• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

Net Neutrality: Help me understand plz.

  • Thread starter Deleted User
  • Start date
  • Views 3,071
  • Replies 40
  • Likes 1

dimmidice

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
2,359
Trophies
2
XP
3,004
Country
Belgium
Look at how your ISP treats you (assuming you have one of the bad ones which is a good chance) Now ask yourself "Do i want them to have less restrictions or more restrictions about what they can do?" They already nickel and dime customers whenever they can, their customer support is atrocious, they already throttle connections sometimes even when they're not supposed too. Any honest answer should be "more regulations is what i want" Not less.

Companies are not your friends. This whole concept of "if we let companies do what they want there'll be more jobs and more money and everyone will be better off!" is naive kindergarten bollocks.
 
D

Deleted User

Guest
OP
Look at how your ISP treats you (assuming you have one of the bad ones which is a good chance) Now ask yourself "Do i want them to have less restrictions or more restrictions about what they can do?" They already nickel and dime customers whenever they can, their customer support is atrocious, they already throttle connections sometimes even when they're not supposed too. Any honest answer should be "more regulations is what i want" Not less.

Companies are not your friends. This whole concept of "if we let companies do what they want there'll be more jobs and more money and everyone will be better off!" is naive kindergarten bollocks.

I actually have an ISP that makes it impossible to change the dns lol
 
D

Deleted User

Guest
OP
Look at how your ISP treats you (assuming you have one of the bad ones which is a good chance) Now ask yourself "Do i want them to have less restrictions or more restrictions about what they can do?" They already nickel and dime customers whenever they can, their customer support is atrocious, they already throttle connections sometimes even when they're not supposed too. Any honest answer should be "more regulations is what i want" Not less.

Companies are not your friends. This whole concept of "if we let companies do what they want there'll be more jobs and more money and everyone will be better off!" is naive kindergarten bollocks.

I actually have an ISP that makes it impossible to change the dns lol
 

dimmidice

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
2,359
Trophies
2
XP
3,004
Country
Belgium
Do you not think it's fishy at all that the people trying to "stop" this from happening are the ones doing it in the first place?
The difference is ISPs vs Websites. A website can do whatever it wants on its website. Just like how gbatemp can delete any post it wants. If you don't like that you can easily go to a different site. Your ISP blocking access to websites is something else entirely. Now if an ISP blocked sites in a perfect world you'd say fuck those guys and move to a different ISP. But in the US the ISPs have such monopolies that's just not an option. So if they block sites that means large parts of the US can't access a site. That's simply too much power to put into the ISPs hands.

I actually have an ISP that makes it impossible to change the dns lol
You technically probably could if you hooked up your own router and just used their box as a modem. But yeah i'm in the same boat.
 
Last edited by dimmidice,
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
641
Trophies
0
Age
82
XP
832
Country
United States
The difference is ISPs vs Websites. A website can do whatever it wants on its website. Just like how gbatemp can delete any post it wants. If you don't like that you can easily go to a different site. Your ISP blocking access to websites is something else entirely. Now if an ISP blocked sites in a perfect world you'd say fuck those guys and move to a different ISP. But in the US the ISPs have such monopolies that's just not an option. So if they block sites that means large parts of the US can't access a site. That's simply too much power to put into the ISPs hands.
Not at all. My old ISP, AT&T, had shitty service, so I moved to my current one, Fidelity. They're great and have built up a steady userbase made almost entirely of people yelling "FUCK AT&T" and other various shouts. Furthermore, my point is not one of ISPs vs Websites. My point is that the people who think it's unfair for content on the net to be censored, throttled, or blocked, flat out do so, and then criticize anyone else for doing it. I think it's something that's incredibly dishonest and that not enough people think about it. I understand that these are private companies doing this, but in the same vein, so are ISPs, no matter how necessary the internet may have become in today's society. I would not support legislation to force private companies like Twitter and Facebook to not censor opinions they dislike, just as much as I would not support legislation to broadly and unfairly prevent ISPs from throttling, even in situations where it is necessary.
 

dimmidice

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
2,359
Trophies
2
XP
3,004
Country
Belgium
Not at all. My old ISP, AT&T, had shitty service, so I moved to my current one, Fidelity. They're great and have built up a steady userbase made almost entirely of people yelling "FUCK AT&T" and other various shouts. Furthermore, my point is not one of ISPs vs Websites. My point is that the people who think it's unfair for content on the net to be censored, throttled, or blocked, flat out do so, and then criticize anyone else for doing it. I think it's something that's incredibly dishonest and that not enough people think about it. I understand that these are private companies doing this, but in the same vein, so are ISPs, no matter how necessary the internet may have become in today's society. I would not support legislation to force private companies like Twitter and Facebook to not censor opinions they dislike, just as much as I would not support legislation to broadly and unfairly prevent ISPs from throttling, even in situations where it is necessary.
Large portions of the US only have one available.

