saving net neutrality


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So the fcc has decided to remove net neutrality in a 3-2 vote. So you guys in the united states need to contact your congressmen and let them know how bad of an idea that is. This will mean internet companies can throttle your internet speeds and force you to pay even more money to receive internet they can even then force websites and other online companies to pay exorbitant prices just to not have traffic to their sites slowed down for people using that particular internet service. The chairman of the fcc claims it will let the market decide which companies live and die if they do such things but that idea is fundamentally flawed in many areas around the USA only have access to one, maybe two internet providers in a given area. There still a chance to save net neutrality as there are a few more steps that need to be taken for them to remove it completely, but you will need to contact your congressmen and have them represent you and your needs and uphold your right to be able to have affordable un throttled internet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
So the fcc has decided to remove net neutrality in a 3-2 vote. So you guys in the united states need to contact your congressmen and let them know how bad of an idea that is. This will mean internet companies can throttle your internet speeds and force you to pay even more money to receive internet they can even then force websites and other online companies to pay exorbitant prices just to not have traffic to their sites slowed down for people using that particular internet service. The chairman of the fcc claims it will let the market decide which companies live and die if they do such things but that idea is fundamentally flawed in many areas around the USA only have access to one, maybe two internet providers in a given area. There still a chance to save net neutrality as there are a few more steps that need to be taken for them to remove it completely, but you will need to contact your congressmen and have them represent you and your needs and uphold your right to be able to have affordable un throttled internet.

And this is related to the Pathfinder RPG how? Wrong place. You want the Off Topic board.


Jeraa wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
So the fcc has decided to remove net neutrality in a 3-2 vote. So you guys in the united states need to contact your congressmen and let them know how bad of an idea that is. This will mean internet companies can throttle your internet speeds and force you to pay even more money to receive internet they can even then force websites and other online companies to pay exorbitant prices just to not have traffic to their sites slowed down for people using that particular internet service. The chairman of the fcc claims it will let the market decide which companies live and die if they do such things but that idea is fundamentally flawed in many areas around the USA only have access to one, maybe two internet providers in a given area. There still a chance to save net neutrality as there are a few more steps that need to be taken for them to remove it completely, but you will need to contact your congressmen and have them represent you and your needs and uphold your right to be able to have affordable un throttled internet.
And this is related to the Pathfinder RPG how? Wrong place. You want the Off Topic board.

because it has the potential to effect the entire paizo site as a whole as well as many of the resource sites used for pathfinder content plus the general discussion board is one of the most visited forums so its much more likely to be seen


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
So the fcc has decided to remove net neutrality in a 3-2 vote. So you guys in the united states need to contact your congressmen and let them know how bad of an idea that is. This will mean internet companies can throttle your internet speeds and force you to pay even more money to receive internet they can even then force websites and other online companies to pay exorbitant prices just to not have traffic to their sites slowed down for people using that particular internet service. The chairman of the fcc claims it will let the market decide which companies live and die if they do such things but that idea is fundamentally flawed in many areas around the USA only have access to one, maybe two internet providers in a given area. There still a chance to save net neutrality as there are a few more steps that need to be taken for them to remove it completely, but you will need to contact your congressmen and have them represent you and your needs and uphold your right to be able to have affordable un throttled internet.
And this is related to the Pathfinder RPG how? Wrong place. You want the Off Topic board.
because it has the potential to effect the entire paizo site as a whole as well as many of the resource sites used for pathfinder content plus the general discussion board is one of the most visited forums so its much more likely to be seen

Still the wrong place. And we (the US population) don't have as much control over what happens as many are led to believe. The country as a whole mostly supports net neutrality, and the FCC vote was still against it. The person who gets the most people voting for them in the presidential election is not guaranteed to actually win the election. The government mostly does what it wants. It may or may not happen to coincide with the wishes of the people.

