End of net neutrality will kill f2p/b2p

Glurin · December 2017

I should also point out that in addition to the issues I previously mentioned, you also have the streaming service providers such as Netflix adding their own misinformation fuel to the bonfire. I have first hand experience with them deliberately misleading customers into believing that their ISP is throttling video streaming services as part of some nefarious plot to kill video streaming. And I do mean deliberately.

zaria · December 2017

mirta000b16_ESO wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

Hate to break it to you, but net neutrality has a fatal flaw. The spirit of net neutrality is fine, but it can't be enforced without violating that spirit. Look at it this way. You're wanting to keep the internet free of corrupted influences by handing control over to what is hands down the most corrupt and selfish type of entity on the planet. (Fox guarding the hen house comes to mind.) It's just not going to work the way you want it to and it's a good thing to get repealed before any damage is done.

Net neutrality simply did not let you throttle one site in favour of another. UK has their own version of "net neutrality" and you can throttle individual customers based on what they pay and what package they get, but you can not throttle individual sites.

This is if anything anti competition and a way to get more money for ISPs. Simply you contact all popular sites and go "you pay us monthly or we throttle our customer's access to your site". Now monopolies will pay (Google, facebook, steam, etc), smaller companies will not be able to afford to pay, meaning a monopoly is kept a monopoly.

On the upside, for some reason local governments can block this law in their own states, so so far Kentucky, Washington and New York are keeping Net Neutrality (meaning companies can not throttle specific sites when providing service to those states). There's a chance that more states will join later.

Pretty much this, ISP will demand money in both ends,
Now streaming uses a lot of bandwidth and it also increases fast, add that lots of ISP are cable companies and so compete directly with streaming services.

Online games don't use much bandwidth. they are also an very narrow marked compared to youtube and netflix.

Ihatenightblades · December 2017

Sleep724 wrote: »

There was no net neutrality before 2015 and the internet grew just fine.

This. You liberals have panic attacks anytime there is change you dont like.

mirta000b16_ESO · December 2017

Glurin wrote: »

I should also point out that in addition to the issues I previously mentioned, you also have the streaming service providers such as Netflix adding their own misinformation fuel to the bonfire. I have first hand experience with them deliberately misleading customers into believing that their ISP is throttling video streaming services as part of some nefarious plot to kill video streaming. And I do mean deliberately.

the idea is that you are selling specific up/down to every customer for specific price. It's like going "this is your own personal road, you can only use this side and can only go 20 mph, but what we're selling you is the ability to use this road".

Then you go and sell the same road to everyone else.

The up/down is already a limitor on the client and if their download is not good enough to watch a stream, then they will watch a poor quality stream, or no stream at all. The issue that they sold the same thing to more customers than can fit on that highway, so now they need an ability to not only impose a download limitation on speed and just how much you can, but also a way to prevent the customer from accessing intensive services all together.

Doctordarkspawn · December 2017

1. This will happen if the problem isn't solved. Companies will throttle processes they dont like. Sorry. We've seen before that companies tend to screw customers even if it isn't good buisness. Look at -this game- for proof of that. Look at how games have been charged a consistant sixty dollars or more without any apparent increase in quality. It will happen. Anyone who tells you different is attempting to further the interest of these corporations, concious or not.

2. It's being stalled. Multiple lawsuits from the DA's of more than a few states. It likely will not get past anything and be finalized until these are delt with.

3. It will likely be done on a legislative level now. Either under anit monopoly laws, or under standard legislation. If not on a national level, on a state level.

DieAlteHexe · December 2017

Ihatenightblades wrote: »

Sleep724 wrote: »

There was no net neutrality before 2015 and the internet grew just fine.

This. You liberals have panic attacks anytime there is change you dont like.

*sigh*

Let's keep politics out of this. This has been looked askance by right, left, centre etc.

Plenty of places to take political shots and I really don't want to see this forum become one of them. Please?

Doctordarkspawn · December 2017

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

You voted Trump for president and Net Neutrality is all you're worried about?

Heh.

1. Politics.

2. The man isn't nearly as incompitent as people think he is. He's not a politician, but he's also not an idiot when it comes to buisness. If your not native to the US, I suggest you work under the assumption that everything your told about the man is a straight up lie until proven otherwise. Even if you live in the US, operate under this assumption for anything taken from television.

