FCC repeals Net Neutrality

[ALGAYDO 35,140]

1 minute ago, NewYorkCity said:

LOL are they crazy or what? I mean, this makes no sense at all. Can someone please tell me what are their arguments to support this? Cuz I don’t get it. I for sure won’t agree but it is just that I am curious to know what mental process leads them to decide this  

They probably got paid big bucks by companies to do this tbh 

Same reason why Republicans don’t want to pass stricter gun laws, the NRA is basically paying them to vote against the public’s interest 

[KatyBaldHead 113]

america is gonna suffer the biggest emigration ever if this happens

sending my prayers to y'all 

[bumblebee 2,528]

Help me understand please.

Is it this way: I have a web provider and I pay $29,99 a month for my connection to Internet. Now if the Congress passes this stuff, my provider will be able to charge additional $2,99 for accessing YouTube, for instance ? 

[MJHolland 12,725]

7 minutes ago, Venusfly said:

ISPs reaction to the regulation is the most concerning part; there wasn’t slight unhappiness on their behalf they all spent a combined $100,000,000 to lobby politicians to get rid of the regulations again, the internet is more vast now than it was a handful of years ago, stuff like 4K streaming and virtual reality and self driving cars etc weren’t as much of a thing in 2014 - these things cost ISPs a lot more money to support than traditional internet traffic and they’re looking to finally recoup the costs.

Fair enough with 4K streaming. I’d have to look into whether or not that hasn’t increased streaming usage much, though. 

Back in 2014, streaming already accounted for a HUGE portion of all bandwidth usage. I think it’s kinda hard to argue that internet consumption has dramatically risen just since late 2014, but I’d have to look into the numbers. 

ISPs didn’t systematically throttle or censor before net nuetrality, but I certainly don’t like the fact that they could they wanted to — especially now that Congress let HUGE mergers go through between ISPs and content creators who have a direct interest in throttling services like Netflix 

[ryanripley 86,575]

1 minute ago, bumblebee said:

Help me understand please.

Is it this way: I have a web provider and I pay $29,99 a month for my connection to Internet. Now if the Congress passes this stuff, my provider will be able to charge additional $2,99 for accessing YouTube, for instance ? 

yes  

[Sugarfall 3,723]

"Republicans care about poor people." 

[venusfly 17,885]

3 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Fair enough with 4K streaming. I’d have to look into whether or not that hasn’t increased streaming usage much, though. 

Back in 2014, streaming already accounted for a HUGE portion of all bandwidth usage. I think it’s kinda hard to argue that internet consumption has dramatically risen just since late 2014, but I’d have to look into the numbers. 

ISPs didn’t systematically throttle or censor before net nuetrality, but I certainly don’t like the fact that they could they wanted to — especially now that Congress let HUGE mergers go through between ISPs and content creators who have a direct interest in throttling services like Netflix 

Streaming is very huge of course, but there is a giant giant jump between 1080p streaming and 4k streaming, current infrastructure definitely can't handle 4k becoming a mainstream thing; ISPs can definitely afford with their own billions to upgrade infrastructure though, however that would upset shareholders and they'd rather pass those costs to the consumer.

[ryanripley 86,575]

@Venusfly what impact do you think this'll have on video games? since there's a LOT of money to be made in that industry  

[Sailor 3,321]

Did ya'll see the bomb scare they had earlier on, tho?

They had two women there and they spoke for us the best that they could and it just seems like they've been ignored. The fight continues, though. We can't give up.

[venusfly 17,885]

1 minute ago, ryanripley said:

@Venusfly what impact do you think this'll have on video games? since there's a LOT of money to be made in that industry  

I'm not really sure, the *hope* is that ISPs will not actually introduce tiered pricing, however in the worst case scenario that they do then gaming will definitely be one of the ones targeted first. Gaming requires flawless real-time traffic to be reliable and this is more expensive than just serving normal websites where data doesn't need to arrive at your PC in realtime.

[ryanripley 86,575]

1 minute ago, Venusfly said:

I'm not really sure, the *hope* is that ISPs will not actually introduce tiered pricing, however in the worst case scenario that they do then gaming will definitely be one of the ones targeted first. Gaming requires flawless real-time traffic to be reliable and this is more expensive than just serving normal websites where data doesn't need to arrive at your PC in realtime.

i can see download speed prices happening for when it comes to downloading games on Steam  

hold me  

[Balenciaga 42]

Is there any chance that this can be blocked in Congress?

[LetsGetHigh 52,683]

It better not cross overseas that's all I know. 

[Guest]

I know it shouldn't be surprising to me, considering congress kind of just does whatever they want, especially now we're in Trump's America, but with such a huge backlash from the general public on this matter for weeks now, it's sad that congress was just like, "Yeah anyway.... let's repeal it." 

[ALGAYDO 35,140]

13 minutes ago, bumblebee said:

Help me understand please.

Is it this way: I have a web provider and I pay $29,99 a month for my connection to Internet. Now if the Congress passes this stuff, my provider will be able to charge additional $2,99 for accessing YouTube, for instance ? 

Yeah, they can potentially now charge you per site that visit, apart from already paying the monthly fee. That, plus it will give them the ablilty to decide which sites and users get slower/faster speeds.