But as the entire issue is a political one, I suspect the thread will be locked and/or removed. So it doesn't really matter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I, too, am terrified of returning to the regulatory regime that existed from the inception of the Internet until 2015.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
I, too, am terrified of returning to the regulatory regime that existed from the inception of the Internet until 2015.

When you put it like that it doesn’t sound so bad. The internet was fine before 2015.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's uncanny how threads like this always go up in the wee hours of the morning on a Saturday.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
I, too, am terrified of returning to the regulatory regime that existed from the inception of the Internet until 2015.
When you put it like that it doesn’t sound so bad. The internet was fine before 2015.

It’s... almost like something happened that required these laws to be made.


Rysky wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
I, too, am terrified of returning to the regulatory regime that existed from the inception of the Internet until 2015.
When you put it like that it doesn’t sound so bad. The internet was fine before 2015.
It’s... almost like something happened that required these laws to be made.

The point still stands. It’s weird to be afraid to go back to something that was working fine before. Rather he’s afraid of changing to something that didn’t exist.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
I, too, am terrified of returning to the regulatory regime that existed from the inception of the Internet until 2015.
When you put it like that it doesn’t sound so bad. The internet was fine before 2015.
It’s... almost like something happened that required these laws to be made.
The point still stands. It’s weird to be afraid to go back to something that was working fine before. Rather he’s afraid of changing to something that didn’t exist.

It doesn't sound so bad for *you* you mean? From what you can tell, it didn't affect *you*?

No, no. I can't even right now. That is so ridiculously single-minded.

War's not so bad. I mean, I'M not a soldier and it never happens on MY land... sooooo...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
I, too, am terrified of returning to the regulatory regime that existed from the inception of the Internet until 2015.
When you put it like that it doesn’t sound so bad. The internet was fine before 2015.
It’s... almost like something happened that required these laws to be made.
The point still stands. It’s weird to be afraid to go back to something that was working fine before. Rather he’s afraid of changing to something that didn’t exist.

*head* *desk*

It was starting to [b]not[b] be fine, which is why these laws were put into place. They were not created on a whim, they were made as reaction to a very serious problem that had started and was growing.


I’m just saying it’s a bad way to put it. Which is dangerous in this kind of argument.


Michael Landis wrote:

It doesn't sound so bad for *you* you mean? From what you can tell, it didn't affect *you*?

War's not so bad. I mean, I'M not a soldier and it never happens on MY land... sooooo...

Out of curiousity, how did it affect you? What made it comparable to war in your experience?


Agit had net and verizon had coin. Dont worry they say they wont throttle even though they say they will.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Came in expecting a neutral character wielding nets, left disappointed.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn’t worry. Several companies have already said they won’t try to take advantage of this thing they’ve spent millions of dollars lobbying for. It’s all good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most of the time I just roll my eyes when something silly happens south of the border, but this seems like something that could affect us up in Canada.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service Manager

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Moved to off topic. Keep political commentary out and respect in and we can keep this thread open.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There has been a number of lies about NN from both sides (seriously, MEO in Portugal? You WANT the anti-NN crowd to win?), which is apalling to watch. Without NN protections in place, there will be rather sharp consequences. It is certainly not a time for levity. What will happen next is a flurry of lawsuits as telcos try to monetize. The results of those will be interesting.


I'm suspecting this will have to be litigated before any legislative actions might be taken.

Whether or not that means the ISPs will be doing the slow down/throttle down of some services while advertising their own...is unclear.


Sorry to say, but unless you have the money to file a lawsuit, it is hopeless on your end to accomplish anything. All we can do is hope that the lawsuits that all the big corporations are filing to keep net neutrality a thing, work. I mean they should. After all, no net neutrality means no freedom of speech on the internet, and that is definitally illegal in the USA.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reksew,

What? You don't think the US attorneys from 10 states aren't enough?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Sorry to say, but unless you have the money to file a lawsuit, it is hopeless on your end to accomplish anything. All we can do is hope that the lawsuits that all the big corporations are filing to keep net neutrality a thing, work. I mean they should. After all, no net neutrality means no freedom of speech on the internet, and that is definitally illegal in the USA.

