FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Forcing companies to use a specific codec is way bigger of a problem than it sounds like. This is just an arbitrary control measure. Maybe this ONE is minor, but it's just the beginning. It's a fundamental problem. Today it is "pay the toll for this codec patent", tomorrow it is "only say positive things about the president"... the result is the same... a private company gets to choose what factors determine what data you get, and which data you don't.
But this is only ever on the 'free' portion of their service.. your paid portion you can still do anything you want.
There is no free portion. There is only the portion that they prioritize and the portion that they deprioritize. You are being controlled by their marketing.
It's ALL a portion paid for by you, it's just that they, not you, are in control of it.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
There was NO speed change here - at least not that I'm aware of. What you did have affected by CHOOSing to use the codex is that use of codex would NOT count against your data pool, nothing more.
So you get charged for some things but not others. Are you not seeing how this is EXACTLY what we want NN to stop?
Rather you got things free instead of being charged for them, due to an innovating codec. Forcing the codec would be wrong, so they gave the option to the video provider.
That's just marketing and I dont' buy it. They COULD just offer open Internet equal to all.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I always have the choice to use my alloted bandwidth for the codex I want to use.. but then I might run out and have to pay more..
Right, so you are solidly against NN. You are describing exactly what NN is about preventing - someone OTHER THAN YOU deciding what gets prioritized.
You are describing a terrible situation, where ISPs get to charge extra for some things, but others not. Or some things are fast and other slow.
Bottom line, your access isn't equal and someone else gets to manipulate what data gets what priority to you. Whether speed, bandwidth or cost priority. It's not equal. It's up to the ISPs.
That seems skewed. This is why title ii doesn’t work with the internet.
It’s being abused by one provider to prevent them from adding a price reducing offering to users, all because they don’t want to compete.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I also always thought NN was bullshit, based on speculation and phantom issues that did not exist. More specific legislation could have addressed issued like throttling, one of the guises the NN supporters used to bring this into effect. It just wasnt a well crafted law, and was widely open to the kind of abuse that would reduce competition.
There is no system for competition today. They could have retained NN and fixed these things. Removing NN is the issue, failing to fix the other things is an issue, using repealing NN under the excuse of the other things is an issue.
Consider the way TMobile could have been limited by NN with their unlimited streaming offering that Pai supporter and gave the green light on in Feb.
How would NN have affected TMobile? I honestly don't know how it would apply?
They wanted to offer free video streaming services to any video provider who would use the codec conversion to their wireless subscribers. Competitors cried foul play and used NN, Pai overruled then. That’s one of many reasons NN is gone. It’s not over through, just the beginning.
How does offering that violate NN?
They charged for HBO and Youtube data usage and didn’t charge for the video services that signed up. It’s “uneven access” like Scott said. But you see how it screws the customer and reduces competition?
They charge for HBO and Youtube because those two refuesed to use the codex... you said anyone who uses the codex gets a free ride - soo wake up HBO, install the damned codex for TMo and move on.. problem solved.
Exactly and why didn’t they want to use the codec???
Not "exactly", this is pure evil. TMobile should NEVER get to dictate how something like that is done, never. This is AWFUL.
They’re just saying “hey, we found a way to make steaming unlimited which users want, anyone can get on board”
And Verizon said “oh shit, that’s a big money maker, good thing NN can stop it”
Absolutely not competitive.
Verizon could have done the same thing by that logic.
Yes they could have, but then Verizon would loose millions/billions overage data fees.
If that is true, why did it work out for TMobile?
It's not that it worked out for TMo, it's that it would have reduced the bloated revenues that Verizon gets - i.e. like most normal competition.. the first horse to the show wins huge for a while.. but when a second horse arrives, now he has to compete, and that normally means revenues will be lower than when the first was monopoly.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Though I do see the line you're talking about.. and if they make the paid portion more and more expensive to the point where you can only really afford to use the free side.. (not really free, but 'included" in yoru base bill)..
yeah, problems, just like what's trying to be solved today by NNNot what you "can afford", but will you pay "extra" for conservative news? What if all news of one type is cheap and all news of another is expensive? How long before no one pays extra for certain news items?
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I also always thought NN was bullshit, based on speculation and phantom issues that did not exist. More specific legislation could have addressed issued like throttling, one of the guises the NN supporters used to bring this into effect. It just wasnt a well crafted law, and was widely open to the kind of abuse that would reduce competition.
There is no system for competition today. They could have retained NN and fixed these things. Removing NN is the issue, failing to fix the other things is an issue, using repealing NN under the excuse of the other things is an issue.
Consider the way TMobile could have been limited by NN with their unlimited streaming offering that Pai supporter and gave the green light on in Feb.
How would NN have affected TMobile? I honestly don't know how it would apply?
They wanted to offer free video streaming services to any video provider who would use the codec conversion to their wireless subscribers. Competitors cried foul play and used NN, Pai overruled then. That’s one of many reasons NN is gone. It’s not over through, just the beginning.