Animus-ESO · December 2017

Ihatenightblades wrote: »

Sleep724 wrote: »

There was no net neutrality before 2015 and the internet grew just fine.

This. You liberals have panic attacks anytime there is change you dont like.

Bro. Net neutrality is the biggest freedom fight of our generation.. The entire free market is at risk. With no laws on what major corporations can do with the internet they can crush any company they feel is a threat to them. Amazon? Google? Ebay? You can pretty much kiss the online free market goodbye. Stop taking the free web for granted and wake up to corporate corruption invading our country. This is not a liberal issue. This is an american issue.

OutLaw_Nynx · December 2017

Idk but can we just agree this sucks?

Like leave my internet alone

Glurin · December 2017

mirta000b16_ESO wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

I should also point out that in addition to the issues I previously mentioned, you also have the streaming service providers such as Netflix adding their own misinformation fuel to the bonfire. I have first hand experience with them deliberately misleading customers into believing that their ISP is throttling video streaming services as part of some nefarious plot to kill video streaming. And I do mean deliberately.

the idea is that you are selling specific up/down to every customer for specific price. It's like going "this is your own personal road, you can only use this side and can only go 20 mph, but what we're selling you is the ability to use this road".

Then you go and sell the same road to everyone else.

The up/down is already a limitor on the client and if their download is not good enough to watch a stream, then they will watch a poor quality stream, or no stream at all. The issue that they sold the same thing to more customers than can fit on that highway, so now they need an ability to not only impose a download limitation on speed and just how much you can, but also a way to prevent the customer from accessing intensive services all together.

That's called overselling and is common practice in the industry. Normally it's not a problem because there are only ever a few people using the road at the same time. But streaming services mean more people want to be on the road at once, which slows everybody down due to congestion. It just means that in order to sustain good quality of service, ISPs need to reduce the margin that they can oversell their service at and invest in infrastructure improvements.

Xundiin · December 2017

Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

I'll keep this simple.

Alrighty then. So will I.

LegacyDM wrote: »

ISPs will now charge content providers (ZOS in this case) more money to offer current services to their customers.

No, they won't. At least not because of "the end of net neutrality". Just not good business. They might do it to cover operating costs and such though.

LegacyDM wrote: »

Content providers will pass on increased costs to the customer.

Yeah. Always have, always will. They can't stay in business (ie. provide content) otherwise. Nobody could. Well, except the government, but even they get bitten in the ass by it eventually.

LegacyDM wrote: »

However, since this game relies on crown store and paid chapter products and not subscriptions, ZOS has a problem.

None that they didn't have before.

LegacyDM wrote: »

Crown prices are already as high as customers are willing to pay, and chapters are expensive as is, soooooo where will they get the money to stay profitable with increased operating costs?

By offering more and better content in exchange for a sum of money like everybody else in a capitalist society?

LegacyDM wrote: »

Didn't think net neutrality repeal would affect you or online gaming? Think again. As long as the repeal to neutrality is here to stay I see a revival in subscription based gaming for the desktop computer gaming market.

Subscription based gaming came about because of good economic times when lots of people had lots of disposable income. Likewise, F2P became a growing trend because of bad economic times when people no longer had much disposable income. It had nothing whatsoever to do with net neutrality.

Hate to break it to you, but net neutrality has a fatal flaw. The spirit of net neutrality is fine, but it can't be enforced without violating that spirit. Look at it this way. You're wanting to keep the internet free of corrupted influences by handing control over to what is hands down the most corrupt and selfish type of entity on the planet. (Fox guarding the hen house comes to mind.) It's just not going to work the way you want it to and it's a good thing to get repealed before any damage is done.

Removing it helps protect it how exactly? I think of Australia's *** as internet with this repeal and soon we will be there. This repeal in no way benefits consumers it's ludacris to think it could ever. The infrastructure wasn't even a private company built idea they received for free from the government that paid for it with taxes from all of us, in fact my isp uses government laid fiber lines. So why exactly do they need to be able to nickel and dime us even more?

Actually it does benefit consumers. because like how our government is suppose to work, internet businesses would have 2 checks in place instead of 1 that was implemented in 2015.

