If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Popular Mechanics)   I know this is blindingly obvious, but here's why tech giants want to tear down Net Neutrality: It promotes the type of market-driven innovation that could eventually bring them down. If you don't believe me, just Ask Jeeves   ( popularmechanics.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, net neutrality, Network neutrality, net neutrality legislation, Chairman Ajit Pai, net neutrality regulations, FCC Open Internet, new FCC Chairman, internet users  
•       •       •

2544 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Nov 2017 at 12:26 AM (33 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-11-21 08:33:03 PM  
 
2017-11-21 09:02:21 PM  
I mean, what better way to prevent a new ISP or webhost they don't control from threatening them than to simply prevent traffic from reaching it?  They want their fingers in everything, from end to end, so that you have no choice, ever--not in web hosting, not in internet connection, and not in media.  Comcast "diversified" into television and movies for a reason.  AT&T took over DirecTV and wants Time Warner for the same reason:  to screw you out of your choices.  One of the few non-oil "backup" industries we realistically have is internet services like Google, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, and so forth--all of whom began as small startups--and letting these assholes marginalize them into an upside-down market of paying ISPs to access their users amounts to economic suicide.
 
2017-11-22 12:36:53 AM  
America what have you done?
 
2017-11-22 12:37:55 AM  
Uh, shouldn't the headline read "telecommunications giants" rather than "tech giants?"   I mean I know there's a little crossover, but most of the companies you'd put under the "tech" name are pretty supportive of it.
 
2017-11-22 12:40:22 AM  
The Internet was created to be an open environment. Which, let's face it, our Government hates. If you're rich, it's tax breaks a-gogo. If you're poor, not so much.

It's open and it has a single rate that you pay for with an ISP. Why keep that when there's insane profits to be made?

Ajit Pai needs to fall into a woodchipper.
 
2017-11-22 12:42:27 AM  
I don't think tech giants are against net neutrality. What is subby babbling about? It's telecom providers that are against it.
 
2017-11-22 12:43:21 AM  

Johnny_Canuck: America what have you done?


Both parties' leaderships decided to flatter the privileged rather than defy them.
 
2017-11-22 12:55:07 AM  

itcamefromschenectady: I don't think tech giants are against net neutrality. What is subby babbling about? It's telecom providers that are against it.


They may not be publicly, but you don't think Big Unnamed Internet Website would like an ISP to help it kill a competitor in the cradle? Especially if BUIW were to pay a nice fee to said ISP to alleviate the traffic burden it puts on their network?
 
2017-11-22 12:59:05 AM  

Bith Set Me Up: Johnny_Canuck: America what have you done?

Both parties' leaderships decided to flatter the privileged rather than defy them.


Okay
 
2017-11-22 01:10:12 AM  
ISPs argue that net neutrality hamstrings their ability to explore solutions like paid-tiers for certain services

And that is their argument against Net Neutrality?

Bandwidth is limited by the cables used to deliver it, and expanding the infrastructure is time-intensive and expensive.

Ye, and once you have a captive audience, why try.
 
2017-11-22 01:13:54 AM  
Ask Jeeves still exists. It's called ask.com, and the last time I had any dealings with it was when it snuck its damn toolbar in with a Java update. I said don't install that damn toolbar, and it installed that damn toolbar anyway.
 
2017-11-22 01:30:31 AM  

ImpendingCynic: itcamefromschenectady: I don't think tech giants are against net neutrality. What is subby babbling about? It's telecom providers that are against it.

They may not be publicly, but you don't think Big Unnamed Internet Website would like an ISP to help it kill a competitor in the cradle? Especially if BUIW were to pay a nice fee to said ISP to alleviate the traffic burden it puts on their network?


Hell, Netflix is on record saying they are big enough now to not worry about upcharges. (Effectively proving the point about suashig competition.)
 
2017-11-22 01:37:50 AM  
Eventually, anything successful gets co-opted by monopolizers.  Every patchwork quilt neighbourhood gets gentrified.  Every successful movie composed of disparate elements gets generically sequelized.  Any regular public gathering with consistent attendance gets commodified.  Scientific breakthroughs become commercialized (and often weaponized).  A level entrepreneurial playing-field is ostracized.
It's just what people and money do.

img.fark.netView Full Size


/I might have widened the scope slightly, but I've had a couple
 
2017-11-22 01:39:00 AM  
 ISPs argue that net neutrality hamstrings their ability to explore solutions like paid-tiers for certain servicesdowngrade customers' experience by holding certain services they'd otherwise be entitled to, behind artificially imposed paywalls.
 
