Kuribo64
Views: 8,424,490 Home | Forums | Uploader | Wiki | Object databases | IRC
Rules/FAQ | Memberlist | Calendar | Stats | Online users | Last posts | Search
05-26-18 11:52 AM
Guest:

0 users reading net neutrality | 1 bot

Main - Serious discussion - net neutrality New reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
fiver
Posted on 12-15-17 05:18 PM Link | #92073
here's something interesting.

they might not be able to do much, since it could actually hurt them business-wise.

let's say Verizon starts giving people fees, and Sprint starts censoring things, however, T-Mobile doesn't.

I think that they're gonna have to limit what they mess with, since it could hurt their business lmao

either way, I fucking hate chances for large corporations to pull away from the rest of the crowd even more, so I'm pissed about it, but..

it's not the end of the world
-fiverpost™
[image]

Belsaw
Posted on 12-15-17 05:22 PM (rev. 2 of 12-15-17 06:30 PM) Link | #92075
As we recently saw with EA and Patreon, we all know what happens when businesses make decisions that hurt them. Well, moreso with Patreon since EA is committing "we don't care we will defend it" suicide.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 12-15-17 06:28 PM Link | #92083
Posted by Belsaw
we all know what happens when businesses make decisions that hurt them

or do we, honestly?

EA was super exploitative with lootboxes and predatory business practices, but it's still profitable. the only reason they respond as they do is that their shareholders' feelings matter more than anything else in the world; they'd probably buy a moldy tissue to wipe one of their share-holder's asses over rescuing a starving baby with a glass jammed under its toenail

just because something is anti-consumer and very unpopular, doesn't mean they'll face the consequences.

i mean, people still vote republican party loyalty over country despite roy moore and all of trump and his scumbags being utter scumbags and corporations HAVE gotten away with the slimiest things, including youtube and its copyright policies, apple being apple, despite garnering tons of criticism because people are still willing enough to pay and support this shit

StapleButter
Posted on 12-15-17 06:45 PM Link | #92089
when you gain enough power and monopoly, you can basically do whatever and face no consequence


see: youtube

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

what do you use to measure bolts? a boltmeter

Baby Luigi
Posted on 12-15-17 06:50 PM Link | #92093
Posted by GalacticPirate
Sorry, but until someone shows me a real, logical, economically logical argument in favor of NN, I'll stay against it.


Here's an argument against repealing net neutrality: cable companies such as Time Warner, with their functionality similarly with this outdated package deal model that would occur if Net Neutrality gets repealed, are dying a slow and painful death because other services such as steaming services and subscription-based ones such as Netflix are far more lucrative to the average consumer.

Marionumber1
Posted on 12-15-17 08:00 PM Link | #92099
Posted by GalacticPirate
Sorry, but until someone shows me a real, logical, economically logical argument in favor of NN, I'll stay against it.


The "real, logical" argument is that there is a well-documented history of net neutrality violations by ISPs that led to the FCC codifying it in the first place. I'm also not sure whether you're against net neutrality as a concept (no blocking or favoring/disfavoring traffic) or the specific legal implementation that was repealed in the US, but if it's the former, I must ask why, since non-discrimination of transmitted data been a key principle of the Internet well before ISPs' violations forced the FCC to put it into law.

GalacticPirate
Posted on 12-16-17 09:28 AM Link | #92118
Thank you Baby Luigi for giving me a valid argument about that :P I also agree with fiver. To be beneficial to an ISP, a dick move like that would need either that the gains made from it are superior to the losses in competitive areas, or that all ISPs make an illegal deal (that still wouldn't protect them from future competition). So I think that competition (it's the US after all :P) will compensate most of the dickmoves range for ISPs.

fiver
Posted on 12-16-17 11:43 AM Link | #92128
the thing is with ISPs is there are others out there who do the same thing

other companies like EA don't really have any competition whatsoever to some of their games (most notably Madden), which ISPs have to heckle other companies in their commercials to get them off their backs, because it's a close race
-fiverpost™
[image]

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 12-16-17 10:34 PM Link | #92156
Posted by GalacticPirate
So I think that competition (it's the US after all :P) will compensate most of the dickmoves range for ISPs.

At this point, I'd just want government protecting consumers from corporations. Competition is nice, but I don't think it's the best solution for consumer protections.

RanAS
Posted on 12-17-17 05:03 AM Link | #92172
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
At this point, I'd just want government protecting consumers from corporations. Competition is nice, but I don't think it's the best solution for consumer protections.

With competition, specially at this scale, you can very easily end up having to pick between a piece of absolute garbage and the other just as bad garbage.

Also, what I'm about to talk right now has less to do with net neutrality and more with monopolies, but there used to be a company here that ranked 1st in highest amount of complaints and lowest amount of responses to their clients in 4 years in a row, from 2006-2009. In 2009, ANATEL (the government sort of) actually blocked it from selling its broadband service until it improved its infrastructure, it was that bad.

Of course, I'm talking about the "legendary" Telefónica.

Even nowadays, my ISP wanted to place a data cap on my 2Mbps internet plan. As if low internet speed isn't enough, they wanted to put metered internet on top of it. Thankfully, ANATEL blocked them (and others) from doing that as well.

I have no doubt that these companies will try to screw over their customers, even by a little, solely to gain more money. And considering their situation, I don't think it's going to be easy for other companies to emerge and compete against them, Title II or not.
"I forgot what I was going to say."

