Nut Neutrality protest: I am 100% sure Shaggar will not post here.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > Nut Neutrality protest: I am 100% sure Shaggar will not post here.

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

A Wheezy Steampunk posted:

this isn't going to work because politicians are patient and capable of playing the long game and everyone who uses the internet has no long term memory

no one is planning anti-net neutrality stuff and it has never been anywhere close to passing. why do you idiots still think this

zen death robot posted:

Comcast is pushing really hard for it

they absolutely are not

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 04:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 19, 2024 22:38

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

MALE SHOEGAZE posted:

honestly i dont care anymore. net neutrality is a good thing and people who are opposed to it are bad corporations. but also all the people super in favor of net neutrality are terrible and i'm just done caring. if the internet gets bad i'll be very happy to go back to books. i'll feel bad for the poors but they dont have ineternet now anyway

no major corporations are opposed to net neutrality

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 04:42

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

it's funny how many people are angry about companies paying for better access as if its in any way new.

internet companies have been doing it since the mid 90s, with microsoft being the first truly major player when they got direct links and local mirrors set up to ensure windows update went at full speed in the late 90s.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 04:48

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

zen death robot posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC

this is not comcast opposing net neutrality

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 05:30

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

zen death robot posted:

network prioritization is bad, in general, for everyone

network prioritization is good and has existed for over 20 years. it's called buying your own links and paying for in-network hosting.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 05:39

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

zen death robot posted:

correct, on your own network it's totally fine

do you really think AT&T, Comcast, Time-Warner (assuming the government doesn't allow Comcast to buy them up) will implement prioritization tiers in an intelligent way that's fair to their end users or if they'll use it to make up for lost revenue from people pulling the plug on their TV services?

they don't have any plans to actually institute prioritization tiers since they already have everyone they'd charge for them payign them money for direct links and in network hosting.

they make up the revenue from people not buying cable by a) owning a major tv and movie producer b) through that being partners with many popular online video streaming sites and c) from all that getting massive amounts of ad revenue and royalties whether people are watching on broadcast tv, on cable, or through hulu or even youtube (official channels of course)

like do you not get that. something like a quarter of netflix's content is licensed from comcast universal now. comcast gets paid when anyone on any network wants to stream any of that, effectively.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 05:52

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

zen death robot posted:

You do know the new "2014 Net Neutrality" FCC Proposal allows for prioritization, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0

and the prioritization means allowed are the exact same things that have already been allowed and in use for the past 20 years.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 16:04

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

zen death robot posted:

there's no co-location gimmick going on, really

- some telecom companies have successfully challenged the FCC's rules against implementing QoS rules on traffic coming in and out of their network (traffic prioritization)

- as of their 2014 proposal the FCC as redefined "Net Neutrality" or "Open Internet" (they use both terms) to allow for network traffic prioritization so long as they clearly state what these tiers are to their customers and do not implement them in anti-competitive ways (the wording on what defines anti-competitive is vague and will likely have to be challenged in court a lot) this proposal has not been finalized

- there is a ~~very slim chance~~ no chance in hell that the telecom industry only wants to use this to stop people from torrenting poo poo

- it's all kind of bullshit because the monthly bill you get is supposed to pay for your providers network costs + provide them with a profit, the content providers most certainly pay their own bandwidth costs as well. charging outside content providers for higher prioritization is essentially a double-dip and a mba's wet dream

- telecom companies invested heavily in the "triple play" poo poo back in the late 90s and it's all slipping away because more and more people find that they only need a cell phone, an antenna for broadcast HDTV and streaming video services over their existing internet connection at home

there is no double dip - internet businesses either choose a general transit provider to pay for access to a network, or they can pay the network directly and connect directly. there is no double payment, because they stop paying one party if they switch to the other.

again, this has been done for decades

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 16:06

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

zen death robot posted:

yes, telecom providers absolutely want you to keep not buying their lovely $80/mo tv package and to keep using that streaming internet video that they get almost nothing out of in comparison

and gently caress off with the accusations of being mad about "mah torrentz" because i don't torrent or pirate a goddamn thing

how about i need my loving VPN to work to run fast and not get stepped on because you think your entertainment is more important?

you get a lot out of streaming internet video when you own major tv and movie production studios and distribution networks, hth

thats why its hilarious when idiots like you think comcast of all companies is incapable of making money from online video.

