Setting an example... (net neutrality)


I recommend adding a rainbow to provide better service. :rainbow:


While we’re on the subject, should the mods stop deleting spam & flames and start throttling them instead? @discobot fortune


:crystal_ball: Cannot predict now


It’s obviously a tough question. Okay DB, take your time. :heart:


I wonder what the industry has in mind. I assume they’ve been lobbying for this.


In many parts of the US, there is limited to no competition in ISPs. So the whole free market thing doesn’t really hold up in light of that. There are only a handful of national providers, and a slew of regional providers. The big boys have been and will continue to squeeze out the regional players.
The less options there are, the less companies are willing to listen to their customers. Why should they? They will no longer be regulated.

Try this…

Comcast is one of, if not the largest broadband provider in the US. If you have ever had Comcast, you know their service sucks. They are the only gig in town for millions. What incentive will they have? Also, through consolidation, they own Hulu -along with Fox. Guess they lost the incentive to allow Netflix et al the same access on their network. Hell, under the new rules, they could block them outright.

Reportedly, 98% of all genuine messages to the FCC during the public comment phase was against ending net neutrality. Again, so much for market rules.


They want to be able to charge tiered pricing, similar to how cable is offered. The consumer will, directly or imdirectly, pay higher fees for what they enjoy now. Some believe the free market will set the price. Realists believe there will be no incentive, since their are a relative few providers, for companies to listen to their customers.


Nope. Most content in Latin America comes from US, so what you see we see, what you don’t… Plus with the panic/allergy to anything that can be labeles vaguely similar or approaching or resembling the third cousin twice removed of Communism, well, anything can be censored. In so called “socialist” nations - all 4 maybe 5 of them- then the revese rings true. I already get nauseous every time I read the papers from there. Welcome to the Other Side of the Mirror.


There is no such thing as free market when the big companies can bargain and consumers cannot.

It is like the lovely choice in cable companies we have in Taiwan.


Of course consumers can bargain; they can elect not to buy a certain service, thus causing losses to ISPs that will then be forced to act accordingly

In before:“BUT PEOPLE NEED THE INTERWEBZ!!1!1”. Well then ISPs can charge what they think is adequate.

It reminds a bit of in-game transactions in videogames; the industry has been pushing harder and harder, continually testing how far they can get and how much they can charge for content that when I was a kid was free. Gamers still buy videogames and still buy micro transactions, so there’s no incentive for videogame companies to stop doing so.


And given that, you don’t see the problem with your brilliant argument against net neutrality? The ‘free market’ isn’t sorting this out for gamers, why would it somehow suddenly work for internet users?

Consumers can’t bargain when there’s a large monopoly in play. If company A charges you $100 a month for the internet and you think that’s too high, basically it’s tough luck because company B isn’t available in your area. But don’t worry, you’ll probably get a great deal if you want to add Facebook, Netflix and - gasp - email to your plan!



Some gamers are willing to pay more money for games, what’s there to fix?

#metoo makes sports less fun

Your argument earlier was that people would choose not to pay for the service and that would keep the businesses in check. I’ve chosen not to spend on expansion passes and microtransactions in games, yet somehow this trend has only gotten worse. What’s up with that? Am I rebelling wrong or something?

Why are people becoming so complacent when it comes to allowing businesses to screw them. “Well, people are willing to pay extra for Facebook access, what’s there to fix?”

Okay, so I don’t really have a problem with season passes in general, but they’re not selling me the “full game” as advertised. “Base game” would be a more apt description. If somehow, someday my internet became restricted to “base services” because I didn’t have the “add on” content, I’d be pissed.

Pus, in general, the internet doesn’t work like the gaming industry. If game companies want to offset some extra development costs by adding additional content for extra, that’s on them. But the internet doesn’t require an ISP to put in any additional effort to enable access to whatever news sites or whatever your social media account of choice is.

The internet is already free and open (to an extent) and should remain so. The only thing, at least from a business stance, that is of any concern to the ISPs should be the bandwidth they allow users and at what cost. Beyond that any moves to monetize access to particular online content is beyond despicable. Greed of the highest order. Hell, if net neutrality gets the boot and ISPs start monetizing particular services, I hope people rebel. I doubt it though. As your example kinda shows.


Well, you’re the minority. If people stopped preordering games, buying microtransactions etc etc then shitstorms like Star Wars Battlefield 2 wouldn’t happen. If most customers are fine with that, then the industry adapts to it.

I haven’t seen anyone revolting pre-2015 regarding the condition of the interwebz, I don’t see why suddenly it has become THE topic. I mean, Reddit’s main page has like 50% of top posts regarding this issue and they’re not the only one trying to push the:“THIS IS LIKE ARMAGEDDON x1000”, so I guess at least it’s easy to spot who’s afraid of losing money from this.


American consumers, in their wisdom, have already made it clear that corporate beat downs are no big deal so rebellion is unnecessary:

So much for the outrage directed at United Airlines.

On Tuesday, the carrier released its first financial statement that included the period after security officers forcibly removed a 69-year-old passenger, Dr. David Dao, from a plane . . .

United reported a profit of $818 million in the most recent quarter, ending in June, up 39 percent compared with last year. Sales rose, too, as more customers booked flights with the carrier . . . United said that it had more than 71 million passengers during the first half of the year, up 4.2 percent compared with last year. – NYTimes, July, 2017

Expect similar beat downs when telecoms are allowed to grab you by the balls thanks to the F.C.C. and net consumer choice is reduced to “squeeze or submit.” At least you’ll have a choice.


The switcharo from FTC to FCC regulation after a reclassification of broadband to a utility from information provider is a god send to the net neutrality crowd. They do however have their fingers crossed the government won’t abuse the power of oversight that the FCC wields.


That’s the first three months after the incident. Canceling a flight on short notice isn’t easy if you have a peasant class ticket (“no refund for you!”) and/or you can’t find a replacement on a different airline in the same price range, again on short notice.


As a Covfefist, so are you. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


Luckily Canada seems to be taking the opposite approach.