34 replies to this topic

[Wesxander]

FCC is set to finalize net neutrality rules and is seeking feedback. They are planning on letting cable internet companies charge other companies for "unrestricted" bandwidth if these companies do not pay up their service will be crippled on purpose with that provider. That means gamming and streaming companies are going have to pay cable companies to keep their product viable. Feedback is being accepted by the FCC on this anything but neutral plan. The email address is openinternet@fcc.gov


Comcast in addition recently announced it is going start putting data caps on it's residential users. That means if you game, watch movies, TV, do email and other social things on the internet you will be surcharged just like with going over on your minutes or data usage on cell phones.

You might laugh and think this funny you won't be laughing in few years if these proposed changes take effect with every company soon after that.

Edited by Wesxander, 16 May 2014 - 05:31 PM.

[Pht]

Wesxander, on 16 May 2014 - 05:30 PM, said:

FCC is set to finalize net neutrality rules and is seeking feedback. They are planning on letting cable internet companies charge other companies for "unrestricted" bandwidth if these companies do not pay up their service will be crippled on purpose with that provider. That means gamming and streaming companies are going have to pay cable companies to keep their product viable. Feedback is being accepted by the FCC on this anything but neutral plan. The email address is openinternet@fcc.gov


Comcast in addition recently announced it is going start putting data caps on it's residential users. That means if you game, watch movies, TV, do email and other social things on the internet you will be surcharged just like with going over on your minutes or data usage on cell phones.

You might laugh and think this funny you won't be laughing in few years if these proposed changes take effect with every company soon after that.

This is what happens when the government tries to regulate anything; it makes a system that people will meta-game to the maximum extent, and people get crushed or fall through the cracks in the process.

Government ought to only be in the business of giving out deserved punishment to those who have done certain kinds of wrongs, who are in the act of trying to carry said out, or who are imminently going to carry such out ... and not in the business of anything else.

I would say, kiss all of the smaller budgeted online games and such that would benefit from larger bandwidth goodbye, because the cost of paying for a "fast lane" will simply be too much - and the bigger businesses that can afford it will have to raise prices to cover the extra (and unnecessary) costs.

Net neutrality is nothing more than the individuals in government trying to get control over the 'net, and it will wind up like all the other bureacratic screwups - those with big money will pay to have the rules changed so they can meta-game the setup brutally and exclude the competiton from being able to use the same advantages.

Edited by Pht, 17 May 2014 - 10:07 AM.

[DeathlyEyes]

Not regulating the industry is actually the opposite of what we want. If the government regulates the industry they can prevent companies treating traffic differently depending on its source. What internet companies want to do is slow down services like Netflix because they use a lot of bandwidth and compete with their offering of cable TV. Making internet companies classified as a common carrier will do a lot to protect us as it will actually put some oversight. Remember a company doesn't care about its clients, it only cares about its bottomline. Since most of these ISP's are oligopolies they have no competition to be worried about and can do whatever they want. What everyone should do is demand that the FCC classify ISPs as common carriers. Furthermore video games use hardly any bandwidth actually. Far less than streaming youtube or even browsing websites with lots of images.

[Barkem Squirrel]

this is one area where a few phases come to mind.


What out for what you wish for.

I am from the government and I am here to help you.


Since becoming an elected official I am seeing a merging of the two.


Just look at what your comments would be, since they can and are taken from different perspectives from time to time in the rule making process.

Edited by Barkem Squirrel, 17 May 2014 - 12:11 PM.

[Pht]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 17 May 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

If the government regulates the industry they can prevent companies treating traffic differently depending on its source.

No, it can't.

Regulation - putting in place rules to try and stop something beforehand; saying that if you don't break the rules, there will be no consenquence... will not stop bad behavior.

I.e.:

Johnny, don't go in the cookie jar.

Johhny gets sister to go the cookies.

Johnny, don't get your sister to get the cookies.

Johnny gets neighbor to get the cookies.

Johnny, don't get anyone to get you cookies and don't go in the jar for cookies either.

Johnny uses a fork to lift the lid off the jar, tips the jar over and eats the cookies that fall out...

and so on, and on, to infnity. This is exactly what regulation is and is how individuals react to it.

If you put in place regulations, people will always meta-game them, because inherent in the regulations game, is that you don't get punished if you don't break the regulations.

Quote

Remember a company doesn't care about its clients, it only cares about its bottomline.

This is gross stereotyping and wrong discrimination, for the simple fact that no company cares about anything; it can't, it's not a person.

