What's new

Where's our Net Neutrality thread?

HellblazerHawkman

Confused Thanagarian
Didn't see anything, and apparently Congress is looking to vote on a bill (today possibly?) related to the whole issue (didn't see the full story, not gonna post more on it), but I feel like this is one place that would concern TYM. I'm not saying go call your Congressman (would help though, e-mailed mine), but take like 2 minutes and just pop on this website dearffc.org and sign the petition. Shit matters guys, I don't want to see another FEC vs Citizens United.

Typing this assuming y'all know the issue, if you don't, feel free to ask.

Once again, www.dearfcc.org
 

TheSpore

Nurgle Chaos God of Death and Disease
I know about all the issue, I haven't heard about a Congress bill, but from what I understand basically the US is screwed and net neutrality is almost gone. The poeple are fully against it, but the head of the whole thing at the FCC has money being thrown left and right from the cable companies and thats all that will matter in the end. As long as money is involved we the people will lose.
 

HellblazerHawkman

Confused Thanagarian
I know about all the issue, I haven't heard about a Congress bill, but from what I understand basically the US is screwed and net neutrality is almost gone. The poeple are fully against it, but the head of the whole thing at the FCC has money being thrown left and right from the cable companies and thats all that will matter in the end. As long as money is involved we the people will lose.
Never hurts to at least speak up. Honestly, kind of scared on the issue, cause our Supreme Court isn't any better (apparently, there's no connection between large sums of money and corruption), so if when this inevitably goes to them, I don't see them making the right call. But as a great man once said, "not saying anything never helped no man"-Thomas Jefferson, 2007
 

Killphil

A prop on the stage of life.
Net Neutrality died in like February didn't it? I already have the slowest broadband speeds possible. I don't know the specifics and I surely wasn't aware of any voting going on or what this particular instance of the issue entails. Will check in a bit, thanks for the heads up OP.
 

TheSpore

Nurgle Chaos God of Death and Disease
Never hurts to at least speak up. Honestly, kind of scared on the issue, cause our Supreme Court isn't any better (apparently, there's no connection between large sums of money and corruption), so if when this inevitably goes to them, I don't see them making the right call. But as a great man once said, "not saying anything never helped no man"-Thomas Jefferson, 2007
Well I agree that we need to get our voice heard, but its just a sad truth unfortunately in today's government. Just look at how many different reasonable laws have been killed off, due to the NRA lobbyists and it was reasonable thing like a stricter background check and whatnot. We have a saving grace though, which is there are several huge tech. companies completely against this BS, including Google and many others.
 

Zoidberg747

My blades will find your heart
Here's some links for those who arent caught up on the issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/technology/fcc-road-map-to-net-neutrality.html?_r=0
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/tech/web/net-neutrality-explained/index.html

Personally as far as political issues this is pretty low on my list. I understand the implications and how it could affect me but if I have to stop using certain sites I believe I could survive. It sounds like they are not going to take it as far as some said they would(paying a fee in order to use websites, etc.) so I think it isnt as bad as some think.
 

HellblazerHawkman

Confused Thanagarian
Well I agree that we need to get our voice heard, but its just a sad truth unfortunately in today's government. Just look at how many different reasonable laws have been killed off, due to the NRA lobbyists and it was reasonable thing like a stricter background check and whatnot. We have a saving grace though, which is there are several huge tech. companies completely against this BS, including Google and many others.
Which is why I love these guys. Google could give a shit about the costs, but they are looking out for the right thing
 

HellblazerHawkman

Confused Thanagarian
Here's some links for those who arent caught up on the issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/technology/fcc-road-map-to-net-neutrality.html?_r=0
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/tech/web/net-neutrality-explained/index.html

Personally as far as political issues this is pretty low on my list. I understand the implications and how it could affect me but if I have to stop using certain sites I believe I could survive. It sounds like they are not going to take it as far as some said they would(paying a fee in order to use websites, etc.) so I think it isnt as bad as some think.
I totally see where you are coming from, but I'm looking at the potential this could have. Comcast and Time Warner are fucking evil, I wouldn't give them that long a leash. Comparatively speaking, not as big an issue as fixing poverty\education
 

Tony at Home

Warrior
There is a popular misconception though- which is that net neutrality will prevent Cable companies from charging more if you use more data.

Their argument was that Netflix takes a huge amount of data, compared to other sites, and that it makes sense if this is more expensive as a service it should be more expensive to the consumer.

But net neutrality doesn't dictate they can't charge more for 20 gigs of data than 10 gigs of data. If they want to make 15 gigs of data more expensive than 5 gigs, they theoretically could, and net neutrality will be ok with that.

What net neutrality dictates, is you can't count data as more or less than other data of equal size. If you use 2 gigs of data on Netflix, and 2 gigs of data on Hulu, and 2 gigs of data loading gifs on TYM pages, they all count for the same 2 gigs. What net neutrality prevents is them from charging more for 2 gigs of data from site A than 2 gigs of data from site B. Data must be treated equally- with size considered equal. NOTHING prevents them from saying "if you use our service more, you need to pay for that extra service" and NOTHING prevents them from saying "if you use are service less, you can pay slightly less". What it says is "The amount the service is used is all that matters- the specifics of what sites make up those gigs of data transferred cannot be discriminated upon by the company to charge more or less than other data of equal size"

They like framing the argument this way, because it almost sounds sensible. You use more data transfer, you pay for more data transfer. But this obviously isn't the case. They don't care how much data you use, they care WHERE it comes from- that way they can go to the source, and start charging that company more if they want users to get to the site fast- and that company then naturally has to pass on that cost to you. Without Net Neutrality, the cable companies can (and actually already did) charge Netflix a fee in order for the ISP to stop bottlenecking the connection between them and their customers. How often can they do this to a company like Netflix before they need to start upping their subscription costs to pay the "ransom fee" of the ISP's?

So that's why it's important. And if Net Neutrality isn't passed, you won't have to wait very long to feel these effects- they've already been doing it to just test the waters, and this is why there was a period not long ago when Netflix ran ultra slow. They were being bottlenecked and had to pay to get out of it.