Net neutrality

[alecrromine]

Someone with more knowledge than me, please help me out here. How would a repeal of the fcc net neutrality rules and more specifically title 2, affect websites like this one. Small community forum types? Would they become part of a package? Would mfk be forced to close it's page down?

 

[cmsbthebest]

So basically, Net neutrality allows an open internet, where ISP's cannot prefer certain websites compared to others. That means you have access to every website, and all at the same speeds.

Without net neutrality, ISP's can determine what you are able to actually load and see on the internet, and with the ability to turn it into cable-like packages. They can charge you a base fee to use the internet, like they do now, and then offer you packages to access certain pages, like a social media package, or a sports package, which would add onto your base price. If you don't buy these packages, you basically cannot access these websites such as facebook, or twitter, or ESPN, fox sports, because they would throttle the connection to them where they basically don't load.

I could imagine ISP's creating a small forum package, which if you don't pay the extra fee, websites like this would be inaccessible.

Another way no net neutrality screws us over is that ISP's can force businesses to pay to be able to be included in certain packages. For example, Comcast could force Netflix to pay a large fee to be included in the video streaming package. This would force Netflix to raise its user fees per month to cover it. So not only would you have to pay extra just to access the Netflix website, but you would also have to pay extra for netflix itself, doubly screwing you over.

So overall, no net neutrality doesn't benefit anyone but ISP's, and will make us pay a whole lot more for a whole lot less. Its all a bunch of bull and not surprising that the members of congress who are supporting this have been paid an average of $50,000 each by ISP lobbyists. Don't believe that? Here is a list:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale

(This list is from when Congress voted to allow ISP's to sell your browsing data, but it still applies here)

 

[alecrromine]

So basically, Net neutrality allows an open internet, where ISP's cannot prefer certain websites compared to others. That means you have access to every website, and all at the same speeds.

Without net neutrality, ISP's can determine what you are able to actually load and see on the internet, and with the ability to turn it into cable-like packages. They can charge you a base fee to use the internet, like they do now, and then offer you packages to access certain pages, like a social media package, or a sports package, which would add onto your base price. If you don't buy these packages, you basically cannot access these websites such as facebook, or twitter, or ESPN, fox sports, because they would throttle the connection to them where they basically don't load.

I could imagine ISP's creating a small forum package, which if you don't pay the extra fee, websites like this would be inaccessible.

Another way no net neutrality screws us over is that ISP's can force businesses to pay to be able to be included in certain packages. For example, Comcast could force Netflix to pay a large fee to be included in the video streaming package. This would force Netflix to raise its user fees per month to cover it. So not only would you have to pay extra just to access the Netflix website, but you would also have to pay extra for netflix itself, doubly screwing you over.

So overall, no net neutrality doesn't benefit anyone but ISP's, and will make us pay a whole lot more for a whole lot less. Its all a bunch of bull and not surprising that the members of congress who are supporting this have been paid an average of $50,000 each by ISP lobbyists. Don't believe that? Here is a list:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale

(This list is from when Congress voted to allow ISP's to sell your browsing data, but it still applies here)

Thank you. I knew the overall impact that it could cause. And how major websites (facebook, netflix, amazon, google, etc.) Would possibly be part of packages similar to the channels we get with different tv packages, but I really wasn't sure what it would mean for "small" websites such as this. The "forum fee" makes a lot of sense. I sent the link to several family members. Most signed, some asked questions. One in particular believes that this is some sort of "liberal propoganda to bring down the Trump administration". Follow on question: Do you think that small forum websites would remain on the internet? I believe the forum would be charged by the ISP to become part of the forum package, then it's members would be charged by the ISP to view it. Someone would have to pay for it. Do you know what the cost is to run a website and keep it active in a net neutral state? What kind of prices are we looking at of the law were repealed? Obviously these are hypothetical scenarios, I'm just curious of your thoughts.