2017-11-22 01:45:31 AM  

ImpendingCynic: itcamefromschenectady: I don't think tech giants are against net neutrality. What is subby babbling about? It's telecom providers that are against it.

They may not be publicly, but you don't think Big Unnamed Internet Website would like an ISP to help it kill a competitor in the cradle? Especially if BUIW were to pay a nice fee to said ISP to alleviate the traffic burden it puts on their network?


Yeah, except for the whole Net Neutrality rules being implemented by a Democratic administration, you are almost exactly right!
 
2017-11-22 02:31:19 AM  

iaazathot: ImpendingCynic: itcamefromschenectady: I don't think tech giants are against net neutrality. What is subby babbling about? It's telecom providers that are against it.

They may not be publicly, but you don't think Big Unnamed Internet Website would like an ISP to help it kill a competitor in the cradle? Especially if BUIW were to pay a nice fee to said ISP to alleviate the traffic burden it puts on their network?

Yeah, except for the whole Net Neutrality rules being implemented by a Democratic administration, you are almost exactly right!


Sadly, you're wrong, as you basically always are.

Technology, communications, and innovation are bipartisan things. They don't happen because of, for, by, or for the enjoyment of, one party.

They are the result of years...nay, DECADES...of science, of research, of experimentation, of building and testing and people getting dirty trying shiat out to see what works and what doesn't. It's making stuff that drives corporate profits a long time later, and that is the disconnect that always eventually comes calling.
 
2017-11-22 02:50:07 AM  
Rentier capitalism is moving toward its final form. Rather than make money off of goods and services, people are charged to access goods and services. Even hospitals work on this fashion - the doctor charges separately so the hospital is basically charging you for allowing you to see a doctor. People buy houses not to live in but to rent at a premium for cash, which drives up costs till ordinary people can't afford a house so have to pay the inflated rent.

I was talking about this with my mom. I know revolutions turn ugly more often than not, and communism was worse than capitalism... But living through the transformation into an economy where everything is exploited for cash sure makes one hunger for the guillotines. Certainly people shouldn't be rewarded for running rackets.
 
2017-11-22 02:54:03 AM  

xaks: Technology, communications, and innovation are bipartisan things.


Republicans have been pushing to kill net neutrality and Democrats haven't. That isn't debatable.
 
2017-11-22 03:24:46 AM  
Okay I've seen this talking point a few times:
Moreover, ISPs tend to argue, their classification as a "common carrier"-which expands 83-year-old legislation to put them in a regulatory category along with things like natural gas pipelines-prevents them from building additional infrastructure that is sorely needed.

What exactly do the telecoms mean by "prevents them from building additional infrastructure"?  Or are they saying they want to build new "Premium" infrastructure and charge extra for it but they're not allowed to charge extra?  That can't be true because they do that sort of thing all the time with higher speed packages etc.
 
2017-11-22 03:31:03 AM  
Only Europe can save us now.

/we're farkt
 
2017-11-22 05:48:01 AM  

wildcardjack: Only Europe can save us now.


Europe will see the profits being made and follow suit.
 
2017-11-22 05:56:39 AM  
I'm probably preaching to the choir, here, but here's an aspect that shows why killing net neutrality is a bad idea.

Let's say I'm an executive of CuckCast Cable.  Now, most of my users are already paying for and using netflix.  Now, we have our own offering, CuckCastLive, but it's more expensive, has fewer titles, and doesn't perform as well.  I have some options, now that neutrality is dead.  I could improve the service (hah!), or I can either severely throttle all netflix traffic across my network, giving CuckCastLive an unfair advantage, or demand that Netflix pay us additional monies every month to stop us from throttling netflix traffic our users are using.

That's evil, right?  It gets worse.  Let's say I'm a small startup with a superior product.  Now, the free market can't send me the number of new users I'd expect, because CuckCast Cable is basically inspecting traffic and shaping it so all video streaming aside from CuckCastLive is throttled.  And as a small startup, I can't afford the ransom they're demanding to stop the malfeasance.  So now CuckCastLive is picking winners and losers, and competition as a whole suffers greatly because competition is that much harder to happen.

