Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?

[smalltownguy]

Can someone please explain to me what trump is talking about in this tweet? it sure appears to be different than what he’s saying nowadays.

Attachment 1040736

it could be different..whats the point
these are politiians

[Ben in LA]

it could be different..whats the point
these are politiians

The point is that killing net neutrality will insure what he was scared Obama would do could happen: silence one viewpoint so that the other can reach more individuals. Kinda like what Sinclair Broadcasting wants to do (look it up).

[Stavros]

Can someone please explain to me what trump is talking about in this tweet? it sure appears to be different than what he’s saying nowadays.

There is a simple explanation Ben, -he never understood what Net Neutrality means, as is also argued here-

The tweet suggested that, as of November 2014, Trump did not know what “net neutrality” meant. The Fairness Doctrine, eliminated in 1987, was an FCC regulation that required television broadcasters to air multiple perspectives on controversial topics. The now-defunct doctrine has nothing to do with net neutrality, which requires internet service providers to treat all internet traffic equally, and does not regulate a website’s content, conservative or otherwise.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald...net-neutrality

[Ts RedVeX]

Why do most of you guys even think that scrapping a useless law is bad? Less bureaucracy, less officials, should mean less taxation. And what on earth even makes you believe that scrapping the law is going to make ISPs block certain sites? It is every ISPs job to provide you access to data in general, at a certain speed. That speed depends on the ISPs infrastructure and infrastructure of hosting companies the sites you want to visit use, and any infrastructure in between. It does not matter to the ISPs which sites you visit. It is also not possible for them to speed up your connection to a site hosted on a shitty server in someone's basement. It is completely not in an ISPs interest to block or slow down your connection, especially in a competitive free market.

[smalltownguy]

Why do most of you guys even think that scrapping a useless law is bad? Less bureaucracy, less officials, should mean less taxation. And what on earth even makes you believe that scrapping the law is going to make ISPs block certain sites? It is every ISPs job to provide you access to data in general, at a certain speed. That speed depends on the ISPs infrastructure and infrastructure of hosting companies the sites you want to visit use, and any infrastructure in between. It does not matter to the ISPs which sites you visit. It is also not possible for them to speed up your connection to a site hosted on a shitty server in someone's basement. It is completely not in an ISPs interest to block or slow down your connection, especially in a competitive free market.

and what made you think that they will not block certain sites ?

[Lester316]

Why do most of you guys even think that scrapping a useless law is bad? Less bureaucracy, less officials, should mean less taxation. And what on earth even makes you believe that scrapping the law is going to make ISPs block certain sites? It is every ISPs job to provide you access to data in general, at a certain speed. That speed depends on the ISPs infrastructure and infrastructure of hosting companies the sites you want to visit use, and any infrastructure in between. It does not matter to the ISPs which sites you visit. It is also not possible for them to speed up your connection to a site hosted on a shitty server in someone's basement. It is completely not in an ISPs interest to block or slow down your connection, especially in a competitive free market.

The point for the people in the states is that there is no competitive free market it is as simple as that. Once you remove any regulation from a market that is almost 100% monopolised to start with those companies are just given an even firmer grip on what they have control of; they will be able to increase costs and use all sorts of justifications for it (including collaboration to keep prices static once they have increased costs to make sure in the places where supplier switching is an option it just doesn't happen). Meanwhile the new competitors that could have rivalled them are so far behind in terms of infrastructure investment that it will be an age before they can catch up.

Take the current UK household energy supply market as a comparison. Currently there are a "big 6" soon to be 5 it seems that dominate the market; regulation is relatively weak (shockingly 4 of these companies are owned by European firms and SSE may soon merge with one of those) prices fluctuate a little but the general trend is that consumers in the UK pay a hell of a lot more for their energy than consumers in the USA for example. For years there have been rumblings and discussions that price-fixing and collusion exist between these companies and they have all been also been strongly opposed to the changes introduced (easier supplier switching for example) and the possibility of increased government legislation that could set a price caps or at least protect the consumer from unjustified price rises. I don't know anyone here who is strongly behind the idea of removing laws that would make these companies stronger that would simply be insane.

Yes as you have said "less bureaucracy, less officials, should mean less taxation" but sometimes we need that bureaucracy (correctly focused of course) to stop huge corporations ripping us off. The little bit of tax we all might pay could actually save us a hell of a lot more in the long run particularily when you include products that have become almost 100% necessary for people to earn a living or survive. Much like electricity which most normal businesses need in order to operate competitively priced internet access has become a must have for many businesses over the last few years; they simply wouldn't be able to trade were they priced out it by glaringly crazy costs from market dominating providers. I've read some of your posts where you compare people's views to communist if they oppose the end of neutrality; I'm sorry but you are clearly misguided on the issue and are overstating peoples' desire for fair and healthy competition as communist. It's not a perfect comparison but in USA where reduced legislation would mean 1 or 2 companies could dominate and control the supply of something a consumer needed that sounds a hell of a lot more like a totalitarian (parallels with communism) existence than a free market to me.

