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

In the USA, the Federal Communications Commission has announced that it intends to vote in December to put an end to an Obama Presidency ruling that defined the Internet as a Utility, putting an end to what is known as 'Net Neutrality'-

Net neutrality is the principle that all traffic on the internet is treated equally. Its supporters argue that equal access to the internet has been essential in creating today’s dynamic online world.

On the chopping block are rules established in 2015 that prevent broadband companies from charging more for internet “fast lanes” for certain content and from blocking or slowing certain content. Critics charge that removing the rules will hand ISPs control of the internet – allowing them to pick winners and losers by slowing some services while giving preferential treatment to those they favor.
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...parks-protests

I wonder how, if this decision is passed, consumers will be affected if they want to access a site like Hung Angels. If the ISP in the US notes the frequency with which a member accesses HA will it charge more to give the consumer faster access? One claim in the US is that removing Net Neutrality will also enable ISPs to collect more detailed information on a consumer's web browsing habits.

In the UK the internet is currently net neutral through the European Union's Regulation on Open Internet Access, and in theory this could be scrapped as part of the transition through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill currently being debated in the House of Commons. Another major difference is that there is more competition in the UK for ISP contracts -I have switched ISPs three times- whereas in the USA there is often only one ISP and as the second Guardian article shows in some areas there might as well be no internet at all, the service is so poor.

Although this is another example of the Republicans reversing Obama legislation out of spite, the argument is that it will create more competition. I doubt it, but as I don't live in the US I can't say more than that, though it is curious in the case of Washington that the State that gave Boeing billions of dollars in tax breaks could have used those billions to improve internet access across the state.

Key question though remains: if Hung Angels is one of your most popular websites, will your ISP under the new rules charge you more to visit it, and thereby reduce your visits?

Guardian report here-
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...parks-protests

Guardian on the internet in Washington State-
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ock-washington

Situation in the UK-
https://news.sky.com/story/net-neutr...anges-10945518

Federal Communistcations Comission? ;D

Oh wait.. This project actually sounds like letting ISPs do whatever they think is good for the companies unrestricted! Vivant free marketers!

Perhaps my webshite will reappear in google searches without complying to silly google standards as well!

Oh, by the way, I think that the EU must be destroyed. - Along with all its laws imposed onto the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Oh, by the way, I think that the EU must be destroyed. - Along with all its laws imposed onto the UK.

---

The EU has laws which prevent this from happening to any member state. Brexit might lead the UK to follow Americas lead, yet again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Federal Communistcations Comission?.

---

The American media censorship regulatory bureau. Regulating the amount of censorship and pro corporate conservative butt-fucking the American public recieves, via the airwaves. Fuck Ajit Pai, and fuck that mental charity case Trump.

Thanks, trump voters. Fuck you all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Federal Communistcations Comission? ;D
Oh wait.. This project actually sounds like letting ISPs do whatever they think is good for the companies unrestricted! Vivant free marketers!
Perhaps my webshite will reappear in google searches without complying to silly google standards as well!
Oh, by the way, I think that the EU must be destroyed. - Along with all its laws imposed onto the UK.

---

a) you have not addressed the issues in the post, for example, will rescinding net neutrality improve internet access for customers in the USA, protect their right to privacy, and prevent ISP's with only a commercial motive limiting a consumer's access to websites by raising the cost of browsing them? In some cases, this could result in a reduction of visits to your 'website'.
A free market of the kind you yearn for is supposed to provide what consumers want, rather than what the profit-hungry vendors want, have you thought of that?

b) the EU has never imposed a single law or regulation on the UK, every law and regulation has been incorporated into English law through Parliament which has had the right to veto all and any such laws and regulations but has chosen not to. There is a slightly different situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland as I am sure you are aware of. And, a substantial majority of the EU law passed by Parliament since 1973 -along with those laws and regulations passed by the European Free Trade Area since 1960- is being confirmed as English law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill currently being debated in the House of Commons so that far from being 'destroyed' a great deal of English law will continue to be what EU law used to be, and rather a lot of that will consist of law that originated in the United Kingdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Perhaps my webshite ...