Before 2015 both the FCC and the FTC regulated fair trade and laws on the internet. After 2015 Only the FCC regulated it. FTC didn't have a say in what was fair or not since all decisions regarding internet laws and regulations where handled by the FCC.

removing net neutrality brings back a second check to the internet and businesses that use them.

Verbal_Earthworm · December 2017

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

You voted Trump for president and Net Neutrality is all you're worried about?

Heh.

1. Politics.

2. The man isn't nearly as incompitent as people think he is. He's not a politician, but he's also not an idiot when it comes to buisness. If your not native to the US, I suggest you work under the assumption that everything your told about the man is a straight up lie until proven otherwise. Even if you live in the US, operate under this assumption for anything taken from television.

1. Hahaha...good one.

2. Way to assume yourself into stupidity, i don't watch television or read newspapers, i just read his tweets.

3. Turn on spellcheck.

Agalloch · December 2017

ESO is already an expensive game . Guild Wars 2 is cheaper ( you only buy expansions).

There are many b2p or f2p games that are doing fine. ( BDO, Mu Legend are just some examples)

Subscription based games are only 2 ( WOW and Final Fantasy IV).

ESO will survive and continue to grow.

Doctordarkspawn · December 2017

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

You voted Trump for president and Net Neutrality is all you're worried about?

Heh.

1. Politics.

2. The man isn't nearly as incompitent as people think he is. He's not a politician, but he's also not an idiot when it comes to buisness. If your not native to the US, I suggest you work under the assumption that everything your told about the man is a straight up lie until proven otherwise. Even if you live in the US, operate under this assumption for anything taken from television.

1. Hahaha...good one.

2. Way to assume yourself into stupidity, i don't watch television or read newspapers, i just read his tweets.

3. Turn on spellcheck.

"Read his tweets".

First off, twitter is a measure of nothing.

Second, it depends on what your metric is. Is he stupid because he disagree's with you? Well then your too far gone and not worth saving anyway.

But then, your apparent insistance on my spelling says it all.

JamilaRaj · December 2017

I do not see why it should it kill P2W, but If it will, I, for one, then welcome the end of net neutrality.

Hokiewa · December 2017

LegacyDM wrote: »

CC.

removing net neutrality brings back a second check to the internet and businesses that use them.

Except that this isn't the case. No

Xundiin wrote: »

Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

I'll keep this simple.

Alrighty then. So will I.

LegacyDM wrote: »

ISPs will now charge content providers (ZOS in this case) more money to offer current services to their customers.

No, they won't. At least not because of "the end of net neutrality". Just not good business. They might do it to cover operating costs and such though.

LegacyDM wrote: »

Content providers will pass on increased costs to the customer.

Yeah. Always have, always will. They can't stay in business (ie. provide content) otherwise. Nobody could. Well, except the government, but even they get bitten in the ass by it eventually.

LegacyDM wrote: »

However, since this game relies on crown store and paid chapter products and not subscriptions, ZOS has a problem.

None that they didn't have before.

LegacyDM wrote: »

Crown prices are already as high as customers are willing to pay, and chapters are expensive as is, soooooo where will they get the money to stay profitable with increased operating costs?

By offering more and better content in exchange for a sum of money like everybody else in a capitalist society?

LegacyDM wrote: »

Didn't think net neutrality repeal would affect you or online gaming? Think again. As long as the repeal to neutrality is here to stay I see a revival in subscription based gaming for the desktop computer gaming market.

Subscription based gaming came about because of good economic times when lots of people had lots of disposable income. Likewise, F2P became a growing trend because of bad economic times when people no longer had much disposable income. It had nothing whatsoever to do with net neutrality.

Hate to break it to you, but net neutrality has a fatal flaw. The spirit of net neutrality is fine, but it can't be enforced without violating that spirit. Look at it this way. You're wanting to keep the internet free of corrupted influences by handing control over to what is hands down the most corrupt and selfish type of entity on the planet. (Fox guarding the hen house comes to mind.) It's just not going to work the way you want it to and it's a good thing to get repealed before any damage is done.