[buttslinger]

Seems like these threads always get down to US v. THEM, maybe if the Spanish Catholics had landed on Plymouth Rock everything would be different, our nature is our nature.
My 8th grade teacher explained pure capitalism as:
"If I give everyone in class a gas station in September, by next June one kid will own all the gas stations"
Before Henry Fonda started the Unions, nobody owned a house, because there was no such thing as job security.
It does all come down to where you draw the line, and I think Gerrymandering is criminal.
I also blame Conservative Media for all this shit. I saw Judge Janine blasting Democrats for sexual misconduct the other night, Fox News is the definition of sexual misconduct, fuckin Roger Ailes.
It really doesn't matter what Net Neutrality says, if it's even vaguely legal, some businessman is going to middleman himself in-between you and your internet and become a billionaire.
Same with the new tax code.......Tax break for the middle class?...gimme a break.
It's all up to Mueller and his team of Untouchables now-
TRUTH TO POWER!!!
Or, as Jimi Hendrix said
"the power of love trumps the love of power"
Generally I think if you can talk someone into something you can talk them out of it, but I swear, Conservative Media has brainwashed so many minds over so long a period via pure propaganda, as was said a few posts back, these people will continue to vote against their own interests time after time.
Eisenhower had to march the German Civilians through the Concentration Camps after WWII because he believed they would say it never happened if he didn't.
How can anyone on HUNG ANGELS champion the Conservative Media???

FUCK TRUMP!!!!!

[MacJae]

Why do most of you guys even think that scrapping a useless law is bad? Less bureaucracy, less officials, should mean less taxation. And what on earth even makes you believe that scrapping the law is going to make ISPs block certain sites? It is every ISPs job to provide you access to data in general, at a certain speed.

The purpose of the 'useless law' (actually, a regulation) is to ensure what you're saying there. Without that rule in place, there's nothing requiring the ISPs to do that. The reason people think they will start slowing or even blocking sites is the same reason that the rule was put in place to begin with; it was because the ISPs *did* do things like block sites in order to shake them down for money, and the rule was instated to make sure they did not, so that everyone's data would be treated equally.

http://adage.com/article/media/comca...-meter/302395/

Now that the rule is being removed, they'll probably be back to doing it. I think they are also more likely to shake down companies selling services over the internet than their customers, because it's less visible and they can shift the blame for their poor service over to those companies.

So, no, from a consumer perspective, the law is not 'useless' by any stretch. It also doesn't really require any additional government 'bureaucracy' or 'red tape' to maintain. If they are found to be in violation, the affected parties are likely to report it.

On the other hand, the companies would be likely require additional corporate bureaucracy in order to manage their efforts at providing customers a worse service so that they can earn more money. In other words: Someone would get jobs to make things worse for everyone but the ISPs.

That speed depends on the ISPs infrastructure and infrastructure of hosting companies the sites you want to visit use, and any infrastructure in between. It does not matter to the ISPs which sites you visit. It is also not possible for them to speed up your connection to a site hosted on a shitty server in someone's basement. It is completely not in an ISPs interest to block or slow down your connection, especially in a competitive free market.

But we aren't even talking about a competitive free market. We're talking about the United States, which does not have a competitive free market in ISP services, and is unlikely to get that in any near future. They are acting like they do because they are engaging in rent-seeking feudal behavior, not in free market capitalist competition. The U.S. needs to do what the EU has done to create more competition.

The present net neutrality framework hasn't stifled competition, innovation or investment. It was put in place a couple of years ago because of the way the ISPs were using their local monopolies. The market was just as shitty before that, and the rule was designed to prevent the ISPs from abusing their market dominance.

As for why there isn't competition and it isn't a free market, imagine the following example: A 'town' with four households and two ISPs. Each ISP has two customers. Each ISP has wires going to two houses. If they want to try to take the other ISP's customers, they must first put in place new cables to each house. That's expensive. And if one of them start doing it, the other one can do so too. The end result will either be (1) that one drives the other out of business, becoming a monopoly; or, more likely (2) that customers cross over, but both end up with two, and all they've achieved is spending a lot on putting in place new cables and probably lowering their prices, causing a double loss.

Now imagine that the whole of the U.S. is that town of four, dominated by two giant ISPs. They have no interest in competing too hard with each other. And it's a huge market which is far too expensive for any outside entity to compete in, apart from possibly on a local scale.

In general, the purpose of net neutrality is to protect consumers and to maintain the internet as being open to people in general. Net neutrality is the opposite of what they're doing in China and other repressive regimes where the internet is being heavily censored. The removal of net neutrality as will take place in the U.S. will actually enable corporations to censor or manipulate the internet. First and foremost to make more money, not for political ends, though it would theoretically be possible for them to do so and they might even do it if it makes them more money. ('Nope, the only news site you can get to with this ISP is Breitbart/Huffington Post.')

[Torris]

Can someone please explain to me what trump is talking about in this tweet? it sure appears to be different than what he’s saying nowadays.

Attachment 1040736

I believe Trump has dementia. Not to excuse his behavior. Supposedly he spends his days in his pajamas watching cable news and howling that they won’t accept him as legit

[JerzeyBtm]

Internet Service Providers are more concerned with "data transfer" since that is their primary overhead. I'm sure if they were going to slow anyone's internet down it would be of those who consume large downloads of videos and software. I can't see them slowing down someone who looks at HA since it's of no threat to their expense.