By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - FCC is trying to end net neutrality. This is what it can look like.

Hiku said:
Ka-pi96 said:

I think we're more protected from any shit like this. Not just legally, but I mean there's actually a lot of competition for internet providers here. From what I understand the US internet situation is completely messed up with very little choice between providers, I think some regions literally only have one choice even, so if they want to carve up the internet and charge piece by piece for it there's nobody waiting to take all their customers by offering a better deal like we have.

Bristow9091 said:

I never actually thought about that lol, and if we're protected from this stuff legally too, then yeah, it's all good I suppose... at least here anyway, lol.

We can always hope that our countries are more protected from things like this. But in the US the only protection is the one they're currently attempting to dismantle.
The Freepress Action Fund reviewed Ajit Pai's bill and this is their conclusion.
Point #2 is particularly interesting.

Again, I can only hope that we have more protections here, but I don't know that for certain. And this happening in the USA would probably incentivize more countries to follow suit.

My main hope here in Australia is you have the NBN so you don't have to be in bed with , buy from or piggy back off an existing ISP to gain network access.

As far as I'm concerned I pay for network access and  a certain amount of bandwidth ,where I go is my concern.

 



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

Around the Network

Why don't they keep the internet as it is, prices and everything, but have low tiered packages for people who don't need the full internet? That way if grandma only wants to use FB she can pay less for a tailored package and that way you don't screw everybody else in the process.




DonFerrari said:
SvennoJ said:

Don't data caps take care of that already?
Here you can get 25 GB per month at 5 Mbps for CAD 33 a month, all the way up to unlimited at 1 Gbps for CAD 145 a month.

Except here ISPs tried favoring certain streaming services by not counting their data usage to your monthly usage rate. That was deemed unfair competition and cracked down on. Seems that only protects free market competition?

Data cap cover the quantity used... but if you can have also a choice on the services and pay less using less or more using more it even out and make people that focus their usage pay less in the end.

In Brazil we have very few ISPs because the regulation prevent competition so they say the neutrality protects the user.... but it protects more the interest of the few companies. Not sure how it goes over there.

But it really isn't much different than having a combo where the "unlimeted" or any higher plan is cheaper when bought with a streaming service.

How does the regulation prevent competition?

Here we already saw the effects of getting around net neutrality in the form of zero rating. A particular streaming service makes a deal with a particular isp to make their data not count to the data cap. Meanwhile the streaming service raises the price for everybody but promotes this deal with the particular isp. So other streaming services are disadvantaged and people using that streaming service on a different isp are disadvantaged as well. Wouldn't you say net neutrality protects the user in that case?

And consider this

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/as-us-prepares-to-gut-net-neutrality-rules-canada-strengthens-them/

I just wanted to add a bit of history here so that people understand why the CRTC cracks down so hard on net neutrality.

In 2005, workers for the telecommunications company Telus were on strike. Some of these workers set up a website that including discussions suggesting jamming Telus's phone lines and showed pictures of people who crossed the union picket lines. Note that whether or not you think that's a shitty thing to do, it was a legal thing to do.

Telus responded by completely blocking their subscribers from accessing that website.

In doing that, Telus (a major telecom here) violated net neutrality in the most spectacular way possible by blocking a website because they disagreed with the protected speech it was engaging in. That led the CRTC to start taking net neutrality very seriously, and it made opposition to that push virtually impossible by completely undermining the most frequently repeated argument against net neutrality ("we don't need it because nobody's violating it anyways") and demonstrating why it's important all in one fell swoop.



sethnintendo said:

Ajit Pai can suck a fucking dick. That fucking corporate whore. I'd bitch slap him in the face if I ever saw him.  Only problem is I'd get him confused with any other Indian so I'd probably just bitch slap some random Indian in the face.

You better hope that guy won't be me....cause if it is you would get beat up in no time :P

 

Anyways, fuck this Ajit Pai guy.



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

SvennoJ said:
DonFerrari said:

Data cap cover the quantity used... but if you can have also a choice on the services and pay less using less or more using more it even out and make people that focus their usage pay less in the end.

In Brazil we have very few ISPs because the regulation prevent competition so they say the neutrality protects the user.... but it protects more the interest of the few companies. Not sure how it goes over there.

But it really isn't much different than having a combo where the "unlimeted" or any higher plan is cheaper when bought with a streaming service.

How does the regulation prevent competition?

Here we already saw the effects of getting around net neutrality in the form of zero rating. A particular streaming service makes a deal with a particular isp to make their data not count to the data cap. Meanwhile the streaming service raises the price for everybody but promotes this deal with the particular isp. So other streaming services are disadvantaged and people using that streaming service on a different isp are disadvantaged as well. Wouldn't you say net neutrality protects the user in that case?

And consider this

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/as-us-prepares-to-gut-net-neutrality-rules-canada-strengthens-them/

I just wanted to add a bit of history here so that people understand why the CRTC cracks down so hard on net neutrality.

