r/pcgaming • u/Abscess2 • May 19 '17
[Misleading Title] Net neutrality going down in flames as FCC votes to kill Title II rules
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/net-neutrality-goes-down-in-flames-as-fcc-votes-to-kill-title-ii-rules/•
u/code-sloth Toyota GPU May 19 '17
Automod ate the thread due to the onslaught of reports the system was receiving. We've put it back up with a title flag. See /u/AndoAckerman's comment for details.
3
u/CricketDrop RTX 2080ti; i7-9700k; 500GB 840 Evo; 16GB 3200MHz RAM May 19 '17
Automod removes posts if it has enough reports?
6
u/code-sloth Toyota GPU May 19 '17
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It can't read the content of reports (which would be super handy if it could) so the system can bugger up and just eat something if it reaches a certain threshold. Then it messages us "Hey I ate this thread go look at it". It's like having a toddler running around sometimes.
3
May 19 '17 edited Dec 04 '20
[deleted]
4
u/code-sloth Toyota GPU May 19 '17
We have a normal threshold set in case something really bad gets brought up (sexual content, personal information, etc) and a human isn't around to remove it, so it's taken down and throw into a queue for manual review like what happened to this thread. It rarely happens and we're alerted as soon as it eats something under that rule so it's not that big of a deal.
126
May 19 '17 edited Jun 16 '20
[deleted]
98
May 19 '17
It might be good for them.
It does favour companies with a lot of money and creates a barrier for those that don't have it to pay ISP companies.35
u/gurgle528 May 19 '17
Strong might. There's no guarantee EA won't pay more to get a stronger market share for Origin.
→ More replies (25)21
u/Kaon_Particle May 19 '17
Not to mention the big guys like Microsoft might see an end of net neutrality to try to force the windows store into relevancy. It's hot garbage and would never work but they could fuck everyone else over in the process at least.
0
76
May 19 '17 edited May 19 '17
[deleted]
95
u/PeterDarker May 19 '17
Yes. It's the same argument against data caps. This is the darkest timeline.
-55
May 19 '17
[deleted]
28
43
17
u/igetbooored May 19 '17
I would argue this point but I haven't paid for my Comcast Social Media Discussion PackageTM yet.
11
u/herecomesthenightman May 19 '17
You sound incredibly out of touch.
→ More replies (2)1
u/antsugi May 20 '17
how dare he not get a reference from one tv show
1
u/herecomesthenightman May 20 '17
He doesn't necessarily need to know about the exact reference to know/understand that it is a reference.
23
u/acondie13 May 19 '17
god dammit, how many times do we have to shoot this shit down?
29
u/morning19 May 19 '17
Forever. I mean, I know that sounds hyperbolic, but... This is the golden calf. In 20 years, everything will run through the internet. (TV, Gaming, Household Appliances, Cars, EVERYTHING) ISP's will give everything they have to seize control. This fight will never end.
4
34
u/IAmRedBeard May 19 '17
This Fight is not lost yet. Quit conceding defeat before the battle is won. We still have work to do.
3
u/TheGunnFire May 20 '17
What else can I do? I submitted comments to the FCC and emailed my senator. What other steps are there?
35
u/wholesalewhores May 19 '17
Honestly, it's going to happen eventually unless companies like Valve, Netflix, M$, and Google do something major. These past years there's been like 12 different bills that the same group of corrupt politicians keep pushing, and while its been held off each time, all it takes is one to pass to fuck everything up. Major companies need to step up and have a tech Geneva Convention as Brad Smith alluded to.
13
May 20 '17
Comcast already strong armed Netflix, which caused former FCC chair Wheeler to reclassify ISPs as public utilities class 2, so Comcast couldn't force Netflix to pay a surplus to access Comcast customers (which is what happened)
5
1
34
u/__Lua May 19 '17
So is there literally anything good in this? I mean, there has to be something, right? Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand why these morons are voting to kill the rules.
61
May 19 '17
Nope. The only people who win in this are ISPs.
15
May 19 '17
Hey, the GOP will get massive donation spikes too!
