Support NeoGAF

[Amir0x]

I was familiar with health care exchanges and group pooling already because I worked in the insurance industry for a time. I understand, of course, that Republicans should be for it, as I did in 2009 when the bill was announced. Sadly we live in a world where politicians disagree with positions they should ideologically support to ruin the country in the hopes of increasing their chances to win elections.

This recent article by the New York Times highlights one of the many ways Republicans are putting effective healthcare solutions out of reach for many Americans.

Doesn't it just drive you to the point of insanity? The fact that at my job 2/3 of all the people are die hard RAH RAH MILITARY RAH RAH Republicans, and that Fox News rotates on the main television four out of the five main work days makes it on the border of being able to drive any rational minded individual to have their mind break. This is a place so fucked up that after Obama was elected a second time, I and the other floor supervisors were obligated to once again (because we had to do it in 2008 too) put everyone in my group to a seminar to train about how not to be racist fucktards, since there was blatantly racist graffiti and comments being thrown out every two seconds around election day. "It's not the Black House, it's the WHITE HOUSE" har har har. Stuff like that.

Anyway, the point of this story is no matter how many facts you bring to the table, Republicans - and I'm sure Democrats on the reverse side of the coin when it gets right down to it - are dog headed and stubborn to an extreme. The political environment has become so toxic that compromise is unselfconsciously labeled a real flaw to people now. Giving up any ground is considered somehow weak, like you're less of a person to do it.

So during the health care debate, the one I always got was "Oh yeah? If you hate this countries health care so much why don't you move to Canada? Right, you won't because you know the Canadians all fly to AMERICA to get their major health procedures done! Why? Because America has the best health care system IN THE WORLD. Case closed."

Their point, for as much as I can suss out a point, is that the 'proof is in the pudding'... the president kept trying to say the Health Care system is broken, but somehow it's not actually broken and saying so is unpatriotic. It doesn't matter that you show them that left unaided, the percentage of our GDP being used toward health care spending is already crazy and is predicted to be legit astronomical by the mid 2020s. That what Americans actually get for what the country is spending is so insultingly and transparently tilted toward giving benefits to the health care companies over Americans that it should frankly be considered treason.

You can tell them that no, countries with Universal Health Care don't have some spectacularly long waiting time that forces some people to die in the waiting room. You can show them data to support the notion that countries with Universal Health Care at worst have waiting times merely as long as ours; at best it's often quite better.. Doesn't matter.

To them, mentioning that we need to gather idea from Europeans is just as bad as the notion that there is something corrupt with our Health Care system.

After years of debating this stuff privately with some of my extreme Republican friends at work, I realize it is beyond pointless. They have shut off their brains, and languish in ignorance. And they find that a value. The same reason Sarah Palin's value is solely "she's just like one of us" to these guys.

 

[ryan13ts]

So what will this ruling likely mean for consumers?

 

[SapientWolf]

I endorse Title II reclassification of the ISPs to ensure strong net neutrality standards, but would like to argue from the other side just to see some of your arguments. Why should net neutrality be the default paradigm? Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to control the content that is flowing over their networks?

As a right wing acquaintance of mine recently put in an email....

There wouldn't be anything stopping ISPs from arbitrarily limiting bandwidth to certain sites to create artificial scarcity, even though there is more than enough to handle the traffic. Or throttling competing services in order to funnel traffic to sites that they would personally profit from. Those types of practices could undermine the normal functioning of the web. The way ISPs carve up sections of cities into mini monopolies is gross enough, but when cable is no longer popular they're going to be looking for a way to recoup the lost revenue.

Basically, if fast, affordable and widely available internet is considered to be important for the country as a whole then maybe it shouldn't be left to the whims of capitalism. It may take awhile to find the right balance between regulation and free market, and I can already foresee friction in the future.

 

[Suikoguy]

So what will this ruling likely mean for consumers?

With any luck, things should stay as they are.
There may be court cases in regards to situations like comcast and netflix.

