Topic: What's everyone's thoughts on the FCC planning to ruin the entire internet?

Posts 21 to 35 of 35


@subpopz Thanks for the info pertaining specifically to Canada!

What you describe there is definitely a part of what our "Net Neutrality" legislation has been but ours takes it further being mostly written by Silicon Valley to benefit their own aims. On the surface (and the points they talk about) are what you describe....but that's only at surface level.

For the same reason politicians in cities that threaten cutting programs always talk about "closing public libraries and pools" to make the public angry....while not mentioning the city hall employee pension program that costs 3x more ....the net neutrality types talk only about preventing ISPS from throttling content and not about the mucky stuff behind the curtain. Not sure about canadian law....but the "Net Neutrality" they pushed here was bigger than a Manhattan phone book.....and it was vile.

One thing about US law to keep in mind is we have lovely Orwellian names for most of our legislation. If we had a bill to reduce the amount of dogs in the world by eating all dogs, worldwide, registered as pets we'd call it the DOGLOVE bill (Dining On Genuine LabradOr Value Enhancement act) or something And then a group of internet protestors would be angry at people who are against DOGLOVE. Canada may be the same, not sure on that.

Yeah we do have tiers as well here already. And so far I haven't seen any real issues with VPNs here...they're popular enough (I actually use one for gaming to deal with a NAT issue that popped up.) I'm noticing more WEBSITES are actively blocking them though. And MS Office aps don't work.....sometimes legislating the networks helps nothing as the technology vendors/platforms just find ways to end run around it, unfortunately. Office throws out the baby with the bathwater doesn't even work with CORPORATE VPNs....learned that the hard way.

No, our Net Neutrality (written by a lobby group, forget the name they gave themselves, consisting of Google, Apple, MS, Facebook, TW, and a handful of other tech vendors) didn't restrict tierd internet, did promote metered internet, and was "flexible" as to what kind of streaming bundling was ok (I believe they were going to ignore mobile carriers for their bundling/throttling.) Flexible of course means "will make exceptions for friends, campaign contributors, and special contractors for Intelligence".....but the kind of things described in your net neutrality made up the first 5% of or so. The rest was very very heavy handed control of everything in the usual ways that help reinforce the status quo and prevent any competition or table flipping on the rules as they are via subtle manipulation. Of course they only publicly talked about that first 5% or so.

It doesn't need to be said that our legislative process is very, very, very diseased right now. Not sure how tainted Canada's is, but here we're to the point that VERY few bills are actually written by legislators...they're merely "sponsored" by legislators, and are usually written by armies of lawyers representing interest groups where a legislator tries to bring their legislation to positive vote....usually without actually understanding it themselves. Our "Net Neutrality" wasn't written by government. It was written exclusively by the half of the industry that would have the most to gain from it, via a "non-profit" they set up featuring lobbyists and lawyers from the top names in tech. Then they took their self beneficial cudgel to their nearest legislator whose campaign they all contributed heavily to, and said pretty much "sell this." The people in government voting on it know less about what's going on than anyone in this thread does. They do as they're paid to do and pretend to do so with conviction (they're lawyers by trade....even if you know your client is a serial killer you protest his innocence like you mean's your job.) They, however, know little about business and even less about tech, no matter how much they pretend to.

As for the FCC, so much of it is a revolving door of executives from media/network/communications companies. A commissioner this week, may be a CTO at Microsoft next week and then a commissioner again in 10 years. Pai, the chair leading the anti-Neutrality cause is a former...forget if it's Verizon or Comcast lawyer....I believe Verizon. So his background certainly favors whats good for carriers. OTOH, Wheeler, the former chair when the Neutrality stuff was rammed through, was heavily connected to Google directly and through political affiliation.

Someones hands are in all of their pockets....Canada I'm certain works the same as all governments inherently do....but I'm not sure they've dug into you QUITE as deep yet....we're the juicier target, and once they get us it's always easier to force your hand.



(And whatever we do, lets' not invite PlywoodStick.....then this thread will REALLY get derailed into cynical anarchist politics! )



@NEStalgia I definitely always try to take the red pill route on everything, which is why I went on various forums and other social media and didn't just look at the news, but found that basically everyone was saying the same exact thing as the news articles. So when I kept hearing how Americans would have to essentially pay more for less internet across the board, I figured it must be the case.