also you're so stupid you don't know that any cable internet package is massively more profitable and easier for a cable co to sell to you and maintain than a cable tv package where significant chunks are paid directly out to networks.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 16:44

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

reminder that comcast makes money for every single person who watches hulu or subscribes to hulu plus, since as owner of NBC they're owners of 32% of Hulu company. that's just one example.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 16:46

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

oh no what about my ip address

totally broadcasted bro

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 16:51

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

zen death robot posted:

you're describing network peering agreements

that's not what this is even about

the peering agreements and in-bounds caching are the actual prioritization.

and the companies with them already have the highest possible speeds into and out of the isp networks that they can possibly obtain.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 17:07

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

flakeloaf posted:

and global & ctv (and maybe city) are "local programming" so they may not compete as aggressively with the cableco/isp monoliths, but lots of other channels behind the cableco's paywall are watchable online for "free"

someone has to be paying for that somehow

do they got ads. the ads pay.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 17:08

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

zen death robot posted:

yeah that sort of thing has been going on for years and years, and gently caress anyone that has a problem with that. from my understanding the real beef is with the rule changes that allow for packet shaping and qos to be implemented so that certain applications/traffic get preferential treatment regardless of the peering arrangements. to be totally honest i don't really give a poo poo if they qos bittorrent guys into the ground, but i do think the FCC needs to be able to regulate and review these things in order to make sure that legitimate usage isn't being impacted unfairly if it's going to happen.

feel free to correct me if i'm wrong here, the actual FCC proposal is pretty much impossible to read if you enjoy actually doing things with your life

qos and packet shaping is already legit allowed though

the thing is the fcc proposal is basically restating all the various things companies do and deciding most of them are now to be explicitly allowed. a lot of these are things that people have been ignorant of for a long time even though they've been used often quite widely.

and the other funny things is justa bout all of this is eqaully allowed in other countries.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 18:17

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

the fcc is unironically one of the best national level communications regulatory agencies in the world

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 19:00

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

flakeloaf posted:

ideally you'd promote them from within the ranks of a professional public service after a career spent learning about government and regulation, instead of hiring them directly from the upper echelons of the industries they're supposed to be regulating only to release them back into their loving arms when their terms expire. i don't think anyone believes elected reps are in any way qualified to run the departments they're "responsible" for

you can't learn about "regulation" without learning about what you're regulating.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 19:06

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

flakeloaf posted:

are there no other positions in the fcc other than the chairman and the board? can't you come up through the system?

e: i legit do not understand how your government works

you don't understand how regulation works, apparently.

how are you going to work your way from mailroom clerk to the ability to understand the implications and mechanisms of the industry and how new regulations would affect that?

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 19:14

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

flakeloaf posted:

by finishing school and joining a career track that leads you through the managerial levels to the executive ones?

the head of the CRTC didn't hatch from an egg laid by the telcos, he worked his way up by spending a few decades as a worker, manager and exec at the department responsible for most federal spending regulations, and at the department he now leads

the crtc is a 1000 times more cozy with the industries it regulates than the fcc is though.

like ridiculously corrupt and allowing tons of abuses of canadian communications customers.

also that guy id not spend decades at the crtc he appears to have shifted around multiple countries and government departments with no special knowledge of communications??

Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Sep 11, 2014

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 19:25

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

flakeloaf posted:

well yeah, but the guy at the top looks relatively clean

"effective government oversight" is a fantasy i sometimes have

America has it. the FCC actually works.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 19:32

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

zen death robot posted:

interesting, the way it's been presented in the media makes it seem like it wasn't allowed before

companies want to associate themselves with HELPING YOU PROTECT NET NEUTRALITY because it's positive branding, even though there was pretty much no chance of anything bad happening to begin with.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 19:51

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

yeah but what if i just oppose anything comcast wants via new legislation on basic principles

then you're stupid??? p simple

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 19:57

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Mr Dog posted:

you just need to know that internet is getting slower

"you just need to know something provably false" ah yes sound insight

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 20:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 19, 2024 22:38

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Jimmy Carter posted:

I mean if you're running out of bandwidth time to raise prices to make supply and demand meet

ah yes because everyone loves higher bills

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 23:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > Nut Neutrality protest: I am 100% sure Shaggar will not post here.