---

Oh come on ... it's not that bad ... :D

net neutrality is internet communism

Quote:

---

Oh, by the way, I think that the EU must be destroyed. - Along with all its laws imposed onto the UK.

---

Agreed 100%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben in LA

Thanks, trump voters. Fuck you all.

---

Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by legault

net neutrality is internet communism

---

Absolutely correct. Net neutrality is akin to the government telling a supermarket that it's not allowed to arrange store displays in a way that make certain items more prominent, thereby more likely to be purchased.
Net neutrality will in no way impact accessibility to sites like HA, or any other web destinations for typical consumers.
An internet provider like Verizon might tweek the speed of one search engine versus another from time to time to maximize service efficiency, and yes, to direct customers to its own proprietary platform. But isn't that the right of any business in our free enterprise system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

Absolutely correct. Net neutrality is akin to the government telling a supermarket that it's not allowed to arrange store displays in a way that make certain items more prominent, thereby more likely to be purchased.

---

I know very little about this issue, but I'm not sure I see the analogy. Items in a store are owned by the store, and therefore the store can arrange them to ensure access to those that are most popular.

But internet service providers are only providing access to websites, so isn't it more like roads on the way to the store?

This doesn't necessarily hurt your point though...the question to me is if the speed will be determined by the popularity of the site or whether the popularity of the site will be determined by the accessibility. Isn't it possible for such a system to choose winners and losers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Isn't it possible for such a system to choose winners and losers?

---

It may not be obvious that this isn't what the system should do, but doesn't net neutrality ensure that people choose what they like and aren't directed top down from an isp? To me that seems much more like a market system than an isp deciding in advance what sites should be easy to access and which ones shouldn't be.

This image shows why net neutrality is.
Attachment 1040332

These two images illustrate what can happen if we don’t have net neutrality. It’s like cable television packages.
Attachment 1040333
Attachment 1040334
Then again, that’s capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben in LA

This image shows why net neutrality is.
Attachment 1040332

These two images illustrate what can happen if we don’t have net neutrality. It’s like cable television packages.
Attachment 1040333
Attachment 1040334
Then again, that’s capitalism.

---

We havent had real capitalism in over 100 years

Would switching to DuckDuck make a differance? Anyone...

What is net neutrality... in other words considering all data in the Internet at same and would not be charged differently what I want to know is how this can bring end your access to Hung angels

C'mon guys. Does anyone really think anything will stop porn? I've been downloading shit since the eighties. Although it did take about 5 to 10 minutes to download one picture back then. But the point is, stopping porn is like stopping drugs. It ain't gonna happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

Absolutely correct. Net neutrality is akin to the government telling a supermarket that it's not allowed to arrange store displays in a way that make certain items more prominent, thereby more likely to be purchased.
Net neutrality will in no way impact accessibility to sites like HA, or any other web destinations for typical consumers.
An internet provider like Verizon might tweek the speed of one search engine versus another from time to time to maximize service efficiency, and yes, to direct customers to its own proprietary platform. But isn't that the right of any business in our free enterprise system?

---

-I am surprised that you defend something you call 'free enterprise' when the development of the internet in the USA and its current state runs counter to the very concept. To begin with, while there are thousands of ISPs in the US, most are small, local and offer limited services, while the majority comprise large companies like Comcast and Verizon that bought or merged with smaller ISPs particularly after the dot.com bubble burst in the 1990s. These major firms have access to US homes courtesy of the existing rail and telecommunications infrastructure, meaning that these giant corporations did not spend vasts amounts of capital to create internet links from scratch but paid railroad companies a fee to use existing infrastructure running alongside the tracks saving a fortune in 'right of way' fees were they digging up earth on privately owned land.
https://qz.com/790210/tracing-the-by...icas-internet/

