Can someone point me to a post where someone was outraged about variable intenet speeds?

[brooklynite]

Because they've been available for years, even under Net Neutrality. You can pay more for higher connection speeds; you can pay more for higher resolution NetFlix. The market determines the demand and pricing for each. Life goes on. So will the internet.

[shanny]

1. Yea for the market!

Believing in the magic of the market has never screwed anything up.

[brooklynite]

2. Not magic; just reality...

Will ISPs try creative pricing? Maybe; if users won't abide by them, they'll give up.

But just as "magical" is the belief that a cabal of internet companies will suppress DU and other progressive websites because they don't like their messages.

[ret5hd]

3. As stated earlier, we all know your latest cause du jour.

Shouldn't you be readying for the cotillion?

[brooklynite]

9. If personal insults help you get you through the day, I stand ready to serve...

[Vinnie From Indy]

12. LOL

Cheers!

[shanny]

4. Sure. I've noticed throughout my life that de-regulating

ALWAYS leads to lower prices for everything. ALWAYS. And that corporations never EVER engage in price fixing or other techniques to maximize their profits at the expense of the average citizen, any detrimental social consequences notwithstanding. Also too that media organizations never EVER skew news coverage toward desired outcomes. Nope.

smdh

[EL34x4]

5. I'm still trying to remember how much the internet sucked before 2015.

I'm pretty much of the opinion that this is much ado about very little.

[Orrex]

7. Wait until you can't access Democratic Underground

because your service provider determines that DU is contrary to its corporate interests.

It's easy to dismiss this as "chicken little" thinking, but if it's not going to have any impact, then why do you think that multi-billion dollar corporations have lobbied so hard for it?

[MineralMan]

8. DU is not on any ISP's radar.

It is remarkably insignificant to such organizations. It's a low bandwidth, mostly text-based site that has virtually no impact on any ISP. Companies like Comcast don't even know that DU exists, really.

Now, porn sites are another matter. They're high-bandwidth operations and very, very popular with ISP customers. ISPs care about popular porn sites.

DU makes zero impact on ISPs, frankly.

[Orrex]

14. I know, but I was making a point.

Here's a better list making the same point:



It is foolish and short-sighted to imagine that this won't happen on a larger scale as soon as ISPs can do it. DU is small, and it won't be targeted directly, but it's entirely possible that it'll get caught in some ISP-maintained filter to restrict "controversial" contact.

[Hoyt]

40. Well, it may have been blocked at moment, but it obviously wasn't blocked long and those things

probably got more notice anyway. Plus, I'm not sure "net neutrality" would have prevented that.

[Orrex]

42. I wish that I could be as trusting of corporate benevolence (nt)

[Hoyt]

47. As long as there is an internet anywhere near what it was like, say during bush's years,

we won't be stifled. Besides, the internet providers make money off traffic.

[Egnever]

59. Just the opposite

they are getting killed by traffic. Most ISP's are also television providers. They are losing butt loads of money to people dumping their television subs because they can get the content through the internet and many times without adds. They are losing cash both from the subscriptions and the advertising revenue. The traffic people are paying for does not come close to making up for it.

[Orrex]

61. Years ago, like many other people, I asked about a la carte channel availability

The Comcast rep dutifully recited the company line, that the technology didn't exist to offer that service, that there was no way to make it work.

All to justify saddling me with twelve golf channels and sixteen shopping channels, in effect charging me $169.99 so that my kids could watch SpongeBob.

Fast forward to now, and we see that the technology absolutely does exist (and existed at the time), but what Comcast meant was that they hadn't figured out a way to maximize customer gouging, so they declared it impossible.

Today, of course, we can trust telecom companies to do the right thing and provide equal access to the entire internet, with no throttling or heavy-handed blocking.


Obviously...

[EL34x4]

15. LOL I was writing my reply before I read yours!

Yes. Take away the free porn and people will write congress, demanding a return to net neutrality (without mentioning how much they miss their free porn).

[Orrex]

21. Porn is an easy target in this argument

Because it allows the observer to adopt a faux-moral position while also denigrating those who advocate for net neutrality (i.e., "they just want to see boobs." )

Your attempt at mockery notwithstanding, porn is a useful canary in the coalmine here. The ISP will strict access to porn sites, and the righteous moralists will cheer. ISPs will restrict access to "controversial" sites, and moralists will cheer. Maybe not as loudly, but they'll still cheer.

ISPs will restrict access to websites with content that they deem contrary to their corporate interests. Righteous moralists won't notice, because they'll be too busy sucking down the pablum that maintains their delusion of moral superiority.

