Net Neutrality Related Postv

KSPlayer1337 · July 12, 2017

If you don't know what the net neutrality event is, here's some background info.

Without net neutrality, ISPs (internet service providers) can control what websites they can fee for the user and can also control what websites are fast or slow for people who don't pay the extra fee as said before.

With that being said, many people are creating letters to Congress, as well as contacting local politicians, to keep net neutrality to not let these circumstances happen.

This is a major event and could determine the fate of the Internet.

You could visit https://www.battleforthenet.com for more information.

(sorry for sounding like a sponsor)

With these being said, I created a very pessimistic poll in the thread.

Thorax_ · July 12, 2017

Yes, because this would totally cause an apocalypse...

No. If you think that, you are drunk.

YeEternalTuna · July 13, 2017

This would probably cause new internet providers to pop up in an attempt to make money (what I think). But this just makes this lose money tbh

james8470 · August 9, 2017

It's another case of common resources being privatized and then sold back to us just like so many things already have such as water, natural resources, land, historic and cultural sites, knowledge, or even things like peace & silence.

I don't like it, but no, it's not going to be the end of the internet, and frankly, there's already a strong pushback against it. I'm all-in for joining the pushback personally, but I wouldn't worry to much about it. :P

LAN_Megalodon · August 9, 2017

So for people who don't know the basics of net neutrality, I'll try to explain it. It's been a pretty popular topic, so you might be able to find a better/more clear explanation somewhere else.

Bear with me, this is going to be a long one, also keep in mind that this is a bi-partisan issue.

ISP(s) = Internet Service Provider(s) (Comcast, Charter, Frontier, etc.)

Title II Service = Services for the public good (Public Transport, Libraries, etc.)

FCC = Federal Communications Commission (Agency of U.S. Government that regulates communications.)

The issue is that there's not enough ISP(s) to provide competition for the service (of providing internet). If net neutrality altogether is abolished, part of what is abolished is ruling that pretty much states ISP(s) cannot charge an unreasonable amount of money, because the internet is a Title II service under the FCC. A Title II service is a service that is essentially regulated out of the public's "need" for it. Title II services are not literal needs like food and water, but near-needs for living in modern-day society, (like public transit, another Title II service). When a service is regulated as Title II, it allows private businesses to fulfill the need of the public by providing that service, but under somewhat hefty regulation. Businesses that provide public (Title II) services aren't allowed to inconvenience the public with prices, or discriminate based on race/class/religion/political affiliation, etc. If there's one private public transport system in your area, as a Title II service, they can't hike the price through the roof and try to gouge you solely because you require that service and they're the only supplier. Unfortunately this is an issue the internet experiences.

There's not many ISP(s) within the US (there's not generally many ISPs anywhere in the world, but America is disproportionately affected by this scarcity of supply.) If these companies lobbying for the abandonment of net neutrality get their way, they'll essentially have monopolies over the business of providing people internet. In this hypothetical situation, if there's only one ISP in your area, they can essentially charge whatever they want for the service. Imagine Comcast is the only ISP in your area, they could theoretically charge some obscene amount of money per month. You're stuck because your only options are to either cough up your hard-earned paycheck for what is probably the lowest quality internet service (we'll get into this later) they can provide, or going without internet.

The other big benefit (to the public) of a service being Title II, is that Title II services have to provide equal access to everyone, regardless of almost any factor. On the internet, this means regardless of where you live, who you are, what you believe, or whatever, ISP(s) cannot restrict your access to legal sites. This also works for people hosting websites, ISP(s) cannot restrict other people's access to your website for arbitrary reasons, or give it lower "priority" or "visibility" for their own reasons. If the internet is no longer a Title II service, this is all reversed, and basically ISP(s) can restrict your access to websites, and traffic, visibility and priority for your own theoretical website for whatever arbitrary reason they want.

Let's imagine the internet is no longer a Title II service, now let's imagine there's a site called "Comcast Eats Crappy Donkey Schlong and are Assholes" that documents all the horrible abuse and service customers receive at the hand of Comcast. What do you think Comcast is going to do in this hypothetical situation? Do you think Comcast will allow the very service it provides to be a pathway of information about how awful it is? You're absolutely insane if you do, Comcast customers would never be able to see this site. This becomes very grim very quickly if you think about how any ISP could apply this method to literally anything on earth.

Here's another hypothetical situation:

Let's say a politician runs for office, and one of his/her stances is supporting net neutrality. If net neutrality is ever abolished, it will be neigh impossible to ever oppose it in the future, as ISP(s) essentially control the public's access to your information. As stated before, ISP(s) are not going to willingly provide their consumers access to information that makes them look bad. ISP(s), in effect, would control by-and-large the public's access to critical information, including that of politics, and would most certainly manipulate it to keep themselves in power. Sites about how awful a post-neutral internet is? Gone. Politicians opposing these ISP(s)? Unknown about. It's borderline Orwellian control of public knowledge.

