Net Neutrality Ends April 27th

Author Topic: Net Neutrality Ends April 27th  (Read 13589 times)

oh no! not an extra $3 a month! the internet is truly dead :( thanks indian guy >:(
This stuff is what i was talking about.
Oversimplifying an issue because your on some arbitrary side.

Take off your cheerleader outfit, throw away your pompoms and use your last remaining braincells to say something worthwhile instead of regurgitating bullstuff that other people have said 3 pages back.

Yes, this includes the Net Neutrality Apocalypse tards too.

oh no! not an extra $3 a month! the internet is truly dead :( thanks indian guy >:(
Those $3 a month could make a big difference in the long run

Those $3 a month could make a big difference in the long run
not if i opt out of buying whatever packages i dont use. like honestly i dont even listen to music i could easily just avoid buying the music package and save like $10

net neutrality basically centralizes all internet services into one bulk package that you pay like $40 a month for but you only end up using like 5% of the package by the end of the month. so if you're someone who never watches movies just, like, dont pay for the movie package and now your monthly bill is like $30 dollars. or maybe you arent a gamer, dont buy the gamer package. $20

if you use every service at once 24/7 then yea obviously its going to cost you maybe $5 more than if you were to use the universal package while net neutrality existed, but tough luck. people who only like read news basically have to pay the full package even though they only used a small percentage of the services, and they ended up paying like $35 more dollars
« Last Edit: April 23, 2018, 05:17:23 PM by thegoodperry »

Last time I checked, were paying for bandwidth, not packages. I'd prefer the former to stay that way.

you're paying for bandwidth and the packages all included into the plan. with net neutrality gone you'll still pay for bandwidth you want but you'll also have the option to pay for the packages you want as well. you could potentially save a lot of money if you're someone who only uses specialized packages like news only, or maybe music only, etc.

it'd be something like this. the numbers aren't accurate but proportionally they probably get the point across:

Net neutrality low bandwidth plan: $60
net neutrality high bandwidth plan: $120

non net neutrality low bandwidth plan with like 2 packages: $30
non net neutrality low bandwidth plan with all packages: $70
non net neutrality low bandwidth plan with 2 packages: $60
non net neutrality low bandwidth plan with all packages: $140

« Last Edit: April 23, 2018, 05:21:34 PM by thegoodperry »

guys
nothings slow (as of the time posting)

i think net neutrality was a epic prank by the government

not if i opt out of buying whatever packages i dont use. like honestly i dont even listen to music i could easily just avoid buying the music package and save like $10

net neutrality basically centralizes all internet services into one bulk package that you pay like $40 a month for but you only end up using like 5% of the package by the end of the month. so if you're someone who never watches movies just, like, dont pay for the movie package and now your monthly bill is like $30 dollars. or maybe you arent a gamer, dont buy the gamer package. $20

if you use every service at once 24/7 then yea obviously its going to cost you maybe $5 more than if you were to use the universal package while net neutrality existed

In the case of a network where the client's requests are universal, opting in and out of certain websites to your preference to save money shouldn't be necessary. The ISP is not spending any money providing or denying service to another website alone, and therefore should not be able to throttle your access to said website. The ISP shouldn't be able to charge you to another section of the internet because they do not own it, or spend money on providing the client with a connection to that service.

you're paying for bandwidth and the packages all included into the plan. with net neutrality gone you'll still pay for bandwidth you want but you'll also have the option to pay for the packages you want as well. you could potentially save a lot of money if you're someone who only uses specialized packages like news only, or maybe music only, etc.

Again, bandwidth that you use for certain services are universal, the ISP doesn't spend any money giving the client a universal connection to all the services. This isn't cable, in where the company that provides you the cable owns the network of channels that are broadcast. I should not pay more to access another section of the internet because the provider doesn't spend any more resources providing the client with connection to any certain website.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2018, 05:30:02 PM by Capella »

In the case of a network where the client's requests are universal, opting in and out of certain websites to your preference to save money shouldn't be necessary. The ISP is not spending any money providing or denying service to another website alone, and therefore should not be able to throttle your access to said website. The ISP shouldn't be able to charge you to another section of the internet because they do not own it, or spend money on providing the client with a connection to that service.
They already do this though. Pre-net neutrality you still pay for the package of all services being offered, they dont have to charge you for this package of services, its just an extra fee that they tack on to their universal plan to make more money. Post-net neutrality will still have the same exact fees that they add to packages of services, which again are completely arbitrary and unnecessary. The only difference is that the customer will have a choice over packages and CAN save money. If you compare the two, different customers can save different amounts of money or end up spending more. Just like cellular plans, you pick whichever provider and plan works best for you, and theres a lot of competition so you have a healthy selection to choose from.

Again, bandwidth that you use for certain services are universal, the ISP doesn't spend any money giving the client a universal connection to all the services. This isn't cable, in where the company that provides you the cable owns the network of channels that are broadcast. I should not pay more to access another section of the internet because the provider doesn't spend any more resources providing the client with connection to any certain website.
Then you can pick a different ISP that might charge less for their gaming package, if say you're a gamer and you want to fully utilize the gaming services. You'd still end up paying for it anyways in the universal package, its just since you're only given a net fee of all the services combined you can't actually see how much you're paying for each package that exists inside the universal plan.