Before long we'll be completely at the mercy of ISPs that dispense only corporate-friendly propaganda, and the righteous moralists will cheer because that's all they know how to do.


If you are inclined to laugh and call this "chicken little" fear-mongering, then I encourage you to get out of the way, in deference to those who actually understand the stakes.

[fescuerescue]

24. This is all driven by big money

And porn is BIG money.

These free websites are making millions and are the ISP earliest and best customers.

I just don't see ISP's cutting off that money train to satisfy customers (since when have ISP's care about retail customers anyway?)

[EL34x4]

48. I'm not mocking. I'm serious. If you want to piss people off, take away the free porn.

They'll be writing congress promising to vote for "whoever makes the internet the way it used to be."

Anyhow, you say: "Before long we'll be completely at the mercy of ISPs that dispense only corporate-friendly propaganda, and the righteous moralists will cheer because that's all they know how to do."

Right now we're at the mercy of YouTube and Google who are doing the same thing. It's all a matter of who's ox is getting gored. Google is crying foul because they've had it pretty good while Comcast has been taking it in the shorts. Not the scripts flipped.

I suppose I can get out of the way because I'm just not too worked up over this. Whether it's wealthy corporation Comcast who's happy now or wealthy corporation Google who was happy a week ago, either way I just don't see there's going to be that much of a difference.

[Vinnie From Indy]

16. I find it quaint that you completely ignore or discount content being slowed

for political reasons. DU is on several radars.

[MineralMan]

19. DU is designed for fast display.

You won't really notice any slowdown, except on graphics-heavy threads. Text is served so quickly that you won't notice any difference.

Political reasons? Really. Nope. DU doesn't matter that much, politically. It simply does not have enough reach to make a real impact on anything. We talk a lot on DU, but nobody's listening, except those of us who post here.

DU does not matter to any ISP. They're interested in high-bandwidth sites that have massive traffic. DU is neither of those things. Your favorite blogs or whatever are pretty much the same. Nobody but you and us cares about any of that.

Really.

[shanny]

26. Well, if it doesn't affect DU it's all good then.

Really?

[MineralMan]

27. No. I did not say that at all.

I'm replying to a specific post in this thread that discussed DU. I thought that was obvious.

[EL34x4]

13. They didn't lobby hard for this to shut down DU. They've got much bigger fish to fry.

This is about streaming television and cutting the cord. It's about Hulu and Netflix vs. Comcast.

As long as they don't take away the free porn, people are unlikely to notice much change worth being outraged over.

[Orrex]

18. As I note above, DU is not the point

And it absolutely won't be limited to pissing contests about streaming television.



DU won't be targeted specifically, but it's not hard to imagine ISPs filtering for "controversial" material and thereby blocking DU and similar "controversial" sites.

As long as they don't take away the free porn, people are unlikely to notice much change worth being outraged over.

I made a similar comment a few days ago, noting that Republicans will lose their minds when they realize that they can't access their porn as readily. They'll primary the shit out of whatever legislators cut off their access to livestock-fucking and the like.

[EL34x4]

20. Youtube and Google are already censoring the internet.

Basically by burying stuff they dislike so it doesn't show up on search engines.

[Orrex]

28. Your refusal to understand the difference reveals quite a bit

You can still find such content, if you know how and/or where to look. You can also access that content through direct linking.

If Comcast is the gatekeeper, then the website will be entirely inaccessible to you, and you may not even be able to see that it exists.

See the difference?

[tymorial]

29. This is quite true.

[NYC Liberal]

44. YouTube is one of many content providers.

Google is one of many search engines.

If I don't like YouTube or Google, I type in a different URL, which takes seconds.

Tell me how I change the only ISP in my area in a matter of seconds.

[GeorgeGist]

56. All the fish will be fried eventually.

You can count on it.

[fescuerescue]

22. DU is one of millions of websites that offer up controversial opinions

Cable companies are not going to hire an army of people who scour the Internet looking for things that offend them.

But if they did, where is the profit in it?

[Orrex]

30. It is baffling to see Progressives arguing for greater corporate power with fewer restrictions

What are we to make of this?

Cable companies are not going to hire an army of people who scour the Internet looking for things that offend them.

Either you are unaware of the concept of "filtering," in which case you are not qualified to participate in this discussion, or you have chosen to pretend that it doesn't exist, in which case you are not qualified to participate in this discussion.

Your silly mischaracterization of technology is so absurd that it's clear that nothing is to be gained from discussing this with you.