It doesn't technically mean "no freedom of speech" any more than CNN not broadcasting my speech is infringing on my freedom of speech. These are private companies and they have no Constitutional duty carry my speech.

Which is partly why we imposed government regulation on them, treating them as common carriers - like the old landline telephone service. So they couldn't easily treat some people's speech as privileged over others - whether by content or just by ability to pay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Have carriers already started enacting plans because the site seems pretty *slow* today?


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Have carriers already started enacting plans because the site seems pretty *slow* today?

No, as it doesn't take effect for a while yet. While there is no specific timeline, we are still looking at weeks to months before it is officially done. Assuming the lawsuits and anything else like that doesn't push it back further. The vote just started the process - it did not complete it.

The site being slow at times has been going on for quite a while, at least from my experience. It has nothing to do with any of this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Net Neutrality - What a Closed Internet Means - Extra Credits

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's always at least one person--especially on weekend postings from new-ish accounts (but not necessarily new-ish community members)--who specifically disobeys the mods by posting exactly what they told them not to post (subject matter or tone-wise), for the sole reason of being able to later decry Paizo for "oppressing their political opinions" -- when in reality they full well know the reason they were moderated was because they broke the rules and brought it upon themselves. I.e., they will intentionally provoke the bear and then cry when the bear has bitten off their hand, so they can then talk about how terrible bears are.

I am weirdly ambivalent about the net neutrality issue. Yes, the ISPs did start to sell slower and faster data streams and the 2015 regulations put and end to it--I remember my provider sending out marketing surveys regarding doing just that thing when the 2015 regulations put a stop to it.

And this ideally, it is best ergo to keep the regulations.

But I kind of want it to fail. (Hysterical ramblings follow.) I want the regulations gone, and all the people in the world who think this is a "good thing" to mindlessly fork all their money over to their ISP just to keep the Internet they're used to. They'll have less money to spend and less influence and their local economies might even stagnate depending on how much money they lose to trying to keep their service as it is. Alternately, I want to see enough people to refuse to pay extra for throttling that the big ISPs fail, and have them have wasted all that lobbying money so that they could shoot themselves in the foot (unlikely, however; most likely there are enough people out there willing to pay an arm and a leg and sacrifice other expenses just to keep whatever Internet they can get).

Actually what really I want is the Internet to crash. It's a terrible place at this point largely used to propagandize everyone and everything over every subject. I want to go back to going to brick and mortar stores and chatting with people in person or writing letters to them and keeping actual photo albums, even if it makes certain things take longer or be more difficult. I think the Internet is a major reason most things are terrible in this country right now and I want it to go away. Sadly, I realize that's not possible. And yes, I realize a lot of what I am saying makes me sound like a ridiculous backwards thinking Luddite, and I know I'm probably being ridiculous. (I also know I'm posting this on the Web, part of the Internet. Thank goodness I'm wasting my time here, or I might be going off to do something valuable. ;) )

But I'm also rather a depressed curmudgeon who probably shouldn't be making decisions for the universe, and fortunately I can't, so that's a good thing.

Here's some upshots if you want NN restored: Congress is working on legislation that would render the FCC vote moot. So write your senators and congressmen. This isn't, or at least should not be, a partisan issue, as a large majority of the country uses the Internet and should want to be able to do it affordably. Yes, lobbies and gerrymandering vastly reduce the power voters have, but voters still at the end of the day are the people who get congressfolk into office. So WRITE TO THEM if you care about this And be clear they will lose your vote if they fail to do this.

(If you also do want net neutrality to go away, then write to them on that! No matter what, congressfolk need to know what their constituents want and represent their interests, not that of the lobbies).

Second of all, if you are against the deregulation, pay attention to who is filing those lawsuits, and thank them and support them where possible.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not just No, but Hell No.

