Well now they sell it as "removing regulations" so they can seem like the good guys. It's ridiculous to assume the telecoms won't take even more advantage of consumers if this is repealed, despite their claims to the contrary. Saw a good twitter joke the other day:Originally Posted by Asmodian
Describing advocates as desperate when you are simply completely ignoring them to do the bidding of your corporate masters is a normal technique to move the argument away from ideas.
I am not sure anyone honestly believes fast lanes for some content and slow lanes for other is consumer friendly but lobbyists can say anything with a straight face.
Sad thing, I already have a ISP that tiers streaming based on resolution of the content. The base line is 480P, next tier is 780P, and then 1080P (which cost like 150 bucks for it). So, even if NN stays or goes, I am screwed already.Originally Posted by Usario
I'm interested to see if any ISP actually tries to implement "fast lanes" for certain content providers, or different tiers of what content providers are accessible... and, if they do, as long as it can be struck down as anticompetitive and anticonsumer in a court of law, then let this be.
But not everyone. For myself, I am quite familiar with the technology involved in telecom networks, and what these companies are allegedly charging us for.Originally Posted by prjindigo
So people who carry on about Net Neutrality tend to be ignorant of the actual current companies and events of the internet itself.
And........I stopped reading.Originally Posted by prjindigo
I've been careful to look at all the primary net neutrality "schilling" going on on reddit and I'd say about 90% is from baby accounts. Predominantly I don't think the actual wage earners of the United States actually care since Net Neutrality has done literally nothing to control the cost of internet or improve speeds (a third party selling access over lines that Comcast refuses to upgrade is still at the same speed).
In the end the only thing Net Neutrality has done is roughly the same thing as what Bill Gates said about programs being "User Friendly"...
So, Netflix forking over cash to Comcast before the title change never happened? All that stuff in the news for weeks around that time was never a thing? That was not even that long ago. How do people forget so easily?Originally Posted by EniGma1987
I feel like this has really been a big setup from the very beginning and everyone of the "common users" has fallen into it.
Fast lanes and all that were never once an issue at all and no one was contemplating them or making plasn to implement. Then all of a sudden it starts going around like wildfire through forums and on the internet in general about how this issue exists and we must create legislation to stop it. All the while it is just really introducing the thought of this concept into the culture so that when the legislation gets repealed or fails in the first place corporations already have the idea out there and can move into it right away. So ya, it just feels like it was a whole setup to get everyone used to the idea for a year before they actually make a push to having it.
So I pay for my internet connection. I pay for and watch Netflix. Netflix has to pay my ISP for the bandwidth I already payed my ISP for? Why do i pay my ISP if not for the bandwidth to watch Netflix with?Originally Posted by bucdan
EDIT: From the many sources I read from both sides, I have concluded that Content providers are pegging the ISPs' network, but they don't want to pay more for what they use in terms of network pipelines and data pushing bandwidth allowed in their agreement. By throwing the consumer in as a group that will "suffer" from this, the content providers get imaged as the "good guys".