Net Neutrality.

[SNU0821]

AT&T buying DirecTV only reduced the amount of choices for consumers. Same thing for this proposed Comcast / Turner merger. There have been talks for Sprint and T-mobile to merge, as they cannot compete against AT&T and Verizon - also would not be good for consumers.

https://www.ohio.com/akron/business/proposed-at-t-directv-deal-bad-for-consumers

And the AT&T / Comcast bonuses, aren't as "good willed" as you're making them out to be.

http://fortune.com/2017/12/22/att-bonuses-could-save-millions/

https://slate.com/business/2017/12/...how-the-tax-bill-will-raise-worker-wages.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/tax-reform-reaction-att-is-giving-bonuses-to-200000-employees.html

https://thinkprogress.org/att-praises-tax-bill-c4bab31e1067/

Lol. Ok, man. Spinning giving thousands and thousands of people a bonus into anything but a good thing is weird. I’m sure if you asked the people who received those bonuses, they would call them nothing but a good thing. The AT&T and Comcast bonuses were one time, incremental bonuses to regular compensation packages. That’s a good thing.

The reality is the TMT sector is evolving. Consolidation is inevitably going to happen given the rapidly changing desires of the customers. Prices, for the most part, have continued to come down in regardless to television/video, broadband and data. Not sure how that’s a bad thing.

 

[Global Havok]

Guess how many electric and water providers most can choose from...... 1.


This may be hard to believe for some but there are still people out there with no access to either. Guess what they can get though? Internet via satellite/cell phones.

And electricity and water companies with monopolies are heavily regulated. You are comparing apples to cars.

 

[I am stupid]

Oh, so the repeal of NN got rid of all ISP regulations? I didn't know that. It's going to be the wild west out there now.

Of course that was sarcasm, but they will obviously still be regulated.

I have stated before, nobody really knows how this will end up. I just do not expect it to be as bad as most think.

 

[lurkeraspect84]

Oh, so the repeal of NN got rid of all ISP regulations? I didn't know that. It's going to be the wild west out there now.

Of course that was sarcasm, but they will obviously still be regulated.

I have stated before, nobody really knows how this will end up. I just do not expect it to be as bad as most think.

I guess my only fear(s) is throttling speeds on certain websites/services, getting a mailer from my ISP, which looks like the image posted earlier and them asking which plan do I prefer, and anything else that restricts complete and total freedom to use the internet as I see fit.

If none of those happen, I'm good.

 

[Global Havok]

Oh, so the repeal of NN got rid of all ISP regulations? I didn't know that. It's going to be the wild west out there now.

Of course that was sarcasm, but they will obviously still be regulated.

I have stated before, nobody really knows how this will end up. I just do not expect it to be as bad as most think.

It got rid of all the regulations to force ISPs to treat all traffic equally, yes.

And we've already seen ISPs abuse that prior to NN (Netflix)

 

[Jaycg15]

Guess how many electric and water providers most can choose from...... 1.


This may be hard to believe for some but there are still people out there with no access to either. Guess what they can get though? Internet via satellite/cell phones.

I work in the power production industry. The analogy falls completely flat. You have no problem with that industry because, despite your ignorance, it is heavily regulated. Same with water.

 

[SNU0821]

It got rid of all the regulations to force ISPs to treat all traffic equally, yes.

And we've already seen ISPs abuse that prior to NN (Netflix)

All traffic shouldn’t be treated equally.

 

[lurkeraspect84]

All traffic shouldn’t be treated equally.

Ok I'll bite. Which traffic shouldn't be treated equally?

 

[Big_Blue79]

I just do not expect it to be as bad as most think.

What do most NN supporters actually think? I don't think most NN supporters think changes will be catastrophic and sudden, as much as NN detractors seem to like to characterize it that way:

You mean the internet didn’t end as we know it?

So the world is ending again?

I'm just worried about the lack of competition among ISP providers since the answer to NN concerns is... competition that (largely) does not exist yet. It might make sense to focus on reducing actual barriers to entry (which tend to be concentrated at the municipal level), enforcing antitrust law more aggressively (antitrust enforcement swings wildly between administrations), and keeping NN in place until more Americans actually have choices rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Big_Blue79]

All traffic shouldn’t be treated equally.

Interesting you'd say that. I would think your position would be that consumers should be free to choose an ISP that either does or does not treat all traffic equally.

 

[Global Havok]

All traffic shouldn’t be treated equally.

I pay for access to the entire internet, so yes it should.

 

[bkingUK]

We either need net neutrallity or prevent / break apart mergers across telecoms and content providers. Time Warner has incentive to disrupt freedom of information, for example.

We can either value freedom of information, which benefits millions of people economically, educationally and for entertainment or value lining the pockets of telecoms at the detriment of the entire country.