-Again, a survey of internet customers in 2015 using census data reveals that while there have been improvements since 2013 -The latest Federal Communications Commission statistics show that Americans still have little choice of high-speed broadband providers- this runs counter to the whole notion of a free enterprise economy. The reality is that the companies are in charge, you as a consumer have little choice, and no control over the quality of service you pay for. One of the causes of the Net Neutrality rules in the first place came about because of a conflict between Verizon and Comcast over who should bear the costs of the increased bandwidth needed to access Netflix, and the case of Cogent Communications who, in another dispute simply shut down its internet service. In both cases, what the customer wanted was irrelevant.
https://arstechnica.com/information-...higher-speeds/

-The issue here is the need of ISPs to make money out of you. Ending net neutrality is intended to lock everything other than government and the emergency services behind a pay wall. Rupert Murdoch for years has fumed at the existence of free content on the web believing everything must be paid for, and not just once but even after you get into the website, and there is no doubt Murdoch is one of the keenest enthusiasts for internet firewalls. The graphs provided by Ben in LA are perfect illustrations of this.

-The key point is this: would you pay to access Hung Angels? Steve might not want to charge a fee to unlock a firewall, but is there anything once net neutrality goes, to prevent Verizon or Comcast insisting that you pay an extra monthly charge of $10 to visit your most popular websites? And, how does this affect individuals who run web sites or blogs that are either free for anyone to access, or in the case of many 'internet performers' we know on Hung Angels, charge a small monthly fee? It appears that in addition to their fee, you may have to pay extra to the ISP to access that site. I can't see many people paying to access Hung Angels, and some who currently pay a fee to performers' websites may choose to not to, reducing the revenue so much it becomes commercially a waste of time.

-Bear in mind that having refused to fill over 100 posts in the justice system when Obama was President, the Republican Party is now approving white, conservative and often unqualified men to be guardians of your justice system. One -Brett Talley (Alabama)- only qualified as a lawyer three years ago, has never tried a case, and has blogged in favour of the Ku Klux Klan. Thomas Farr in South Carolina is aggressive in his determination to Stop Black People Voting.

Another, Jeff Mateer (Texas) is not ashamed to air his prejudices: “Guess what? I attend a conservative Baptist church. We discriminate, all right. On the basis of sexual orientation, we discriminate,” adding at another time that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, that marriage equality is a “challenge” for Christians, and that transgender children are part of Satan's plan'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...s-donald-trump
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/...f-mateer-lgbtq

-When the time comes to use the law to either shut down internet porn, or price it beyond the reach of most consumers by forcing ISPs to levy an additional fee, the Conservatives will use their presence across the US justice system to bring the US in line with the morals of sub-Saharan Africa and Russia, crushing free speech much as the President wants to crush all and any news outlet that criticizes him.

This is not about free markets at all, it is the Conservative dream of a USA beholden unto God and his laws, and his chosen one in the White House. All you are required to do, is to be obedient and pay for everything you want to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaysian71

C'mon guys. Does anyone really think anything will stop porn? I've been downloading shit since the eighties. Although it did take about 5 to 10 minutes to download one picture back then. But the point is, stopping porn is like stopping drugs. It ain't gonna happen.

---

Yes guys it ain't gonna happen .This is a waste of time and money enjoy life and remember porn is a drug

Attachment 1040407

This is soooo real, by the way :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2ViNJFZC8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaysian71

C'mon guys. Does anyone really think anything will stop porn? I've been downloading shit since the eighties. Although it did take about 5 to 10 minutes to download one picture back then. But the point is, stopping porn is like stopping drugs. It ain't gonna happen.

---

Wow, you were on the internet before it existed?????

Stavros,

I seriously appreciate your effort to bring people to talk about stuff that really matters, and to point people out those seemingly little thing that are actually made seemingly little to hide the big sledgehammer behind it. However seeing the reactions of certain people, I can only think of the following :

Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon, it will strut wildly across the board, crap on it, and walk off with an air as if it has won the argument.

I suggest handing them out poisoned pellets and telling them its viagra.

