The battle for Net Neutrality is back in action, I can't do much cus I'm not an American but a lot of you guys definitely can:
 

Don't want to pay for access to Youtube and Netflix? Don't want your internet get slower on certain sites while others get priority? Read on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsyzP5hejxI

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

Some dude on Reddit:
A thread on Reddit with more info in case this is new to you: this is why this shit is important

Feel free to copy this post and post it on other sites/forums you frequent as well.

I already pay for Netflix tho?

Yeah, that's the problem with this shit, it doesn't matter. It gives ISP's (your internet provider) control over that shit, they could cap your access to Netflix or severely slow down the speed so you get crappy quality when you stream if you don't pay for premium access to the most visited sites or whatever. BUT, with a great AMAZING DATAPLAN you can get access to a bundle of services with great speeds for a set fee a month. I guess you see where this is going now. This is mostly for US people but it might affect everyone else as well if this bullshit goes through.

yea i don't understand it honestly

one camp preaches doom and gloom, while the other is saying its just going back to how it was prior to 2014

i never noticed any change and i remember people being against the 2014 thing too

if the doom and gloomists are correct this would be shitty

i just don't understand how things can be put in place that are in direct opposition to the majority of the people. but im still a dweeb who pretends that the government is representative of the people.

Yeah, the reason you haven't noticed any change is because people have protested like this the past couple of times it's come up and they've ended up shutting it down. If you want to continue to not notice any change in your experiences on the internet I advice you to do your part.

Probably exaggerated but could be extremely true for certain sites if they're not included in your plan:
http://media.giphy.com/media/9RfDOnyUdMWw8/giphy.gif
(refresh the page if the gif is fully loaded)

And as someones response to that gif said:

I don't support it but there isn't much we can do imo. Those dudes voting are all makijg money off of it so what do they care if we voice concern. Maybe not though.

My eggs are in the basket of companies not playing along

Netflix and Google to name 2 giants have said they are against it so might not negotiate contracts?

Google would definitely jump on this shit given the opportunity, they're just saying whatever to stay in a great light for PR if we take into account all the other shit they've done with NSA, monitoring behavior and selling data to third parties and other anti-privacy shit they've taken part in and other money grabbing opportunities (just look at Youtube). I got more faith in Netflix being real about it to be honest.

Anyways, you can definitely do something. Just sign that shit, the massive online protests and so on is what has shut it down in the past. The more people that joins every time this comes up the more they can't ignore it.

It's been well documented that the Google cooperating with the NSA and other agencies were not really their choice. Google has so much learning technology, what you browse, what you buy, where you go, they had already started these databases when the 3 letter agencies stepped in.

Whereas, the Microsoft aspect and the Xbone and Kinect 2.0 were different. That was something they offered.

Believe it or not the people who run Google are some of the most transparent and as good and well meaning ownership in almost all fortune 500 companies. Yes, they want to increase margins and government contracts help a ton I'm sure. But it's not like they had much choice.

They could fight it, take it to court and whatnot. Even if they'd lose it'd still have an impact on what a huge corporations stance on this matter truly is and be a role model for other companies out there. They did nothing because they'd lose $$$ on a case they don't really have to take part in. They might be well meaning here and there but it's most for show unless they actually try to do something when it comes to privacy. They don't get off that easy in my book, fuck them.

You still bring up a good point worth debating though, +rep on that. Going to read a little bit more into this so I'm sure I ain't fucking up with what I said above. The least you can do is signing the petition, the least I can do is informing others. As long as this shit don't go through I'm happy.

lets say worst case scenario right

comcast/spectrum/verizon/whatever internet provider decides to make youtube.com a part of a special package. to view youtube you need to pay 10 dollars more a month.

that seems shitty.