Oh, and now your internet bill is itemized, and CuckCast Cable's different tiers, none of them have 4chan.  Pepe stays dead and there's nothing any of you can do now to keep him alive.  The Fark libruls laugh at you more for basically cutting your own throats and it's been ages and ages since I've bothered to Gilligan a post, so just step right back and hear a tale, a tale of a fateful trip.  That started from this tropic port, aboard this tiny ship.   And then suddenly all along you're forced to realize that the damned liberals were right and the administration we've got now has no intentions of doing anything to make your quality of life better.  The ones who benefit at all are just the wealthiest folks, and all the tax breaks going on will be made up by YOU because they're not actually cutting enough programs to make up for the deficit.

I'd say call in to your representatives to complain, but that's a joke, isn't it?  That's what people did in response to Betsy DeVos, and that did fark all.  So this is probably gonna happen, and once neutrality is gone, it's farking gone.
 
2017-11-22 06:41:55 AM  

Cajnik: wildcardjack: Only Europe can save us now.

Europe will see the profits being made and follow suit.


Nope.
 
2017-11-22 06:51:01 AM  

in flagrante: Eventually, anything successful gets co-opted by monopolizers.  Every patchwork quilt neighbourhood gets gentrified.  Every successful movie composed of disparate elements gets generically sequelized.  Any regular public gathering with consistent attendance gets commodified.  Scientific breakthroughs become commercialized (and often weaponized).  A level entrepreneurial playing-field is ostracized.
It's just what people and money do.

[img.fark.net image 480x360][View Full Size image _x_]

/I might have widened the scope slightly, but I've had a couple


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-22 07:09:26 AM  

Bith Set Me Up: Johnny_Canuck: America what have you done?

Both parties' leaderships decided to flatter the privileged rather than defy them.


As usual, in your desperate quest to convince everyone that both sides are equally bad, you conveniently omit the part where one party made the net neutrality rules in the first place, and the other party is the one dismantling them.

It's assholes like you and your bullshiat false equivalence that landed us in this situation. Go fark yourself.
 
2017-11-22 07:42:00 AM  

xaks: iaazathot: ImpendingCynic: itcamefromschenectady: I don't think tech giants are against net neutrality. What is subby babbling about? It's telecom providers that are against it.

They may not be publicly, but you don't think Big Unnamed Internet Website would like an ISP to help it kill a competitor in the cradle? Especially if BUIW were to pay a nice fee to said ISP to alleviate the traffic burden it puts on their network?

Yeah, except for the whole Net Neutrality rules being implemented by a Democratic administration, you are almost exactly right!

Sadly, you're wrong, as you basically always are.

Technology, communications, and innovation are bipartisan things. They don't happen because of, for, by, or for the enjoyment of, one party.

They are the result of years...nay, DECADES...of science, of research, of experimentation, of building and testing and people getting dirty trying shiat out to see what works and what doesn't. It's making stuff that drives corporate profits a long time later, and that is the disconnect that always eventually comes calling.


The Republicans are so supportive of this, they're trying to slash the NSF's budget.
 
2017-11-22 08:03:52 AM  
You know what? Fine. The ISPs can have their tiered internet services. There can be 32 different AOLs to choose from with however many packages they want to have. In exchange, all current agreements to be the sole provider for an area become invalid, and the base infrastructure of the internet becomes a utility that must be maintained by the ISPs through fees paid by the ISPs and is controlled by the PUC.

I'm sure there's a shiatton of problems with this idea, but FU ISPs and FU anyone who decides that it's a good idea to let for profit companies control individual access to content.
 
2017-11-22 08:24:55 AM  

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Uh, shouldn't the headline read "telecommunications giants" rather than "tech giants?"   I mean I know there's a little crossover, but most of the companies you'd put under the "tech" name are pretty supportive of it.


Not even much crossover. A handful of rentier ISPs want this, and literally nobody else.
 
2017-11-22 08:56:00 AM  
The ISPs claim they'll never throttle or block or create tiers.  Let's take them at their word.

Legally require them to pay each customer $1,000 per month if they ever do it.  This is no risk to them, and creates trust and good will.

If they're not lying, that is.
 
2017-11-22 09:00:14 AM  

jaytkay: xaks: Technology, communications, and innovation are bipartisan things.

Republicans have been pushing to kill net neutrality and Democrats haven't. That isn't debatable.


Republicans have introduced legislation which will make net neutrality enforced by law but Democrats refuse to go along with it unless it also expands the FCC's role in regulating the Internet. Sure, there are some Republicans who won't support net neutrality at all, ever, but the fact that Democrats refuse to do it unless they also can piggy-back additional government oversight onto the Internet means they're not the knights in shining armor people think they are.
 