Marionumber1
Posted on 12-17-17 10:36 AM Link | #92179
Posted by RanAS
With competition, specially at this scale, you can very easily end up having to pick between a piece of absolute garbage and the other just as bad garbage.

Also, what I'm about to talk right now has less to do with net neutrality and more with monopolies, but there used to be a company here that ranked 1st in highest amount of complaints and lowest amount of responses to their clients in 4 years in a row, from 2006-2009. In 2009, ANATEL (the government sort of) actually blocked it from selling its broadband service until it improved its infrastructure, it was that bad.

Of course, I'm talking about the "legendary" Telefónica.

Even nowadays, my ISP wanted to place a data cap on my 2Mbps internet plan. As if low internet speed isn't enough, they wanted to put metered internet on top of it. Thankfully, ANATEL blocked them (and others) from doing that as well.

I have no doubt that these companies will try to screw over their customers, even by a little, solely to gain more money. And considering their situation, I don't think it's going to be easy for other companies to emerge and compete against them, Title II or not.


That's the purpose of regulations like title II, though: to step in and force corporations to behave when "free market" forces like competition aren't present, don't have the intended effect, or take too long to work. I agree with LeftyGreenMario on her preference for codifying regulations: anything else is either assuming that companies won't try to screw over customers (past experiences prove they will) or assuming that market forces will indirectly dissuade the companies over time (which may happen, but that's still an assumption, so what's the harm of specifying what ISPs must and mustn't do?).

RanAS
Posted on 12-17-17 01:27 PM Link | #92193
Not against Title II in concept (actually quite in favor of it), I just don't know enough about how it worked in practice to say anything meaningful about it. Did it regulate prices as well? How well did it influence the behavior of the ISPs?

Ideally, the desirable situation would be for it to become almost parallel to the government, sort of like water and energy companies are around here. Likewise, these companies only raise their price when needed. It's the old saying of:

"Private corporations can do anything that the law doesn't prohibit. Public corporations only do what the law demands."

I don't know how much freedom the ISPs had under Title II.
"I forgot what I was going to say."

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 12-17-17 01:43 PM Link | #92195
Posted by RanAS
Ideally, the desirable situation would be for it to become almost parallel to the government, sort of like water and energy companies are around here. Likewise, these companies only raise their price when needed.

good example of government control: our water. Our water is cheap and clean thanks to the EPA (no thanks to you Scott Pruitt, on another note). I think it would be a disaster if we let just two or three profit-over-health corporations or whatever control our water. Time and time has shown again that they'll do anything to endanger lives undetected. Look at Volkswagen's mess. Look at the big banks. And look at what the ISPs have done before net neutrality had to be established for once.

GalacticPirate
Posted on 12-17-17 03:03 PM Link | #92204
Well, I still think that screwing the consumers wouldn't be beneficial for ISPs. But well.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 12-17-17 03:18 PM Link | #92208
Oh, you'd think. If the world worked that way, EA would be bankrupt by now.

fiver
Posted on 12-18-17 12:05 AM (rev. 2 of 12-18-17 12:05 AM) Link | #92233
who is EA's major competition, though

also, are lootcrate's even forced? pretty sure it's DLC anyway
-fiverpost™
[image]

Baby Luigi
Posted on 12-18-17 01:08 AM (rev. 2 of 12-18-17 01:11 AM) Link | #92235
EA's main competition is Activision, Ubisoft, and Warner Bros. To be fair, they're all equally shitty as EA is.

Loot boxes are not exactly forced, but they are definitely predatory and exploitative, even moreso than DLC, especially towards people who have gambling addiction tendencies. At least DLC and *barfs* microtransactions, you know exactly what you're paying for and it's guaranteed you'll receive them if you pay up. Loot boxes on the other hand are mostly a game of chance and hope you don't waste money getting useless loot you don't actually need. And even if it's just "player option" the game pretty much goes out of its way to encourage you to spend extra cash on lootboxes, with having amazing power-ups from the start, giving other users an unfair advantage, and locking rewards behind tedious grindfests. This isn't player choice, it never was about player choice, it might as well be extortion.

Also, this isn't the same situation as obtaining trading cards or other blindly packaged products. With trading cards, they're tangible items that you can actually resell to other people. If you get useless loot, that's pretty much it, you can't do anything about it and you can't resell it. And I don't even support blind-packaged goods anyway, they're terrible in pretty much the same way.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 12-18-17 03:07 PM Link | #92247
Trading cards also don't generally have a $60 entry either. Though on the other hand, trading cards are questionable, with your particularly trying to get some rare ones that give you an advantage, seems to be borderline gambling.

EA has competition, see, but has this made EA or its competition behave any better? No, they're all having a contest to see who can most efficiently exploit their fanbase.

Baby Luigi
Posted on 12-18-17 03:26 PM Link | #92251
Part of the reason games like TF2 escaped controversy despite dabbling into the economy was that it was free to play to begin with. It didn't have the same entry fee that Battlefront II and the others had.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 12-18-17 03:29 PM Link | #92252
IT'S JUST COZMETIX
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Main - Serious discussion - net neutrality New reply

Page rendered in 0.039 seconds. (2048KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 27, rows: 230/230, time: 0.022 seconds.
[powered by Acmlm] Acmlmboard 2.064 (2017-11-20)
© 2005-2008 Acmlm, Xkeeper, blackhole89 et al.