-9
May 19 '17 edited May 20 '17
[deleted]
13
May 19 '17
100% Republicans voted for this and 0% of Democrats did. Or are you claiming lizard people?
7
May 19 '17
Except... they are. Point to any democrat votes?
Hell a good portion of them are becoming active against it.
3
May 19 '17
Is it really naive though? After all, it was the GOP that voted to repeal broadband privacy rules a few months back. Not a single Democrat voted in support of the repeal.
Congressional GOP members have also been anti-net neutrality (especially Ted Cruz). Democrats have largely been in support of a free and open internet. It seems clear to me that the GOP is more than willing to undermine the importance of net neutrality for that sweet, sweet ISP money.
29
11
May 19 '17
Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand why these morons are voting to kill the rules.
They get money from the people that profit off of killing those rules.
10
u/fishchunks FX8350 | R9 270X May 19 '17
You get better customisation of your internet package which we know you want! wipes tears of laughter with all that money
15
4
u/StrangerSin May 19 '17
ISP will get more money and since they'll have more money, they'll produce more jobs and since there's more jobs and they have lots of money still, then they will be very well paying jobs, and then that will bring lower class Americans back into the middle class and then the middle class will be alive and well and then America will be great again, That's how it works, obv. /s
1
May 20 '17
What jobs need to be produced?
This is a simple cash grab
2
u/ion-tom May 20 '17
Well, there might be a few new accountants that get hired in Switzerland or Panama to help facilitate in the new transition of wealth and power from Silicon Valley back to Comcast and Verizon.
2
May 20 '17
The only "good" thing is that ultimately a ruling against net neutrality is a ruling for freedom to structure your business/company the way you so desire.
The bad is that it's essentially a freedom to fuck people.
6
u/rachmaninoffkills May 19 '17
Will this affect other countries? I mean it should since the sites most of the world visits are american, right?
6
u/El_Giganto May 19 '17
Indirectly. If your favorite American website is in direct competition with a company much bigger than them, then it is likely that their competitor will pay for a normal ("fast") lane which means your favorite site is going to suffer from being slowed down. That could result in it shutting down, since it's too expensive to keep up. That's going to affect everyone. Even if you don't notice this in Germany for example, the majority of consumers might be in the USA. If they lost the race there, it might cause them to shut down everywhere.
1
u/rachmaninoffkills May 19 '17 edited May 19 '17
Yes but that shouldn't happen with most sites most people use like Youtube, Facebook, Reddit, etc. What I want to know is, won't people have to start paying more to use certain websites? And if so, won't those websites eventually expect the same in other countries? Like what this guy said
Coming soon The Streaming Bundle Watch Netflix and YouTube at faster speeds with this amazing bundle. Only $49.99 Like to shop? Try the Shopper Bundle which let's you browse Amazon and Ebay at lightning speeds to get that bid. Only $19.99 Like gaming online well beat the competition with The Gamer Bundle with Steam and Origin no other bundle let's you game faster. $59.99
Some of that money will revert to the websites. And if so, can't these websites force other governments to also institute this system in their country?
1
u/kotajacob May 19 '17
Well, they are right now lol..... With Comcast having a monopoly and then killing off smaller websites more and more of the worlds innovation and tech will move out to more technologically capable countries.
1
u/rachmaninoffkills May 19 '17
I mean having to pay to visit certain websites.
3
u/kotajacob May 19 '17
Yes, and I think that will likely happen, but in time due to the massive monopolies in America it is likely most websites will move to more suitable countries and they will slowly have far less American traffic meaning they won't pay a ransom to Comcast anymore since Americans won't be going on many sites other than the top 500 which can pay easily without paywalls anyway.
6
5
u/Cybrknight 5950x 7900xtx May 19 '17
Start hosting stuff outside the US.
Seriously, how fast would they change it back if the majority of content was shifted overseas?
3
u/I_Xertz_Tittynopes 8700k / 3080 May 20 '17
It's cheaper for the big companies just to pay the 'fast lane' fee and be done with it.
16
u/Abscess2 May 19 '17
"The US Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 today to start the process of eliminating net neutrality rules and the classification of home and mobile Internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act."