>My point is that the people who think it's unfair for content on the net to be censored, throttled, or blocked, flat out do so, and then criticize anyone else for doing it.

My point is that you're comparing apples and pears. It's not comparable.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
641
Trophies
0
Age
82
XP
832
Country
United States
Large portions of the US only have one available.

>My point is that the people who think it's unfair for content on the net to be censored, throttled, or blocked, flat out do so, and then criticize anyone else for doing it.

My point is that you're comparing apples and pears. It's not comparable.
But it is. All these big sites preaching about how oh-so-awful it is to do yet literally do it themselves and are the biggest ones to do it. It's hypocritical. Just like Netflix throttling customers from Verizon and AT&T yet hiding such information until legislation was passed against them.
 

dimmidice

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
2,359
Trophies
2
XP
3,004
Country
Belgium
But it is. All these big sites preaching about how oh-so-awful it is to do yet literally do it themselves and are the biggest ones to do it. It's hypocritical. Just like Netflix throttling customers from Verizon and AT&T yet hiding such information until legislation was passed against them.
Again ISP vs Site. It's the difference between a bar banning a customer and a country banning bars. It's not hypocritical because it's an entirely different thing. Netflix for example throttled everyone (on mobile) equally because of concerns that people would go over their data limits (which is a valid concern tbh cause that's exactly what happened to me when i got netflix, it's easy to forget how much data netflix uses)

Again, there are way more things that could affect this than just your ISP possibly throttling you.
Yes, but ISPs are known for giving you a theoretical max that you'll never hit in actual real life scenarios. People should know not to trust the quoted max speed at all.
 

gameboy

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
2,035
Trophies
1
Age
44
XP
2,166
Country
United States
Again, there are way more things that could affect this than just your ISP possibly throttling you.

its NN, it was way more functional before that bill, i think i would know... unlimited used to get me unlimited 24/7, now it gets me a little better than dial-up at certain times. it might benefit to go the cheapest option
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
641
Trophies
0
Age
82
XP
832
Country
United States
Again ISP vs Site. It's the difference between a bar banning a customer and a country banning bars. It's not hypocritical because it's an entirely different thing. Netflix for example throttled everyone (on mobile) equally because of concerns that people would go over their data limits (which is a valid concern tbh cause that's exactly what happened to me when i got netflix, it's easy to forget how much data netflix uses)

Not a fair comparison. Imagine a bar bans a beer from being sold there. Now imagine a beer company bans that bar from selling it's beer. Same outcome. Just different execution and different people doing it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

its NN, it was way more functional before that bill, i think i would know... unlimited used to get me unlimited 24/7, now it gets me a little better than dial-up at certain times. it might benefit to go the cheapest option
Uh, bro? The proposal hasn't gone into effect yet. It is most assuredly something else.
 

Kioku

猫。子猫です!
Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
11,987
Trophies
2
Location
In the Murderbox!
Website
www.twitch.tv
XP
16,076
Country
United States
its NN, it was way more functional before that bill, i think i would know... unlimited used to get me unlimited 24/7, now it gets me a little better than dial-up at certain times. it might benefit to go the cheapest option

Is.. Is this really happening? You're blaming what seems to be poor connection quality (possibly congested even) on net neutrality? What....
 

gameboy

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
2,035
Trophies
1
Age
44
XP
2,166
Country
United States
Not a fair comparison. Imagine a bar bans a beer from being sold there. Now imagine a beer company bans that bar from selling it's beer. Same outcome. Just different execution and different people doing it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Uh, bro? The proposal hasn't gone into effect yet. It is most assuredly something else.

whatever Ajit Pai...
 

gameboy

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
2,035
Trophies
1
Age
44
XP
2,166
Country
United States
Is.. Is this really happening? You're blaming what seems to be poor connection quality (possibly congested even) on net neutrality? What....

its certainly not congested or poor connection. maybe its the sites demonstrating NN but its definitely way slower.
 

gameboy

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
2,035
Trophies
1
Age
44
XP
2,166
Country
United States
Have you thought to google this at all? Given that you immediately blame the FCC, I really don't think so.

dude, my 5g 160mhz direct beams on a different channel than everyone else. and its fiber optic on cat6 with an unlimited 120M/sec plan on modern tech. getting 400mb/sec and obvious bottlenecking never happened before.
 

dimmidice

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
2,359
Trophies
2
XP
3,004
Country
Belgium
Not a fair comparison. Imagine a bar bans a beer from being sold there. Now imagine a beer company bans that bar from selling it's beer. Same outcome. Just different execution and different people doing it.
That comparison makes no sense. In my comparison Bar=site Government=ISP Customer= Customer.

In yours Bar=Site, Company=ISP. so Imagine a site bans a thing from being accessed there. Now imagine a ISP bans that site from accessing it's thing. Maybe it's me but it doesn't work.

In my comparison the key point is the severity of the ban.
 
Last edited by dimmidice,
  • Like
Reactions: gameboy

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
    SylverReZ @ SylverReZ: