Support NeoGAF

[KingK]

Wikipedia, Google, Firefox and all of them should do public awareness campaigns like they did with SOPA to help get people worked up over this. Microsoft, Sony, Amazon, etc. should all be against it too.

It's sad, but other giant corporations who's interests are temporarily aligned with the general public are our best hope.

 

[Zombie James]

Keep this in mind, though:

The FCC will now open the proposal to a total 120 days of public comment. Final rules, aimed for the end of the year, could be rewritten after the agency reviews the public comments.

Four months of venom and hate may change things, especially when you've got all the big players in the tech industry (who aren't ISPs) against this. BELIEVE.

 

[friskykillface]

funny x disappointing that we lived through the golden age of the internet

its going downhill from here on out


welp

 

[BoboBrazil]

Google needs to post this on the front page of Google.com That would stop them. Will Google have the balls to do it though?

 

[Ken Masters]

Capitalism: A Love Story

 

[Funky Papa]

It is, the fact that our biggest worry is about our internet connection and not about whether our family is going to be kidnapped and held at ransom proves that we are still very pampered.

Who said that and why do you think it's OK to push such drivel.

 

[slit]

Lol yeah America is a terrible place unless you're white and rich because down the line we might have to pay more for high speed internet access.

some of you really need some perspective

Get perspective yourself. We already pay ridiculous amount for slower speeds than most of the developed world. Cable companies have monopolies in a lot of areas of the country with no competition whatsoever. Broadband access should be a considered a ultility at this point because of how nessessary it is for most people. But by all means trivialize it. Comcast and Verizon will thank you very much.

 

[Applesauce]

Get ready for it:

That image is depressing. BRB I need a drink

 

[ZackieChan]

Haha! Yes, they need to be absolutely bombarded with comments like this (but hopefully more eloquent).

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521124860

Please protect net neutrality. Please.

 

[mnannola]

So what is the argument for having "fast lanes"? How does this benefit consumers? I haven't seen one article on the side of having fast lanes. Even if it's shady, shouldn't there be a sales pitch somewhere?

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Discriminating traffic right in the advent of digital distribution and the first throes of classic TV economics is such a scummy, scummy way to perpetuate the telecoms' oligopoly for decades to come, BTW. Specially if collusion between content companies and internet providers becomes more common while keeping the current geographical segregation (excuse me, local markets).

This may be just a first step, but despite what the nitwits at Mercatus say, consumers are damn fucking right to be scared and outraged.

The cable tv cord cutters have scared the shit out of Cable and Fiber based ISPs that also provide cable tv services (see Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc.). This could have all been prevented up front if these companies had been reclassified as common carriers because that's what they are now that all telecom services at handled under the same roof via a common infrastructure. This is about as big of a fuck you to open market innovation under the tennets of net neutrality experienced thus far (i.e., streaming services and digital distribution alternatives). These encumbants of power who are the worst examples of giant, encumbered stagnators will somehow destroy the innovation stemming from years of having a level playing field finally, all in the name of a handful of rich assholes feeling entitled and being too lazy to innovate....who would rather spend their time being anticompetitive...because Murica, fuck yeah, I need to get paid.

 

[poppabk]

You mean negative pennies because the deal with Comcast was cheaper then they were paying their existing transit providers to carry Comcast traffic?

Where does this information come from?

 

[Danthrax]

So what is the argument for having "fast lanes"? How does this benefit consumers? I haven't seen one article on the side of having fast lanes. Even if it's shady, shouldn't there be a sales pitch somewhere?

It's like a couple of mobsters pressuring a shop owner. "If you pay for an Internet fast lane, we'll make sure we don't throttle your Internet down to unusable speeds. Whaddaya say? We have a deal?"

 

[TheWarrior]

Crony Capitalism: A Love Story

fixed it for you

 

[sketchsanchez]

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

Dunno how feasible this is but it's better that doing nothing

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Who said that and why do you think it's OK to push such drivel.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=112084444&postcount=37

 

[King Cobra]

Who said that and why do you think it's OK to push such drivel.

I am merely commenting on the hyperbole that the U.S is all of the sudden this post apocalyptic country because our internet might cost a little more. Don't get me wrong I don't like what is going on as much as the next guy but let's not forget that we are so spoiled that the thought of the policies for our internet connection being changed causes an outrage.

 

[Funky Papa]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=112084444&postcount=37

Yeah, I don't think that one (grossly uninformed) poster is suddenly worth such a tremendous generalization, let alone validates his (also grossly uninformed) point of view about that "very pampered" society.

I am merely commenting on the hyperbole that the U.S is all of the sudden this post apocalyptic country because our internet might cost a little more. Don't get me wrong I don't like what is going on as much as the next guy but let's not forget that we are so spoiled that the thought of the policies for our internet connection being changed causes an outrage.

I hope you are not talking about the American society at large, because poverty numbers, rampant inequality and the rise of the multigenerational home are painting a largely different picture of America. Net Neutrality may not be the issue, but calling American society "very pampered" or "so spoiled" is borderline insulting for millions of hard working citizens.

 

[coldvein]

the thought of the policies for our internet connection being changed causes an outrage.

it should cause an outrage.

^ ^ ^Also, what Funky Papa just said. ^ ^ ^

 

[Blader]

I am merely commenting on the hyperbole that the U.S is all of the sudden this post apocalyptic country because our internet might cost a little more. Don't get me wrong I don't like what is going on as much as the next guy but let's not forget that we are so spoiled that the thought of the policies for our internet connection being changed causes an outrage.

It's not (just) about having to pay more, it's about eliminating what was once a free and open space and, ultimately, stifling tech innovation from those who simply don't have the funds to compete. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube will still be here, but their successors will never have a chance. The philosophy behind the death of net neutrality is as anti-American as you can get.

The idea that we can't complain or criticize because we're not being rounded up in gas chambers or lined up and shot on the streets isn't only a logical fallacy, it's also a pretty backhanded compliment for America and kinda undermines your whole point. "Sure, we have these problems, but at least we're not committing any genocides!"

 

[ksan]

I hope you are not talking about the American society at large, because poverty numbers, rampant inequality and the rise of the multigenerational home are painting a largely different picture of America. Net Neutrality may not be the issue, but calling American society "very pampered" or "so spoiled" is borderline insulting for millions of hard working citizens.

Don't you know that it's impossible to worry about several issues at once?
So, time to choose, either poverty or net neutrality.

 

[Funky Papa]

it should cause an outrage.

It largely amounts to tie down the entire online services' economy (and thus one of the largest forces in business innovation of the past few decades) and endanger the future of countless American start-ups just so the telcom dinosaurs can still reign undisturbed.

If GAF is outraged, Libertarians should be on a fucking warpath.

 

[Ostinatto]

What can we do about it ?

 

[demon]

http://www.fcc.gov/page/fcc-establishes-new-inbox-open-internet-comments

Please send your thoughts to openinternet@fcc.gov.

Done.

 

[King Cobra]

I hope you are not talking about the American society at large, because poverty numbers, rampant inequality and the rise of the multigenerational home are painting a largely different picture of America. Net Neutrality may not be the issue, but calling American society "very pampered" or "so spoiled" is borderline insulting for millions of hard working citizens.

You're decent at building your own straw man arguments, but you're still talking to the wrong person about this. I wasn't talking about the single mom working 8 jobs, she would probably give a rats ass about this internet issue anyway. I am just responding to the few people who are posting from the comfort of their room but think that America is the next Qatar because our internet policies will change.

 

[Blader]

You're decent at building your own straw man arguments

think that America is the next Qatar because our internet policies will change.

You either don't know what a straw man is or don't know what irony is.

 

[demon]

You're decent at building your own straw man arguments, but you're still talking to the wrong person about this. I wasn't talking about the single mom working 8 jobs, she would probably give a rats ass about this internet issue anyway. I am just responding to the few people who are posting from the comfort of their room but think that America is the next Qatar because our internet policies will change.

Speaking of straw men.

The internet has become the backbone of our economy and society and this is an attempt to ruin it for the sake of lining the pockets of corporations. That demands outrage. Not everything has to be a literal matter of life and death to be met with outrage.

 

[atomsk]

 

[kehs]

I thought that was Schmidt at first.

 

[gimmmick]

I don't know about the issue, what does this mean? ISP will be able to pull a comcast on netflix to other companies now?

 

[Orayn]

Dear FCC,

My public comment to the commissioners consists of the following book covers from the beloved childrens' series, "Fuck Off."

Wishing you the greatest possible misfortune,

Orayn

 

[ElRenoRaven]

I don't know about the issue, what does this mean? ISP will be able to pull a comcast on netflix to other companies now?

Pretty much. If things stay on course and Net Neutrality dies then an ISP can go up to any company and go oh hey would you like customers to actually see your site? Well it's going to cost you. Oh you want them to get higher then dial up speeds to your site? Well that's really going to cost you. This will then result in said companies passing their costs on to us the consumer. Hence the prices we pay for say netflix, amazon prime, etc will go up.

You're starting to see that happen now thanks to recent rulings hence netflix paying comcast to allow their users to get decent speeds to netflix.

 

[demon]

I don't know about the issue, what does this mean? ISP will be able to pull a comcast on netflix to other companies now?

Get ready for it:

This also means consolidating internet traffic to the big corporate sites favored by the ISP tiers which could severely hurt business for smaller sites. Which is why the GOP hates the idea of net neutrality because they..er, love small businesses.....um

 

[Acorn]

$40 for his eyes. Rough deal.

 

[hitsugi]

What can we do about it ?

We can complain and blow their phones up with complaints and all that.

So nothing, really. The question is what WILL Google, etc. do about it, because the general public does not matter at all.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Is there any way the public could vote on this issue via referendum? I think it would surely get shot down if that were the case. Why is the FCC, chaired by a former ISP exec, charged with enacting this? Drafting and proposing it I understand...but voting on enacting it, at least with the current state of things, seems like a conflict of interest, as the inmates are running the prison.

 

[MrCat]

People are not hungry enough to revolt yet but...

Maybe this is one instance of government capture by corporations that more people will throw a fit about...

Maybe

 

[vagabondarts]

It would be one thing if people had provider options, but these companies operate in territorial monopolies so your choice is essentially: if you don't like it cancel your internet forever.

 

[Funky Papa]

It would be one thing if people had provider options, but these companies operate in territorial monopolies so your choice is essentially: if you don't like it cancel your internet forever.

It would still be a terrible thing since ISPs have shown an uncanny propensity to engage in cartel behaviour.

Giant buttplug and dragon dick are typically the only options available when dealing with energy companies and internet providers.

 

[Baron von Loathsome]

Get the the gov'mint outta my fuckin internet.

They're trying to, and that's the problem.

 

[.GqueB.]

Wikipedia, Google, Firefox and all of them should do public awareness campaigns like they did with SOPA to help get people worked up over this. Microsoft, Sony, Amazon, etc. should all be against it too.

It's sad, but other giant corporations who's interests are temporarily aligned with the general public are our best hope.

Agreed. I think the problem with things like this is the fact that people don't immediately understand what it means to them so the level of care is very low. It's all still very vague for people. The message needs to be clear and concise otherwise no one will pay attention.

 

[watershed]

So where do I go to make public comments?

 

[Taco_Human]

Time to move somewhere Google fiber operates.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

funny x disappointing

What is the x supposed to mean here?

 

[methane47]

4Kbps streaming, here we come. Digital is the future baby.

Fixed

 

[GaimeGuy]

So where do I go to make public comments?

See below:

http://www.fcc.gov/page/fcc-establishes-new-inbox-open-internet-comments

Please send your thoughts to openinternet@fcc.gov.

 

[Prototype]

I am merely commenting on the hyperbole that the U.S is all of the sudden this post apocalyptic country because our internet might cost a little more. Don't get me wrong I don't like what is going on as much as the next guy but let's not forget that we are so spoiled that the thought of the policies for our internet connection being changed causes an outrage.

Um sorry but fuck you.

No one I know is spoiled. I live in America and everyone I know works their fucking asses off and some people are only barely getting by even working 40+ hours a week. Do you even live in the US? My family, my friends and their families, etc. All work extremely hard and have had to make sacrifices to get where we are today.

A good family friend of ours spent 30 years of his life building up a local electrical / low voltage shop and then died before he could see his kids benefit from his life's work. Years and years of back breaking work only to end his days bed ridden from injuries to his back knees and hands from the years of brutal work.

You should really think twice before you open your mouth again on this subject.

 

[Intheflorsh]

Time to move somewhere Google fiber operates.

Good idea, I'll drop out of college so I can go live in fucking Kansas.

 

[fader]

Yes and no. The Supreme Court actually threw out net neutrality, not Obama, this is just the FCC reacting to that. However, it is true that the FCC has the authority to re-classify ISPs into the same category as telephone providers so that the Supreme Court ruling would no longer apply and net neutrality could be reinstated. The reasons for not doing that I can only assume are money and/or wanting a cushy job as a telecom lobbyist after leaving the FCC.



They want to get rid of this legislation so that there would be no legislation at all. They don't just want the ISPs to be able to charge Netflix for faster speeds, they want them to be able to outright block Netflix. Don't be fooled, dude.


"As is" was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That's what prompted the rule change. I think that's where you're getting confused.

edit: It was a federal appeals court, not the Supreme court. My bad.

yes but look at who was recently hired to be in charge of the FCC

This man is the chairman of the FCC and has heavily funded Obama's campaign during his election. He also worked for a cable and internet company National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

Most of the people that were hired in the FCC were former Verizon, AT&T or Comcast employee's one being a former lawyer for Verizon.

Obama has the power to stop this but he won't. He will just let the man who paid him off do what he want's to do.

 

[Ourobolus]

Considering companies like Amazon have like $50 Million in revenue per day, I'd love to see the impact if a large portion of the population simply didn't get on the Internet or cable for a day.

A lofty goal, but it would be neat to see.