With time we should see less streaming issues too. It's going to take some muscle in enforcement for that to happen though.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Is there anywhere I can get a detailed breakdown of exactly what was voted on? Google is useless for this right now and only turns up articles regurgitating the points of other articles without anyone really knowing what they're talking about.

 

[benjipwns]

Is there anywhere I can get a detailed breakdown of exactly what was voted on? Google is useless for this right now and only turns up articles regurgitating the points of other articles without anyone really knowing what they're talking about.

No, the FCC has not posted the document for public viewing.

Thursday's vote comes after Commissioners Michael O'Rielly and Ajut Pai asked that the FCC "immediately release the 332-page Internet regulation plan publicly and allow the American people a reasonable period of not less than 30 days to carefully study it."

That request was denied; we'll post the document here when it's available.

It will be a few weeks to publish, then another few weeks to go in the Federal Register and then there's 60 days after that of various implementation/regulatory rulings/etc.

This is typical btw of agency rulings in part under guidelines of the APA. So no secret Obama Administration conspiracy to seize the internet or anything.

Yet.

 

[Apt101]

It's amazing how much I hate cox but by all accounts they are one of the better services around the country....which really says something.

Cox's service is great in comparison. Good speeds for the price in most regions they're active in. But their field service is stretched thin, and they hire heavy engineer-wise when it's not needed, could spend some of that money on further upgrades, and still feel the need to institute data caps to try to dissuade cable cutters. I have a good friend who worked as a storage engineer for them. They had so many people their team would take turns on who would have a day off each week. This while simple upgrades that could have solved bandwidth issues on their backend went ignored.

Cox should push their Internet streaming option for people for cheap, say $20/month guaranteed, and abolish data caps. Many they lose to cord cutting would be immediately recouped because they are the only real player in town (Verizon is a fucking joke and stopped expanding anyways). They'd also carry over a lot of goodwill when Google eventually comes to town.

 

[Almighty]

Little late to the party, but I am glad this finally happened. The fact some ISPs hate it so much tells me it was the right thing to do.

 

[Funky Papa]

Edit: aw shit, wrong thread!

 

[Chichikov]

Which I just said...

And I doubt even this FCC ruling implements the idealized version of it.

There's nothing idealized about it, it's the way the internet was designed to work, the way it used to work, and the way it still mostly work. This ruling is about preventing cable companies fuckery.

I think you apply broad political instinct to a technical question without fully understanding it.

 

[br0ken_shad0w]

One small step at a time. It will take continuous pressure from the general public on the FCC and the executive branch AND the legislative branch of the US government to see further, meaningful change.

Yeah I don't see them breaking up current ISPs, but hopefully it means towns/cities who are getting screwed can form their own municipal broadband without being cockblocked by the state. Already being seen here:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1000013

 

[spons]

I remember net neutrality being enforced here in Holland. Nothing was blocked anymore on mobile but it was made more expensive, speeds got lowered and transfer caps got installed.

Cable and fiber has a whole different situation though. Nearly everybody can get 200 mbit/s cable nowadays without any transfer caps.

So I wonder - it is truly net neutrality that killed off mobile internet in the Netherlands? I think it's mostly competition, and the grand lack there off on the mobile market. Cable, VSDL and fiber have a gazillion networks and providers, but mobile has only three. It's ridiculous how that goes, really. Net neutrality does NOT work when there is not enough competition. They'll just make it more expensive, drop speeds and install transfer caps. Hence why it worked on cable, xDSL and fiber but not on mobile.

Hopefully, the situation in the US is different and it will actually work out there.

 

[benjipwns]

I think you apply broad political instinct to a technical question without fully understanding it.

That's what the FCC will be doing, we will have to wait and see what the regulations even are.

What is net neutrality if not the idea of packets being treated equally?

