ilovefuzz.com

Yeah I know about the debate.

I don’t think net neutrality is in place right now. If i watch YouTube, every once in a while I’ll hit a video that’s not playable in my country. Or when I watch netflix with my vpn i have access to different shows.

So, uh, what’s up with that?

These two examples are for legals/rights management reasons and they happen on the website/content provider's side (video streaming services in cases you mentioned).

The whole point of the net neutrality debate is that they want to have differentiation directly at the internet service providers' level, which is very, very different. And much more worrying.

ya like why is there a limit to the image size i can upload on ILF for example?

doesn't seem neutral to me!

multi_s wrote:ya like why is there a limit to the image size i can upload on ILF for example?

doesn't seem neutral to me!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xdGGUBbFpA[/youtube]

There's definitely times when service providers are not being neutral, like when Comcast throttled Netflix's bandwidth during their negotiations. If the concept of net neutrality is abandoned or vilified by the us gov in official policy though, things like that will become part of regular service instead of egregious violations. For example, a service provider could charge you a bundled package for internet service, like cable. Different prices for access to different sites, different upgrades for faster service to specific sites, speeding up access to sites they own or have partnerships with, throttling it to competitors.

Maybe, Corey. It seems kind of far fetched that Comcast will have a list of websites you have acces to for $49 per month and another list for $69 per month.

I can see Facebook, YouTube, netflix etc paying Comcast to get their content to users faster though.

JonnyAngle wrote:Maybe, Corey. It seems kind of far fetched that Comcast will have a list of websites you have acces to for $49 per month and another list for $69 per month.

I can see Facebook, YouTube, netflix etc paying Comcast to get their content to users faster though.

Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't ever trust any telecom conglomerate to not do something shitty, because we think it's beneath them. They tend to course correct fast when people really hate stuff, but I know for example that there's only one cable internet service provider in my area and they only have one internet only package. These companies pretty much do whatever they want and then wait for the government to catch them, fine them, sue them, make them stop. So if the FCC and other federal agencies just kind of handwave them and say "it's a free market, not our business", I can't imagine what they might get up to.

EDIT: Here's an example from the first page of search results for "service providers violating net neutrality":

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/ ... ef-history

JonnyAngle wrote:Maybe, Corey. It seems kind of far fetched that Comcast will have a list of websites you have acces to for $49 per month and another list for $69 per month.

I can see Facebook, YouTube, netflix etc paying Comcast to get their content to users faster though.

The thing is, these rules have been in place for so long that it's never been an issue, so if you weren't paying attention for how long the Telecom providers have been trying to undo the net neutrality laws you might not have any idea what they might do.


I.e.: everyone takes it as a given that your ISP is going to load all sites at equal speed -- meaning that if a website is slow it's because of the website, not the provider who is at fault -- but that is exactly what is going to fall by the wayside if they repeal these regulations.

And, because the internet is essentially a utility at this point, it's a tremendously shitty idea. Imagine paying more to use the passing lane on a highway.

JonnyAngle wrote:I can see Facebook, YouTube, netflix etc paying Comcast to get their content to users faster though.

This already is the case. Netflix had to pay internet service providers when they were being throttled before we enacted net neutrality.

An example of isps charging extra would be mobile phone companies charging for tethering. You are already paying for 5 GB's of data, why should you have to pay more to route that data through your own devices?

Or a few years ago, AT&T blocked FaceTime entirely for iPhone users unless you subscribed to an additional service.

AT+T also blocked Skype IIRC

The view of ISP as a utility is ripe for useful analogy in this kind of situation. Imagine if local power company employees had a strike over unsafe work conditions and the power company cut service to their union hall...or the homes of every identified labor organizer they were negotiating with. Or if a sub contractor working for them was sending them to collections for not paying a large invoice and they browned out their power regularly until they lowered the price or dropped it all together. What if one telecom conglomerate owns a mobile phone company and they decide to throttle wifi speeds on competing devices or to ISP customers who aren't mobile customers. When you have internet based businesses that interact with ISP, but don't necessarily make them money (or may even offer competitive services), it shows how having an unregulated industry isn't a "free" market at all, because certain companies can strategically impact others for their own gain or at the behest of a business partner.

D.o.S. wrote:

JonnyAngle wrote:Imagine paying more to use the passing lane on a highway.

HAHA! MN does that already!

Yeah apparently this is a thing (madness)

Yeah it's fucking ridiculous. The fast lane thing is the most obvious analogy, and it's exactly the kind of thing that happens here in Texas. Bad traffic? Hey, should we have better public transportation? Fuck that - let's make a paid toll lane.

It's not just internet related. Standing in line for just about anything, for example, used to be much more democratic. You show up, you get your spot in line. Now you can pay more money for a priority place in line for just about anything. Anyway, what will happen is that once this repeal passes, it'll be immediately tied up in lawsuits. The big kicker will be to see if dems regain control of the house and/or the senate in 2018. If that happens, net neutrality likely will survive. If not, we're fucked (and on so many other levels as well if repubs maintain control, tbh).