Net Neutrality

[GrandmasterArcturus 10]

So, I'm seeing a bunch of topics about random dumb stuff here on the forums. Why hasn't anyone brought this up yet? The FCC is working very hard to destroy Net Neutrality because the FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, is getting paid off by the likes of Verizon, Comcast and AT&T. Why aren't you people doing anything about this? Do you want the internet to be even worse than it is now?

[Sith Holocron 2,480]

You've got the soapbox ready.  Carry on! 

 

Could you please explain to our less informed U.S. readers what they can do to deal with the issue that would have the greatest chance of success?

[GrandmasterArcturus 10]

Well, the easiest thing to do that will actually help is to go to www.gofccyourself.com and fill out the form there and submit it to the FCC telling them how you are in favor of Net Neutrality. The more comments in favor of Net Neutrality they receive the more they realize they can't screw the public over without repercussions. Other than that, you can call your representatives office and let them know they should pressure the FCC to be in favor of Net Neutrality and possibly of removing Agit Pai from the FCC as he has shown he can't be trusted.

[VarsityPuppet 1,085]

Yeah so... like what are the arguments for and against Net Neutrality?

[Sith Holocron 2,480]

[VarsityPuppet 1,085]

Counter Point via youtube

 

[Sith Holocron 2,480]

[Sith Holocron 2,480]

[LDR 234]

I don't really think a petition is going to do anything. And considering you can't even sign the petition:

 

Because of a procedural quirk, the FCC will not be considering any comments on the issue of net neutrality that are submitted over the next week or so.

 

Well... I mean.

[welmer11 2]

Without Net Neutrality, ISPs would be able to devise new schemes to charge users more for access and services, making it harder for us to communicate online — and easier for companies to censor our speech. The internet could come to resemble cable TV, where gatekeepers exert control over where you go and what you see.

 

Without Net Neutrality, ISPs would be able to block content and speech they don’t like, reject apps that compete with their own offerings, and prioritize Web traffic (reserving the fastest loading speeds for the highest bidders and sticking everyone else with the slowest).

 

We should stand to support this idea!

[VarsityPuppet 1,085]

Without Net Neutrality, ISPs would be able to devise new schemes to charge users more for access and services, making it harder for us to communicate online — and easier for companies to censor our speech. The internet could come to resemble cable TV, where gatekeepers exert control over where you go and what you see.

 

Without Net Neutrality, ISPs would be able to block content and speech they don’t like, reject apps that compete with their own offerings, and prioritize Web traffic (reserving the fastest loading speeds for the highest bidders and sticking everyone else with the slowest).

 

We should stand to support this idea!

 

If ISPs charge more for services, this opens up room for competition in the market to be able to provide favored services at a lower cost.

 

Example, if Company A charges more for HD streaming because it's not cost-effective for them, Company B comes along and offers that service for cheaper, and all of the customers who are dissatisfied with Company A move to Company B. Now in order to win the customers back, Company A must offer a more enticing service.

 

Basically, ISPs lose customers by blocking content because other companies will just offer it instead.

 

As far as bandwidth distribution, I don't see why a company like Netflix should be barred from paying a higher fee to ensure a great viewing experience for its customers. DeadlyStream has waaaay less traffic than Netflix, so this seems like common sense to me.

[Haveayap 127]

Tbh. This just sounds like another capitalist idea that will end badly for users of the internet. If you are paying for the internet, you shouldn't than have to pay again imo. (Especially considering USA internet prices are already some of the highest in the world and the quality of the service is crap compared to other countries internet services). Although this is not being debated in my country so really, my opinion is unimportant anyway.

[welmer11 2]

It seems like Ajit Pai, the newly appointed FCC chairman by President Donald Trump, is getting fanatical about abolishing the reforms proposed and established by the previous administration. That’s the reason why the long-debated problem of the open internet is once again brought to light by the new chairman, proposing to reform the rules, thereby “Restoring Internet freedom for all Americans.”

However, the question remains what sort of Internet freedom the new draft is proposing to restore through ending net neutrality. After all, there is no clear explanation in the draft regarding online freedom. The draft only highlights are words such as “spur broadband deployment,” “boost competition and choice in the broadband marketplace,”

All of us needs to raise our voice against FCC, we need to have our voice and thoughts raised online. Why there should be an online restriction as all need to stand with the concept of Net-Neutrality

 

If ISPs charge more for services, this opens up room for competition in the market to be able to provide favored services at a lower cost.