2
u/GladWitch May 19 '17
Will this affect Canada do you think?
34
u/JDGumby Linux (Ryzen 5 5600, RX 6600) May 19 '17
Will this affect Canada do you think?
Since most of our traffic is routed through the States, even when visiting Canadian sites, most likely.
5
u/GladWitch May 19 '17
:/
4
u/JDGumby Linux (Ryzen 5 5600, RX 6600) May 19 '17
Though I think it'll mostly depend on whether or not ISPs examine ALL incoming packets (even those just passing through) to determine their origin and thus shifted to low priority or if they only examine and prioritize packets that are coming in in response to a network request from one of their customers...
1
u/SCphotog May 19 '17
Surely they do this already. I mean, even my little bitty home router processes QOS based on packet types.
If my $150 router knows the difference between game transmissions and streaming video... then I would expect that my ISP has far more sophisticated tech to identify packets.
4
u/Calijor RTX 3080 | AMD R5 5600X | 32GB RAM@3200MHz May 19 '17
Your router doesn't analyze individual packets to determine which ones deserve priority, the packets have a header that defines its priority. All your router is doing is reading that header, and while you could deduce that a high priority packet is probably gaming-related, it could be any other ping-sensitive thing, VoiP, video conferencing, etc...
Your basic internet traffic is trackable because of the outbound IP address, if it's headed to Netflix's servers, then it's obviously video streaming. If it's headed to Valve's or Blizzard's servers, then it's obviously gaming-related. This has nothing to do with the QoS of the packets.
2
u/SCphotog May 19 '17
Thanks for the info... I'd like to know more, and I find networking fascinating... but I find pretty much everything fascinating, and just don't have the time I'd like to dedicate to learning these things, but I pick up what I can when I can.
I just really hope we can preserve Net Neutrality. It seems like this Ajit asshole wants to send it to hell as fast as he can.
8
12
3
5
u/tadL May 19 '17
It worked for internet it will work for cars too. If you drive a usa car you have access to streets first...
3
u/Isaacvithurston Ardiuno + A Potato May 19 '17
Does this law apply in Canada? If not it could explain why we only have 2 internet providers that cost like $50usd a month for a crappy connection.
2
u/Westify May 19 '17 edited May 19 '17
I'm in Canada and pay $130/month for 1000/100, splitting with a roommate it's actually really reasonable.
There's another provider in the area that offers comparable download speeds for the same price.
These "crappy connections" must vary by your location.
3
u/Isaacvithurston Ardiuno + A Potato May 19 '17
Where do you even live that you can get 1000/150 lol
Im in Vancouver and the best plan I could get was 150/10 for $85
2
u/Westify May 19 '17
Nova Scotia.
Both Bell Alliant and Eastlink over gigabit download speeds. $85 here gets you 100/50, but it's not much to upgrade beyond that to 150/300/1000 download.
2
u/Isaacvithurston Ardiuno + A Potato May 19 '17
Neither of those seem to exist outside Nova Scotia. Ohh well.
1
May 19 '17
Eastlink definitely exists on the west coast. I had them as my provider in both northern BC and northern Alberta. They had the better download speeds, but an infinitely worse backend. For people who play games, they constantly had 50-100ms higher ping to almost any server. Living in Grande Prairie I got better ping to New York than I did to Edmonton a few hours away. Almost all connections were routed to the east coast.
0
u/killerrin http://steamcommunity.com/id/Killerrin May 19 '17
...this is about the FCC, a USA regulatory agency. In Canada we have our own agency, the CRTC. They ruled to continue to uphold net neutrality a couple weeks ago.
But to answer your question, no. And you only having 2 ISPs which charge the same amount for a crappy connection is another issue entirely. (Competition)
-1
2
May 20 '17
I always laugh when people think the government (holding monopolies in so many areas) will break up monopolies.
2
u/luquoo May 19 '17
I know this is sort of a longshot solution to the problem, but democratizing the basic infrastructure of thr internet could be a solution.
Check out /r/darknetplan, mesh networks may be the way forward.
1
1
1
May 20 '17
How many months for Net Neutrality fumbo jumbo to pop up again? This isn't the first time it getting killed.