The internet is where most of my friends are and where I get most of my entertainment, companionship, and communication, not limited by the petty whim of where I happened to be born or able to live. It's the only thing keeping me sane right now as I'm surrounded by people loudly and grandly praising events I personally feel are going to do major harm to us as a civilization, and the internet connects me to people who have their heads on straight and keeps me knowing I'm not going crazy.

I can't get behind any idea that removes that, end of line.

Yeah, a lot if terrible things occur online, but the benefits far far far far far outweigh the problems.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm kind of with Orthos. I mean sure, the internet is problematic at best. But that's PEOPLE. Not the technology.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn’t have any family without the internet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:

There's always at least one person--especially on weekend postings from new-ish accounts (but not necessarily new-ish community members)--who specifically disobeys the mods by posting exactly what they told them not to post (subject matter or tone-wise), for the sole reason of being able to later decry Paizo for "oppressing their political opinions" -- when in reality they full well know the reason they were moderated was because they broke the rules and brought it upon themselves. I.e., they will intentionally provoke the bear and then cry when the bear has bitten off their hand, so they can then talk about how terrible bears are.

I am weirdly ambivalent about the net neutrality issue. Yes, the ISPs did start to sell slower and faster data streams and the 2015 regulations put and end to it--I remember my provider sending out marketing surveys regarding doing just that thing when the 2015 regulations put a stop to it.

And this ideally, it is best ergo to keep the regulations.

Part of the problem is that a lot of it is going to be behind the scenes stuff that you can't affect or even necessarily know about. Some sites will just seem to work better and faster, because they have a deal with your provider.

Maybe Netflix is paying your ISP for an exclusive fast streaming deal, so Hulu can't. All you see, unless you're digging into this kind of thing, is that Hulu's service is crappy now, so you drop them.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The net began in 93 for me. The brick and mortar stores were a pain to shop in since they were mostly open office hours. If you were VERY lucky, you were not alone in your city with an interest, because then you had to choose between being alone or collecting stamps. If you wanted any sort of sexual contact, your ONLY option was bars-no chance to evaluate someone even a little before meeting in person (incidentally, sexual crimes have plummeted in every country that has gotten the internet), making such things far more dangerous. As for talking, I have had far more impressive and thoughtful discussions with people over the net than for real. Harassment was physical in those days, and I far prefer idiots writing bad comments to me than actually beating me. There was no easy way to find information about something.

The world before the internet was far, far worse than you remember it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that a lot of our senators simply don't care what their constituents want. NN will not be the first thing I write to mine about with the message of "I will not vote for you if you continue to support harmful policy," and it will not be the first generic "thanks for writing, but you don't matter" response I receive. I still plan to write, but I am not hopeful. Most of them rely on partisanship and the incumbency advantage to stay in office because their elections are less publicized and lead to lower turnout than the presidential election.

While I can see the concern of government intervention in the free market as an impediment to a natural equilibrium, I don't think this is inherently a bad thing. Smith said it almost 300 years ago: the economy is regulated by greed. Greed is a bad game to have running the show for basic necessities, which the internet is more and more becoming. A lot of people need it for work. Many recent small businesses exist entirely on the internet and can risk being snuffed out at the whim of an ISP's profit margins. And yes, there is the argument that if the enterprise cannot survive, it doesn't deserve to, but unemployment tends to be bad for an economy, and the effects won't be limited to business and competition (which, funnily enough, does fall under the government's aegis to monitor - we have antitrust laws in place for a reason; competition must be promoted).

Students already heavily burdened by debt need the internet to keep up with coursework (and you know tuition will hike to cover any price changes). For that matter, students pursuing an online degree to save money will feel the crunch as well. The invisible hand exists, but it is a cold and calculating machine that does not factor in the overall well-being of a population, and that does matter in terms of measuring development. If you have an economy favoring full deregulation in the hopes of standing atop the world stage, how do you justify a wealth/income gap that prohibits a significant proportion of your population from being able to purchase anything beyond bare necessity? Getting your population spending is what stimulates economic growth and staves off recessions. Leaving that in the hands of the corporations generally ignores this.