[fescuerescue]

53. NO need to be baffled

Because I'm not making that argument. Far from it, I'm very dismayed and saddened that Net Neutrality was lifted (or will be)

And yes I'm aware of filtering. Ive been practicing in Cyber Security for the last 2 decades - long before 99% of the public even knew what Cyber Security is. I seriously doubt if anyone on this site has more experience than I do. I've met face to face with CSO's of cable companies and talked about their concerns. Have you?

I'll tell you what concerns them - cord cutters and breeches. They don't give a crap about political chat boards. They just don't. Why? Because they don't affect their revenue stream. DU could vanish tomorrow and they won't make a nickel more or nickel less. They are concerned however, with competing with Netflix and the other streaming services, because they are getting their lunch eaten to their tune of billions per year.

Telcos and cable companies want Net Neutrality lifted so they can fight cord cutting. They just don't care about few thousand people on DU being paranoid about each others intentions.

Do I want Net Neutrality? Hell yes. I like my video streaming. But I'm not going to wring my hands in faux worry that something will happen than won't happen.

[onenote]

31. That's close to black helicopter tin foil nonsense

ISPs want to make money. Period. They don't care about the content that travels over their networks unless it is competing directly with content they sell.

[Orrex]

32. What a lovely, rose-colored pollyanna world you've imagined for us!

[NYC Liberal]

46. Amazing how the myriads of shitty things companies do, many based purely on ideology,

are posted here on a daily basis...but now suddenly it's, "Why would any company do something shitty? That would be bad!"

[fallout87]

35. And when is that going to happen?

Put a date on it. Otherwise its unsubstantiated hysteria.

[MerryBlooms]

49. DU was locked out on election night by hackers...

After the admins were able to get us back up, there was a flood of posts about how important DU must be to have been targeted... but now, DU is too small and insignificant to be on anyone's radar.

[Orrex]

52. LOL. Funny how that works.

And I'm amazed at the silliness of objecting on the grounds of "importance."

As is entirely my employer's right, my workplace servers will filter out anything remotely controversial, and the filters have nothing to do with the "importance" or size of the forbidden website. I'm frankly amazed that it allows DU to be accessed, but many small sites are blocked as "political advocacy." Others are blocked because they're classified as "sports" or "streaming services" or "adult." So whether you're trying to access your friend's teeny-tiny web page that shows his Pokemon stats, or you're trying to access X-Box Live, both are blocked as "gaming."

The notion that DU is "too small" to get the ax is a red herring that (deliberately?) ignores the way these things actually work.

[MerryBlooms]

55. It's been years of the right silencing the left through media...

First buying up all the radio stations and firing all left voices. TV stations are being bought up to slant all news to the right. Limiting Democratic votes through fraud, redistricting, etc... This is the huge and final step in what has been a long and vicious attack at silencing us. I cannot believe some of the posts I'm seeing here this morning. Heartbreaking, really.

[fescuerescue]

54. Different events bring out different people

and different opinions.

I suspect that if you audited the posts of folks claiming to be targeted, vs target cable company anger, its probably a totally group that happened to have posted on the same site.

[Orrex]

6. The problem is not simply speed, but access

If the internet is recognized as the utility that it is, then deep-pocketed corporations should be required to enable equal access. Yes, varying speeds are (and have been) available, but the service providers haven't (as a rule) throttled certain online services.

If Comcast wants to favor its own streaming service, then it has an incentive to throttle Netflix, etc. If Democratic Underground espouses some anti-corporate view, then Verizon could block it.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that providers won't use their newly granted abilities to boost their profits and their political power.


The claim that "this is how the internet was two years ago" is also silly and simplistic, because Amazon, for instance, has grown by 50% in those two years, so it has a much larger internet presence than it did then. Market consolidation moves perpetually toward reduced competition, with fewer options and less power for consumers.

Life will go on

Well, no kidding. Life would go on if women were required to cover their hair, faces and bodies and if they were forbidden to own property, too.

This isn't simply about keeping internet access; it's about stopping the corporate push to privatize and own everything.

[Gabi Hayes]

10. Excellent response

Makes you wonder if the short sighted ignorance is......purposeful?

How else to describe stuff like that?