I expect access to porn to cost more. Just like you can purchase premium movies from your cable provider, ISPs are going to require you to pay a fee to surf for certain material considered 'adult'.

Porn is the biggest money maker on the interwebz other than online retail and for years the ISPs were cut out of the deal.
Now they can charge you for high speed access to surf the NEt to find a ,gif of your favorite transchick getting her cock sucked.

Tiers of service is definitely coming, following the cable TV model.
It will suck hard until a Democratic POTUS is elected, he can appoint his own FCC chairs and reverse this shit.

The idiots who voted for Trump are the gift that keeps on giving.
Sort of like venereal disease.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chupapau

Wow, you were on the internet before it existed?????

---

I remember when you had to download file fragments and use UUencode to put them files together for a pic

Praise Anu for Netscape and the whole right click save as phenomenon

Then came the Usenet groups hierarchy. Somewhere in a shoebox I have a couple dozen Zip disks full of porn photos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torris

I remember when you had to download file fragments and use UUencode to put them files together for a pic

Praise Anu for Netscape and the whole right click save as phenomenon

Then came the Usenet groups hierarchy. Somewhere in a shoebox I have a couple dozen Zip disks full of porn photos

---

Time to put that Flickr account to good use huh? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaysian71

C'mon guys. Does anyone really think anything will stop porn? I've been downloading shit since the eighties. Although it did take about 5 to 10 minutes to download one picture back then. But the point is, stopping porn is like stopping drugs. It ain't gonna happen.

---

Nothing will “stop porn”, but it WILL be more expensive to access it.

While the scenario of selling bundled "packages" would be in line with what they do for TV, it's also likely that the ISPs would adopt a more indirect strategy for squeezing people for profit -- by going after the content providers, like they tried with Netflix.

Basically, websites and other services might be forced into paying an amount proportional to the traffic they generate. If they don't, they'd get cut off or slowed down. This would generate more revenue for the ISPs while deflecting consumer ire towards the content sites ("why is this site so slow? I'll go somewhere else" "why are these guys raising prices on me?"). This approach would effectively give ISPs a piece of the pie from paysites and ad sites alike. And it would most likely hurt smaller and personal sites the most.

Removing net neutrality has nothing to do with the "free market." That's a buzzword they use to conceal the fact that it's purely rent-seeking behavior they're engaging in. It's more like a form of feudalism than it is capitalism, especially in those parts of the U.S. where there is virtually no competition.

Yes it very well could Plus if you are a gamer you might as well forget it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben in LA

Nothing will “stop porn”, but it WILL be more expensive to access it.

---

But its,already gotten more expensive. Just a few years ago you could get a Comcast 100mbps connection for $150.00 and a static up address for an additional 10 bucks. Now it's 200.00 for the same internet connection and 25 bucks for a static up address.

Has this board become a communist hatchery or something?

If you remove restrictions and regulations from ISPs and one of them decides to charge more than another ISP for service no better than that provided by the cheaper ISP, then the former ISPs customers simply move to the cheaper ISP, just like you would start doing your groceries at Aldi's that has just opened in your town that previously only had Waitrose. Unless you are some sort of a communist snob. Your collective perception of all ISPs is only relevant when they are all "equall" due to this so called "net neutrality".

This natural competition would also force companies to get optic fiber connected right to your house or apartment rather than only to the "box" that is currently situated a couple of blocks away, or use satelite technology all together. That would mean connections tens of thousands times faster than your current 50Mbps. What are you even on about debating which site would work slower?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

If you remove restrictions and regulations from ISPs and one of them decides to charge more than another ISP for service no better than that provided by the cheaper ISP, then the former ISPs customers simply move to the cheaper ISP, just like you would start doing your groceries at Aldi's that has just opened in your town that previously only had Waitrose. Unless you are some sort of a communist snob. Your collective perception of all ISPs is only relevant when they are all "equall" due to this so called "net neutrality".

---

Removing "restrictions and regulations" doesn't necessarily lead to more competition. If you have a choice between two ISPs, one of which allows access to YouTube but not Netflix, and one that is the other way around, they aren't selling quite the same product.