I cannot support deregulation because I do not see the industries as capable of regulating themselves. Bank deregulation happened in the late 70s, and then we had the 1980s recession...and then banks made a lot of risky speculation to high-risk investors for the 2007 subprime bubble, which it could be argued our economy is still recovering from. It's certainly reached an unfavorable equilibrium for anyone not in the top quintile.

However, a huge part of the problem isn't even exactly partisan in nature. I would argue it's more related to age: a rather large proportion of Congress does not understand the Internet, and if they do, it is as an outdated concept that does not keep up with the expansion of the internet's influence on everyday life, the overall economy, etc; hence a lot of the veterans sitting in on sessions regarding newer technology are therefore making monumental decisions that cannot properly regulate the system as it exists and have the potential to do years of harm before the kinks can be sorted out.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Another issue is... if NN disappears, the US net will be severely hampered. Other countries will take its place. My bet would be on India. It is quite simply an inflection point for the US. Decision time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scintillae wrote:
The problem is that a lot of our senators simply don't care what their constituents want. NN will not be the first thing I write to mine about with the message of "I will not vote for you if you continue to support harmful policy," and it will not be the first generic "thanks for writing, but you don't matter" response I receive. I still plan to write, but I am not hopeful. Most of them rely on partisanship and the incumbency advantage to stay in office because their elections are less publicized and lead to lower turnout than the presidential election.

Yep, this. Happened with SOPA and PIPA, to a T. Letters and emails to representatives in my area asking them to vote against them were responded to with form letters talking about how important it was to pass them.

This is no different. Those who support removing NN have already been bought and paid for.

It's up to the courts now.

And on that note, it's interesting to see the overlap between the people wanting to remove "government meddling" via NN also being in SUPPORT of stronger governmental regulations with SOPA and PIPA.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Have carriers already started enacting plans because the site seems pretty *slow* today?

Nah, that's just because the forums are way too long. :D


5 people marked this as a favorite.

My money is on net neutrality being gone forever.

I think it won't be that you have to pay to access Google or Facebook or Twitter. Or even the DnD website. Or to play Call of Duty online or download updates for your Mario game. These are large companies with a lot of clout; they will be the basic package everyone gets. And for most people, this means no change.

But access Paizo? Paizo has to pay for net speeds, and you have to pay for an expanded package to access them. Does Paizo have the money or political clout to prevent this? Does Frog God Games? Does Harebrained Schemes? Do most of these small TTRPG or video game companies? How many developers on Steam will survive?

I think that is the nightmare for us. A stranglehold on gaming we have never seen before.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hence why it's up to the courts at this point. If the SC approves this rather than undoing it, there's really nothing left to be done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Telephone companies got along just fine before title II!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Hence why it's up to the courts at this point. If the SC approves this rather than undoing it, there's really nothing left to be done.

Not necessarily. The Supreme Court can overturn previous Supreme Court decisions. Brown v. Board overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, for example. But this is extremely rare and will by necessity take time to demonstrate overturning is needed. It's best not to rely on this, but it is theoretically possible.


Sissyl wrote:
Another issue is... if NN disappears, the US net will be severely hampered. Other countries will take its place. My bet would be on India. It is quite simply an inflection point for the US. Decision time.

*Dances around as the European prick he is*

Yup unfortunately, here a good example of where governmental structures, governmental history and the current governmental zeitgeist of the EU, actually makes you have some kind of hope.

So in short, it sucks to be American, but we Europeans still have years, due to lawsuits, European bureaucracy and individual membership country complains, before the suckage start to seep in over here (if it actually does).

We might have causal racism, and crazy far right parties. But on the other hand we have actual attempt to curtail cooperate b*&%+*&$e and powergrabs!

