entrants, and also cheating internally (secretly discounting below the agreed-to rate); so they turn to something that doesn't fail (at least for them): giving their anti-competitive behaviour force of law.

As long as the statutes don't swing in that direction, and just stay as "let ISPs do what they want, and consumers do what they want", there's little to worry about in the grand scheme of things.
 

DragonByte Tech

Well-known member
#10
It's a good move by the FCC. It's unfair that companies like Google, Netflix and Amazon can ride for free. American's need competition in telecommunication and this should bring it.
You didn’t read my post at all, did you?

I can’t see how anyone could possibly find this good unless they are a Trump supporter and would support literally anything he does just to stick it to “the libruls”.

Please explain your position to me, as it is baffling.


Fillip
 

Arty

Well-known member
#12
It shouldn't be a surprise really. In US politicians are just shills for corporations, the only difference between parties is what corporations they shill for. Corruption has been legitimised as "lobbying". Anything that's good for corporations will pass. Nobody cares about people.

In EU its going other way around. Data caps are gone (there are probably few exceptions in some countries), there is healthy competition and decent infrastructure in most countries. Just this year new regulation forced mobile providers to get rid of roaming fees, before that there used to be a cap on pricing. That screenshot from Portugal is really surprising, guess EU will have to make some new regulation to fix that idiocy.
 

Kier

XenForo developer
Staff member
#13
I can’t think of a single reason why this will benefit anyone except ISPs and their shareholders.

This was a catastrophe for the principles of the internet as we know it, and will literally change the world for the worse.

We as site owners should be particularly worried. Imagine you’re running a forum on a particular topic, and there is a competing forum running elsewhere. Then imagine that for whatever reason, an ISP decides that they prefer that other forum, and prioritise data for that forum instead of yours... Think that sounds implausible? Just wait and see.
 

Aayush

Well-known member
#14
I can’t think of a single reason why this will benefit anyone except ISPs and their shareholders.

This was a catastrophe for the principles of the internet as we know it, and will literally change the world for the worse.

We as site owners should be particularly worried. Imagine you’re running a forum on a particular topic, and there is a competing forum running elsewhere. Then imagine that for whatever reason, an ISP decides that they prefer that other forum, and prioritise data for that forum instead of yours... Think that sounds implausible? Just wait and see.
It's exactly what verizon had done to Netflix by throttling the bandwidth to it's customers. Imagine the same happening to majority of the websites that we access daily.
 
#15
Same will go for choosing ISPs. It'll probably be good actually...
I would agree, if there was much choice. A few companies hold power of the internet. Even if you don't get internet from one of those ISPs, it's likely that your ISP does get their internet through them. AT&T and Verizon are both Tier 1 networks in the United States. Which means both control the internet at the very highest level.

And regardless, most people don't have much choice where they get their internet. The area where my parents live is controlled by a single ISP. They could get satellite internet, but let's be honest the speeds are no where near those of Fiber. And where I live, I have a little bit of a choice. I can either get my local company, which offers a 1gb speeds, or I can use Spectrum which barely offers 30mb on a good day. I don't really have a choice because the level of service both companies offer are very different.
 
#16
We as site owners should be particularly worried. Imagine you’re running a forum on a particular topic, and there is a competing forum running elsewhere. Then imagine that for whatever reason, an ISP decides that they prefer that other forum, and prioritise data for that forum instead of yours... Think that sounds implausible? Just wait and see.
That's what concerning to me you put so much time and effort into your site and then you get throttled and people loose interest so all your hard work is gone

The following states are Suing the FCC
 
Last edited:
#17
That's what concerning to me you put so much time and effort into your site and then you get throttled and people loose interest so all your hard work is gone
And that's a perfectly valid point. Many ISPs have been caught throttling services that compete directly with theirs own in house offerings.

I think personally my biggest concern is getting caught in a situation where AT&T or Verizon decide to block your site, or throttle it so much that it's useless. If, for example, those companies started blocking sites that raised awareness for net neutrality and what the ISPs were doing. What happens to sites, like this one, that have off topic forums? What if someone posted something that caused a large ISP to block your site? Even with moderation, it's entirely possible that your site could just be blocked automatically before the post could be taken down, hidden, or dealt with.

That might be a far fetched scenario, but under the new rules that's 100% legal. The only stipulation is that they have to tell you that the site is being blocked.
 
#18
That might be a far fetched scenario, but under the new rules that's 100% legal. The only stipulation is that they have to tell you that the site is being blocked.
Not far fetched it's a concern to many o hope they don't do that because they have so many eyes on them right now I hope they keep the internet the way it is because let's face it consumers get what they want I take my phone as example I had. TMobile and it was the worst service I ever used I up and left them so of people see that sites are throttled they might get up and leave them
 

Tracy Perry

Well-known member
#19
So unless that "Meo" ISP is the sole national ISP because their government has banned competition in that area, it isn't important how they offer their services in isolation, but what the competition is offering too.
For many (and I mean MANY) years, the only "high speed" internet offered locally was DSL. If you wanted high speed (not even broadband by that definition) service, you paid what they required. Otherwise, dialup (which went over their lines also) was good enough for you.
Even now with 2 ISP's (cable & DSL) they are in competition with each other... on seeing who can raise their price the quickest. ;)
 
Top