Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
AVR_Project

Elephant in the Room -- Internet Neutrality

33 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,191
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,328 posts
9,387 battles

As with any battle scenario..  What if.

What if Internet Providers decide to block anything they perceive as 'Violent Content' in order to protect themselves from lawsuits.

Currently, Net Neutrality REQUIRES providers to turn a blind eye to content, and it's up to law enforcement to handle the criminal cases.

Loss of this freedom may require local providers to -switch-off- certain aspects due to public demand.  Think of a movement like Prohibition.

So-called 'Public Safety' groups may be able to shut down WOWS and other links locally by popular demand.  After all, they are only doing this to protect us from ourselves.

..........

Should those of us who enjoy gaming ..the way it is.. start an organization (like the NRA) to protect ourselves, and our investment in this sport?

I think it might be a good idea if we get started in this direction...  And we must do it quickly while we can still communicate on this Forum.

-------

What is WG working on as a contingency?

Edited by AVR_Project
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
151
[EREKT]
Members
752 posts
5,758 battles

ISP Providers should be allowed to dictate and control what traffic goes through their PRIVATE business. Why are you on the side of control, not freedom?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,747
[PRNA]
Beta Testers
18,779 posts
2,925 battles

Honestly, the Internet is good as it is.

 

Change is NOT necessary.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,432
[HINON]
Supertester
18,903 posts
12,441 battles

karCejg.jpg

Or I would've, if I'd lived in the US and wasn't consigned to just watching Americans mess up the internet.

Also

Spoiler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,204 battles
4 minutes ago, HorrorRoach said:

ISP Providers should be allowed to dictate and control what traffic goes through their PRIVATE business. Why are you on the side of control, not freedom?

 

If you're being serious, and not a troll, you need to sit the [edited] down because you're part of the problem.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,432
[HINON]
Supertester
18,903 posts
12,441 battles
10 minutes ago, HorrorRoach said:

ISP Providers should be allowed to dictate and control what traffic goes through their PRIVATE business. Why are you on the side of control, not freedom?

The water service should be allowed to dictate and control what water goes through their PRIVATE business, who gets clean water and who dirty water, and at what price. Why are you on the side of control, not freedom?

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,161 battles
10 minutes ago, Lert said:

 

Too bad Lert even if we live in the US we will lose internet neutrality, there are too many businesses bankrolling this as well as very powerful individuals. We are going to lose our neutrality there is nothing we can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,204 battles
12 minutes ago, HorrorRoach said:

ISP Providers should be allowed to dictate and control what traffic goes through their PRIVATE business. Why are you on the side of control, not freedom?

 

Just now, Lert said:

The water service should be allowed to dictate and control what water goes through their PRIVATE business, who gets clean water and who dirty water, and at what price. Why are you on the side of control, not freedom?

 

[insert every other possible example here]
Walk into the Verizon store and they say, "Yeah you can buy a Galaxy S8, but you can't use Twitch on it. YouTube is ok, but Twitch is no good unless you want to give us an extra $500 yearly to unlock Twitch." How about no [edited]thanks. It's not like ISPs even follow existing laws already... they've been so casually violating anti-trust laws which apply to them for decades. Want to know how and why?

2 years ago, the companies who spent the most on lobbying in DC were
#1 - Boeing

#2 - Lockheed Martin

#3 - Comcast

 

There was as much money in it for Comcast as there was for Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Boeing and Lockheed Martin lobby to maintain almost complete control of the entire US Military Industrial Complex, which is a disgusting percentage of the US economy. Comcast lobbies on that same level so that enough congressmen, cabinet officials, judges, and government employees will look their way and overlook enforcement of decades, or at this point, century old laws in order to exploit and gouge in a manner that is completely outside of the law (and I'm referring to laws made in the first 10 years of the 1900s, and newer laws made in the 1930s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
387
[POP]
Members
1,224 posts
8,015 battles

I was thinking about this last night and losing Net Neutrality could be the end of a lot of things. 
Think about the businesses that use cloud based services (most of them). Google docs. Office 365. Amazon Web Services. At any point, AT&T, Verizon, or any other ISP could basically say "Pay us $500 a month for every employee or we'll block your links to those web services."

Work from home people. "Your ISP requires you to use their VPN, even though it's full of security holes, or you can't access any of your work services."

Gamers, "Sorry, we're going to throttle you 25 minutes into every game session, unless you pay an extra $5 a session."


Sure, that all sounds crazy, but AT&T blocked VoIP and was sued for it. Comcast throttled Netflix because it competed with their own streaming services. It's been done before. 

Comcast says it won't ever do that. But it has. And if it won't, why is it demanding and end to a simple, painless regulation that says all information is equal? 