2017-11-22 09:03:05 AM  
So every net provider is going to  AOL again? Does anyone remember Compuserve? Are we regressing to the age of dialup and BBSes? They're killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. Look at the uproar that happened when Netflix unbundled their DVD and streaming service. This is like that x1000.
 
2017-11-22 09:29:57 AM  

meanmutton: jaytkay: xaks: Technology, communications, and innovation are bipartisan things.

Republicans have been pushing to kill net neutrality and Democrats haven't. That isn't debatable.

Republicans have introduced legislation which will make net neutrality enforced by law but Democrats refuse to go along with it unless it also expands the FCC's role in regulating the Internet. Sure, there are some Republicans who won't support net neutrality at all, ever, but the fact that Democrats refuse to do it unless they also can piggy-back additional government oversight onto the Internet means they're not the knights in shining armor people think they are.


Until you can specify what those additional regulations are, your commentary is without value.
 
2017-11-22 09:33:38 AM  

meanmutton: jaytkay: xaks: Technology, communications, and innovation are bipartisan things.

Republicans have been pushing to kill net neutrality and Democrats haven't. That isn't debatable.

Republicans have introduced legislation which will make net neutrality enforced by law but Democrats refuse to go along with it unless it also expands the FCC's role in regulating the Internet. Sure, there are some Republicans who won't support net neutrality at all, ever, but the fact that Democrats refuse to do it unless they also can piggy-back additional government oversight onto the Internet means they're not the knights in shining armor people think they are.


Citation, please. It's an interesting theory - but it requires more than unsupported bare assertions.
 
2017-11-22 09:56:54 AM  

AdrienVeidt: meanmutton: jaytkay: xaks: Technology, communications, and innovation are bipartisan things.

Republicans have been pushing to kill net neutrality and Democrats haven't. That isn't debatable.

Republicans have introduced legislation which will make net neutrality enforced by law but Democrats refuse to go along with it unless it also expands the FCC's role in regulating the Internet. Sure, there are some Republicans who won't support net neutrality at all, ever, but the fact that Democrats refuse to do it unless they also can piggy-back additional government oversight onto the Internet means they're not the knights in shining armor people think they are.

Until you can specify what those additional regulations are, your commentary is without value.


Expanding Title II to explicitly allow the FCC to regulate broadband Internet as a utility.
 
2017-11-22 09:57:15 AM  

jso2897: meanmutton: jaytkay: xaks: Technology, communications, and innovation are bipartisan things.

Republicans have been pushing to kill net neutrality and Democrats haven't. That isn't debatable.

Republicans have introduced legislation which will make net neutrality enforced by law but Democrats refuse to go along with it unless it also expands the FCC's role in regulating the Internet. Sure, there are some Republicans who won't support net neutrality at all, ever, but the fact that Democrats refuse to do it unless they also can piggy-back additional government oversight onto the Internet means they're not the knights in shining armor people think they are.

Citation, please. It's an interesting theory - but it requires more than unsupported bare assertions.


http://thehill.com/policy/technology/​3​41605-senate-republican-we-need-bipart​isan-net-neutrality-legislation
 
2017-11-22 09:58:25 AM  

meanmutton: jso2897: meanmutton: jaytkay: xaks: Technology, communications, and innovation are bipartisan things.

Republicans have been pushing to kill net neutrality and Democrats haven't. That isn't debatable.

Republicans have introduced legislation which will make net neutrality enforced by law but Democrats refuse to go along with it unless it also expands the FCC's role in regulating the Internet. Sure, there are some Republicans who won't support net neutrality at all, ever, but the fact that Democrats refuse to do it unless they also can piggy-back additional government oversight onto the Internet means they're not the knights in shining armor people think they are.

Citation, please. It's an interesting theory - but it requires more than unsupported bare assertions.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/3​41605-senate-republican-we-need-bipart​isan-net-neutrality-legislation


Here's the key passage:

Democrats say that they either want legislation to include the Title II provision or something that would have the same effect. Republicans say that this onerous and that broadband companies should be regulated more like other companies, instead of phone service providers or railroad firms, and be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission instead.
 
2017-11-22 09:58:27 AM  
Sure I'll be charged $10 a month to look at Facebook, but I'll get Myspace and Google Plus for free!
 
2017-11-22 10:00:29 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Ask Jeeves still exists. It's called ask.com, and the last time I had any dealings with it was when it snuck its damn toolbar in with a Java update. I said don't install that damn toolbar, and it installed that damn toolbar anyway.