 

[cmsbthebest]

Thank you. I knew the overall impact that it could cause. And how major websites (facebook, netflix, amazon, google, etc.) Would possibly be part of packages similar to the channels we get with different tv packages, but I really wasn't sure what it would mean for "small" websites such as this. The "forum fee" makes a lot of sense. I sent the link to several family members. Most signed, some asked questions. One in particular believes that this is some sort of "liberal propoganda to bring down the Trump administration". Follow on question: Do you think that small forum websites would remain on the internet? I believe the forum would be charged by the ISP to become part of the forum package, then it's members would be charged by the ISP to view it. Someone would have to pay for it. Do you know what the cost is to run a website and keep it active in a net neutral state? What kind of prices are we looking at of the law were repealed? Obviously these are hypothetical scenarios, I'm just curious of your thoughts.

I imagine it would be tougher. An intended consequence is that competition will be stifled. If a forum can't pay every ISP to be included in certain packages, it will lose exposure, and lose members. People will flock even more to bigger sites than can afford the fees necessary or sites ran by the ISP's themselves (which would be absolutely awful). These small communities would probably become obsolete as Comcast or Verizon open up their own forums for "free" discussion.

Also idk anything about specific prices, I have no experience with actually running a website.

There is literally no benefit for anyone but ISP's in this, yet for some reason it is still up for debate. It is corruption in clear daylight. The FCC hosted an open page where people could leave their comments on the issue, and it was flooded with bots stealing peoples identities and pasting the same anti-net neutrality posts. When people went through and sorted out the bots comments, something like 98% of the posts were for net neutrality. How could something that only 2% of people want pass a vote?

 

[alecrromine]

I imagine it would be tougher. An intended consequence is that competition will be stifled. If a forum can't pay every ISP to be included in certain packages, it will lose exposure, and lose members. People will flock even more to bigger sites than can afford the fees necessary or sites ran by the ISP's themselves (which would be absolutely awful). These small communities would probably become obsolete as Comcast or Verizon open up their own forums for "free" discussion.

Also idk anything about specific prices, I have no experience with actually running a website.

There is literally no benefit for anyone but ISP's in this, yet for some reason it is still up for debate. It is corruption in clear daylight. The FCC hosted an open page where people could leave their comments on the issue, and it was flooded with bots stealing peoples identities and pasting the same anti-net neutrality posts. When people went through and sorted out the bots comments, something like 98% of the posts were for net neutrality. How could something that only 2% of people want pass a vote?

How could 2% think it's a good idea? I have an answer for that. My father in law is a die hard conservative (don't judge me, we don't get along) and believes that the Trump administration has only our (the people) best interest in mind. He will go along with anything that is recommended by this administration because they are Republican and he believes it's best for us. I am actually disgusted that 2% were for the repeal. This is a big problem with politics. Both conservative republicans and liberal democrats that refuse to think for themselves and only go along with what their parties most extreme members suggest is best. Personally I think if they said "2% Are in support of this repeal" It should have been thrown out.

 

[cmsbthebest]

How could 2% think it's a good idea? I have an answer for that. My father in law is a die hard conservative (don't judge me, we don't get along) and believes that the Trump administration has only our (the people) best interest in mind. He will go along with anything that is recommended by this administration because they are Republican and he believes it's best for us. I am actually disgusted that 2% were for the repeal. This is a big problem with politics. Both conservative republicans and liberal democrats that refuse to think for themselves and only go along with what their parties most extreme members suggest is best. Personally I think if they said "2% Are in support of this repeal" It should have been thrown out.

You are 100% right. The biggest problem we face in todays society is that "facts are lies if they do not conform to my world views". Echo chambers and propaganda are also a huge problem that seem to be getting worse. Certain websites lie and slander, posting it as news, and are taken as facts by many because they want to believe it.

It seems like it is near impossible to look at a fact or piece of information straight up without letting your biases distort your view. I'll admit that I have this problem, but that is because we all have inherent biases. What is important though is to push past that bias and look at all the details so you can actually think critically about something. Don't let some TV personality determine how you think. Yet that is too much to ask of some people, probably because our education system is falling to garbage with critical thinking and research skills being pushed aside. But thats kind of another topic.

 

[alecrromine]

All very true.