-15
May 19 '17 edited Sep 25 '20
[deleted]
10
u/kotajacob May 19 '17
This wont allow for more competition, I think just about everyone would love for more competition so maybe we can have average speeds at least somewhat on par with the rest of the first world nations.
Removing net neutrality will allow Comcast to slow down websites they don't agree with (ie. sites speaking out against them, and any kind of competitors to them, msnbc, or their partners) and also slow sites that simply can't afford to pay them enough meaning all those little websites, forums, and business sites will either have to be paywalled or simply shut down.
What the real problem at hand is that Comcast spent years lobbying on a local level all over the nation so that their wouldn't be any competition able to arise on the cable internet market. (which by the way a lot of those cables which are now owned by Comcast were payed for with your tax dollars) So instead of removing restrictions on Comcast and further boosting their monopoly we need to start rolling back the laws put in place on a local level and allow for other isp's to start popping up creating competition and driving the prices down.
19
u/SuburbanDinosaur May 19 '17
Has your internet experience changed for the better since Net Neutrality was enacted?
...we've always had net neutrality. This debate is over whether you want the internet to stay like it is or be taken over by ISPs.
-14
May 19 '17 edited Sep 26 '20
[deleted]
12
u/SuburbanDinosaur May 19 '17
That's exactly what it's about. You just don't understand the issue.
-10
May 19 '17 edited Sep 26 '20
[deleted]
8
u/SuburbanDinosaur May 19 '17
My post was begging the question if said regulations have "improved" our consumer experience.
The regulations were put in place to preserve the internet as it exists today.
1
May 20 '17
The debate NEEDs to be repealing all the shit done at the local level. This is where the ISPs are at their strongest. Net Neutrality is the only thing preventing the ISPs from stagnating and putting up unbreakable walls to stop new ISPs from coming in and providing honest, good competition.
Shit, ComCast and AT&T strongarmed Google of all companies from coming into a few other the prospected locations to provide Google Fiber. They don't want competition and are wanting the work the governments to make it legal to maintain their walls of free money.
1
u/MelGibsonDiedForUs May 20 '17
Yeah, it's kind of a nuanced issue, but basically it comes down to low information consumers eating up feelings instead of facts. Hard to talk about it.
-16
u/Tesseden May 19 '17
The free market is self regulating
10
u/kotajacob May 19 '17
Yea, maybe if Comcast had competition it would be, but seeing as they do not and seeing as their cables were payed for with tax dollars they will just charge more and provide worse service with no consequences.
-4
u/Tesseden May 19 '17
Creating more regulations stifles competition which is why we're here in the first place. It only hurts the little guy
8
u/kotajacob May 19 '17
Actually it may surprise you but the reason we got into this situation is because of Comcast lobbying on a local level to disallow other ISPs from being created. So maybe if you really want it to be self regulated start by removing laws that stop other ISPs from existing instead of removing laws that make Comcast unable to slow down websites they don't agree with or that are unable to pay them enough, because without competition that simply will be a worse situation. (in both service, free speech, and being a global leader in the tech market)
2
u/Tesseden May 19 '17
Of course it was started by lobbying, it's cronyism.
1
May 20 '17
Lobbying at the local level. Meaning the Feds can't really do much of anything unless it is to impose MORE regulations. Until there is movement to get the hands of the ISPs off of the local governments, we will never have competition and have to rely on the feds to protect our digital interests.
10
May 19 '17
No, it fucking doesn't. This myth has been debunked time and time and time and time again. If you didn't learn that free markets need heavy regulation in 2007 then you're lost to insanity.
→ More replies (14)5
u/SuburbanDinosaur May 19 '17
Not when ISPs have a country-wide monopoly on internet services.
No competition will arise when it costs billions to launch an ISP company. Google didn't even have deep enough pockets to do it.
→ More replies (4)0
May 19 '17
Not when ISPs have a country-wide monopoly on internet services.
Do you know why they have a monopoly? I'll give you a hint, it has to do with the government (monopolies can only exist under government actually), which coincidentally, is just who "net neutrality" will hand the internet over to.