And the telecoms can **** off even trying to talk about free market economics when they've been ****ing their customers for four decades.

 

[SNU0821]

I pay for access to the entire internet, so yes it should.

You’re not going to be restricted to only specific parts of the internet. You’ll still have full access to the internet. So no, it shouldn’t be treated equally.

 

[SNU0821]

Interesting you'd say that. I would think your position would be that consumers should be free to choose an ISP that either does or does not treat all traffic equally.

It is. If ISPs start charging more for heavy users or whatever, then you’re free to choose someone else.

 

[Global Havok]

You’re not going to be restricted to only specific parts of the internet. You’ll still have full access to the internet. So no, it shouldn’t be treated equally.

Your arguments are literally not based in reality. Prior to NN many Verizon users simply could not use Netflix. How is that having access to the full internet?

You have still yet to answer how Net Neutrality has negatively impacted you, while I have provided examples of how the lack of Net Neutrality affected millions.

I'm going to fall back to my initial assumption that you don't understand how the internet works.

 

[Deathclutch]

Ok I'll bite. Which traffic shouldn't be treated equally?

Netflix and Libturd media probably....

 

[SNU0821]

Your arguments are literally not based in reality. Prior to NN many Verizon users simply could not use Netflix. How is that having access to the full internet?

You have still yet to answer how Net Neutrality has negatively impacted you, while I have provided examples of how the lack of Net Neutrality affected millions.

I'm going to fall back to my initial assumption that you don't understand how the internet works.

How could Verizon subs not use Netflix? Verizon banned the access to Netflix?

 

[lurkeraspect84]

It is. If ISPs start charging more for heavy users or whatever, then you’re free to choose someone else.

Just curious. What would qualify as heavy user? This is my home data usage as of three days ago. I used 488 GB last month. I'm usually around 600GB or so.

 

[Global Havok]

How could Verizon subs not use Netflix? Verizon banned the access to Netflix?

They were throttling the connection to a point it was too slow to stream any shows. Have you been under a rock? That was what motivated people to inact Net Neutrality.

 

[Global Havok]

Just curious. What would qualify as heavy user? This is my home data usage as of three days ago. I used 488 GB last month. I'm usually around 600GB or so.

No, you are not a heavy user.

 

[SNU0821]

They were throttling the connection to a point it was too slow to stream any shows. Have you been under a rock? That was what motivated people to inact Net Neutrality.

Nope. That’s exactly my point. They didn’t limit what you could or could not do on the internet. You just weren’t happy with the speed provided. You know what you could do? Pay more for faster speeds or go to a different provider. So Verizon didn’t restrict anything. Your comment was pure bullshit. Not surprised, though.

 

[Big_Blue79]

They were throttling the connection to a point it was too slow to stream any shows. Have you been under a rock? That was what motivated people to inact Net Neutrality.

Not to mention that this stuff is hard to monitor for end users. And the misaligned incentives re: broadband providers also being TV service providers in the age of cord cutting. And the history of anti-competitive behavior from many of the large providers.

Real competition would be great. But the real world is what it is. There's a substantial overlap of people/administrations that are lax about enforcing antitrust laws, and those crying out that competition will swoop in and save us. It's incongruous.

 

[lurkeraspect84]

For those smarter than I am on the subject. If ISP's get all crazy and the worst of worst happens. Will a solid VPN help at all?

 

[Global Havok]

For those smarter than I am on the subject. If ISP's get all crazy and the worst of worst happens. Will a solid VPN help at all?

Depends on how crazy. VPNs can be blocked, but it is unlikely that they would due to the impact on people remote working. VPNs can certainly bypass bad routing/bottlenecks by taking a different route to the destination though.

 

[Global Havok]

Nope. That’s exactly my point. They didn’t limit what you could or could not do on the internet. You just weren’t happy with the speed provided. You know what you could do? Pay more for faster speeds or go to a different provider. So Verizon didn’t restrict anything. Your comment was pure bullshit. Not surprised, though.

No, you literally could not stream Netflix shows at all. In what world is that not limiting what you can do on the internet? MY comment was bullshit? Thats rich.

Peoples connections were fast enough to stream Netflix, Verizon just intentionally slowed Netflix traffic so it was unusable. There was no upgrading to "faster speeds", this happened to people with the fastest plans available.

You are literally clueless. Laughing

PS. I'm STILL waiting for your answer as to the negative impacts Net Neutrality had on your life. I have a feeling you're going to keep deflecting and not answer the question you obviously don't have an answer to.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Nope. That’s exactly my point. They didn’t limit what you could or could not do on the internet. You just weren’t happy with the speed provided. You know what you could do? Pay more for faster speeds or go to a different provider. So Verizon didn’t restrict anything. Your comment was pure bullshit. Not surprised, though.