Oh, it's also pretty much the end of organized political resistance. Your party isn't in power? Good luck getting e-mails, notifications, voting information, and similar from them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
387
[POP]
Members
1,224 posts
8,015 battles
5 minutes ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

Too bad Lert even if we live in the US we will lose internet neutrality, there are too many businesses bankrolling this as well as very powerful individuals. We are going to lose our neutrality there is nothing we can do.

Totally agree. This was decided the moment Trump was elected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,269
[NERO]
Members
3,542 posts

More worrying to me than the idea that someone might try to censor WoWS is that they'll demand money from WG to not throttle access to WG's servers. It's very likely that if they were allowed to, ISPs will extort fees from content providers to not put them on the low bandwidth side of things. 

Imagine companies like EA and Blizzard being able to buy a normal, reliable throughput to their customers, but smaller fish like Wargaming being stuck with higher ping and lag. Or the more likely scenario, an ISP entering into a partnership with Amazon to prioritize their streaming data over Netflix. 

Censorship is part of the concern, but it's not the whole concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,204 battles
3 minutes ago, OgreMkV said:

Totally agree. This was decided the moment Trump was elected. 

 

Yeah anyone who voted for Trump, and is now worried about their internet... well guess what geniuses. Maybe you should have though about voting for someone who wasn't completely [edited]incompetent, and btw basically the most dishonest person ever to run for high office in the nation's history (and I'm putting him up against Ruthaford B. Hayes, a man who exploited corruption so much that he was kicked out of office in a time when EVERYONE exploited corruption to a level modern people can't even fathom). Like, why would someone who makes their name and fortune as an exploitative businessman have any interest in protecting the public against exploitation by businesses? "BUT HE'S GONNA DRAIN THE SWAMP AND LOCK UP HILLARY!" [edited] yourselves.

If Trump supporters cry about losing the internet, I'm going to laugh at them quite a lot. It's about as smart as trying to play Russian Roulette with an automatic pistol and then complaining that you died.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
448 posts
7,474 battles

Comcast and Verizon lobbying $$$$  > public interest.

The FCC and congress held hearings and solicited feedback from citizens and the results were overwhelmingly against ending net neutrality.

And yet here we are. Get ready to pay more for speed or content not favored by your ISP.

...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,191
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,328 posts
9,387 battles

Before this turns political...

I see this as a US Constitution 1st Amendment issue.

Ironically, it guarantees us the ability to PEACEABLY Assemble.  Yeah, like we are shooting at each other.

But still, we are gathered here as a hobby and sport.  And we aren't really hurting each other at all. 

I make the statement these battles are Peaceful Gatherings, and thus protected under the 1st Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
[WOLF4]
Members
173 posts
1,280 battles
3 minutes ago, TTK_Aegis said:

More worrying to me than the idea that someone might try to censor WoWS is that they'll demand money from WG to not throttle access to WG's servers. It's very likely that if they were allowed to, ISPs will extort fees from content providers to not put them on the low bandwidth side of things. 

Imagine companies like EA and Blizzard being able to buy a normal, reliable throughput to their customers, but smaller fish like Wargaming being stuck with higher ping and lag. Or the more likely scenario, an ISP entering into a partnership with Amazon to prioritize their streaming data over Netflix. 

Censorship is part of the concern, but it's not the whole concern.

I believe this has already happen and is happening.

 

I'm a on the line kind of guy when it comes to this I feel pricing needs to be regulated to prevent gauging in areas where there is only one provider or a couple. 

 

At the same token I don't want the politicians to have any control of anything especially our freedoms since the internet is basically part of our 1st amendment right of free speech.

 

I feel the the right solution for us the people is easy and obvious but no one is in it for us just themselves and I hope whichever side wins doesn't give it to us too Hard :cap_wander_2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,269
[NERO]
Members
3,542 posts
7 minutes ago, Captain_Dorja said:

 

Yeah anyone who voted for Trump, and is now worried about their internet... well guess what geniuses. Maybe you should have though about voting for someone who wasn't completely [edited]incompetent, and btw basically the most dishonest person ever to run for high office in the nation's history (and I'm putting him up against Ruthaford B. Hayes, a man who exploited corruption so much that he was kicked out of office in a time when EVERYONE exploited corruption to a level modern people can't even fathom). Like, why would someone who makes their name and fortune as an exploitative businessman have any interest in protecting the public against exploitation by businesses? "BUT HE'S GONNA DRAIN THE SWAMP AND LOCK UP HILLARY!" [edited] yourselves.

If Trump supporters cry about losing the internet, I'm going to laugh at them quite a lot. It's about as smart as trying to play Russian Roulette with an automatic pistol and then complaining that you died.

Alright, let's take the political rhetoric down a notch. Pretty sure the forum has rules against getting political like this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,204 battles
Just now, TTK_Aegis said:

Alright, let's take the political rhetoric down a notch. Pretty sure the forum has rules against getting political like this. 