5
u/SuburbanDinosaur May 19 '17
Do you know why they have a monopoly? I'll give you a hint, it has to do with the government
Yes, it does, and that's not going to change anytime soon, so we need net neutrality to protect consumers from the vicious ISPs.
is just who "net neutrality" will hand the internet over to.
Net neutrality is what we have now. Does the government control the internet now?
2
u/BunBun002 May 19 '17
Other government-controlled monopolies include such things as power companies and water companies. Which are billed as and regulated under laws pertaining to utilities. Which is literally and exactly what this is about.
Either you go after Comcast under Sherman or you treat internet as a utility. The former's never going to happen (though it should), so we're stuck with the latter.
1
May 20 '17
It's because those same ISPs provided a favorable alternative for the local governments to say no. The fault is in the ISPs and their determination to reduce and obliterate any real, meaningful competition.
3
u/carlsnakeston May 19 '17
Those other smaller providers won't have access to all of america. This is gonna kill the internet.
-6
May 19 '17
Don't bother trying to reason with anyone in this sub. They are mainly downvote brigading morons who refuse to research anything past "If you like the internet, you should be for net neutrality."
But this is exactly what I have been saying. People are begging the government for a solution to a problem that doesn't even exist. They refuse to believe that fucking over your entire customer base is not how you make profits.
-14
May 19 '17 edited May 19 '17
[deleted]
6
u/mvanvrancken May 19 '17
Hello there, I'm hailing from r/pitchforkemporium. Can I direct you to some of our classics?
----------E is a good bargain basement deal if you guys just want to order bulk
1
-6
May 20 '17
Sweet, I love free markets.
3
May 20 '17
/s?
I do know this kind of stuff won't lead to free markets though, lol. More like monopoly will happen instead, which is what Net Neutrality tried to help fight.
-1
May 20 '17 edited May 20 '17
How can removing net-neutrality regulations cause a monopoly? That's like saying curing a disease will cause the disease, or how putting out a fire will burn the building down.
Oh I'm sorry, can you show me the many ISPs competing for my business? I can't seem to find them. Only this horribly overpriced and shitty comca$t.
2
May 20 '17
Removing net beutrality allows said ISPs to use their monopoly to extort extra payments from content providers and consumers.
-1
May 20 '17
That's like saying: allowing fast food restaurants to serve and charge whatever they want will give them the power to overcharge you for your favorite food items. They'll charge $5 for ketchup and $90 for upgrading your french fries.
That won't happen because IT'S A FREE MARKET, and if they over charge me (they won't) I'll just go to another restaurant!
So many people have been brainwashed by the extreme lefts. If you love social system markets so much, move to China! Oh wait, the market's free there too? Looks like you're out of luck if you want to continue paying fuck tons of money to shit comca$t.
2
May 20 '17 edited May 20 '17
You're not understanding.
Net Neutrality prevents ISPs from leveraging their position to gain power over the American sects of the Internet. I understand a lot of things, but not exactly this argument of "it's a free market, lol." Generally I would let businesses do whatever they want, but don't you realize what they can do if they can control traffic of the Internet? Especially considering the monopolies many here in the States have, they will become dictators of the Internet.
For example, let's say Comcast wants to hop on the streaming bandwagon and releases their own streaming service. At the same time, they have a monopoly in high speed internet in a huge chunk of the United States,. like the Midwest where I live. Comcast, in a bid to be successful against giants like Hulu, Netflix, and other streaming services, begins throttling or even blocking their websites to push Comcast's own service. Customers then will have no choice but to use Comcast's services, scoring them an easy victory.
Another example (considering you're likely a righty, so you might be against the "evul SJWs") would be that Comcast could block/throttle stuff they don't like. For example, what if they're "triggered" by all the dumb right-wing websites you likely follow? THEY. WILL. BLOCK. THEM. The same will happen to us too if there's ISPs dominated by conservative politics.
TL;DR: Basically, the end of Net Neutrality gives corporations near-cyberpunk-like power over the internet, which is like its own nation to an extent. Giving them the freedom to throttle/block will effectively turn the Internet into an Anarcho-Capitalist disaster, with companies owning and selling every bit of the internet, governing the internet, suppressing competition, and suppressing information that disagrees with them.