In 2005, workers for the telecommunications company Telus were on strike. Some of these workers set up a website that including discussions suggesting jamming Telus's phone lines and showed pictures of people who crossed the union picket lines. Note that whether or not you think that's a shitty thing to do, it was a legal thing to do.

Telus responded by completely blocking their subscribers from accessing that website.

In doing that, Telus (a major telecom here) violated net neutrality in the most spectacular way possible by blocking a website because they disagreed with the protected speech it was engaging in. That led the CRTC to start taking net neutrality very seriously, and it made opposition to that push virtually impossible by completely undermining the most frequently repeated argument against net neutrality ("we don't need it because nobody's violating it anyways") and demonstrating why it's important all in one fell swoop.

Regulation is considered an entry barrier among Porter Forces... regulation represents a cost and possibility to limit the number of competitors.

There is a problem when you do 1-1 analysis instead of scope; yes the other streaming services were at disavantage on that ISP. But customer could go to other ISPs and streaming looking to the best option to him, and other ISPs could have other deals.

Whenever you raise the price (or fail to lower it) you open yourself to have your competitor getting over you. That is another of the forces of Porter... when you look to even a market that is almost monopolistic as the console makers, Sony opened itself to X360. And X1 opened to PS4. So over time those practices get someone to see an opportunity and offer ilimited service for the price of the ones that limit, or full access for price of the ones that fragment. Because if the company that fragment or limit is abusing on profit it won't be that hard for the opponent to offer those and still profit.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
flashfire926 said:
sethnintendo said:

Ajit Pai can suck a fucking dick. That fucking corporate whore. I'd bitch slap him in the face if I ever saw him.  Only problem is I'd get him confused with any other Indian so I'd probably just bitch slap some random Indian in the face.

You better hope that guy won't be me....cause if it is you would get beat up in no time :P

 

Anyways, fuck this Ajit Pai guy.

You know what, I've actually seen rule34 of him.



DonFerrari said:

Regulation is considered an entry barrier among Porter Forces... regulation represents a cost and possibility to limit the number of competitors.

There is a problem when you do 1-1 analysis instead of scope; yes the other streaming services were at disavantage on that ISP. But customer could go to other ISPs and streaming looking to the best option to him, and other ISPs could have other deals.

Whenever you raise the price (or fail to lower it) you open yourself to have your competitor getting over you. That is another of the forces of Porter... when you look to even a market that is almost monopolistic as the console makers, Sony opened itself to X360. And X1 opened to PS4. So over time those practices get someone to see an opportunity and offer ilimited service for the price of the ones that limit, or full access for price of the ones that fragment. Because if the company that fragment or limit is abusing on profit it won't be that hard for the opponent to offer those and still profit.

I could move to a part of the country that has access to that isp... It's not that simple in practice. Since the cable network and phone lines are privately owned other ISPs can't simply offer you a better deal.

We as gamers don't like money hatting, buying exclusives and keeping content from others. So why would we be for getting rid of net neutrality. It will be the day that I both need Bell and Rogers for ISPs to get access to the different services I want. It's shitty enough as it is, restricting certain shows to certain streaming services, now lets restrict certain streaming services to certain isps!




SvennoJ said:
Don't forget your fragmented video services all with there own subscriptions, then EA access, xbox game pass, ps now, the digital future is bright!

They're gonna force us to only play games from the App Store!

It never ends!!!



It's disheartening how easily huge orporations manage to pass off things that are exclusively for their own interests and damage consumers rights as positive things for everybody. But that control authorities fall for these scams is even worse.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


SvennoJ said:
DonFerrari said:

Regulation is considered an entry barrier among Porter Forces... regulation represents a cost and possibility to limit the number of competitors.

There is a problem when you do 1-1 analysis instead of scope; yes the other streaming services were at disavantage on that ISP. But customer could go to other ISPs and streaming looking to the best option to him, and other ISPs could have other deals.

Whenever you raise the price (or fail to lower it) you open yourself to have your competitor getting over you. That is another of the forces of Porter... when you look to even a market that is almost monopolistic as the console makers, Sony opened itself to X360. And X1 opened to PS4. So over time those practices get someone to see an opportunity and offer ilimited service for the price of the ones that limit, or full access for price of the ones that fragment. Because if the company that fragment or limit is abusing on profit it won't be that hard for the opponent to offer those and still profit.

I could move to a part of the country that has access to that isp... It's not that simple in practice. Since the cable network and phone lines are privately owned other ISPs can't simply offer you a better deal.

We as gamers don't like money hatting, buying exclusives and keeping content from others. So why would we be for getting rid of net neutrality. It will be the day that I both need Bell and Rogers for ISPs to get access to the different services I want. It's shitty enough as it is, restricting certain shows to certain streaming services, now lets restrict certain streaming services to certain isps!

And you know that is basically the government rulling that keep thi very limite number of ISPs available right?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."