Goodbye(Net Neutrality)
I'm not hating on the game I just wanted to say goodbye to everybody before we lose net neutrality and never get to contact each other.
0
- 61.6K General Discussion
- -35 Developer Q&A Archive
- 2.6K New Players
- 30.7K Arena and Character Strategy
- 3.2K Individual Events
- 5.5K Guild Events
- 4.7K PVP and Rivalry
- 51K Guild Recruitment
- 751 Art and Media
- 4.2K Off Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
-Sun Tzu
Stop fear mongering.
But, aside from that, you're talking nonsense of course.
You used the internet for decades WITH net neutrality, not without it.
Mr. Ninja, can you please elaborate? I absolutely want to hear more of your thoughts on the matter. And I predict there are many others of us that would find your insights on this topic to be absolutely riveting. We especially want to hear more about how you see it impacting game play. Please share more at your earliest convenience.
Really do isps not charge higher rates for higher quality connections able to handle streaming in America?
They are only allowed to charge by maximum speed. So you might have packages of 28mbps up to 1k in certain areas depending on availability of infrastructure, but if someone is streaming 4k movies when everyone is just getting home and wanting to use their internet, the ISPs are disallowed by Net Neutrality for charging a premium for that service. There's a lot of apocalyptic nonsense going on that companies like Verizon which owns Yahoo would either throttle, or charge people to use Google services, but that is not in the best corporate interests of Verizon, who would accomplish nothing but to encourage their customers to switch to their competitors.
Net Neutrality is - in no uncertain terms - communism for the internet. It forces the average user to pay higher prices in order to subsidize high bandwidth users the same way the ACA forces healthy people to buy expensive health care plans in order to subsidize unhealthy people.
I get a bill from Verizon every month that tells me explicitly how much internet traffic in total that my account is allowed to use before incurring additional charges.
Whether they are "only allowed" or not, that *is* how they charge everywhere I have lived in the US, so not sure what your issue with the statement is.
Not really an issue of finding people as OP thinks. The reason they added the Net Neutrality rules was because the ISPs starting throttling competitor services and charging those competitors money to stop it. The reason it's such a scandal is because the first company to do so was headed up at the time by the current FCC head guy, so of course this is what he does, he still has money to make from Verizon.
I'm all for Net Neutrality, think it's something we need, but it will not immediately be the "end of the internet." If left unchecked it could get there, because the companies running the ISP's are greedy and have monopolies.
We get it, you like communism. Yes, they have a maximum limit on total monthly bandwidth, but to suggest that they have no say over the content or bandwidth spikes that runs over their network? That's unnecessary government regulation. If the federal government has the authority to tell an ISP what content they may not prevent over their network, then they have the authority to tell an ISP what content they may not allow. Net Neutrality is a violation of free speech.
That's a bit of a stretch.
But to counter, the other option is that now every streaming service will cost more. The ISPs will either charge customers directly increased prices, or the streaming services themselves will cost more. Want to watch Netflix? Ha, Time Warner has a streaming service, so you have to pay an extra $10/month. Hulu? Comcast lets you watch that on demand if you subscribe to their television service, so an extra $15/month to watch Hulu for you.
Or, on the flipside, they'll just go back to charging Netflix and Hulu directly to not throttle that traffic, and those companies will be forced to charge more.
Or, hey, I don't like Comcast, so I put up some blog posts about how bad they are, except no one that uses Comcast can see it, because they don't have to let their customers get to that site now. But, you're right, what those of us that like Net Neutrality want is communism, so it must be bad.
I’m fairly certain, no, totally certain, that you don’t understand communism and free speech. That’s cool though, I know it’s pretty hard to think so you’re allowed to let corporations do it for you.
So what’s to prevent Verizon from charging us more for using Disney owned or licensed services, or for charging basic bandwidth prices with subscription add ons for access to streaming services? Look at Portugal’s model on unregulated corporate power in internet transactions, because that’s our future. I guess they shouldn’t regulate public works like highways and allow private companies to build them and charge us to drive on them as well...
First you manage to convey sarcasm on a post so props to you. But I do have something about impacting gameplay. Quite simply one of these companies who provides internet connection will control connection speed and they can easily put a price tag on this game(because your paying to connect to the game pretty much. I'm not saying it willll happen but its possible
If I gotta subsidize the aca and not be able to afford insurance because of it you have handle this little bit
Off topic, but all health care is subsidized with or without the ACA.