Not all people that run companies care only about their bottom line; and to toss them in with the scumbags of the lot is heavy-handed.

Quote

Since most of these ISP's are oligopolies they have no competition to be worried about and can do whatever they want.

Oligopoloies (if you really mean what the word means) ... HAVE ... competition.

Quote

What everyone should do is demand that the FCC classify ISPs as common carriers.

The FCC is an unelected, unaccoutable bureacracy, and it is meta-gamed, (for example, see this: http://www.americanc...d-destroys-jobs) as any such organization can be and proably is.

Quote

Furthermore video games use hardly any bandwidth actually. Far less than streaming youtube or even browsing websites with lots of images.

Total operating costs for ISP's will go up and profit margins will shrink; those costs will be passed on to any consumers of their networks in the form of opportunity losses (higher fees, etc).


---

Government shouldn't regulate. It should punish specific kinds of evildoers by giving them consequences that match their actions, and, where necessary, intent.

[DeathlyEyes]

Yes it will. You can easily self audit and report the company for doing it. Netflix and other services that could be affected would be constantly monitoring this and if a company started treating their traffic improperly they will take them to court. Do you honestly think google, amazon or netflix would allow someone to **** them around in an illegal way without taking legal action? Other countries with similar laws have no issues at all. Their average internet speeds are way higher while their average costs are relatively the same. No there isn't any honest competition in an oligopoly. I have 2 choices for internet. Both companies just copy eachothers offerings for the most part and do whatever they can to gouge customers and maximize profit. Thinking the free market will sort itself out is wishful thinking.

Edited by SLDF DeathlyEyes, 18 May 2014 - 07:28 PM.

[Pht]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 18 May 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

Yes it will. You can easily self audit and report the company for doing it.

... at which point you have to wait on the regulating body to decide on your report; and if they do decide to change the regulations, you have to wait on them to implement a new reglation and than to actually enforce it. All the while you have to take into account that the company so-reported, if it has the means, is lobbying against all of your efforts, and if you are a whistleblower, you're likely fired and/or blackballed by your company.

... After all of this, if you're successful ... all you've done is change the regulations "game" and it will still wind up being meta-gamed.

Inherent in the regulations idea is that if you don't break the regulations, you don't get punished. Once it gets to the point that the regulators start arbitrarily punishing people who they think deserve it who haven't broken the regulations, all respect for the regulations starts going out the window and things just get messy. (think prohibition)

Quote

Netflix and other services that could be affected would be constantly monitoring this and if a company started treating their traffic improperly they will take them to court. Do you honestly think google, amazon or netflix would allow someone to **** them around in an illegal way without taking legal action?

Do you also think they won't game the system to push out the possiblity of competetors? As companies with lobbyists routinely do these days?

Quote

Other countries with similar laws have no issues at all.

I don't for a moment believe this.

Quote

No there isn't any honest competition in an oligopoly.

Anywhere? It's impossible? ... If you should start a company and succeed to the level of oligopoly, would you have no choice but to be dishonest in order to not close?

The point is that big business is not wrong simply because it's big business. What's wrong is bad behavior by any business.

Quote

I have 2 choices for internet. Both companies just copy eachothers offerings for the most part and do whatever they can to gouge customers and maximize profit.

Lucky you. I have one option, because of a government enforced monopoly; cronyism at it's worst.

Quote

Thinking the free market will sort itself out is wishful thinking.

... an interesting reaction, considering I didn't even mention a free market, capitalism, anything of the sort.

If you want to go there, I'll be happy to.

[Heffay]

The only thing that the Invisible Hand will do is give you the finger.

Regulation is essential. It's all about the balance of power. When someone accrues too much of it, you get problems. This is universal.

Edited by Heffay, 19 May 2014 - 10:11 AM.

[DeathlyEyes]

Pht, on 19 May 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

... at which point you have to wait on the regulating body to decide on your report; and if they do decide to change the regulations, you have to wait on them to implement a new reglation and than to actually enforce it. All the while you have to take into account that the company so-reported, if it has the means, is lobbying against all of your efforts, and if you are a whistleblower, you're likely fired and/or blackballed by your company.

I fail to see how regulation could make the problem worse. It's not some made up issue, its something that companies are wanting to do and will do. Instead of it being rampant and horrible regulation will at least provide some oversight to prevent it. Yes, some people will not be able to file enough legal requests to get equal service but at least having a law on the books will make it possible for some legal action to be taken. The only thing lobbyists can affect are getting the laws on the books. A lobbyist can't show up to court and influence the outcome of a court case. A company could "legal up." I suspect we would see more class action lawsuits of ISPs by the customers should they start to violate the law.