All that you described existed already before net neutrality ended, it was just entirely centralized so you didnt have to worry about percentages and individual package fees. Now that net neutrality exists there's more you have to take into consideration in whichever plan or ISP you decide to go with, but its still the same fees.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2018, 05:39:50 PM by thegoodperry »

non net neutrality low bandwidth plan with like 2 packages: $30
non net neutrality low bandwidth plan with all packages: $70
non net neutrality low bandwidth plan with 2 packages: $60
non net neutrality low bandwidth plan with all packages: $140



Aside from the mistakes there

I have a hard time believing this because people make it sound like this is the way it was before and it's now reverting back to it and maybe it was in some places but I never heard about it.

So is this a completely new idea or did I just "miss out" the first time around?

So is this a completely new idea or did I just "miss out" the first time around?
No. this is how it works in non net neutrality countries and worked before net neutrality was fully introduced.

For a good idea of this, look at cellular plans. You pay a base fee for whatever data usage you want, then you pay extra fees for talk and text. If you're someone who talks texts and browses the internet on a constant basis, you'll want the unlimited package which costs a lot but saves you money in the end because its a bulk plan. However, if you're someone who just calls and never texts, you'd probably get a low data fixed call number that is large and like a very small text plan. It would cost you less than the unlimited plan because you're only paying for a portion of the service, that you use.

Net neutrality is basically the unlimited plan, while non net neutrality is the choose-your-package plan.

I guess it just wasn't that way everywhere

Maybe my isp will still be cool

They already do this though. Pre-net neutrality you still pay for the package of all services being offered, they dont have to charge you for this package of services, its just an extra fee that they tack on to their universal plan to make more money. Post-net neutrality will still have the same exact fees that they add to packages of services, which again are completely arbitrary and unnecessary. The only difference is that the customer will have a choice over packages and CAN save money. If you compare the two, different customers can save different amounts of money or end up spending more. Just like cellular plans, you pick whichever provider and plan works best for you, and theres a lot of competition so you have a healthy selection to choose from.
The ISP does NOT pay more for all websites. There is no grouping of certain services, the ISP provides access to a universal, centralized service, not just one website. The ISP does not pay more to give the client access to everything. There is no service with access to certain websites. If you have access to the internet, you should have access to everything.
Then you can pick a different ISP that might charge less for their gaming package, if say you're a gamer and you want to fully utilize the gaming services. You'd still end up paying for it anyways in the universal package, its just since you're only given a net fee of all the services combined you can't actually see how much you're paying for each package that exists inside the universal plan.
In the majority of the US, there is no competition. In my town, in New York, there is only 2 providers of internet, Spectrum and Frontier (for DSL only). They charge you an overly large fee (~$60/mo) for what little they provide (100:10). Since there is no competition in my area, not only the price will continue to gradually increase, but my choices will also be limited more and more once my ISP finds out that there's nothing to stop it. If you give these corporations the ability to charge you for access to websites they can previously give you for no increase in price, without any sort of competition whatsoever, the freedom to do so will give them the opportunity to either force you to pay ridiculous amounts of money for access to those sites, or not give you the opportunity to access the websites.

The ISP does NOT pay more for all websites. There is no grouping of certain services, the ISP provides access to a universal, centralized service, not just one website. The ISP does not pay more to give the client access to everything. There is no service with access to certain websites. If you have access to the internet, you should have access to everything.
Yes, i'm in full agreement with everything except that last statement. You should only have access to everything if you want. ISPs will always charge extra fees whenever possible, with or without net neutrality, so that entire thing about how 'isps dont pay websites directly' is a true statement but its also a moot point because ISPs want to maximize their profit in any way possible, so they'll charge customers extra anyways. The reason why the mail package is more expensive than the gamer package comes from their allocation of traffic handling. I dont work at an ISP so i dont know the details but its probably like the fact that steam games and stuff require more bandwidth and have more traffic at one singular time than like, gmail.

In the majority of the US, there is no competition. In my town, in New York, there is only 2 providers of internet, Spectrum and Frontier (for DSL only). They charge you an overly large fee (~$60/mo) for what little they provide (100:10). Since there is no competition in my area, not only the price will continue to gradually increase, but my choices will also be limited more and more once my ISP finds out that there's nothing to stop it. If you give these corporations the ability to charge you for access to websites they can previously give you for no increase in price, without any sort of competition whatsoever, the freedom to do so will give them the opportunity to either force you to pay ridiculous amounts of money for access to those sites, or not give you the opportunity to access the websites.
This is just an argument of deregulation. ISPs already have the ability to overcharge if they want to at any given point in time. The only reason they DONT is because the other competitor will then have lower prices and be favorable. Saying the removal of net neutrality will result in price hikes on internet or censorship because it allows them to do it is not true. Businesses are allowed to deny service for bias reasons but that doesn't mean that every business kicks out black people or all businesses kick out gay people. They have the decision to but doing so is objectively bad for them, so its naturally not advised.

In my part of new york we have Spectrum and Optimum. if one decides to raise their prices then the other will automatically become the 'better choice.' so no, they wont just go on some price hike arms race because they can. If anything they'll try to offer lower prices in order to compete
« Last Edit: April 23, 2018, 06:40:07 PM by thegoodperry »

i thought net neutrality ended today why doesnt reddit care anymore

If I were in the US, I would be less concerned around an immediate change in pricing and more concerned about the potential for larger ISPs to effectively form a bloc with some of the larger streaming/online media companies by prioritising their traffic over competitors. Noncompetitive behaviour will always be to the detriment of the end consumer, even if the effects are not immediately felt.