Removing it helps protect it how exactly? I think of Australia's *** as internet with this repeal and soon we will be there. This repeal in no way benefits consumers it's ludacris to think it could ever. The infrastructure wasn't even a private company built idea they received for free from the government that paid for it with taxes from all of us, in fact my isp uses government laid fiber lines. So why exactly do they need to be able to nickel and dime us even more?

Actually it does benefit consumers. because like how our government is suppose to work, internet businesses would have 2 checks in place instead of 1 that was implemented in 2015.

Before 2015 both the FCC and the FTC regulated fair trade and laws on the internet. After 2015 Only the FCC regulated it. FTC didn't have a say in what was fair or not since all decisions regarding internet laws and regulations where handled by the FCC.

removing net neutrality brings back a second check to the internet and businesses that use them.

No, it doesn't bring a second check back because the FCC is shifting oversight of internet protections to solely the discretion of the FTC. That's the particular onerous part of this decision. Though, I don't see this holding up when SCOTUS eventually hears the backlog of cases regarding it.

DeadlyRecluse · December 2017

The end of net neutrality is a very, very bad thing, but there's no need to make up doomsday scenarios. It didn't exist in any meaningful way until 2015 and gaming was just fine before that.

monktoasty · December 2017

I love the people saying isps are covering operating costs. LOL

Before net nueyrality..isps were throttling their competition in voice over ip..you know..Internet phones..theirs were crystal clear but competitors were getting less bandwidth thus not as clear.

Or how about sending netflix a bill for MILLIONS just because they can?

I can go on..but net neutrality didn't come about for no reason.

The while operating costs excuse is bs..they make billions in profit a year before and during net nuetrality..they don't have any problems operating under a nuetral non biased access model.

Because they WILL go around charging more and also big corporations will buy better access for instance walmart obline could strike a deal to for the isps to slow and throttle amazon so walmart gets more sales...just an example which I Gaurentee has happened before bet nueyrality and will happen after.

Net nuetrality of isn't perfect of course..I hate the fcc and the government can't be trusted..but in this case..neither can a 3 or 4 huge greedy corporations.

As for netflix wanting to deliver a product free that's bs..they pay for bandwidth like everyone else.

The ISP themselves have NO issues providing their download services and would gladly put netflix out of business so the consumer has to use the isps service.

Just wait until gamers get charged more for Internet.

Slick_007 · December 2017

mirta000b16_ESO wrote: »

the idea is that you are selling specific up/down to every customer for specific price. It's like going "this is your own personal road, you can only use this side and can only go 20 mph, but what we're selling you is the ability to use this road".

Then you go and sell the same road to everyone else.

i think you have confused different parts of the internet here. it would not have this effect, not in the way you are attempting to describe.

mirta000b16_ESO · December 2017

Glurin wrote: »

That's called overselling and is common practice in the industry. Normally it's not a problem because there are only ever a few people using the road at the same time. But streaming services mean more people want to be on the road at once, which slows everybody down due to congestion. It just means that in order to sustain good quality of service, ISPs need to reduce the margin that they can oversell their service at and invest in infrastructure improvements.

Yup, however instead of punishing just heavy users and stating on the package that they will do so, or instead of expanding the infrastucture, they will now either get more money from specific companies, or throttle the access to said company for all. A consumer will not be able to pay them high enough to get no throttle, it will be up to each individual company, which in turn would raise the server prices to compensate.

Samadhi · December 2017

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

You voted Trump for president and Net Neutrality is all you're worried about?

Heh.

1. Politics.

2. The man isn't nearly as incompitent as people think he is. He's not a politician, but he's also not an idiot when it comes to buisness. If your not native to the US, I suggest you work under the assumption that everything your told about the man is a straight up lie until proven otherwise. Even if you live in the US, operate under this assumption for anything taken from television.

Not native to the US, but have family in Texas
not really concerned about Trump as a matter of competence
swindlers are highly competent in business

Samadhi · December 2017

Glurin wrote: »

...
Now here's where things start getting really interesting. The people taking showers have decided to blame the ISP and conjured up a conspiracy about the ISP deliberately slowing down the flow of water to the showers specifically. Why? Because for some inexplicable reason, ISPs don't want people to take showers. In reality, it's an infrastructure problem that isn't going to go away without serious investment from the ISP to install bigger and more efficient pipes.

For their part, the ISP tries to hid the fact that they can't provide the needed bandwidth by imposing water limits (data caps) and spreading misinformation that there's only so much water to go around. "If we don't impose limits", they say, "somebody might use up all the water and there won't be any for anyone else." But this is also falsehood because in this case there is an infinite supply of water. The problem is, again, too many people trying to pull more water from the pipe at the same time than the pipe can handle.
...

Interesting
Contacting my ISP to inquire as to why my gaming was so bad in the evenings resulted in them explaining how they were throttling particular content
in order to facilitate other customers faster access to typical website use

Basically they turned down my hot water so there was more to go around to the other showers

So they did not need to limit my connection in the evenings, and the fact that video streaming would work fine in the same time frame ESO was unplayable was just by-product of other farms in the area streaming at that time?

monktoasty · December 2017

Corporations love regulations when it suits them..but when it doesnt..will cry about free market.

Only way to stop it is vote libertarian so there is a separation of business and state.

Jade1986 · December 2017

Ihatenightblades wrote: »

Sleep724 wrote: »

There was no net neutrality before 2015 and the internet grew just fine.

This. You liberals have panic attacks anytime there is change you dont like.

The second you use liberal as an insult, it makes everything you say null and void.

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

You voted Trump for president and Net Neutrality is all you're worried about?

Heh.

1. Politics.

2. The man isn't nearly as incompitent as people think he is. He's not a politician, but he's also not an idiot when it comes to buisness. If your not native to the US, I suggest you work under the assumption that everything your told about the man is a straight up lie until proven otherwise. Even if you live in the US, operate under this assumption for anything taken from television.

1. Hahaha...good one.

2. Way to assume yourself into stupidity, i don't watch television or read newspapers, i just read his tweets.

3. Turn on spellcheck.

"Read his tweets".

First off, twitter is a measure of nothing.

Second, it depends on what your metric is. Is he stupid because he disagree's with you? Well then your too far gone and not worth saving anyway.

But then, your apparent insistance on my spelling says it all.

Twitter is actually an unfiltered measure of someones personality. So it is a pretty good measure of who anyone really is. Everything else is scripted. As for everyone lying outside the US, that is simply nonsense. There is no huge conspiracy around the world where everyone is against trump just for the sake of it, there is a reason everyone hates him. He is an oligarch, a misogynist, a sex offender, only cares about his wallet, etc. No politician is perfect, but he is the absolute antithesis of a competent leader , or good person.

This however is getting insanely off topic.

Samadhi wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

You voted Trump for president and Net Neutrality is all you're worried about?

Heh.

1. Politics.

2. The man isn't nearly as incompitent as people think he is. He's not a politician, but he's also not an idiot when it comes to buisness. If your not native to the US, I suggest you work under the assumption that everything your told about the man is a straight up lie until proven otherwise. Even if you live in the US, operate under this assumption for anything taken from television.

Not native to the US, but have family in Texas
not really concerned about Trump as a matter of competence
swindlers are highly competent in business

Good at business =/= good / competent world leader.

Verbal_Earthworm · December 2017

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

You voted Trump for president and Net Neutrality is all you're worried about?

Heh.

1. Politics.

2. The man isn't nearly as incompitent as people think he is. He's not a politician, but he's also not an idiot when it comes to buisness. If your not native to the US, I suggest you work under the assumption that everything your told about the man is a straight up lie until proven otherwise. Even if you live in the US, operate under this assumption for anything taken from television.

1. Hahaha...good one.

2. Way to assume yourself into stupidity, i don't watch television or read newspapers, i just read his tweets.

3. Turn on spellcheck.

"Read his tweets".

First off, twitter is a measure of nothing.

Second, it depends on what your metric is. Is he stupid because he disagree's with you? Well then your too far gone and not worth saving anyway.

But then, your apparent insistance on my spelling says it all.

This makes no sense at all. Try reading what i said again. I was referring to you as "assuming yourself into stupidity" and then you go and do it again. If you want to be taken seriously then spellchecking is a good way to not be seen as an uneducated teenager. To dismiss his tweets as a "measure of nothing" is not only ignorant but wilfully avoiding the truth. Are you trying to say he doesn't write his own tweets?

xbobx · December 2017

LegacyDM wrote: »

I'll keep this simple.

ISPs will now charge content providers (ZOS in this case) more money to offer current services to their customers. Content providers will pass on increased costs to the customer. However, since this game relies on crown store and paid chapter products and not subscriptions, ZOS has a problem. Crown prices are already as high as customers are willing to pay, and chapters are expensive as is, soooooo where will they get the money to stay profitable with increased operating costs?

Didn't think net neutrality repeal would affect you or online gaming? Think again. As long as the repeal to neutrality is here to stay I see a revival in subscription based gaming for the desktop computer gaming market.

Good luck ZOS.

actually what you will see is companies move their servers out of the US into canada and mexico. And if US have to pay more, so be it since its your guys fault for electing an idiot that only ones to do one thing, get rid of everything obama did.

Danikat · December 2017

Slick_007 wrote: »

Im not entirely convinced the end of net neutrality is a bad thing. Sure, it sounds bad, and im sure some tosspots will take advantage of it. But then look at this from an ISP view.

ESO and other games come along, and other than a large download, they are pretty cool. No massive requirements, no peak bandwidth issues (generally). Games: ok

Netflix etc. Australia saw this effect and in some cases, still is. Netflix make money selling you a product. But the problem is, they want someone else to deliver their product, to you, for free. When you cant stream netflix because your isp doesnt suddently have 10x or more their existing bandwidth, do you complain to netflix? Nope. you went and complained to your ISP. Netflix and others are now generating calls to your ISP, which incurs costs to them. Your ISP as a result has to increase their bandwidth, and during peak hours, holy cow is that a massive increase required. And generally, they cant just buy this bandwidth during those hours. This is a massive cost to the ISP to support someone elses product. Should netflix have to pay something here?

Just a few thoughts. Im still trying to work out how, if at all, this will affect me. But is it a good thing? Could be.

Thing is it's not as simple as how much bandwidth they allow you to have. The problem is that they can also decide what you do with that bandwidth. They could give you unlimited downloads and as much bandwidth as is possible but then block you from news sites they disagree with, or competitors websites so you can't compare prices and packages and find out how much cheaper you could get the same service.

Here's one real example from before the US had Net Neutrality laws. AT&T were streaming a Pearl Jam concert they sponsored. During the show their "content monitor" decided he wasn't happy with some of the things the singer was saying - so he cut it out. They stopped everyone watching the show through their service from hearing part of it, because it didn't fit with the companies views. https://www.forbes.com/2007/08/09/att-pearljam-music-tech-cx_pco_0809paidcontent.html#6407fb9d7d7b

So while everyone in this topic saying ESO is right because it doesn't need much bandwidth is technically correct that's only half the picture. Worst case scenario one or more of the major US ISPs could decide they don't like ESO. Maybe they don't approve of a game where you can murder random innocents. Maybe they think a game with 8 gods is blasphemous. Maybe they just prefer WoW. So they decide their customers are not allowed to access ESO and block both the game and the website. Doesn't matter how much bandwidth you have or what else you've been using it for. Doesn't matter how much you're willing to pay them, you cannot play ESO. That's pretty extreme and relatively unlikely. But they could decide to take some "reasonable precautions" like requiring you to prove that no one in your household is under 18, or pay a premium for 'adult' content.

No we don't know any of them will do that (except for the fact that they were starting to do it before and that's why net neutrality was introduced). But if this change goes ahead it will be perfectly legal for them to do so and all their customers can do is look for another provider...if they're in an area with more than 1 ISP. Apparently there's large parts of the USA where there is only 1 option.

Samadhi · December 2017

Jade1986 wrote: »

...

Samadhi wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

You voted Trump for president and Net Neutrality is all you're worried about?

Heh.

1. Politics.

2. The man isn't nearly as incompitent as people think he is. He's not a politician, but he's also not an idiot when it comes to buisness. If your not native to the US, I suggest you work under the assumption that everything your told about the man is a straight up lie until proven otherwise. Even if you live in the US, operate under this assumption for anything taken from television.

Not native to the US, but have family in Texas
not really concerned about Trump as a matter of competence
swindlers are highly competent in business

Good at business =/= good leader.

Just for clarification sake, was not arguing him to be a good or bad leader
not sure if you were interpreting my comment that way or just reinforcing my sentiment via different terminology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29g57XTYgLE

Jade1986 · December 2017

Samadhi wrote: »

Jade1986 wrote: »

...

Samadhi wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

You voted Trump for president and Net Neutrality is all you're worried about?

Heh.

1. Politics.

2. The man isn't nearly as incompitent as people think he is. He's not a politician, but he's also not an idiot when it comes to buisness. If your not native to the US, I suggest you work under the assumption that everything your told about the man is a straight up lie until proven otherwise. Even if you live in the US, operate under this assumption for anything taken from television.

Not native to the US, but have family in Texas
not really concerned about Trump as a matter of competence
swindlers are highly competent in business

Good at business =/= good leader.

Just for clarification sake, was not arguing him to be a good or bad leader
not sure if you were interpreting my comment that way or just reinforcing my sentiment via different terminology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29g57XTYgLE

I think generally we agree. I just wasnt quite understanding your comment. So I was trying to reinforce it.

danno8 · December 2017

Glurin wrote: »

Reverb wrote: »

I'm far more concerned about the impact on my Netflix subscription than I am my gaming future.

I wouldn't be too concerned about it on the net neutrality standpoint. The number one problem facing streaming video service is bandwidth limitations, which is something that exists regardless of whether or not net neutrality is a thing.

Here's what happens, and I'll try to keep this in laymen terms as much as I can for the benefit of anyone reading this who may not be so technology literate.

ISPs provide service to your area via a pipe. (Yes it's actually called a pipe.) You can think of it just like you would a water pipe running to your house. The bigger the pipe, the more water that can go through at any given time. The pipe can only handle a certain amount of water flow but since not everyone is using it at once most of the time it's usually not a problem. Then someone in your family takes a long shower. (This would be the Netflix user.)

For 30 minutes a day, he's constantly using a certain amount of water flow from the pipe. Then others in your family realize that they too are a bit stinky and decide to take some long showers. (We'll just pretend you've got like fifty bathrooms in your house.) As they use it at the same time, they collectively use up more and more of the available flow of water until they are trying to use more than the pipe can handle.

What happens? The flow of water to each individual person slows down because more people are trying to pull from the main pipe at the same time. The people in the shower are most likely to notice this first since they're basically using more water in a constant stream for an extended period of time than someone filling a cooking pot or something.

Now here's where things start getting really interesting. The people taking showers have decided to blame the ISP and conjured up a conspiracy about the ISP deliberately slowing down the flow of water to the showers specifically. Why? Because for some inexplicable reason, ISPs don't want people to take showers. In reality, it's an infrastructure problem that isn't going to go away without serious investment from the ISP to install bigger and more efficient pipes.

For their part, the ISP tries to hid the fact that they can't provide the needed bandwidth by imposing water limits (data caps) and spreading misinformation that there's only so much water to go around. "If we don't impose limits", they say, "somebody might use up all the water and there won't be any for anyone else." But this is also falsehood because in this case there is an infinite supply of water. The problem is, again, too many people trying to pull more water from the pipe at the same time than the pipe can handle.

So basically it's one, gigantic, monumental mess with both the ISPs and the net neutrality advocates leveling a lot of false accusations and misinformation at each other. Meanwhile there's a bunch of bureaucrats salivating at the idea of getting their greedy claws into the internet under the guise of protecting it from those evil corporations looking to exploit it for their own gain. If history has taught us anything about that group, it's that if you give them an inch, they'll take five thousand miles. And your shoes. As such, it's generally a really stupid idea to give them anything.

Except that ISP's, in addition to providing internet, are also usually the providers of Network television and have contracts and agreements in place for that programming. These directly compete with services like Netflix, Hulu and such.

All one has to do is recognize the position this places ISP's in, and that is why Net Neutrality was instituted. I think it is incredibly naïve to believe that ISP's won't at least attempt to charge more for streaming services in order to bolster Network viewership.

The fact that streaming services use the most bandwidth is an incredibly useful fact that can be used to justify the increase, which is, of course, the line of reasoning you will see pushed by ISP's.