I don't see how anyone but someone who is either A: unreasonably afraid of the government or B: Has holdings of an ISP company brought upon them by group A, could find this to be a bad thing. http://kotaku.com/55...-net-neutrality In fact some of the neutrality rules were sorta on the books. The FCC has upheld some parts of neutrality in the past only to have them overturned in a federal appeals court because internet isn't listed as a common carrier. If it had it would not have been possible to be overturned. This original enforcement was brought by citizens involving the use of torrents. Torrents aren't ran by some huge corporation so it's clear that people would have power over the ISPs and it would be somewhat fair not some loony meta-game as you suggest.

Japan has similar laws to the proposed laws (making ISPs a common carrier) and has an average internet connection speed of 50 mbps. In fact Japan has had Fiber to the home services available for 50 dollars per month at 100 mbps since 2005. You really should do some research. The united states is way behind because internet companies can continue milking underserved community nodes and selling high bandwidth because of this lack of regulation. As those nodes get more overused the companies can continue writing restrictions in circumventing the need to do anything to provide better service.

Let me clarify something, I want the government to pass laws making ISPs considered common carriers and to pass laws making it illegal to treat any web traffic differently than any other web traffic.

Edited by SLDF DeathlyEyes, 19 May 2014 - 09:31 PM.

[Krinkov]

Pht, on 18 May 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

The FCC is an unelected, unaccoutable bureacracy, and it is meta-gamed, (for example, see this: http://www.americanc...d-destroys-jobs) as any such organization can be and proably is.

The fact that you are using a Republican PAC/think tank as a source seriously hurts your credibility on the subject.

[Pht]

Krinkov, on 19 May 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

The fact that you are using a Republican PAC/think tank as a source seriously hurts your credibility on the subject.

The fact that you consider that a repub source seriously hurts credibility means that you're a slave to your anti-conservative perspective and hurts your credibility.

Deconstructionism. Isn't it fun? It works equally in all directions. Even against it's own foundation.

Irony: http://www.huffingto...ony-capitalism/

---

Heffay, on 19 May 2014 - 10:10 AM, said:

Regulation is essential. It's all about the balance of power. When someone accrues too much of it, you get problems. This is universal.

Regulation is not essential. It only crops up where legislators have given up on using ethics as the basis for laws and have resorted to brute force as their justification.

It (regulation) also doesn't take power away from those who have (relatively) a lot more power. It puts the levers of control into their hands. Witness GE paying virtually no taxes - they instead pay a lot of lawyers and lobbyists, to get them favorable regs and to find loopholes in all the rest of them that they can't change.

---

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 19 May 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

I fail to see how regulation could make the problem worse.

How about the examples I've already given? Or do you think lobbying in washington is not a problem ... that it has no effect? Or that the regulatory labyrinth isn't easiest to get through for those who can afford the help to navigate it?

Quote

It's not some made up issue, its something that companies are wanting to do and will do.

I wasn't operating on the presumption that there are no problems.

Quote

... but at least having a law on the books will make it possible for some legal action to be taken.

Regulations are bad - and they are not the only way to address these issues. As I've already said above, regulation happens when legistlators give up on ethics to justify the law codes they are passing, and instead resort to simple brute force as justification.

Quote

The only thing lobbyists can affect are getting the laws on the books.

Not true. Not true at all.

Do you realize that most regulations aren't a part of the law code? Regulations are usually the implementation of whatever passes the legistlative process. They are what implements the law; and they are put into place by unelected government officials in the bureacracies. Officials who are influenced by lobbyists (legally or illegally).

For example ... (love it, hate it, or don't care, I'm just using it as an example most would know about) ACA/obamacare was about 2,700/3,000 ish pages, when it left the legistlative process. It has now spawned around 33,000 pages of implementary regulation, and it's the regulation that's most will run afoul of.

Quote

I don't see how anyone but someone who is either A: unreasonably afraid of the government or B: Has holdings of an ISP company brought upon them by group A, could find this to be a bad thing. http://kotaku.com/55...-net-neutrality

So, because you can't fathom any other option ... does that make it possible that no other option exists? Much less a better one?