Finally, what internet providers would really really like to do is split parts of the internet into "packages", almost like cable. Imagine having $20 tacked on for YouTube and other video streaming, $30 for Facebook and other social media services, etc., etc. They could literally charge whatever "premium" they want, for whatever site they want, on top of already literally being able to charge whatever they want for basic internet. The most disgusting part about this whole situation is that ISP(s) are already making a fuck-ton of money hand over fist with Title II regulations in place. They already make soooooo much fucking money, and they're basically saying "We will literally make everyone in America's quality of life worse in order to make more than the obscene amount we're already making".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh and also, if you think this somehow won't affect you, or whatever, as soon as some puritan hits a head position in one of these companies, any and all of your fetish porn is gone. Hell it wouldn't even have to be someone high-ranking in the company in general, it could just be some puritan members of the public threatening them with a boycott, and in order to appease them and keep business, the ISP just blocks everyone's access within the area. A large enough amount of people in a certain area don't like furries? Access to furry sites gone in that area. A large enough amount of people in a certain area don't like Asians? Asian porn gone in that area. A large enough amount of people in a certain area don't like hentai? Hentai sites are inaccessible in that area.

People are going to think that I'm just making a funny joke about porn here, but seriously, as funny as it is, it's what could happen. All it takes is enough crazies who just want to ban whatever's not their opinion or preference, and it's gone!

So in short, no, it wouldn't be anarchy and chaos, we'd all be ruled under the iron fist of authoritarianism, arguably worse. A awful, sanitized, safe-for-work, clean-fun version of the internet that you have to pay even more money for, and that likely is provided for you at the speed of snail mail.

Edited August 9, 2017 by LAN_Megalodon (see edit history)

james8470 · August 9, 2017

So for people who don't know the basics of net neutrality, I'll try to explain it. It's been a pretty popular topic, so you might be able to find a better/more clear explanation somewhere else.
Bear with me, this is going to be a long one, also keep in mind that this is a bi-partisan issue.

ISP(s) = Internet Service Provider(s) (Comcast, Charter, Frontier, etc.)

Title II Service = Services for the public good (Public Transport, Libraries, etc.)

FCC = Federal Communications Commission (Agency of U.S. Government that regulates communications.)

The issue is that there's not enough ISP(s) to provide competition for the service (of providing internet). If net neutrality altogether is abolished, part of what is abolished is ruling that pretty much states ISP(s) cannot charge an unreasonable amount of money, because the internet is a Title II service under the FCC. A Title II service is a service that is essentially regulated out of the public's "need" for it. Title II services are not literal needs like food and water, but near-needs for living in modern-day society, (like public transit, another Title II service). When a service is regulated as Title II, it allows private businesses to fulfill the need of the public by providing that service, but under somewhat hefty regulation. Businesses that provide public (Title II) services aren't allowed to inconvenience the public with prices, or discriminate based on race/class/religion/political affiliation, etc. If there's one private public transport system in your area, as a Title II service, they can't hike the price through the roof and try to gouge you solely because you require that service and they're the only supplier. Unfortunately this is an issue the internet experiences.

There's not many ISP(s) within the US (there's not generally many ISPs anywhere in the world, but America is disproportionately affected by this scarcity of supply.) If these companies lobbying for the abandonment of net neutrality get their way, they'll essentially have monopolies over the business of providing people internet. In this hypothetical situation, if there's only one ISP in your area, they can essentially charge whatever they want for the service. Imagine Comcast is the only ISP in your area, they could theoretically charge some obscene amount of money per month. You're stuck because your only options are to either cough up your hard-earned paycheck for what is probably the lowest quality internet service (we'll get into this later) they can provide, or going without internet.

The other big benefit (to the public) of a service being Title II, is that Title II services have to provide equal access to everyone, regardless of almost any factor. On the internet, this means regardless of where you live, who you are, what you believe, or whatever, ISP(s) cannot restrict your access to legal sites. This also works for people hosting websites, ISP(s) cannot restrict other people's access to your website for arbitrary reasons, or give it lower "priority" or "visibility" for their own reasons. If the internet is no longer a Title II service, this is all reversed, and basically ISP(s) can restrict your access to websites, and traffic, visibility and priority for your own theoretical website for whatever arbitrary reason they want.

Let's imagine the internet is no longer a Title II service, now let's imagine there's a site called "Comcast Eats Crappy Donkey Schlong and are Assholes" that documents all the horrible abuse and service customers receive at the hand of Comcast. What do you think Comcast is going to do in this hypothetical situation? Do you think Comcast will allow the very service it provides to be a pathway of information about how awful it is? You're absolutely insane if you do, Comcast customers would never be able to see this site. This becomes very grim very quickly if you think about how any ISP could apply this method to literally anything on earth.