How does offering that violate NN?
They charged for HBO and Youtube data usage and didn’t charge for the video services that signed up. It’s “uneven access” like Scott said. But you see how it screws the customer and reduces competition?
They charge for HBO and Youtube because those two refuesed to use the codex... you said anyone who uses the codex gets a free ride - soo wake up HBO, install the damned codex for TMo and move on.. problem solved.
Exactly and why didn’t they want to use the codec???
Not "exactly", this is pure evil. TMobile should NEVER get to dictate how something like that is done, never. This is AWFUL.
They’re just saying “hey, we found a way to make steaming unlimited which users want, anyone can get on board”
And Verizon said “oh shit, that’s a big money maker, good thing NN can stop it”
Absolutely not competitive.
Verizon could have done the same thing by that logic.
Yes they could have, but then Verizon would loose millions/billions overage data fees.
If that is true, why did it work out for TMobile?
It's not that it worked out for TMo, it's that it would have reduced the bloated revenues that Verizon gets - i.e. like most normal competition.. the first horse to the show wins huge for a while.. but when a second horse arrives, now he has to compete, and that normally means revenues will be lower than when the first was monopoly.
Anyone could do it overnight. This is just about getting unethical control.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
can you provide examples of what TMo took advantage of? what they did that was against NN - please provide specifics.
What do you mean? We are talking about it already. They dictated that certain technology got a different priority than others.
no one ever said priority changes... only if it counted against your data allotment or not.
YOu said no one said priority changes, then you describe the priority changing. Which is it?
how is using free "included" time a priority change over using what you specifically are alloted?
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I always have the choice to use my alloted bandwidth for the codex I want to use.. but then I might run out and have to pay more..
Right, so you are solidly against NN. You are describing exactly what NN is about preventing - someone OTHER THAN YOU deciding what gets prioritized.
You are describing a terrible situation, where ISPs get to charge extra for some things, but others not. Or some things are fast and other slow.
Bottom line, your access isn't equal and someone else gets to manipulate what data gets what priority to you. Whether speed, bandwidth or cost priority. It's not equal. It's up to the ISPs.
That seems skewed. This is why title ii doesn’t work with the internet.
It’s being abused by one provider to prevent them from adding a price reducing offering to users, all because they don’t want to compete.
How does this "compete"? I want one thing, equal opportunity Internet. Period. Anything else isn't competing, it's earning through corruption.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
There was NO speed change here - at least not that I'm aware of. What you did have affected by CHOOSing to use the codex is that use of codex would NOT count against your data pool, nothing more.
So you get charged for some things but not others. Are you not seeing how this is EXACTLY what we want NN to stop?
Rather you got things free instead of being charged for them, due to an innovating codec. Forcing the codec would be wrong, so they gave the option to the video provider.
That's just marketing and I dont' buy it. They COULD just offer open Internet equal to all.
The codec drastically reduce bandwidth consumption with little impact to the end users viewing experience. So they made it free to their users.
The opposition wanted to make sure everyone had to charge for all video content at higher consumption rates, akin to fixing the price.
It was really innovative and title ii wasn’t designed to address it appropriately.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
can you provide examples of what TMo took advantage of? what they did that was against NN - please provide specifics.
What do you mean? We are talking about it already. They dictated that certain technology got a different priority than others.
no one ever said priority changes... only if it counted against your data allotment or not.
YOu said no one said priority changes, then you describe the priority changing. Which is it?
how is using free "included" time a priority change over using what you specifically are alloted?
No matter what false names you apply, this is the reality...
You pay X for Internet. Some things are faster or in bigger quantity than others.
That's it. Period. There is no free or extra, you pay, you don't get equal access.
-
So we all want what “Net Neutrality” sounds like, but what’s in the actual law isn’t really that. I think that’s the short of it.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
There was NO speed change here - at least not that I'm aware of. What you did have affected by CHOOSing to use the codex is that use of codex would NOT count against your data pool, nothing more.
So you get charged for some things but not others. Are you not seeing how this is EXACTLY what we want NN to stop?
Rather you got things free instead of being charged for them, due to an innovating codec. Forcing the codec would be wrong, so they gave the option to the video provider.
That's just marketing and I dont' buy it. They COULD just offer open Internet equal to all.
The codec drastically reduce bandwidth consumption with little impact to the end users viewing experience. So they made it free to their users.
First, I don't believe that in the least. Second, I doubt the codec was free. Third, no codec does that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
There was NO speed change here - at least not that I'm aware of. What you did have affected by CHOOSing to use the codex is that use of codex would NOT count against your data pool, nothing more.
So you get charged for some things but not others. Are you not seeing how this is EXACTLY what we want NN to stop?
I see this as a billing advantage in my favor... instead of somethign against me.