What? Net neutrality has nothing to do w welfare it was regulation plain and simple. We over here knows what happens when regulation are lifted over big institutions in America if u don't know think the housing market and the bank buyouts. Basically now a internet provider can bundle internet services like cable does. If u want Facebook a separate charge if u want access to Netflix separate charge u get the picture.
I support Net Neutrality, but things like this are ridiculous. Could they make a package like this? Absolutely. Will they? No, because no one would buy it. There isn’t a ton of competition in this market place, but there is enough to keep things from getting out of hands. If AT&T moves to something like that I’m sure as heck switching to someone else. It would take a ton of collusion to get to this apocalyptic picture people are painting.
The free market isn’t going to keep these companies in check the same way government regulations can, but it’s not going to allow them to run wild and do whatever the heck they want either.
Those first decades were before businesses found great potential in business within the internet. Regulations were then set to prevent taking advantage of consumers.
Now that Net Neutrality has been repealed, ISP can now choose what content we are allowed to see, hiding their competitors, or just making the speed of the competitors so slow that we don't want to use them.
On top of all that, if you want fast service, you now have to pay for it. This doesn't stop streamers from using bandwidth, this makes it cost money. Take money from the poor, and bring it to big business. Will this create jobs? How could it? This is a virtual engine, requires no manpower.
Instead, what we have is censorship and added costs of living.
I understand paying for bandwidth. But guess what? We all already do that. You know that right? This revocation of Net Neutrality doesn't change the fact that some of us pay for 100mb/s or whatever you pay for. You are not currently paying extra costs. Those that are using high bandwidth pay for that bandwidth. I know I pay for a higher bandwidth.
What this repeal does is allows ISP's to target websites and slow them down or even hide them altogether. You could be paying for those high bandwidth services, but if you now want to apply them to your favorite websites, you have to pay EXTRA costs on top of the EXTRA costs you pay for your higher bandwidth. Might as well not pay for the extra bandwidth since they won't allow you to freely use it now anyway
They do. We have different tiers of mb/s. I feel like these guys are seeing through a clouded lens. Some sort of bias, perhaps media based. Or an inate judgement towards other, probably republican.
You don't have to be republican to be the kind of person who judges. Democrats can too, they just do it differently and for different kinds of subjects.
Wrote some things without first reading this. Ok. You understand they charge for maximum speed. Which means that these people are already paying for those extra speeds. Those are extra payments meant to give these ISP's the means to upgrade their equipment to handle those extra speeds. If this is not enough money for them to handle that kind of bandwidth, then they are setting their prices wrong. I guarantee this isn't the case.
Therefore, whatever mb/s you are paying for, should be handled regardless of what others are doing (since they SHOULD be covered by their plan).
Let's talk about the switching case that you presented. Guess how many options I have in my area for an ISP? Probably very similar to most people in the US, as I don't live in the boonies. I have two possible ISP's. Who am I going to switch to if both decide to throttle specific services? Really?
Your third paragraph. Communism. It is not, since there is a pay difference from user to user. As you have mentioned, we all pay for different bandwidths. Therefor all is not equal. Thus, not communist. Average users pay for whatever bandwidths they want. Thus the companies, whom set those prices, should be delivering on those promises. I will not comment on the health care as that is not a subject I am not as passionate, nor as familiar with.
I see you are the type who like to throw out name calling. You are accusing someone of liking communism when they did not nearly say such a thing. Therefor, you must be someone who is terrible to debate with. Still, I will argue against you as others are reading this.
So, your problem is with spikes. Ok, let's talk mb/s vs. spikes. If someone is paying a company who promises a specific mb/s at a premium, then you should get that. No matter the time of the day. They promise they have the equipment to handle this, and they promise specific promises to everybody. So, you, joe bloe, are sitting on your couch, with your mb/s, you should be getting as much as you decided to pay for. Which sounds to be less than what some others pay for. Your prices aren't higher. Your price is what you asked for while others are paying more because that is what they ask for.
Freedom of Speech. You say Net Neutrality is a violation of free speech since it prevents companies from stifling free speech? That makes no sense. And your slippery slope, saying that they then have the authority to tell an ISP what content they may not allow, that connection makes absolutely no sense either. First you say Net Neutrality has authority to enfore Freedom of Speech, then you say because of that they have the authority to prevent it? You are confused.