[diva77]

17. +1000 This! Oh boy! It could mean cheap hi speed wingnut sites and expensive, low speed DU

was also about to post the following:

What the End of Net Neutrality Means for You

http://time.com/money/5065743/how-net-neutrality-decision-affects-you/

SNIP deregulation will result in different internet packages that prioritize certain kinds of content. Broadband companies could offer bundles, much in the same way as cable companies. So if you love going on Twitter and Facebook, you could pay for one kind of subscription. And if you binge-watch Netflix or Hulu, you could instead pay for a video-oriented package.

And if you want it all, you may have to pay a lot more. In the same vein of premium cable bundles that give you every channel possible, ISPs could offer deluxe options. Critics believe this would unfairly benefit higher-income households at a time when internet communication is crucial.

Meanwhile, ISPs could downgrade the speed of content providers not seen as worthy enough, a practice known as throttling.

Without government protections, consumers would be “paying more money to their internet companies to get a less diverse, less interesting [internet],” said Evan Greer, the campaign director of Fight for the Future, a nonprofit focusing on digital rights.
SNIP
==========================
boldness added for emphasis

[Kali]

65. this

(I am not stalking you LOL)

[Orrex]

67. Mm-hmm...

[MGKrebs]

11. That is what is called a 'red herring'.

Yes you can currently buy faster internet. But when you do, all of it is faster. Without net neutrality they can make their preferred content faster and the other content slower. So they have additional leverage to make content providers pay more to make sure they have fast access. Guess who pays for those increasing costs? We do.

[jberryhill]

23. Which is irrelevant to the issue

[csziggy]

25. Here is a story on another site that shows what could happen

I Don’t Give A Netflux

(One of the major ISPs in Indonesia, who’s also the main telecommunications provider, is blocking Netflix since its expansion, due to Netflix’s refusal to share its revenue with the ISP. To compensate, they provide their own rip-off streaming services, but the service is really bad. One day I decide to stop my subscription, since they’re blocking Netflix, and also due to their really silly Internet filter. If we cancel our subscription, we could also lose our landline, and I don’t want to lose it, so I need to make sure.)

Me: “Hello, I want to cancel my subscription to your Internet service. But I have one question: would I lose my landline number?”

ISP: “All right, ma’am. Could you tell us the reason you’re ending your subscription?”

Me: “I can’t watch Netflix. You block them.”

ISP: “Sorry, but they’re not our product. To stream movies and TV series, we suggest [Rip-Off Streaming Service #

More: https://notalwaysright.com/not-always-right-supports-net-neutrality/101190/

[brooklynite]

33. .and in the US, that ISP would lose its business.

[Kentonio]

36. Except it wouldn't.

Because in a lot of areas people don't have a decent choice of providers. If you only have 1 or 2 options, then its not a choice at all once they start pulling this kind of crap.

[csziggy]

38. Yes, but here in the US consolidation is decreasing choices

And if you are in some markets there really is only one choice.

For instance, I am semi-rural (used to be rural but development now surrounds my farm). CenturyLink is really my only choice for broadband. So under the new FCC rules if CenturyLink decided that what I am paying them for broadband is not enough they could limit my access to streaming sites just to keep me subscribing to their PrismTV which comes in over the same lines.

If that happened, I would have no other choice - even if I move to a different ISP, they would be piggy backing on CenturyLink fiber optic cables, buying the bandwidth from CenturyLink. So CenturyLink would still have the final say on how much bandwidth and what content I could get.

Too many areas of this country are pretty much monopolies when it comes to internet access, at least if you want broadband - and the world wide web now requires broadband to get decent access.

[EL34x4]

51. If Comcast did that to Netflix, people would march on Washington.

Americans might not give two shits about Russian collusion but block their Netflix and they'll be up in arms.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

34. Tsk, tsk. All that money and still can't buy a clue. Is this the kind of

intellectual masturbation going on at "salons" (whatever the fuck that is)?

[shanny]

63. ...

[BumRushDaShow]

37. One of the reasons why this whole issue comes up

is because of the egregious "wrongs" and complaints in the past.

E.g., the situation with Comcast when users discovered an unadvertised "cap" on their paid-for "unlimited" service. This was 10 years ago and Comcast eventually had to come out and "officially" announce that yes, "unlimited" was not really "unlimited" and there was a cap.

Meanwhile EFF found Comcast had been inserting forged packets to slow certain data - again 10 years ago. ISPs and wireless providers offering net access were sued and were eventually forced to remove the "unlimited data" moniker from their advertising.

So yes one can pay for different "tiers", but those who paid for what was advertised as a "highest" (consumer) tier were in for a rude awakening because the definition of what the consumer considered "unlimited" was completely different from the provider's definition.

"Regulations" don't come out of thin air as is the typical RW talking point dujour. It's normally as a result of some major negative consumer impact after the unregulated "market forces" eventually lead to industry collusion whereby there is encouragement to implement the same lowest common denominator "practices" industry-wide. And that is because there is no punishment to do so and "everyone else is doing it".

[pnwmom]

39. They could make FOX and all the Russian propaganda FREE, and MSNBC and CNN very expensive.

You aren't outraged about that?

Or the concerns about public education:

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2017/12/FCC_Dismantles_Net_Neutrality_Policy_and_K-12_Schools_Await_Impact.html?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=20171217Mindshift&mc_key=00Qi000001adoW7EAI&cmp=soc-facebook-shr

[HeartachesNhangovers]

41. I admire your willingness to question the

conventional wisdom on DU. I'm sure it's a thankless and exhausting effort. [No sarcasm or irony intended.]

[NYC Liberal]

43. This isn't about variable internet speeds. It's about prioritizing or de-prioritizing traffic based

on content.

Of course you can pay your ISP more for a faster connection, because you are getting better service.

And of course you can pay Netflix for access to higher quality videos, because again you're getting something better.

This is about an ISP saying "The ones and zeroes coming from Netflix are going to be treated differently from the ones and zeroes coming from our own streaming service."

We don't need to speculate what would happen, because ISPs have ALREADY shown what they would do without enforcement of Net Neutrality. A few real-life examples of things that actually happened:

- AT&T blocked Skype and FaceTime unless you paid a higher rate.
- Verizon throttled Netflix and YouTube.
- Verizon blocked text messages from NARAL.
- AT&T blocked Skype.
- Comcast blocked VPNs and throttled BitTorrent.

[Adrahil]

45. It's one thing to pay for different levels of service from a content provider....

or a differnt levels of base speed from your ISP.

But once I pay for a certain speed or bandwidth from the ISP, My ISP should be deciding which services I want come at what speeds.

This is especially a problem when the ISP starts privileging content it owns or is associated with, and when my options for ISP's are limited (or even limited to one).

i don't pay my electric company different rates for how I use the electricity. It's all one price. So should be my bandwidth.

[mythology]

50. Here you go

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4770058

Or perhaps you'd prefer I find the articles about the ISP that blocked voice over IP calls until the FCC spanked them.

And there is no fucking market for internet in the U.S. The majority of people have 1 broadband option. 80% have two.

It is cost prohibitive to start a new ISP. And so even though ISPs are consistently among the most hated companies, they get little new competition. They sue to block municipal broadband and Google Fiber. They sue when states try to make them live up to promises to provide service.


https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3320473

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/comcast-sues-nashville-to-halt-rules-that-help-google-fiber/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170831/13401538125/comcast-sues-vermont-insists-having-to-expand-broadband-violates-first-amendment-rights.shtml

Frankly your opinion that the market will take care of things is absolutely laughably uninformed. There is a reason the federal government took charge of rolling out national electricity. It's the same for internet.

[hunter]

60. In many places the electric companies charged two rates, one for lighting, one for outlets.

The lighting rate was less.

People "cheated" the electric company by using those little adapters that turn a light bulb socket into an outlet.



https://www.lowes.com/pd/Project-Source-660-Watt-Ivory-Medium-Light-Socket-Adapter-with-Pull-Chain/3775057

If the electric company caught you using those they could disconnect your service.

The big Internet Service Providers might deal with people trying to get around their service restrictions in a similar manner.

[RandomAccess]

66. You win the thread

Hands down, among several good contenders.

Well done.

[GeorgeGist]

57. Good god you're naive.

[ret5hd]

62. Naive? No.

On your side? No also.

[Orrex]

68. Correct? Also no.

[Egnever]

58. That argument doesn't even begin to work.

You already pay for the bandwidth. Now you are going to pay for the content as well with no increase in performance but very possible reductions in access.

[alarimer]

64. This is not the fucking point of net neutrality.

It is that ISPs need to treat content EQUALLY, regardless of where it comes from. Comcast, say, could not prioritize their own streaming service (by allowing it to stream at full speed) over, say Netflix (by throttling the speeds so slow it would be impossible to watch.)

And ISPs are essentially monopolies. Most people have the choice of ONE, ONE fucking provider, meaning the cannot vote by switching.

And to top off the shit icing on this turd cake, the ISPs and their lackeys in state legislatures have managed to pass laws against municipal broadband, because it's "unfair competition". FUCKING BULLSHIT.

Free market absolutists can take the free market and shove it up their ass.