They restricted speeds of Netflix (which rendered it useless, which "limit what you could or could not do on the internet") and not other content providers. There was no option to pay more for faster Netflix speeds. Netflix is competitor to television offerings by the ISP due to cord-cutting. There is no actual competition in ISPs for most Americans. And ISPs are clever/shady to do just enough (throttling instead of cutting off completely, for example) so that idealogues like you will carry their water for them.

Competition is the best solution, as most everyone acknowledges. The real divide is how to get competition, whether/when it will happen, and what to do in the meanwhile. What shouldn't be up for debate is that 1) there is real competition (there's not), and 2) ISPs haven't been caught with their hands in the cookie jar (they have). You're shockingly naive.

Edit due to formatting issues.

 

[Matt Laurer]

Net Neutrality is a similar situation to cell phones. There are only a handful of reliable phone companies now and some are significantly better in markets than others. But instead of rising prices, we’re seeing falling phone packages, data packages, etc.. How could that be? There are only a handful of major providers and they duty is to their shareholders? Weird that their prices aren’t going up and they haven’t colluded together to raise prices. Instead, prices have come down due to, wait for it, competition. What is happening is companies keep dropping prices to attack new customers away from competitors and then the competitors follow suit.

The sky isn’t falling. The world will go on. Prices aren’t going to skyrocket.

Everyone has access to all the cell phone providers.

 

[MileHighSpartan]

Lol. Ok, man. Spinning giving thousands and thousands of people a bonus into anything but a good thing is weird. I’m sure if you asked the people who received those bonuses, they would call them nothing but a good thing. The AT&T and Comcast bonuses were one time, incremental bonuses to regular compensation packages. That’s a good thing.

Come on man... can you really not see through the bullshit? Yes, it is a good thing for those 200k people that got a $1k pre-tax bonus. Do you not realize that the reason why AT&T even did that, especially in December 2017, was so that the could write off more of their tax deductions before the new tax law kicked in?

With the current 35% tax rate, AT&T could get a $70 million deduction, but once the new 21% rate is in effect next year, the company would only get a $42 million deduction. Promising to dole out those bonuses now could save AT&T $28 million

Did you also fail to see that they also fired thousands of employees, right after the bonus announcement? And even the bonus itself, is a drop in the bucket overall. $1k x 200k people = $200 million. AT&T just posted a quarterly profit of over $4 billion for Q1 2018. Bonuses that were already due to underpaid employees as negotiated by a union. It was a media stunt.

Nope. That’s exactly my point. They didn’t limit what you could or could not do on the internet. You just weren’t happy with the speed provided. You know what you could do? Pay more for faster speeds or go to a different provider. So Verizon didn’t restrict anything. Your comment was pure bullshit. Not surprised, though.

Are you not familiar with how this all actually went down? Verizon was throttling users on purpose, only when they tried to stream videos.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/...-throttling-statement-net-neutrality-title-ii

 

[Global Havok]

Come on man... can you really not see through the bullshit? Yes, it is a good thing for those 200k people that got a $1k pre-tax bonus. Do you not realize that the reason why AT&T even did that, especially in December 2017, was so that the could write off more of their tax deductions before the new tax law kicked in?

With the current 35% tax rate, AT&T could get a $70 million deduction, but once the new 21% rate is in effect next year, the company would only get a $42 million deduction. Promising to dole out those bonuses now could save AT&T $28 million

Did you also fail to see that they also fired thousands of employees, right after the bonus announcement? And even the bonus itself, is a drop in the bucket overall. $1k x 200k people = $200 million. AT&T just posted a quarterly profit of over $4 billion for Q1 2018. Bonuses that were already due to underpaid employees as negotiated by a union. It was a media stunt.



Are you not familiar with how this all actually went down? Verizon was throttling users on purpose, only when they tried to stream videos.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/...-throttling-statement-net-neutrality-title-ii

He isn't familiar with what happened, what Net Neutrality actually is or how the internet works. Yet, here he is arguing with us.

 

[Jaycg15]

Nope. That’s exactly my point. They didn’t limit what you could or could not do on the internet. You just weren’t happy with the speed provided. You know what you could do? Pay more for faster speeds or go to a different provider. So Verizon didn’t restrict anything. Your comment was pure bullshit. Not surprised, though.

SNU, buddy, just sit this one out. You're completely off base on this.

 

[SNU0821]

Come on man... can you really not see through the bullshit? Yes, it is a good thing for those 200k people that got a $1k pre-tax bonus. Do you not realize that the reason why AT&T even did that, especially in December 2017, was so that the could write off more of their tax deductions before the new tax law kicked in?