but it would also lead to other sites becoming bigger right. vimeo might be free, and could advertise that. also ISP's could become more competitive maybe? like maybe at&t or some company that has high speed internet, just not AS fast, like 15 mb/s down speeds, is 30 bucks a month, but you can view everything. meanwhile comcast or some fiber company can give you ridiculous download speeds, but they also want to charge you extra for using such and such

i dunno, it would suck for sure, but in all honesty i think a company like google/youtube would be easier to reason with, than the FCC lol. if people started boycotting their sites because they sell out for pay to use packages, we'd probably have more success than trying to get anything done through a governmental agency

but im a nerd who thinks there should be no FCC, and as little government regulations as possible.

but like i stated earlier in the thread im not sure how any of this works

Yeah... That sounds great in theory but that's not how it's going to work. In order to force this on to you Vimeo.com will be slow as fuck while Youtube still getting the upper hand. This is pretty bad for up and coming services that could potentially be shut down from the start due to other sites getting priority or slow after watching a few videos or checking out their content so you end up at a competitor instead so you can actually do what you were intended to do. They could for example make eBay slow as fuck while Amazon get priority, moving entire people to a competitor. During elections they could give priority to what videos/articles/sites you're going to see most of or get first after search results even more than before and so on too, it's going to be a pretty shitty fuckfest. They could also give you only 2.5gb access a week/month/whatever to other sites while Youtube is free realm to view as much as you want without your internet getting capped, unless you of course upgrade to a package that got both of the services you want on it. That's why it's important to sign the petition on the site and/or call/visit/email your representatives in your respective states.

People will probably boycott but that's already expected, most people can't live without their precious Instagram, Facebook, Youtube etc. so it's not a huge loss as you'd earn more in the long run. And in areas where Comcast, Verizon and/or AT&T have monopolies there's really nothing you can do. A lot of ISP's gets their internet speeds from other companies like Comcast and AT&T and sell it to you cheaper since they're smaller and can't spike their prices up due to being popular so they'd still have to abide by their rules.

They will also be able to monitor the way you use internet in a completely different way too, so forget about the false sense of privacy you already have now because with this in full effect you will have none whatsoever if they want to. This isn't a conspiracy anymore, it's happening right in front of your eyes as we speak.

You don't have to be a nerd to be against FCC, most people are against this and that's why it's important to show exactly how much you hate this proposition. You can watch the video I posted earlier to get a sense of how it'll work in practice and get a TL;DR of it all. On https://www.battleforthenet.com/ there's a bunch of sources and so on further explaining what's going on, you can check out videos or articles they've linked to there as well.

i always make sure to read uhoh comments so i could do the exact opposite

LMFAO

Spectrum, Comcast, Verizon, Optimum, AT&T, GOOGLE FIBER, CENTURY LINK AND FRONTIER are some of the major providers.

Then there are the local ISPs.

:Like:

Thx, bro;

Someone posted some interesting facts that should make you all take this a bit more serious:

To those who falsly claim net neutrality does nothing—
(A history of net neutrality infringements from freepress.)

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.
COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

Which would make this dystopian story but could potentially become a reality after 15th December if it passes worthwhile to read:

On May 16, 2018, Robert moved to a new city. He was excited to start his new job, and lay down roots in the community. He wasn't worried about losing connections to his old friends, because Robert would play games with them every thursday night. Robert arrived at his new house and called the only ISP that services his house, "BIG ISP Co." They sent a technician the next day to set up his Internet service.
"Okay, I've got your modem plugged in, now I just need to know what services you use." The tech looked down at his tablet and cleared his throat, preparing to read from a list. "Just stop me when you hear a service you would like to use." He began to read, "BIG Movies, BIG Music, BIG Storage."
"No, I don't use those, I didn't have BIG Internet at my last house." Robert replied, "I think it would be faster if I just gave you a list of what I plan to use."
"That might be a problem, especially if your services don't fit in a BIG Internet bundle we already offer."
"What do you mean?"
"Well, do you watch movies online from services like Netflix and Amazon Prime?"
"Yes, of course I do."
"Okay, we'll add the streaming movies package." The tech checked off a box, and the monthly price for Robert's quote got higher at the bottom of the his tablet. "What about television, do you catch up on missed episodes online?
"Yes, of course! I can't be around all the time when shows are on!"
"No problem. I'll add the streaming television package too." The tech checked another box, and Robert's quote got higher again. "How about music, you said you don't use BIG Music, do you want to listen to another internet radio service?"
"I have a ton of Spotify playlists! Pretty much one for every occasion."
"Okay, we'll need to add the Music Streaming package, then." Another box checked, another increase to Robert's monthly subscription cost. "Now, how about games, do you use BIG Games to play with friends?"
"No, I connect with friends using Discord, and we play all sort of games."
"Discord, huh? VOIP service too, then." The tech scrolled through his list looking for VOIP services. He checked the box, and the quote got higher. "You play games from Steam?"
"Yes."
"Origin?"
"Yes."
"GoG?"
"Yes."
With each "yes," the price of Robert's monthly fee went up.
"Guild Wars?"
"Yes."
"Battle.net?"
"Yes."
"Star Citizen?"
"Yes."
"Candy Crush?"
"No. I don't play Candy Crush."
"Great, you're going to love the savings of not paying for Facebook games."
"I'm not so sure about that." Robert looked at the tablet. The long list of third party services had come with service charges that ballooned his rate to twice what he expected to pay. "My last service provider didn't charge me extra to use Netflix or Spotify or Steam. This seems like a racket!"
"Well, sir, you're welcome to use a competitor, then. LARGENET services the other side of town. I think their service charges are pretty much the same, so if you care about it so much, you're welcome to move. I won't keep you here."
"That's it, I can pay your fees or move?! Those are my only options?" Robert was incredulous. "This can't be legal!"
"Completely legal, sir. Net Neutrality is a thing of the past. I am a BIG ISP Co shareholder, and I would be furious if they weren't making all the money they could. LARGENET does it. GIANT CONNECT does it. We have to do it to compete!"
"Fine" Robert said, "lets just sign this thing."
"Hold your horses, Cowboy" The technician guffawed at the idea that he was finished. "We haven't even talked about your data cap yet."

gotta love a make believe doomsday scenario

I'll quote you in this thread in about 10 years Uh-oh. I'm guessing that if the FCC gets what they want it'll go to court and it'll take some time until it goes into full effect, but if it does get through this make believe story could potentially become reality. It's been fought for 8 years now, last few times it's been up for vote people have made enough voice to silence them and get congress in on the action but right now it could prove to be difficult.

The post before the make believe story isn't fiction though, so we're not that far from getting to a point in time that story could be closer to reality than it is atm. Either way, that stuff won't affect me as much, but it'll definitely affect you.

hopefully the omnipotent overlords at spectrum/time warner allow me to view this thread in 10 years without doubling my internet bill.

but nah man, like i've stated earlier, i cant pretend to pick a side in this argument. what i have looked into shows that both sides have their faults, and i find it hard to side with the fcc. which is the only reason i'm not gung ho about it from the net neutrality standpoint

Interesting, I'm clearly biased. Probably because I'm leaning more towards the red/black side of the political spectrum than anything else. I've read a little bit about the pros for this going through but fail to see how it tips the scale to favor for it or even balance it out. Would be cool to hear your views on it tho.

from the little i understand

net neutrality in essence is turning the internet itself into a "utility". when something is a utility, it can be taxed, regulated, licensed, hell it can be shut down based off the content within, etc. all at the discretion of the FCC/federal government.

i'm not sure if you are familiar with the FCC, but the only times i've ever heard of them was in regards to them censoring things, from radio to television.

so allowing them to hold the wheel of the internet is silly to me, espescially when the argument for allowing them to hold the wheel is censorship. like somehow the FCC has your best interests at heart, and the people who's livelihoods exist on your best interests don't.