Additionally, the U.S. market for ISPs is non-competitive across large areas of the country due to under-regulation. The major ISPs own the broadband infrastructure, building more is expensive (and redundant in many cases; having a dozen lines providing the same service to your house is a waste if you only need one), and since the market hasn't been regulated to provide for local loop unbundling in the same way it has in swathes of Europe and the UK (where there is effectively a much more competitive market due to proper government regulations), there effectively is little or no competition because the options are so limited.

Quote:

---

This natural competition would also force companies to get optic fiber connected right to your house or apartment rather than only to the "box" that is currently situated a couple of blocks away, or use satelite technology all together. That would mean connections tens of thousands times faster than your current 50Mbps. What are you even on about debating which site would work slower?!

---

Because the companies that own the infrastructure have relatively little incentive to invest in infrastructure, when it's much easier for them to squeeze consumers and companies for money. Effective competition in this field requires effective regulation to enable it. As long as that's not the case, the U.S. (unlike Europe, where the EU has regulated for a more effective market) is effectively not even a free market, but a duopoly.

But regardless of the lack of competition, the conceptual problem with removal of net neutrality is that it effectively grants ISPs the power of censorship if they want to. To borrow the use of the "communist" hyperbole that gets thrown around, I don't think anyone here would like to live with censorship like they get in China or North Korea either, even if the censors are corporate. While that also touches on a debate about the power that information companies like Google and Facebook wield, there's no reason to add to the potential number of information hurdles people must face. That information should be equally free to consumers is the core of net neutrality. Removing it actually weakens the protection of freedom of speech. (That doesn't mean I think that this move alone will do much overall, but it could easily be part of a slippery slope.)

Good post ... :iagree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Has this board become a communist hatchery or something?

If you remove restrictions and regulations from ISPs and one of them decides to charge more than another ISP for service no better than that provided by the cheaper ISP, then the former ISPs customers simply move to the cheaper ISP, just like you would start doing your groceries at Aldi's that has just opened in your town that previously only had Waitrose. Unless you are some sort of a communist snob. Your collective perception of all ISPs is only relevant when they are all "equall" due to this so called "net neutrality".

This natural competition would also force companies to get optic fiber connected right to your house or apartment rather than only to the "box" that is currently situated a couple of blocks away, or use satelite technology all together. That would mean connections tens of thousands times faster than your current 50Mbps. What are you even on about debating which site would work slower?!

---

In what world is one ISP provider going to make less profit just to have more customers than its rival???
Whatever cable and internet service provider you use to access the internet, they're going to screw you for the almighty dollar.

Where most of us live there's only about 2 or 3 major ISP providers anyway. There is no competition, it's all been consolidated.

I bet you're the type of person who thinks toll booths are cool too.

I use internet in both the US and the UK.

In the UK I have a choice between BT, Virgin, Sky and a few others. My speeds are fucking awesome and I pay maybe $60 for a bundle with other stuff.
In the US ... in one of the biggest cities (LA) I have no choice. The cable companies (Time Warner and Spectrum) have split the areas up each taking one. You have no choice. You have one internet provider and we pay over $80 a month not for the fastest speed we can get (with no bundles) and it's massively different to what we have in the UK. Like 10x slower in the US.

I think the end of net neutrality will bring some good points, and some bad points - but don't expect your internet to get better, or cheaper. There is no competition in the USA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobySteven

I use internet in both the US and the UK.

In the UK I have a choice between BT, Virgin, Sky and a few others. My speeds are fucking awesome and I pay maybe $60 for a bundle with other stuff.
In the US ... in one of the biggest cities (LA) I have no choice. The cable companies (Time Warner and Spectrum) have split the areas up each taking one. You have no choice. You have one internet provider and we pay over $80 a month not for the fastest speed we can get (with no bundles) and it's massively different to what we have in the UK. Like 10x slower in the US.

