Discussion of net neutrality, both pros or cons is welcome in this thread, and it is an important topic which obviously affects all of us who play online or use these forums.
Leave other political discussion of any sort to PMs, or in one of the endless variety of other places on the internet available to discuss politics.
As already evidenced here, political discussion is often quick to progress far past the point of reasonable discussion.
Really? If weâre really at that stage of tech education where most people can figure out that network congestion is a thing and know to blame ISPs rather than blaming fully functional streaming services, then thatâs really promising.
I think youâre making a pretty solid argument here for ISPs striking deals to mirror popular streaming services at the downstream end of their networks. This does still run somewhat afoul of net neutrality (especially if it means using specific services is encouraged by the plans offered by ISPs), but itâs nowhere near as bad as throttling. Itâs working okay for Netflix here in Australia, where our attempt at decent internet infrastructure (the NBN) has turned into a huge mess.
I donât think Netflix ought to have any particular obligation to pay for the upkeep of high prime-time bandwidth, even if they make up 97% of residential traffic. Itâs still ultimately an ISP problem. Peak usage is going to coincide among the majority of the user base whether the use case is Netflix or whatever else, simply because people tend to behave alike, and people are going to pay for the plan that claims to offer the bandwidth that they want for that use case at that peak time. I donât think thereâs anything special about the fact that the use case thatâs in at the moment is Netflix, nor do I see any reason to see this as the job of anyone other than the ISPs to deal with. If anything, Netflix should be seen as a boon for ISPs, in that it provides incentive for customers to move to more expensive plans.
Anyway, I think this entire topic is intensely political, and itâs probably impossible to delve into the rest of your arguments without upending a whole lot of ideology on markets and regulation. (I donât want to palm off the specifics of a carefully-crafted argument with a super-general link, but said carefully-crafted argument is probably not allowed here, so hereâs said link.)
I also think the whole US jingoism/patriotism thing really bears on net neutrality, because itâs really an international issue. That argument has already been tabooed, so basically the entire topic may as well have remained closed.
lol. lists CNN as a source. yeah im done. threadâs hosed man, just close it. whatever happens with net neutrality, come what may.
I donât think we are forbidden to talk about the substantive question of whether US policy on this effects the world. In this instance itâs difficult for me to see how US net neutrality regulation or lack therof is going to affect Australia.
Itâs also kind of difficult to see how you can simultaneously say itâs an issue of rampant and irresponsible libertsrianism that unfairly assumes government will muck everything up while also mentioning the NBN, which includes some pretty clear examples of how and why government can take a problem and make it worse not better. The article you link is interesting and Iâd love to chat about it with you in DM. The short version is that I donât think the religious libertarian straw man he is arguing against actually exists - but people tend to argue from that position because we live so far from a libertarian reality.
Anyway, on a different philosophical angle, you can disagree that Netflix has any obligation to support the infrastructure that it profits from, but itâs not an unreasonable position. We expect drivers to pay for the highways and roads, and we collect tolls and registrations etc from trucks that use those roads for commerce. Maybe this doesnât seem comparable to you but it seems comparable to me.
I think itâs worth pointing out that consumers will pay the cost either way. Whether we pay the ISPs to maintain the infrastructure or whether we pay Netflix to pay the ISPs to maintain the infrastructure (or whether we pay the taxes to the government to support some scheme of infrastructure development as with the NBN) the money comes from us. As does the money that the FCC has been using to defend its policies from lawsuits for the last 10 years. Thatâs not another criticism of the FCC itâs just the reality. My point being, whatever happens with the net neutrality regulations thereâs not a yellow brick road option where we somehow get cheaper better internet.
So, Net Neutrality has lost.
Good luck, US.
Giving the FCC full control over how the internet functions (as a public utility) is a bad thing in my opinion. Actual free market capitalism will sort out connection speed issues. For example, why would I want to spend my money with ISP #1 when their Netflix speeds are terrible when ISP #2 provides much better Netflix service?
The less government regulation, the better.
Well for one thing places like where I live only have an ISP#1 and thatâs it. Thankfully theyâve got decent speeds with no data cap and I live around a bunch of back-woods rednecks that donât know what Netflix is, much less are willing to put their credit card info on the internet, so theyâre not slowing down the internet traffic, but not everyone in the U.S is so fortunate.
I hate my country nowâŠ
So it looks like this is happening:
At the simplest level, the forthcoming rules supposedly will allow internet service providers to accept payment from content providers for faster delivery while still blocking some behaviors such as throttling or complete denial of access.
So if Iâm understanding it rightâŠthis means ISP #A isnât going to be able to block Netflix as of now in favor of Hulu, but in the future they may allow Hulu to stream at 16K because they paid the ISP a premium that Netflix refuses to pay, but the matter may be vice versa with ISP #B? Is that about the gist of things?
Iâll confirm it when I find the actual link but itâs not dead yet I donât think.
Unless tumblr is just tumblr.
If it says anything the article I posted was from Forbes and was just put up today.
Well, itâs not just some switch being turned on and off. Itâs something they are going to work towards and it takes time to do so, so itâs not like instant doomsday! XD
So those who still want Net Neutrality still has hope to work against it and prevent it from being taken away.
OhâŠ
It kinda felt like that this morning lol
Well, it was the same when Trump won the presidency. Itâs not like all of a sudden a wall just sprouted from the ground at the border of Mexico, etc. In fact, a lot of the things he had promised would happen turns out that he canât do, for several reasons. One of them being that there are people who fight back.
Same with this situation. Just because some authority says one thing doesnât mean they are right or that itâs going to happen. You can always fight back.
Lyle McDouchebag has told me wrong then Kappa
Heh, but yeah, these things are not absolute, just because someone has decided for it to be. So donât worry, as long people are fighting against it, thereâs hope that it will change.
Indeed.
Thank you!
âNet Neutralityâ is a concept (whether it is a good concept or whether it is fragile or robust etc. we can talk about some other time). It isnât going to live or die with FCC regulation. There are other ways to accomplish the same thing. So donât die in your sword yet @MandrillManiac.
What does that mean? Brain isnât working 
Sorry, I mangled the phrase. Itâs âdonât throw yourself on your swordâ meaning donât commit suicide over it, but the implication is more of a hiri kiri ritual suicide thing. As an idiom it is used to mean âdonât be so upsetâ rather than a reference to actual suicide.