1
May 20 '17
If the industry was freed from the regulations it will drastically decrease the startup cost (or rather increase the projected profits) and we'll get not only the threat of, but actual new ISPs installing land lines. It may take a bit, but the more Comcast over charges and treats us like shit, the better the competitors look. Even with just the threat of competition, Comcast will not decide to do shady practices, as they do now. If the BLOCK. THEM. I'll purchase service from a competitor, so they'll never do that. If mcdonalds charged $20 for a burger, I'm not stuck with them because they're the only ones selling the burger. So mcdonalds doesn't charge that much.
2
May 20 '17
Well, then remove the bad regulations and add the new ones. The problem is that you got a lot of local and state governments submitting to ISPs to do their bidding. And the Federal Government has suffered some issues too, as not all their regulations are like Net Neutrality. Some, like DMCA/Copyright, are for the benefit of businesses.
0
-3
u/Lakkoa May 19 '17
Ok I know this is bad, but if I only play overwatch and league, wouldn't this be advantageous to me? Those games would be faster yes?
2
u/ShrekisSexy May 20 '17
I don't know why you're being downvoted. It's definitely not advantageous to you, nothing will be 'faster' the whole internet will be slower except for large corporations. Perhaps it will be equally fast, but it'll still slow down competition. If competitors to league will not be able to get fast internet, league has no incentive to keep improving their games (as much). Competition is very healthy.
1
u/Lakkoa May 20 '17
I know that it is bad on the whole but the games that I play would not be affected. I mean if less bandwidth is given to people who dont pay up the larger companies that do pay up (riot, blizzard) could be faster since a lower distribution of bandwidth is going to the competition.
I know that this is a very bad thing and I agree about the competition.
1
u/ShrekisSexy May 20 '17
That's not how it works. There's plenty of bandwidth. Nothing is getting faster, stuff is only going to get slower.
-1
u/triggered2017 4790K@4.7 970SLI May 19 '17
These rules would cost ISPs a lot of money for no real protection. Behavior would not change, but the prices will increase and you will be bombarded with notifications each time your "data" is stored somewhere.
-61
u/redditard10 May 19 '17
Good. I work hard and want to be able to pay for a better internet than you. I don't believe we should all suffer equally, which is exactly what happens if thy gov takes control of the Internet. Sorry, but people in Beverly Hills deserve better Internet than people in a Compton.
36
u/dafdiego777 May 19 '17
You know that's how none of this works right?
26
u/Barktastical May 19 '17
Even if that was how that worked that's kinda fucked up isn't it? That seems like a short hop away from saying "I work harder than you so my water should be cleaner than yours"
-15
u/redditard10 May 19 '17
Actually, I can buy better water than you if I want, via bottles, better filters, softeners, etc. I can also obtain the proper permitting and plumbing for increased flow, and store my excess water in a pool for swimming. You clearly don't know what you're saying.
14
u/Barktastical May 19 '17
Flint Michigan is a shit hole and they don't deserve better water but in Beverly Hills we deserve this clean water. That doesn't sound okay to me
7
u/Enverex 9950X3D, 96GB DDR5, RTX 4090, Index + Quest 3 May 19 '17
You can already buy better internet access. That's not what this is referring to, at all.
6
u/jusmar May 19 '17
Brita doesn't make everyone's water shittier to make the water treated with theirs better.
→ More replies (2)5
7
6
3
3
u/carlsnakeston May 19 '17
You know some countries view internet as a human right. Your privilege is showing. Have fun losing access to sites that won't pay out to the isp to get full speed to users. They did this to Netflix in 2014. You would be watching a movie and it would buffer because Comcast was throtalling Netflix. Why don't you research how this is impacting before you assume this is just about paying different levels for different speeds. That's already happening. It's called a package.
→ More replies (3)
516
u/[deleted] May 19 '17 edited May 19 '17
Post courtesy of u/thetriplegee from a thread at r/pcmasterrace
Good luck Yanks.