FCC repeals Net Neutrality

[ZephyrInTheSky 1,235]

If i saw Ajit or w/e his name is walking down the street

[Eggsy 8,280]

51 minutes ago, Delusional Aura said:

Does this affect countries outside the US as well? Stupid question ik but I really wanna know. Because alot of websites ARE American based isn't it? How does this internet thing work?  

No the FCC is the US.

[ZephyrInTheSky 1,235]

GGD members trying to find our new hangout spot. Will Cult sites be charged extra too?

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, imwoahvicky said:

you know Europe is gonna be next according to what experts said right? 

I highly doubt it. Americans have a different mentality, they claim they're about freedom but all they do is discriminatory ****, and vote for Trump. I can't see Macron or Merkel do something like this. Especially in France, the whole country would go on a strike and I don't think Macron is about that life, he's an actual smart man, unlike the walking cartoonish parodies that are the republicans and Trump. Joke's on you America, u had what u deserved

[imwoahvicky 4,248]

Just now, kyanewest said:

I highly doubt it. Americans have a different mentality, they claim they're about freedom but all they do is discriminatory ****, and vote for Trump. I can't see Macron or Merkel do something like this. Especially in France, the whole country would go on a strike and I don't think Macron is about that life, he's an actual smart man, unlike the walking cartoonish parodies that are the republicans and Trump. Joke's on you America, u had what u deserved

eh, we can't be so sure. anything is possible

[coekane 5,921]

[Guest bostonGUY]

2 hours ago, Citrine said:

Do you live in the USA?

Take a guess

[donutellha 13,819]

**** em

**** em

**** em 

**** em

**** em

woo! (except the 2 women who voted to save net neutrality) 

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

1 hour ago, Venusfly said:

What do you mean plan? There doesn't need to be one. "Net Neutrality" is just a codename for regulations on ISPs, once the regulations go away the ISPs decide what they want to do with their newfound powers, there's no government intervention from there. We don't know yet what ISPs will do with the power but its assumed that they will use it to section off more costly types of data such as video and make you pay extra to access it.

The plan that everyone is scared of like mentioned in the OP. There will be a plan for some type of regulation if this goes through. I'm wondering if it'll be anything like the concerns that everyone is freaking out about.

[venusfly 17,885]

8 minutes ago, ZacharyMark said:

The plan that everyone is scared of like mentioned in the OP. There will be a plan for some type of regulation if this goes through. I'm wondering if it'll be anything like the concerns that everyone is freaking out about.

No the government aren't placing any regulations on anything, they're removing regulations. Current government regulation rules that ISPs cannot secttion off parts of the internet and charge extra for it, you have to give customers access to every website when they pay for internet access; the plan is to remove this regulation and have the government take a step back from what ISPs do with their own companies. What happened today is the government saying to ISPs they will no longer control how they do business, it is up to them how they want to sell their product.

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

4 minutes ago, Venusfly said:

No the government aren't placing any regulations on anything, they're removing regulations. Current government regulation rules that ISPs cannot secttion off parts of the internet and charge extra for it, you have to give customers access to every website when they pay for internet access; the plan is to remove this regulation and have the government take a step back from what ISPs do with their own companies. What happened today is the government saying to ISPs they will no longer control how they do business, it is up to them how they want to sell their product.

Ok. But don't companies regulate their own policies for their products? So what does that mean for the consumer then?

[venusfly 17,885]

5 minutes ago, ZacharyMark said:

Ok. So what does that mean for the consumer then?

Well, usually in a healthy market there will be reasonable competition which means if a company starts charging stupid amounts for their product or the quality of their product drops then the customer can just go away to the next company and get their product instead, which allows for healthy competition between companies, this competition does not exist in the USA for ISPs. Many parts of the USA only have one or two internet providers for the whole area and all of these companies are massive monopolies, there are no prospects for new ISPs to emerge either because to set up an ISP in an area means to rip up all the roads in the areas you want to sell internet in and to stick cables under the ground, which is insanely time consumng and expensive and near impossible.

So; without this competiton this means ISPs have the freedom to charge you stupid amounts of money because what are you going to do? The worst case scenario with this regulation removed is that they start selling package based internet. What this would mean is you sign up to an ISP and get limited internet access for something like $50. However, you go to YouTube.com and you are then redirected to your ISPs shop telling you that if you want to watch videos online you must buy their $50 media package which bumps your bill up to $100, then you go to facebook to complain about it and oh now you need to pay another $50 for their social media package, now your bill is $150. Previous regulation stated that you must give your customers access to every website when they pay.

What it also means is that ISPs can start blocking access to websites they don't want you to get onto, what if they just blocked access to websites with liberal or conservative viewpoints and made it a super expensive news package? What if they blocked off competitor ISP websites and called it a shopping package? They have the ability to do that now.

In short, ISPs will have the power to make the internet a hell of a lot more expensive.

[Yo GagaGaga 6,541]

It seems weird to me that the Mass Majority of Americans are against this, yet its continuing to go through because of a select group of rich republicans who want to keep it. I don't get our government system sometimes

[ShockPop 7,747]

Shout out from UK where our government are crooked child molesters but aren't completely batscheiße crazy.

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

2 minutes ago, Venusfly said:

Well, usually in a healthy market there will be reasonable competition which means if a company starts charging stupid amounts for their product or the quality of their product drops then the customer can just go away to the next company and get their product instead, which allows for healthy competition between companies, this competition does not exist in the USA for ISPs. Many parts of the USA only have one or two internet providers for the whole area and all of these companies are massive monopolies, there are no prospects for new ISPs to emerge either because to set up an ISP in an area means to rip up all the roads in the areas you want to sell internet in and to stick cables under the ground, which is insanely time consumng and expensive and near impossible.

So; without this competiton this means ISPs have the freedom to charge you stupid amounts of money because what are you going to do? The worst case scenario with this regulation removed is that they start selling package based internet. What this would mean is you sign up to an ISP and get limited internet access for something like $50. However, you go to YouTube.com and you are then redirected to your ISPs shop telling you that if you want to watch videos online you must buy their $50 media package which bumps your bill up to $100, then you go to facebook to complain about it and oh now you need to pay another $50 for their social media package, now your bill is $150. Previous regulation stated that you must give your customers access to every website when they pay.

What it also means is that ISPs can start blocking access to websites they don't want you to get onto, what if they just blocked access to websites with liberal or conservative viewpoints and made it a super expensive news package? What if they blocked off competitor ISP websites and called it a shopping package? They have the ability to do that now.

In short, ISPs will have the power to make the internet a hell of a lot more expensive.

That's what I thought it would be. I guess I'm just going to wait and see. I think there's a lot of "this may happen" scenarios. So I hope that this won't blow up into a worse case scenario.