I suppose a lot more digging is necessary on issues like this than I assume, considering how we live in an overwhelmingly blue pill society.

@subpopz I agree 100%, but even if certain things won't happen anytime soon, that doesn't mean they won't happen eventually, especially since our countries are so closely connected. But clearly I was misinformed on the whole thing anyway.

Edited on by KirbyTheVampire



@KirbyTheVampire It's not always the easiest route to take, but that's a great position to have!

And yeah, not only is the society, and worse the internet at large overwhelmingly blue pill, but on issues like these, the companies involved in the issue are the very ones that distribute blue pills by the truckload making it that much harder to find reality......



Wow NEStalgia is mvp of this thread it seems.

Lord Head Admin of SonyLife
♥♥♥Videogames are lame♥♥♥


Dude... Mad props.

I didn't really have much of an opinion on the matter because I wasn't informed. But I clicked this forum to learn more... And I most definitely did.

That one single post covered it all. Not only do I understand it, I understand it.

Single best post you've ever made.

NS: Diablo 3, Monster Hunter Gen Ult, Dark Souls, World of Final Fantasy, TWEWY
X1: Red Dead Redemption 2
GPD Win 2: Fire Emblem Path of Radiance

Jesus is Lord.

My Nintendo: JaxonH


@NEStalgia I don't believe ours is nearly as restricting as yours, though I haven't actually read the thing in it's entirety, so I don't know all the details in it, but providers are allowed to regulate their own prices, caps, transfer rates and other pricing as they deem fit (including bundles for services) and be competitive with each other, except when it comes to content. They must allow all content to flow the same (which is what is the biggest concern to me, personally).
From the sounds of it, ours predates the American one. Way back in the mid-2000's, Telus actively blocked access to labour union sites during an active strike (the telecommunications workers union, no less), which is what prompted action here. This is a perfect example of what providers can control given complete freedom.
Personally, I think the telecoms shouldn't solely be carrying the burden of paying for streaming 4K and huge data transfers, (Netflix and the providers should and can offer tiers as well to pass some to the consumer - 4k, HD and standard) but I also strongly believe they should not have the power to control what you can access any more than the power company can't tell you what brand name electronics you can or cannot use. If I want to use Netflix and not Bell's CraveTV, I shouldn't be punished for it nor forced to use a service due to throttling. It should be up to Bell to make a more competitive service to make me want to use theirs.

Edited on by subpopz

Switch - Torna: The Golden Country, Sonic Mania, Paladins, NES Online (Dr. Mario only)
3DS -
PC - Nier: Automata, Killer Instinct, Mortal Kombat XL

Switch FC : SW-1091-9839-4896


Well, the FCC is not legally obligated to protect net neutrality because there is no legislation.

Second, we only had net neutrality since 2015. Given the competitive state of the internet now with wireless networks, I doubt throttling services will be very popular with customers.

Nintendo Life Community Administrator

Splatoon 2 Rank: Splat S+, Rain S, Tower S

My Eeveeloggery

Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | 3DS Friend Code: 2234-7139-4188 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky


The negative is the idea that ISPs can limit/push their own owned services via faster connections and effectively charge a "tax" on companies they don't like/competitors or give them slower connections.

Of course, this is also a US thing. I've had to say numerous times on Twitter, to all the people saying "If you think it doesn't impact you, youre wrong", well in truth, it doesn't, because I'm not in the US citizen, and that also means I cant ring a congressman or tell em how I feel, because I'm not American and lack that right. The US isn't the entire world after all, despite what some people think.

One thing I do enjoy though is this particular infographic going around that says "This is how much you pay now. This is how much you pay under the changes" and it actually shows the changes being cheaper (They didn't think that through).

So while I am against the anti-competitive aspects like slower connections to services or sites the ISPs want to charge extra for, I am very much FOR paying what you use. Like I don't use Netflix or Amazon Prime. Why would I pay for a fast connection to something I wont use? Why should other people pay for things they don't use? It basically would act like a phone contract, where your data plan is based on what you use.

So again, the anti-competitive moves and the anti-consumer moves of speed throttling are the bad thing. The idea that you pay for what you use....really isn't. In fact I know many people who would actually prefer that, like with their TV boxes, not paying for channels they don't use.

NLI Discord:




@NEStalgia: Thank you for laying that out as plainly as you did. It's a topic that I've been seeing a bit of buzz about on my news feed lately, but unfortunately haven't had a lot of time to read up on. Usually when I do read up on such things (particularly when politics are involved), it's quite hard to differentiate the facts from the obvious bias and propaganda for/against something.