With the current 35% tax rate, AT&T could get a $70 million deduction, but once the new 21% rate is in effect next year, the company would only get a $42 million deduction. Promising to dole out those bonuses now could save AT&T $28 million

Did you also fail to see that they also fired thousands of employees, right after the bonus announcement? And even the bonus itself, is a drop in the bucket overall. $1k x 200k people = $200 million. AT&T just posted a quarterly profit of over $4 billion for Q1 2018. Bonuses that were already due to underpaid employees as negotiated by a union. It was a media stunt.



Are you not familiar with how this all actually went down? Verizon was throttling users on purpose, only when they tried to stream videos.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/...-throttling-statement-net-neutrality-title-ii

I am completely aware of the throttling. The other guy said Netflix was essentially blocked, that wasn’t the case.

I honestly don’t see anything wrong with having essentially fast lanes and slower lanes. If you’re going to be streaming video constantly, you should have to pay more. It doesn’t really bother me.

Big business doesn’t bother me, either. I don’t really care if AT&T is benefitting from the bonuses they gave their employees. The way I see it, is that’s a good thing for hundreds of thousands of people. AT&T, VZ and Comcast are companies that operates in my sector, so maybe I’m biased. They’re competitors of mine, but still. I don’t think they’re terrible companies.

 

[Global Havok]

I am completely aware of the throttling. The other guy said Netflix was essentially blocked, that wasn’t the case.

That absolutely was the case. If you can't watch a Netflix video, you are blocked from using the service they provide.

Please refrain from stating inaccuracies as fact. It makes you look even worse when you are wrong and so sure of yourself at the same time.

It's okay to not understand things that aren't in your field, but you are arguing with someone with direct knowledge of how the internet and networking in general work. Just accept that you are ignorant on this subject.

 

[SNU0821]

SNU, buddy, just sit this one out. You're completely off base on this.

No worries man. I just don’t believe there is any issue with ISP’s charging whatever they want for their own service (within reason, obviously).

 

[SNU0821]

That absolutely was the case. If you can't watch a Netflix video, you are blocked from using the service they provide.

Please refrain from stating inaccuracies as fact. It makes you look even worse when you are wrong and so sure of yourself at the same time.

It's okay to not understand things that aren't in your field, but you are arguing with someone with direct knowledge of how the internet and networking in general work. Just accept that you are ignorant on this subject.

Throttling isn’t blocking you from Netflix. Slowing down significantly, sure, but it’s not blocking. People could still watch Netflix or YouTube. It was signicantly slower, but it wasn’t blocked. So again, you made a false statement.

 

[Global Havok]

Throttling isn’t blocking you from Netflix. Slowing down significantly, sure, but it’s not blocking. People could still watch Netflix or YouTube. It was signicantly slower, but it wasn’t blocked. So again, you made a false statement.

No they literally could not watch Netflix. This isn't up for debate, its on the record. Your argument is not based on fact or reality. It's like you are trying to tell me the sky is green. This is what would happen.

Person logs into netflix.
Person chooses the show they wish to watch.
Netflix loading screen shows up, video never loads.

Stop straight up lying about what happened.

 

[SNU0821]

No they literally could not watch Netflix. This isn't up for debate, its on the record. Your argument is not based on fact or reality. It's like you are trying to tell me the sky is green. This is what would happen.

Person logs into netflix.
Person chooses the show they wish to watch.
Netflix loading screen shows up, video never loads.

Stop straight up lying about what happened.

That’s not factually correct.

 

[Global Havok]

That’s not factually correct.

RollLaughOkay buddy. You are not living in reality and are apparently too dense to understand technology. Have a good one.

 

[SNU0821]

RollLaughOkay buddy.

It’s best not to lie to people. It doesn’t help your position.

 

[Hoya1987]

Nope. That’s exactly my point. They didn’t limit what you could or could not do on the internet. You just weren’t happy with the speed provided. You know what you could do? Pay more for faster speeds or go to a different provider. So Verizon didn’t restrict anything. Your comment was pure bullshit. Not surprised, though.

They slowed down the speed of a specific website making it unusable for people with Verizon. The only way to speed it up would be if Netflix shelled out more money to Verizon to put the speed back to normal. It was extorting companies. That's what is at steak. That negatively impacts customers, but the customers aren't the real targets for what ISPs want to do with NN gone. They'll go to companies, like Amazon or Netflix or Hulu and say unless you pay us such and such a month we won't let our customers use your sites effectively. And you're cool with that?

 

[Big_Blue79]

I honestly don’t see anything wrong with having essentially fast lanes and slower lanes. If you’re going to be streaming video constantly, you should have to pay more. It doesn’t really bother me.

No worries man. I just don’t believe there is any issue with ISP’s charging whatever they want for their own service (within reason, obviously).

Both are fine in a world with actual competition and meaningful choices. But that's not reality. The argument is how to get there, and what to do in the meanwhile. You also overlook the fact that ISPs are also content providers and are now able to throttle their content competitors, which is another anti-competitive effect of eliminating NN BEFORE having meaningful choices.