Here's another hypothetical situation:

Let's say a politician runs for office, and one of his/her stances is supporting net neutrality. If net neutrality is ever abolished, it will be neigh impossible to ever oppose it in the future, as ISP(s) essentially control the public's access to your information. As stated before, ISP(s) are not going to willingly provide their consumers access to information that makes them look bad. ISP(s), in effect, would control by-and-large the public's access to critical information, including that of politics, and would most certainly manipulate it to keep themselves in power. Sites about how awful a post-neutral internet is? Gone. Politicians opposing these ISP(s)? Unknown about. It's borderline Orwellian control of public knowledge.

Finally, what internet providers would really really like to do is split parts of the internet into "packages", almost like cable. Imagine having $20 tacked on for YouTube and other video streaming, $30 for Facebook and other social media services, etc., etc. They could literally charge whatever "premium" they want, for whatever site they want, on top of already literally being able to charge whatever they want for basic internet. The most disgusting part about this whole situation is that ISP(s) are already making a fuck-ton of money hand over fist with Title II regulations in place. They already make soooooo much fucking money, and they're basically saying "We will literally make everyone in America's quality of life worse in over to make more than the obscene amount we're already making".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh and also, if you think this somehow won't affect you, or whatever, as soon as some puritan hits a head position in one of these companies, any and all of your fetish porn is gone. Hell it wouldn't even have to be someone high-ranking in the company in general, it could just be some puritan members of the public threatening them with a boycott, and in order to appease them and keep business, the ISP just blocks everyone's access within the area. A large enough amount of people in a certain area don't like furries? Access to furry sites gone in that area. A large enough amount of people in a certain area don't like Asians? Asian porn gone in that area. A large enough amount of people in a certain area don't like hentai? Hentai sites are inaccessible in that area.

People are going to think that I'm just making a funny joke about porn here, but seriously, as funny as it is, it's what could happen. All it takes is enough crazies who just want to ban whatever's not their opinion or preference, and it's gone!

So in short, no, it wouldn't be anarchy and chaos, we'd all be ruled under the iron fist of authoritarianism, arguably worse. A awful, sanitized, safe-for-work, clean-fun version of the internet that you have to pay even more money for, and that likely is provided for you at the speed of snail mail.

THANKS FOR MAKING ME WORRY ABOUT IT!

But really, thanks. I learned a lot from this and I'm glad to see passion from you and others about the issue. (y)

all of your fetish porn is gone

Noooooo!

LAN_Megalodon · August 9, 2017

THANKS FOR MAKING ME WORRY ABOUT IT!
But really, thanks. I learned a lot from this and I'm glad to see passion from you and others about the issue. (y)

Noooooo!

I mean you'd probably still have regular porn by virtue of ISP(s) losing too much money by banning it. 50% of men ages 18 to whatever regularly watch/look at some kind of porn, the number gets greater if you reduce the maximum age. (say ages 18 - 40 instead of 18 - 88 or whatever). Women make up only 13%, but those who do are 113% more likely to look up "hardcore" porn.

My point being that generic concepts in general aren't as much at risk, it's really the multiple viewpoints and variety of the internet that's at risk. There's nothing really in the way post-neutrality of ISP(s) going after small, notoriously-disliked groups. That's where the problem is.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Guest (see edit history)

james8470 · August 9, 2017

I mean you'd probably still have regular porn by virtue of ISP(s) losing too much money by banning it. 50% of men ages 18 to whatever regularly watch/look at some kind of porn, the number gets greater if you reduce the maximum age. (say ages 18 - 40 instead of 18 - 88 or whatever). Women make up only 13%, but those who do are 113% more likely to look up "hardcore" porn.

My point being that generic concepts in general aren't as much at risk, it's really the multiple viewpoints and variety of the internet that's at risk. There's nothing really in the way post-neutrality of ISP(s) going after small, notoriously-disliked groups. That's where the problem is.

I love how you responded so seriously to my little joke. :ROFLMAO:

james8470 · August 10, 2017

Honestly, I do not think xG is the place to talk about this. First of all, a lot of users within xG aren't American and well net neutrality may or may not create issues outside the United States, it is all hypothetical and I'm sure that this information really doesn't pertain to them. Additionally, no matter how supportive people are about a political issue such as net neutrality, there will always be dissenters which most likely result in shit being said that is really unnecessary. Finally, I want to remind you guys that xG first and foremost is a gaming clan. Now I know we have obviously covered more serious topics in the past, especially during the US Presidential election, but I really would prefer if xG would stay out of anything political. IMO, if you want to talk politics, try reddit or some other place where there are specific places to talk about issues such as this since I think xG should be a place where we can all relax and meme with each other instead of having debates about what's happening in the world.

That's absolutely true and I'm not going to go deeper into this for that reason.

However, I just want to say this; while this debate is both politically tied and somewhat off-topic for a gaming clan, the outcome of it will also affect xG. After all, our games, website, and whatever else are all part of the internet. There is in fact a relation to xG and the whatever happens to net neutrality.

We should probably stop talking about it for now, but a few years into the future, it may be a debate we need to jump into if we want xG's sites and servers to stay the way they are.