Did you ask it why?
 
2017-11-22 10:08:28 AM  
RealityChuck

The ISPs claim they'll never throttle or block or create tiers. Let's take them at their word.

Legally require them to pay each customer $1,000 per month if they ever do it. This is no risk to them, and creates trust and good will.

If they're not lying, that is.


Prove that they are doing it, I am sure they will be transparent.
 
2017-11-22 10:18:27 AM  

meanmutton: meanmutton: jso2897: meanmutton: jaytkay: xaks: Technology, communications, and innovation are bipartisan things.

Republicans have been pushing to kill net neutrality and Democrats haven't. That isn't debatable.

Republicans have introduced legislation which will make net neutrality enforced by law but Democrats refuse to go along with it unless it also expands the FCC's role in regulating the Internet. Sure, there are some Republicans who won't support net neutrality at all, ever, but the fact that Democrats refuse to do it unless they also can piggy-back additional government oversight onto the Internet means they're not the knights in shining armor people think they are.

Citation, please. It's an interesting theory - but it requires more than unsupported bare assertions.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/3​41605-senate-republican-we-need-bipart​isan-net-neutrality-legislation

Here's the key passage:

Democrats say that they either want legislation to include the Title II provision or something that would have the same effect. Republicans say that this onerous and that broadband companies should be regulated more like other companies, instead of phone service providers or railroad firms, and be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission instead.


Doesn't sound like they've actually introduced any legislation, just some idea about a way forward. And the proposal as stated there sounds exactly what the FCC under Ajit Pai are planning, which is considered to be undermining net neutrality, not supporting it.
 
2017-11-22 10:28:50 AM  
We can do all we can, but at the end of the day I think they are going to get what they want.  That's when I will either get the bare minimum package or "cut that cord" as well.  Books will do.  So glad I am not dependent on social media.  Just news/threads/sh*tposting

/I'll give ya a cox challenge alright.
 
2017-11-22 10:42:18 AM  

meanmutton: AdrienVeidt: meanmutton: jaytkay: xaks: Technology, communications, and innovation are bipartisan things.

Republicans have been pushing to kill net neutrality and Democrats haven't. That isn't debatable.

Republicans have introduced legislation which will make net neutrality enforced by law but Democrats refuse to go along with it unless it also expands the FCC's role in regulating the Internet. Sure, there are some Republicans who won't support net neutrality at all, ever, but the fact that Democrats refuse to do it unless they also can piggy-back additional government oversight onto the Internet means they're not the knights in shining armor people think they are.

Until you can specify what those additional regulations are, your commentary is without value.

Expanding Title II to explicitly allow the FCC to regulate broadband Internet as a utility.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-22 10:51:22 AM  

meanmutton: meanmutton: jso2897: meanmutton: jaytkay: xaks: Technology, communications, and innovation are bipartisan things.

Republicans have been pushing to kill net neutrality and Democrats haven't. That isn't debatable.

Republicans have introduced legislation which will make net neutrality enforced by law but Democrats refuse to go along with it unless it also expands the FCC's role in regulating the Internet. Sure, there are some Republicans who won't support net neutrality at all, ever, but the fact that Democrats refuse to do it unless they also can piggy-back additional government oversight onto the Internet means they're not the knights in shining armor people think they are.

Citation, please. It's an interesting theory - but it requires more than unsupported bare assertions.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/3​41605-senate-republican-we-need-bipart​isan-net-neutrality-legislation

Here's the key passage:

Democrats say that they either want legislation to include the Title II provision or something that would have the same effect. Republicans say that this onerous and that broadband companies should be regulated more like other companies, instead of phone service providers or railroad firms, and be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission instead.


Irrelevant.

Rule of thumb: if an operation's infrastructure requires ownership of asphault, cabling or pipes in a shared public space, then it should be modeled and regulated as a public utility.  Period.
 
2017-11-22 11:14:13 AM  

Fast Moon: meanmutton: AdrienVeidt: meanmutton: jaytkay: xaks: Technology, communications, and innovation are bipartisan things.

Republicans have been pushing to kill net neutrality and Democrats haven't. That isn't debatable.

Republicans have introduced legislation which will make net neutrality enforced by law but Democrats refuse to go along with it unless it also expands the FCC's role in regulating the Internet. Sure, there are some Republicans who won't support net neutrality at all, ever, but the fact that Democrats refuse to do it unless they also can piggy-back additional government oversight onto the Internet means they're not the knights in shining armor people think they are.