I think the end of net neutrality will bring some good points, and some bad points - but don't expect your internet to get better, or cheaper. There is no competition in the USA

---

and so does net neutrality will affect differently in uk & usa . bravo :party:

This is just another thing that the "Trump experiment" will have to be reversed once the country sees the mistake, this will maybe open the eyes of the dumbest Trump supporters. He is not looking out for the people but just for his rich supporters.
This has corruption written all over it, he emptied the swamp so he could fill it with his predators the others were not corrupt enough
He has proven once again he is the worst President ever.
Attachment 1040575

I know that in primary schools they usually teach 1-dimensional thinking in mathematics classes, but as soon as you go to a higher school you find out that there is also another another dimension, and they teach you about vectors. Then you go to a uni, an it turns out that you can have n-dimensional spaces and matrices..

Simply because you use Internet for Netflix and not Youtube, or vice versa, does not mean that there needs to be a law telling your ISP to enable both, so that your neighbour, who wants to use Internet from the same ISP as you for Youtube will also be happy. All you need is two different ISPs and you can use one, and your neighbour can use the other. This is why you are totally wrong saying that you do not want multiple lines connected to your house, for you may one day decide you want to go on Youtube too. Moreover, having separate lines for Netflix and Youtube, apart from making ISPs independent from eachother, means that you and your neighbour are not going to lag one-another's connections while using your services of choice. Of course, in a free market, rather sooner than later, a third, fourth and an "nth" ISP will emerge, which is going to allow streaming from both youtube and Netflix, which will force your and your neighbour's ISP to either adapt and enable both services, or close down all together. That is how free market works without any written laws, restrictions or "rights". Needless to say, if a new line is to be built in the ground, then it is definitely not going to be a copper wire, but an optic-fiber one. The speeds offered by that technology are incomparable to those offered by metal wires, and only for that reason people will probably chose the new ISPs as soon as their services are available, who are going to be connecting that technology to customers' home rather than only to a hub a couple of kilometres away, and then sell it by bullshit advertising it as "fiber". I hope you see that the problem of ISPs "lack of incentive to invest in infrastructure" disappears by itself at this point.

If you only have two ISPs in wherever you live, then it is most likely due to over-regulation rather than under regulation. If you read Stavros's original post, it says that this Federal Communications Commission are debating scrapping internet neutrality, not implementing it. This means that this internet neutrality is the reason why you have not a competitive market and only 2 ISPs to chose from, rather than what you suggest. Scrapping that communist law is key to making the market more free to ISPs and development of their services towards new, faster technologies.

As to the concept of letting ISPs "do what they want", I cannot see anything wrong with someone who establishes a company running it as he likes. That is what freedom is all about.

I agree that probably nobody here would like to be censored and that is exactly why I think scrapping this "internet neutrality" is a step forward to less censorship and not the other way around. Of course, it is only a drop in the ocean compared to how many other regulations need to be scrapped. And scrapping regulations is what Trump had promised before becoming president, so in this case, he is a man of his word, and that deserves respect if you take a look at what is happening in politics these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toadily

...... He is not looking out for the people but just for his rich supporters......

---

ANYTHING done during this administration's term will be done to redistribute money from the middle and lower class to the rich donors. Trust that law like Newton trusted Gravity.

His white trash supporters will be among those hurt worst.

As I understand it this rule will just make it difficult and slow to get on google or gmail if your Provider has an interest with Microsoft, say. When they hook up cable to your house, it comes wide open. It costs them (you) money to block the good channels so you will pay them more. This is more of that.
I have most of my utilities automatically paid because they are so regulated, no way would they cheat me. But not Verizon, they will rob you blind if you don't keep an eye on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

This natural competition would also force companies to get optic fiber connected right to your house or apartment rather than only to the "box" that is currently situated a couple of blocks away, or use satelite technology all together. That would mean connections tens of thousands times faster than your current 50Mbps. What are you even on about debating which site would work slower?!

---

And the only thing that has prevented us from having this utopia is a pesky rule that all traffic must be treated equally? Yeah right.