 

It does. I couldn't care less frankly. People of that level of stupidity need to be slapped repeatedly. Very hard. Every day.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,204 battles
Just now, Captain_Dorja said:

 

It does. I couldn't care less frankly. People of that level of stupidity need to be slapped repeatedly. Very hard. Every day.

 

By The Rock.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,269
[NERO]
Members
3,542 posts
2 minutes ago, Kunra_1 said:

I believe this has already happen and is happening.

 

I'm a on the line kind of guy when it comes to this I feel pricing needs to be regulated to prevent gauging in areas where there is only one provider or a couple. 

 

At the same token I don't want the politicians to have any control of anything especially our freedoms since the internet is basically part of our 1st amendment right of free speech.

 

I feel the the right solution for us the people is easy and obvious but no one is in it for us just themselves and I hope whichever side wins doesn't give it to us too Hard :cap_wander_2:

 

I honestly think this would be less of an issue if we weren't limited geographically to our ISP choices. Neutrality or not, if you could easily pick between all the providers out there in the nation instead of two or three (or god forbid one... my folks live in the country and their only option is Verizon for broadband) then the free market would sort it out. Someone would end up offering a censorship, throttling free ISP and they'd scoop up most of the customers. 

Of course that's not the reality we live in. For me, if Spectrum and AT&T both decide to do stupid stuff I don't like, I really don't have an option beyond them or outright moving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,204 battles
2 minutes ago, TTK_Aegis said:

 

I honestly think this would be less of an issue if we weren't limited geographically to our ISP choices. Neutrality or not, if you could easily pick between all the providers out there in the nation instead of two or three (or god forbid one... my folks live in the country and their only option is Verizon for broadband) then the free market would sort it out. Someone would end up offering a censorship, throttling free ISP and they'd scoop up most of the customers. 

Of course that's not the reality we live in. For me, if Spectrum and AT&T both decide to do stupid stuff I don't like, I really don't have an option beyond them or outright moving. 

 

There is no free market with regards to ISPs. They illegally cooperate with each other to prevent competition and encourage mutual exploitation. That's half the problem to start with. That's also what I was refering to about blatant disregard to laws set in the 1900s and 1930s. It's illegal in pretty much every field of endeavor, and in most of them it's at least partially enforced but not here. There isn't even lip service to enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,269
[NERO]
Members
3,542 posts
1 minute ago, Captain_Dorja said:

 

There is no free market with regards to ISPs. They illegally cooperate with each other to prevent competition and encourage mutual exploitation. That's half the problem to start with. That's also what I was refering to about blatant disregard to laws set in the 1900s and 1930s. It's illegal in pretty much every field of endeavor, and in most of them it's at least partially enforced but not here. There isn't even lip service to enforcement.

 

True but if a new ISP were started that didn't throttle or censor, surely it would win /if/ we could choose it regardless of geographic location. Kinda like how some states let you choose your power company. Unfortunately where I live, you belong to the power company that owns your area, and even when they make a billing error that costs you your deposit even after they admit it was their error, you have no options other than keep paying them, live without electricity, or move more than 50 miles away to another company's are of control. ...but that's a whole other kettle of fish right there. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[5IN]
Members
1,784 posts
8,105 battles
33 minutes ago, Captain_Dorja said:

 

well guess what geniuses. Maybe you should have though about voting for someone who wasn't completely [edited]incompetent, and btw basically the most dishonest person ever to run for high office in the nation's history 

Right..  because the alternative was so much better.  

 

This topic will end up locked pretty soon... lol.

 

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,204 battles
34 minutes ago, Dr_Powderfinger said:

Comcast and Verizon lobbying $$$$  > public interest.

The FCC and congress held hearings and solicited feedback from citizens and the results were overwhelmingly against ending net neutrality.

And yet here we are. Get ready to pay more for speed or content not favored by your ISP.

...

I'm not a huge fan of Barack Obama, but I've got to give him credit on this issue.

In 2015 when the Obama Administration's FCC Head, Tom Wheeler, tried to ditch Net Neutrality, the FCC got more public input in opposition to that plan than they had ever got for every other reason combined. Wheeler made an about face, and put in Title II protection.

Fast Fowards to 2017 and Dickhead J. Trump, and the aforementioned Ajit Pia, whose nut's I would love to repeatedly kick. They go to do what Wheeler initially wanted to do, and get so much feedback against it that it makes the 2015 uproar look small (there was something like 4 times as much public input against the change this time). This time though, they don't even come close to paying attention. They create a bunch of bots to spam positive feedback to themselves so that they can show the public that there is public support for what is unquestionably a terrible idea and they press forward into stupidity.

Afterall, the public doesn't make them rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×