Until you can specify what those additional regulations are, your commentary is without value.

Expanding Title II to explicitly allow the FCC to regulate broadband Internet as a utility.

[img.fark.net image 172x234][View Full Size image _x_]


If it is an impediment to enacting net neutrality protections - yes.
 
2017-11-22 11:25:41 AM  
Net Neutrality is almost all about Netflix specifically.  No ISP is going to block random websites, but Netflix is another matter.  Basically, they use up a huge chunk of an ISP's bandwidth, and provide nothing in return (IE, the traffic is all one way).  Of course, most ISPs also offer video programming of some sort, and therefore are competing with Netflix (indirectly or directly).  Net result: ISPs want money, either from Netflix itself or from consumers using Netflix.
 
2017-11-22 11:33:48 AM  

meanmutton: Fast Moon: meanmutton: AdrienVeidt: meanmutton: jaytkay: xaks: Technology, communications, and innovation are bipartisan things.

Republicans have been pushing to kill net neutrality and Democrats haven't. That isn't debatable.

Republicans have introduced legislation which will make net neutrality enforced by law but Democrats refuse to go along with it unless it also expands the FCC's role in regulating the Internet. Sure, there are some Republicans who won't support net neutrality at all, ever, but the fact that Democrats refuse to do it unless they also can piggy-back additional government oversight onto the Internet means they're not the knights in shining armor people think they are.

Until you can specify what those additional regulations are, your commentary is without value.

Expanding Title II to explicitly allow the FCC to regulate broadband Internet as a utility.

[img.fark.net image 172x234][View Full Size image _x_]

If it is an impediment to enacting net neutrality protections - yes.


It is a net neutrality protection.
 
2017-11-22 11:49:44 AM  

Geotpf: Net Neutrality is almost all about Netflix specifically.  No ISP is going to block random websites, but Netflix is another matter.  Basically, they use up a huge chunk of an ISP's bandwidth, and provide nothing in return (IE, the traffic is all one way).  Of course, most ISPs also offer video programming of some sort, and therefore are competing with Netflix (indirectly or directly).  Net result: ISPs want money, either from Netflix itself or from consumers using Netflix.


Netflix is the canary in the internet coal mine.
 
2017-11-22 11:56:57 AM  

itcamefromschenectady: I don't think tech giants are against net neutrality. What is subby babbling about? It's telecom providers that are against it.


Well there's a difference between saying you're for net neutrality and doing something about it. With all the resources that companies like Facebook and Google have they could have done more if they wanted. Dismantling net neutrality directly benefits them. They can afford to negotiate with ISP's. Do you think Facebook would pass up the chance to create a captive user base and effectively lock out competition? Do you think these corporations will do the right thing and not exploit deregulation at our expense?
 
2017-11-22 12:13:19 PM  

Geotpf: Net Neutrality is almost all about Netflix specifically.  No ISP is going to block random websites, but Netflix is another matter.  Basically, they use up a huge chunk of an ISP's bandwidth, and provide nothing in return (IE, the traffic is all one way).  Of course, most ISPs also offer video programming of some sort, and therefore are competing with Netflix (indirectly or directly).  Net result: ISPs want money, either from Netflix itself or from consumers using Netflix.


Yeah, poor ISPs. If only someone, somewhere were footing the bill.. you know, paying the ISPs to deliver content to them.
The idea that there needs to be some kind of bandwidth parity for an ISP is stupid. Internet backbones that allow traffic to pass over them require parity, because no one is paying them to traverse their networks. You pay your ISP to deliver content to you.
 
2017-11-22 12:18:17 PM  

spooky.action: itcamefromschenectady: I don't think tech giants are against net neutrality. What is subby babbling about? It's telecom providers that are against it.

Well there's a difference between saying you're for net neutrality and doing something about it. With all the resources that companies like Facebook and Google have they could have done more if they wanted. Dismantling net neutrality directly benefits them. They can afford to negotiate with ISP's. Do you think Facebook would pass up the chance to create a captive user base and effectively lock out competition? Do you think these corporations will do the right thing and not exploit deregulation at our expense?


Why would Facebook want to pay for something when a proper net neutrality rule would give it to them for free?

I'm not sure what Google or Facebook could have done to get net neutrality, other than supporting Hillary Clinton for President.  Most employees who had a political opinion from both did so, but of course they were also sloppy/greedy enough to allow Russians to buy fake ads and shiat, and both wanted to at least the appearance of neutrality.
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report