Quote

Japan has similar laws to the proposed laws (making ISPs a common carrier) and has an average internet connection speed of 50 mbps. In fact Japan has had Fiber to the home services available for 50 dollars per month at 100 mbps since 2005.

So, are you trying to say that because japan has similar laws, AND it has faster internet, therefore it has faster internet because of said laws?

How are these laws responsible for the faster internet?

As you've stated it here, you're only at the level of "both are here, so one MUST be because of the other."

Quote

Let me clarify something, I want the government to pass laws making ISPs considered common carriers and to pass laws making it illegal to treat any web traffic differently than any other web traffic.

... than what about the so-called fast lanes? Traffic inside of them will be treated differently than traffic outside of them.

Beyond this; if you've accurately stated what you want ... what's intrinsically wrong with treating some traffic different than others? Is it morally evil to do so? If not, why the regs?

Edited by Pht, 20 May 2014 - 10:38 AM.

[Adridos]

Pht, on 20 May 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

So, are you trying to say that because japan has similar laws, AND it has faster internet, therefore it has faster internet because of said laws?

How are these laws responsible for the faster internet?

South Korea, Japan and UK are world leaders when it comes to internet.
All three of those countries enforce Net Neutrality either directly (prevent companies from said abusive behaviour), or indirectly (work according to principles the Net Neturality is basically based off of).

However, as a non-US citizen, I have really no say in this matter... it's just "food for thought."

[Pht]

Adridos, on 20 May 2014 - 11:26 AM, said:

South Korea, Japan and UK are world leaders when it comes to internet.
All three of those countries enforce Net Neutrality either directly (prevent companies from said abusive behaviour), or indirectly (work according to principles the Net Neturality is basically based off of).

However, as a non-US citizen, I have really no say in this matter... it's just "food for thought."

I was simply pointing out that this particular point hasn't gotten above the "This happpened after this, so it must be because of this" level.

That's why I asked for the "because" that was something other than "they have NN laws."

[Heffay]

Pollution in Beijing is a great example of what happens to an unregulated business economy.

[ssm]

Well, the entire thing, after setting aside all the political smoke & mirrors, is a power play between the big gamers - on the one side, you have Google, Facebook & other current owners of the Internet, on the other - ISP companies that got sidelined long time ago and try to get their piece of cake.

Who is right here? Hard to say, but I always have one thing in mind - for my ISP, I'm a customer. For Google, Facebook etc. - I'm commodity.

[DeathlyEyes]

Pht, on 19 May 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

... at which point you have to wait on the regulating body to decide on your report; and if they do decide to change the regulations, you have to wait on them to implement a new reglation and than to actually enforce it. All the while you have to take into account that the company so-reported, if it has the means, is lobbying against all of your efforts, and if you are a whistleblower, you're likely fired and/or blackballed by your company.

... After all of this, if you're successful ... all you've done is change the regulations "game" and it will still wind up being meta-gamed.

Inherent in the regulations idea is that if you don't break the regulations, you don't get punished. Once it gets to the point that the regulators start arbitrarily punishing people who they think deserve it who haven't broken the regulations, all respect for the regulations starts going out the window and things just get messy. (think prohibition)



Do you also think they won't game the system to push out the possiblity of competetors? As companies with lobbyists routinely do these days?



I don't for a moment believe this.



Anywhere? It's impossible? ... If you should start a company and succeed to the level of oligopoly, would you have no choice but to be dishonest in order to not close?

The point is that big business is not wrong simply because it's big business. What's wrong is bad behavior by any business.



Lucky you. I have one option, because of a government enforced monopoly; cronyism at it's worst.



... an interesting reaction, considering I didn't even mention a free market, capitalism, anything of the sort.

If you want to go there, I'll be happy to.

Alright lets get rid of ELO then. Lets get rid of any tonnage matchmaking as well. The free market will sort itself out. Rules just lead to metagaming. The meta game of mechwarrior should disappear under these policies.

[DeathlyEyes]

ssm, on 20 May 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

Well, the entire thing, after setting aside all the political smoke & mirrors, is a power play between the big gamers - on the one side, you have Google, Facebook & other current owners of the Internet, on the other - ISP companies that got sidelined long time ago and try to get their piece of cake.

Who is right here? Hard to say, but I always have one thing in mind - for my ISP, I'm a customer. For Google, Facebook etc. - I'm commodity.

ISPs aren't sidelined, they aren't some small player who has been getting trampled by google and netflix. The people who will be hurt most by their proposed policies are the consumer and companies like Netflix. ATT's yearly revenue is greater than the total value of all Google's assets. In fact ATT's net worth is nearly triple that of google.

