SRSZRepealing Net Neutrality - is it really bad?
Repealing Net Neutrality - is it really bad?
For the most part, everyone on the internet seems to understand the current debate regarding net neutrality. Ajit Pai became a meme overnight. If you don't know what I'm talking about, here is a pro-net-neutrality, stickied link -> https://www.mpgh.net/forum/announcement.php?f=2&a=238
I'm highly sceptical though. Doesn't Ajit bring up a good point when he states that, in the past, these telecom/ISP companies did not restrict websites? Why would they do so now? I mean isn't it a fundamental part of a free capitalist market? If one corporation allowed its users free internet, it would attract all of the consumers. Thus all companies would be 'forced' into offering a bias-free internet access. Before the enactment of Net Neutrality in 2015, the internet was, in fact, free. If I'm not wrong, removing Net Neutrality allows the consumers to be aware of exactly what they're paying for, even though it could change at any point in time. It also means that the government wouldn't have a say in the ongoings of the internet, or how it's accessed.
Isn't this a good thing? I mean, I understand that Pai has worked for Verizon before, and he could potentially be a sellout, who's getting $$$, but from what I see, an ISP would probably never censor the internet, simply due to demand and supply (unless you live in North Korea, in which case, I'm truly sorry).
I'm highly sceptical though. Doesn't Ajit bring up a good point when he states that, in the past, these telecom/ISP companies did not restrict websites? Why would they do so now? I mean isn't it a fundamental part of a free capitalist market? If one corporation allowed its users free internet, it would attract all of the consumers. Thus all companies would be 'forced' into offering a bias-free internet access. Before the enactment of Net Neutrality in 2015, the internet was, in fact, free. If I'm not wrong, removing Net Neutrality allows the consumers to be aware of exactly what they're paying for, even though it could change at any point in time. It also means that the government wouldn't have a say in the ongoings of the internet, or how it's accessed.
Isn't this a good thing? I mean, I understand that Pai has worked for Verizon before, and he could potentially be a sellout, who's getting $$$, but from what I see, an ISP would probably never censor the internet, simply due to demand and supply (unless you live in North Korea, in which case, I'm truly sorry).
They did restrict websites.
Comcast:
AT&T:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...cked-facetime/
Comcast:
AT&T:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...cked-facetime/
If net is neutral, you pay only for internet. ISP cannot decide the speeds per website and cannot decide which website you should and shouldn't access and shouldn't price websites differently. This ensures that a few companies don't dictate which websites and internet services win over which (meaning that they would obviously prioritise their own or someone who pays them well). Small websites and services would never spring up because they can't pay ISPs and you won't pay for an untested product.
Example. Without NN, Jio would throttle or charge extra for WhatsApp asking you to use their Jio apps. They will make YouTube faster than Vimeo or block it completely because Vimeo can't afford to pay and you may not be using Vimeo as much so you might not be willing to pay extra. Airtel would block Spotify and make Wynk free. Governments could then throttle information using money. They would free up and speed up media which are on their side and kill the others.
It's like the electricity supplier telling you which appliances you can use and which brands you can use. Imagine there's an exciting new computer company but the provider charges extra and allows only 3 hours a day of current because HP and Apple are paying for it. You can't read electrons but you can read data packets.
Also, it will have a huge negative impact on humble startups. So, you created a new improved social media which is better than Facebook which is gaining quite a momentum? Bam! Not any more because Facebook has collaborated with your ISP and pushed you into slow lane or blocked you entirely unless you pay quite a ransom to your ISP, which you are unable to pay because you are just a start-up.
The argument of people against Net Neutrality:
The ISP's are saying that they would be able to provide better and cheaper service as people using bandwidth heavy websites (Vimeo, torrenting, YT, etc.) would be charged higher and "normal" users will get higher speeds in cheaper prices.
But that's all BS.
Example. Without NN, Jio would throttle or charge extra for WhatsApp asking you to use their Jio apps. They will make YouTube faster than Vimeo or block it completely because Vimeo can't afford to pay and you may not be using Vimeo as much so you might not be willing to pay extra. Airtel would block Spotify and make Wynk free. Governments could then throttle information using money. They would free up and speed up media which are on their side and kill the others.
It's like the electricity supplier telling you which appliances you can use and which brands you can use. Imagine there's an exciting new computer company but the provider charges extra and allows only 3 hours a day of current because HP and Apple are paying for it. You can't read electrons but you can read data packets.
Also, it will have a huge negative impact on humble startups. So, you created a new improved social media which is better than Facebook which is gaining quite a momentum? Bam! Not any more because Facebook has collaborated with your ISP and pushed you into slow lane or blocked you entirely unless you pay quite a ransom to your ISP, which you are unable to pay because you are just a start-up.
The argument of people against Net Neutrality:
The ISP's are saying that they would be able to provide better and cheaper service as people using bandwidth heavy websites (Vimeo, torrenting, YT, etc.) would be charged higher and "normal" users will get higher speeds in cheaper prices.
But that's all BS.
We must keep Net Neutrality. We can't trust companies that are run purely for money. Great evil lies in money.
glad mejico ain't numero uno
Outbreak of riots will start if Net Neutrality is dead.
I mean, NN is essentially regulation of ISPs and what they can do.
If you let them run omok without any sort of regulation (e.g. gut net neutrality) you essentially allow them to run omok.
This means that they can do anything on a legal scale, and that scale of legality is immensely grown if NN is gut. Not only that, but they can reach quite dangerous, legal areas that would be inconvenient for the consumer (e.g. making us pay for visiting popular websites).
I mean theoretically, they could see what sites you visit very often, and then suddenly block you from visiting it unless you pay.
Think of it like video game microtransactions for the internet.
There are advantages to MTX but we already get enough of that already (paying a lot for internet to begin with).
If you let them run omok without any sort of regulation (e.g. gut net neutrality) you essentially allow them to run omok.
This means that they can do anything on a legal scale, and that scale of legality is immensely grown if NN is gut. Not only that, but they can reach quite dangerous, legal areas that would be inconvenient for the consumer (e.g. making us pay for visiting popular websites).
I mean theoretically, they could see what sites you visit very often, and then suddenly block you from visiting it unless you pay.
Think of it like video game microtransactions for the internet.
There are advantages to MTX but we already get enough of that already (paying a lot for internet to begin with).
ISP's claim that they want to be able to restrict certain sites and so on so that some packages can be cheaper for the "average" user. This is utter BS, it's because they (obviously) want to increase profits as much as possible. Ending net neutrality is a terrible idea for us as consumers, but hey-ho, it's probably going to happen any way, as do most other things that allow companies to further rip us off! 
It's not the fact they don't do it. It's more the fact that they can.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure net neutrality will be kept. The amount of outrage that will happen if the companies win will be tremendous.
Net Neutrality = Internet Communism
- - - Updated - - -
Originally Posted by Matthew
Are not most companies run on making money and profit? So we shouldn't trust any companies to set prices and the government should set regulations and decide what things are worth? smh
- - - Updated - - -
Originally Posted by Matthew
We must keep Net Neutrality. We can't trust companies that are run purely for money. Great evil lies in money.
It’s bad...
- - - Updated - - -
Really bad!
- - - Updated - - -
Really bad!
- - - Updated - - -
Really bad!
- - - Updated - - -
Really bad!
I think you need to do a little more research, this should be sending off lights and sirens not skepticism
mpgh will be uber slow
rip 4chan, pretty sure every ISP hates it