 

[exmachina64]

Doesn't it just drive you to the point of insanity? The fact that at my job 2/3 of all the people are die hard RAH RAH MILITARY RAH RAH Republicans, and that Fox News rotates on the main television four out of the five main work days makes it on the border of being able to drive any rational minded individual to have their mind break. This is a place so fucked up that after Obama was elected a second time, I and the other floor supervisors were obligated to once again (because we had to do it in 2008 too) put everyone in my group to a seminar to train about how not to be racist fucktards, since there was blatantly racist graffiti and comments being thrown out every two seconds around election day. "It's not the Black House, it's the WHITE HOUSE" har har har. Stuff like that.

Anyway, the point of this story is no matter how many facts you bring to the table, Republicans - and I'm sure Democrats on the reverse side of the coin when it gets right down to it - are dog headed and stubborn to an extreme. The political environment has become so toxic that compromise is unselfconsciously labeled a real flaw to people now. Giving up any ground is considered somehow weak, like you're less of a person to do it.

So during the health care debate, the one I always got was "Oh yeah? If you hate this countries health care so much why don't you move to Canada? Right, you won't because you know the Canadians all fly to AMERICA to get their major health procedures done! Why? Because America has the best health care system IN THE WORLD. Case closed."

Their point, for as much as I can suss out a point, is that the 'proof is in the pudding'... the president kept trying to say the Health Care system is broken, but somehow it's not actually broken and saying so is unpatriotic. It doesn't matter that you show them that left unaided, the percentage of our GDP being used toward health care spending is already crazy and is predicted to be legit astronomical by the mid 2020s. That what Americans actually get for what the country is spending is so insultingly and transparently tilted toward giving benefits to the health care companies over Americans that it should frankly be considered treason.

You can tell them that no, countries with Universal Health Care don't have some spectacularly long waiting time that forces some people to die in the waiting room. You can show them data to support the notion that countries with Universal Health Care at worst have waiting times merely as long as ours; at best it's often quite better.. Doesn't matter.

To them, mentioning that we need to gather idea from Europeans is just as bad as the notion that there is something corrupt with our Health Care system.

After years of debating this stuff privately with some of my extreme Republican friends at work, I realize it is beyond pointless. They have shut off their brains, and languish in ignorance. And they find that a value. The same reason Sarah Palin's value is solely "she's just like one of us" to these guys.

You're describing my life.

It's hard to avoid talking about politics with my Republican friends, but it's something you have to do to maintain civility. The worst situations are with Republicans whose extreme views pervade every part of their lives. Everything relates to Obama, Islam, gun control and healthcare in some Sobchakian manner.

Regardless of whether we're talking about healthcare or net neutrality, one-half of the American political spectrum refuses to engage in or dialogue with reality.

 

[Can Crusher]

As always, follow the money. If the people making huge fortunes are the ones who are complaining, then something right is being done.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

Old post but I feel like licking salt tonight

Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to control the content that is flowing over their networks?

Because it isn't any of their fucking business.

But I could never work out why ISPs should be required to deliver service to amazon and netflix to make a profit for free.

Because ISPs don't deliver service to Netflix or Amazon. ISPs deliver service to the ISP subscriber.

That has almost never been a good thing for the consumer.

[citation needed]

Treating all data equally also means that smaller networks and delivery systems will have unlimited demand. History tells us what happens when unlimited demand is mandated--shortages are sure to follow.

Blatant bullshittery. "Smaller networks and delivery systems" don't have unlimited demand. If they had high demand then they wouldn't be small networks or delivery systems.

Secondly, Anti Net Neutrality creates artificial shortages.

It's like if everyone turned on every faucet, hosepipe and sprinkler system in their house at the same time. The system wouldn't be able to keep up. And if you are at the end of the street, you will have the lowest water pressure of anyone.

1: The internet isn't water.

2: If this were the case then ISPs need to limit or properly tier their customers, which they already do. Net Neutrality doesn't change this in the slightest.

The internet isn't much different. Unlimited demand will end up hurting those furthest from hubs and on the smallest, poorest maintained delivery systems--the same people that are struggling now.

Actually the price gouging and incredibly shitty service that exists right now is what is hurting those people.