Example, if Company A charges more for HD streaming because it's not cost-effective for them, Company B comes along and offers that service for cheaper, and all of the customers who are dissatisfied with Company A move to Company B. Now in order to win the customers back, Company A must offer a more enticing service.

Basically, ISPs lose customers by blocking content because other companies will just offer it instead.

As far as bandwidth distribution, I don't see why a company like Netflix should be barred from paying a higher fee to ensure a great viewing experience for its customers. DeadlyStream has waaaay less traffic than Netflix, so this seems like common sense to me.

Brother I think you are missing the point here.

Let me clarify this: Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Medium all raised to support “Day of action to Save Net Neutrality”. We should also support the idea and become the part of the bigger picture.

Organizers of an online protest aimed at derailing a Republican plan to roll back net neutrality rules are hoping the magic number is 70,000. That’s the number of sites and organizations -- including Amazon.com, Google, Facebook and even President Donald Trump’s favored medium, Twitter -- that have pledged to participate.

Here is the thing ISP will be allowed to take money from the big organizations to make their website more accessible and with high speed and those websites which are used as a platform to deliver public voice. Those Facebook contents that show the reality of people will be blocked or not accessible because website will be controlling content and handling the public through ISP on what to watch and what to block.

For more information on the topic, kindly visit. : https://www.purevpn.com/blog/net-neutrality-rules/

[Mutilator57 140]

If ISPs charge more for services, this opens up room for competition in the market to be able to provide favored services at a lower cost.

 

Example, if Company A charges more for HD streaming because it's not cost-effective for them, Company B comes along and offers that service for cheaper, and all of the customers who are dissatisfied with Company A move to Company B. Now in order to win the customers back, Company A must offer a more enticing service.

 

Basically, ISPs lose customers by blocking content because other companies will just offer it instead.

 

As far as bandwidth distribution, I don't see why a company like Netflix should be barred from paying a higher fee to ensure a great viewing experience for its customers. DeadlyStream has waaaay less traffic than Netflix, so this seems like common sense to me.

While I tend to agree with this sort of thinking, I'm naturally skeptical of government getting involved in the process at all. Which brings me to pose a simple question. Why alter the existing regime at all?

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[N-DReW25 1,341]

I have two questions: If Net Neutrality is removed will this affect countries other than the USA and if Net Neutrality is removed what could happen to Deadlystream.com?

[Xuul 224]

I have two questions: If Net Neutrality is removed will this affect countries other than the USA and if Net Neutrality is removed what could happen to Deadlystream.com?

 

1) Yes. Not only do many countries take lead based on US government policy, but many major tech companies exist in the US. They will spread the increased cost of doing business out globally to cover their losses.

 

2) Hypothetically, your ISP could make this site slower or more expensive to access than other sites.

[djh269 265]

What's the chances of this actually getting pushed through though? 

Surely the only people that actually benefit from this is like 1% of Americans haha?

 

What are the POSITIVE things to come from the internet with a dogs leash upon it? 

 

I think I should be able to post pictures of meerkats wherever/whenever I want to be honest. 

[Mutilator57 140]

What's the chances of this actually getting pushed through though? 

 

Surely the only people that actually benefit from this is like 1% of Americans haha?

 

What are the POSITIVE things to come from the internet with a dogs leash upon it? 

 

I think I should be able to post pictures of meerkats wherever/whenever I want to be honest. 

As I'm not too aware of this topic, I can't really comment any further with any authority. But, just playing devil's advocate here, if you are using the infrasturcture of an ISP, who are you to dictate how they do or don't use it?

[Haveayap 127]

As I'm not too aware of this topic, I can't really comment any further with any authority. But, just playing devil's advocate here, if you are using the infrasturcture of an ISP, who are you to dictate how they do or don't use it?

We pay for the service

[djh269 265]

We pay for the service

 

I second this. 

 

But then again, we live in a world where the likes of Justin Bieber is considered a musician and Donald Trump is considered president worthy. Anything can happen. 

[Mutilator57 140]

We pay for the service

Exactly. You pay for a SERVICE. In other words, the ISPs are the one's providing said service and you are voluntarily agreeing to subscribe to said service. So who is to direct how they use it, including the ins-and-outs of fees and so on?

[Icyblaze13 2]

Theoretically couldn't VPNs circumvent it if ISPs decide to try and limit access?