the government gets paid no matter what, through forceful taxation and the threat of incarceration.

netflix gets paid through your voluntary subscription. if they sign a deal with an ISP that fucks over their consumers, they fuck over themselves.

but again, im not pretending to be all knowledgeable in this, im as biased as anyone because of where i stand outside of all this. being anti the government having its greedy fuck hands in everything.

every legislation with a good name should be scrutinized and not taken at face value. nothing is actually in the best interests of the people. no child left behind, the patriot act, the affordable care act, etc, all sound like great things if you are just looking at the name, but underneath that its not in the peoples best interests, and never is.

shut it h fucka stooping idiyote uhoh

Actually, they wouldn't. I see what you're getting at but in the end they'll earn money on it from all the customers they otherwise wouldn't have had. They're hitting a market demographic that might not even be on it with this, and if they don't they might have someone else come through and take their spot since Netflix.com is getting their traffic capped by speed so the quality will suck in certain areas or people that watch more than, let's say, 2gb worth of videos on different sites unless they pay more.
Most people that use the internet got limited knowledge of it and use is limited to email or work, newspapers, facebook, Youtube and a few other social medias, perhaps Spotify or something similar and that's it. So if they got a choice between Netflix and a slightly worse competitor they won't care enough to get it and will watch it a friends house or not at all.

If dataplan comes into play I think Netflix will be one of the first ones to jump on it. They know how crucial it can be to not be part of change (Blockbuster comes to mind), and being part of change based on how society works is something Netflix has done since the very start.

It's like EA with Battlefront II, they didn't fuck up at all with crazy microtransactions for in-game shit that gives you advantages, a practice gamers have hated since the start. They made their investors happy, they barely lost anything on the backlash and every 12 year old out there is going to get the new Star Wars game for Christmas so they can put the nosebleed microtransactions back into it and get their ratings back up on wall street.

One thing is what you want to do but as you say: money will always be the common denominator in disputes like these. No matter how much Netflix is against it it will be detrimental and if this goes on for a while Netflix will eventually be forced to join one of these dataplans to continue the way they do now/always have. It's too big to pass up on when it's in full effect.

What I don't get is why you're still neutral to this whole thing. Why not take a stand @uh-oh? Big Baby is on to something, who knows how far the rabbit hole will go if this goes through and can develop further. I might not like or even defend BB's gimmick 24/7 but I will forever fight for his right to act however he wants online without some FCC faggots telling him how to behave or try to censor him because that's what we're at the beginning of right now.

those fcc faggots are in control now, if you are worried about censorship you would vote against net neutrality.

im neutral in it because i don't buy the doom and gloom scenarios, and even the analogy you brought up with EA doesn't work, because it shows that those evil corporations care about the consumer

people thought the microtransactions were "pay to win" so people could just buy the best gear and weapons and be able to compete with people who spent HOURS AND HOURS playing to unlock them for free. there was enough of a shitstorm that EA pulled it to keep the consumers happy.

they plan on rolling it back out, because they want to make money, and people are willing to pay it, but they are looking at taking away the loot aspect, and having it be more geared toward customization, so you can make your characters look different, unlock different races etc, but in the same sense they say they are trying to balance it so that people with money and little time, can compete with those with alot of time and a little money.

which i understand. i used to play WoW. my only beef with it is i could never play end game content, because i couldn't play 12 hours a day for a week to get a cloak lol. let alone still needing a helm, chestpiece, boots, grieves, 2 ultimate weapons etc lmao, so i could never play the actual end game bosses and everything else because i didn't have the time to put in. if i was able to buy them for 20 bucks a piece, i would have.

they would be silly to not put it in. but they never did, because the largest base of their consumers weren't for it.

and if battlefront blows, no one is being forced to play it

but word im less neutral the more i look into it and lean more towards repeal, espescially because of the misguided buffoonery from the dont' repeal side

http://abcnews.go.com/US/net-neutral...ry?id=51491458