The real issue is that cable companies are trying to stomp out streaming services because they pose competition to them. I don't pay for cable TV. I pay for a really fast internet connection and a streaming service. It's what I want but that streaming service now took business away from my cable company, business it feels it should be obligated to get. Instead of being innovative and offering me an incentive to switch from my streaming service they are going to strong arm me by making it more expensive for me to use a streaming service than their cable service.

As to Facebook and Google, you are a customer the same to them as you are to your ISP. You generate them revenue in much the same way. You open ads and you view content and you add to their view count. You make them money, just not as much as you spend to your ISP.

Edited by SLDF DeathlyEyes, 21 May 2014 - 04:45 AM.

[Ustarish]

[ssm]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 21 May 2014 - 04:38 AM, said:

(...)
As to Facebook and Google, you are a customer the same to them as you are to your ISP. You generate them revenue in much the same way. You open ads and you view content and you add to their view count. You make them money, just not as much as you spend to your ISP.

Companies that buy my personal data from Google to target ads at me are Google's and Facebook's clients, and If I'm not paying them for anything, I am not a customer.

Edited by ssm, 21 May 2014 - 05:38 AM.

[Grimmrog]

Unfortunately, it IS necessary. 90% of private nettraffic is caused by only a few people. But yet they all pay the same price.
But is it fair that then literally the non heavy user pay for the heavy users laods? Not really. And Networks already have troubles with too much traffic. Bandwith is a ressource and its limited. Imagine now everyone else would claim as much traffic as those heavy load users. The networks wouldn't work anymore at all. And bandwith is not a "free" ressource at all. Its a network build by companies, a network taht needs to be supplied with power, maintained and renewed. Thats not like air around you for free or a single pay to setup investment.

And there is a lot of more trouble. Yes charging companies like youtube IS a good idea. Because yet, these companies occupy a lot of these ressources without having to pay for at all.
Look at todays Internet pages. some spam you with advertising videos, these videos are what they make money with, but yet these videos do need amassive amount of bandwith. Why should such a site not be penalised over another side just making a small ad in a few latters?
Why does youtube, when you replay a video, RELAOD THE ENTIRE VIDEO? Thats an massively waste of bandwith as a ressource.

And for those who want a easier example:

Imagine a restaurant is making a "All you can eat" As long as the income is better than the costs, this will last. But our consumers with time went fat, and their stomaches expanded. Now they can eat 4x as much as the beginning of the "all you can eat" campaign. You would then simply quit the compain, or raise prizes. But raising prizes is hardly possible by all the ISP providers competitors you have around. And most people do not even exceed the the regular prized all you can eat. because it turned out, that not everyone went fat. Only one guy turned fat eating 100x more while the other 10 kept eating the regular potion. And so you would redefine prices to stop that one guy ruining the "all you can eat" experience for many.

You guys should watch the Simpsons Episode "The frying dutchman"

ISP's can not deliver the "all you can laod" experience, because this is not possible. Not even IF they would have enough money to upgrade the Netweork, they would not be able to do this. Because this needs time and workers of required skills. And these are lacking also.


So I may ask you: Does net neutrality ever meant that one is allowed to claim as much "Internet" ressource as his greedyness wants? Not really, It went over the top and the majority does suffer from it. Look what happens on weeknds, when your neighbors whole family is steraming videos all day, even if they may just sit at launch having their PC's runnind in another room.You suffer too from it, since you use the same connecton and maybe its your PPK fire command getting lost in the Network due to too much traffic. Gaming doesn't even requires much traffic at all.

@SLDF DeathlyEyes

DO you pay for BOTH? connection AND streaming?
I guess you only pay for the connection, but not for thr stream.
But thats what the topic is about, when youtube would have to pay for their heavy load, they would then have to charge its customers. And then Customers would have to pay for that stream. But atm nearly anyone is just paying for the connection, and this is basially juts buying the a truck. But the size of the truck does NOT include the load of sand you want to transport. You would have to pay for the Sand itself too.

A way better solution would be an "autocharging feature" where basically No one would have to pay for the Connection (Truck) and all you do is to pay for the load. So the Sand comes free of package (Truck) since the Trucks cost are in the background paid by the company sending you the sand. So when Youtube basically would pay the ISP with the money of the people, instead of everyone paying ISP and Youtube.

Edited by Grimmrog, 21 May 2014 - 06:14 AM.