That's the illusion. You pay and they decide which things get priority and which don't. It's never in your favour. Remember the discussion with Mike... in the end, the customer pays. TMobile decides which things you get faster or more of, and which you get less of. You never actually pay less, they just are saying that to make it sound okay.
It's not about paying less, in this case it's about getting more. before this free if codex thing.. my 2 GB plan would give me lets say 1 hour of streaming... now.. I can use that 2 GB for whatever.. and I can stream unlimited, as long as I use the codex.. I am way ahead.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
So we all want what “Net Neutrality” sounds like, but what’s in the actual law isn’t really that. I think that’s the short of it.
No, I want Net Neutrality, it sounds like everyone else wants exactly the opposite. Which is fine, but everyone needs to realize that a neutral Internet means you can never use marketing tricks to make unequal access sound appealing.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
There was NO speed change here - at least not that I'm aware of. What you did have affected by CHOOSing to use the codex is that use of codex would NOT count against your data pool, nothing more.
So you get charged for some things but not others. Are you not seeing how this is EXACTLY what we want NN to stop?
I see this as a billing advantage in my favor... instead of somethign against me.
That's the illusion. You pay and they decide which things get priority and which don't. It's never in your favour. Remember the discussion with Mike... in the end, the customer pays. TMobile decides which things you get faster or more of, and which you get less of. You never actually pay less, they just are saying that to make it sound okay.
It's not about paying less, in this case it's about getting more. before this free if codex thing.. my 2 GB plan would give me lets say 1 hour of streaming... now.. I can use that 2 GB for whatever.. and I can stream unlimited, as long as I use the codex.. I am way ahead.
It's not getting more. it's about shifting what you get. You are NOT ahead, you are totally giving in to the marketing. You are paying for Internet access, THEY are deciding which parts you get how much of. The false number they are providing as a cap is to confuse you, it's a fake number.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
The opposition wanted to make sure everyone had to charge for all video content at higher consumption rates, akin to fixing the price.
Taht's how it should be. One GB of data should be one GB of data. If my ISP cares what's contained in that GB, I'm seriously unhappy.
-
https://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video.html
Actually looks like all video providers are now signed on... it was simply Verizon who was pissed.
You honestly think Verizon trying to stop this is the heart of “Net neutrality”?
I believe we all want the same thing, and Painhas always shown with his actions that he wants the same thing.
But I don’t understand how everyone is in the other side.
It just branding from all I can see.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
There was NO speed change here - at least not that I'm aware of. What you did have affected by CHOOSing to use the codex is that use of codex would NOT count against your data pool, nothing more.
So you get charged for some things but not others. Are you not seeing how this is EXACTLY what we want NN to stop?
I see this as a billing advantage in my favor... instead of somethign against me.
That's the illusion. You pay and they decide which things get priority and which don't. It's never in your favour. Remember the discussion with Mike... in the end, the customer pays. TMobile decides which things you get faster or more of, and which you get less of. You never actually pay less, they just are saying that to make it sound okay.
It's not about paying less, in this case it's about getting more. before this free if codex thing.. my 2 GB plan would give me lets say 1 hour of streaming... now.. I can use that 2 GB for whatever.. and I can stream unlimited, as long as I use the codex.. I am way ahead.
So to reword this...
If all entertainment and news that support one political view is unlimited with your payment, and other entertainment and news that supports a different view is charged overages if you see it, you are just fine with that... because anything one thing is "unlimited" even though you've paid for it, you see it as a bonus regardless of the fact that a private company controls all decisions about what you get with your payment and what you don't?
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
https://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video.html
Actually looks like all video providers are now signed on... it was simply Verizon who was pissed.
What do you mean? If we host videos on ML, how do people get it unlimited for free? How did we get this codec? How did this get enabled?
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I always have the choice to use my alloted bandwidth for the codex I want to use.. but then I might run out and have to pay more..
Right, so you are solidly against NN. You are describing exactly what NN is about preventing - someone OTHER THAN YOU deciding what gets prioritized.
You are describing a terrible situation, where ISPs get to charge extra for some things, but others not. Or some things are fast and other slow.
Bottom line, your access isn't equal and someone else gets to manipulate what data gets what priority to you. Whether speed, bandwidth or cost priority. It's not equal. It's up to the ISPs.
I need you to define prioritization/priority.... because I don't see that actually happening.. they aren't putting one to me faster than the other, or one in front of the other.. they both come at the same speed, at teh same time..
What I do see is one I don't get charged for, and one I do (yeah, I really do get charged because, like the mike thing.. the base bill could be even lower for just access, then we could pay for usage - and your absolutely right.. if it was that simple.. I would love that... but TMo is offering me free bandwidth for the codec, and no one else is... if that codec works for me.. awesome.. I'll use it.
Now - I do have to admit... I don't know if HBO/Youtube, etc had to PAY to get the codec.. if they did - yeah.. that's wrong.. and destroys my whole side of things.. the codec has to be the same price for all those that use it.