Video Corner: Every JRPG Ever
Currently playing: Golden Sun: The Lost Age (Wii U VC), Luigi's Mansion (3DS)

Nintendo Network ID: Zelda_By_Night


@SMEXIZELDAMAN @JaxonH @Tyranexx thanks, all! I can't fix the whole world, but if i was able to shed some perspective for a few of you here, i at least did something!

All of you in the US, happy Thanksgiving!



NEStalgia wrote:

"Google at the top of the internet, and a handful of cloud vendors is how it's always been." What a bleak present....

Well, the earliest I can remember using the internet, Google was only a search engine, but it was also the only relevant search engine, or at least the only one I used. I guess that's after the era you're talking about...



Ultimately Net Neutrality was about separating content providers from service providers. Purely because unlike other utilities the internet can be controlled. Imagine if your power company owned Sony and decided to make your XBox perform slower on their power network. That's basically what we're talking about here.

I'd argue that the ideal broadband network would have one single possibly government owned company rolling out the physical hardware. Not unlike what most people are used to for power, water, gas, roads etc. Then ontop of that you have ISPs who sell you a service through that wholesale network, competing on speeds/price/service etc. Again, not unlike what what you see with other utilities. Then ontop of that you buy extra content, Netflix or whatever which would be the power grid equivalent of buying a TV or an Aircon.

Around the world often what happens is the reverse of that. You have a competing companies who roll out the hardware but often to areas where their competitors aren't. You then often only have the option of one ISP because they're the ones who happened to roll out decent hardware in your area. And when you buy their service they do everything they can to make their content more appealing. Which wouldn't be an issue if consumers had the option to pick somebody else, which they don't.

crimsontadpoles wrote:

Umm, internet exists outside of the US as well. It's nonsense to say that it's going to ruin the internet. Instead, it's just going to make accessing content worse for people in the US.

Except that most content providers and tech companies are based in the US. So the policies that exist in the US which influence which providers live and die will impact us all.

YummyHappyPills wrote:

So while I am against the anti-competitive aspects like slower connections to services or sites the ISPs want to charge extra for, I am very much FOR paying what you use. Like I don't use Netflix or Amazon Prime. Why would I pay for a fast connection to something I wont use?

Well here's the thing, with every other utility or service there are always some people who are paying for others. Some kinds of consumption are harder to serve than others. That's just how it is and it's not necessarily a bad thing. Infact depending on how pricing works it may even be those people using the services you don't pay for who are making these companies the most money. If you're a heavy Netflix user you're more likely to buy a higher speed plan anyways, right?

Edited on by skywake

Some good Aussie musics: King Gizzard, Pond, The Avalanches
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"


skywake wrote:

Except that most content providers and tech companies are based in the US. So the policies that exist in the US which influence which providers live and die will impact us all.

Let's say throttling became a major thing in the USA. Under that scenario, whats stopping content providers from just serving the rest of the world from outside the USA? There's a lot more people outside the USA than in it. Netflix, for example, I would assume they are not serving all the countries they are available in from US-based servers. Even games have separate EU and NA servers. If throttling became that much of issue within the USA, I don't believe the rest of world would notice for very long.

Switch - Torna: The Golden Country, Sonic Mania, Paladins, NES Online (Dr. Mario only)
3DS -
PC - Nier: Automata, Killer Instinct, Mortal Kombat XL

Switch FC : SW-1091-9839-4896


I think you have it backwards. Companies like Netflix & Google don't want net neutrality because they "refuse to pay" for the infrastructure required to deliver their content. They have more than enough capacity and, in a lot of cases, are one of the few kinds of content that isn't throttled. Service providers are often judged based on how consumers perceive their networks perform. Netflix and Youtube are the two main places end users are going to see poor performance. Which is why this happens...


Additionally, this idea that the "internet was designed to be P2P"? Well that's a bit of an odd thing to bring up. Because in Australia at least and around 2005 the first thing that was throttled by ISPs were torrents. With the exact same arguments on the costs to infrastructure as you are making here. The only major difference being that it's much easier to have the moral high ground when it's piracy you're throttling.

Some good Aussie musics: King Gizzard, Pond, The Avalanches
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"


Please login or sign up to reply to this topic