*Plays the European athem loudly*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terrinam wrote:

My money is on net neutrality being gone forever.

I think it won't be that you have to pay to access Google or Facebook or Twitter. Or even the DnD website. Or to play Call of Duty online or download updates for your Mario game. These are large companies with a lot of clout; they will be the basic package everyone gets. And for most people, this means no change.

But access Paizo? Paizo has to pay for net speeds, and you have to pay for an expanded package to access them. Does Paizo have the money or political clout to prevent this? Does Frog God Games? Does Harebrained Schemes? Do most of these small TTRPG or video game companies? How many developers on Steam will survive?

I think that is the nightmare for us. A stranglehold on gaming we have never seen before.

I doubt it'll be "pay to access". I doubt, at least at first, they're going to break the net that badly. What's the point in accessing Google, for example, if you can't access any of the search results?

The first aspect of monetization will be making content providers pay premiums for speedy access to the main trunklines. Even that's not going to affect small sites much - unless they're really data/bandwith intensive. Which Paizo isn't. Which none of the small TTRPG companies are. Maybe some small video game companies?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The point is: Get rid of streaming. That is why this is happening. Only really old people watch traditional TV now.


Scintillae wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Hence why it's up to the courts at this point. If the SC approves this rather than undoing it, there's really nothing left to be done.
Not necessarily. The Supreme Court can overturn previous Supreme Court decisions. Brown v. Board overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, for example. But this is extremely rare and will by necessity take time to demonstrate overturning is needed. It's best not to rely on this, but it is theoretically possible.

Nothing left at this point - though lawsuits can slow down implementation, which will be useful.

Even if the court approves this, all it would be saying is that it isn't unConstitutional or illegal to not regulate the Internet under common carrier rules.
The FCC could still reverse their ruling. Congress could pass a law mandating it. Best hope for that of course is a Democratic wave in 2018 and 2020.


thejeff wrote:
Terrinam wrote:

My money is on net neutrality being gone forever.

I think it won't be that you have to pay to access Google or Facebook or Twitter. Or even the DnD website. Or to play Call of Duty online or download updates for your Mario game. These are large companies with a lot of clout; they will be the basic package everyone gets. And for most people, this means no change.

But access Paizo? Paizo has to pay for net speeds, and you have to pay for an expanded package to access them. Does Paizo have the money or political clout to prevent this? Does Frog God Games? Does Harebrained Schemes? Do most of these small TTRPG or video game companies? How many developers on Steam will survive?

I think that is the nightmare for us. A stranglehold on gaming we have never seen before.

I doubt it'll be "pay to access". I doubt, at least at first, they're going to break the net that badly. What's the point in accessing Google, for example, if you can't access any of the search results?

The first aspect of monetization will be making content providers pay premiums for speedy access to the main trunklines. Even that's not going to affect small sites much - unless they're really data/bandwith intensive. Which Paizo isn't. Which none of the small TTRPG companies are. Maybe some small video game companies?

Small video game companies tend to be less bandwidth heavy than TTRPGs due to doing most of their advertising and distributing through other companies or platforms, like Nintendo, Microsoft, or Steam. TTRPG companies will be targeted before they will.


Terrinam wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Terrinam wrote:

My money is on net neutrality being gone forever.

I think it won't be that you have to pay to access Google or Facebook or Twitter. Or even the DnD website. Or to play Call of Duty online or download updates for your Mario game. These are large companies with a lot of clout; they will be the basic package everyone gets. And for most people, this means no change.

But access Paizo? Paizo has to pay for net speeds, and you have to pay for an expanded package to access them. Does Paizo have the money or political clout to prevent this? Does Frog God Games? Does Harebrained Schemes? Do most of these small TTRPG or video game companies? How many developers on Steam will survive?

I think that is the nightmare for us. A stranglehold on gaming we have never seen before.

I doubt it'll be "pay to access". I doubt, at least at first, they're going to break the net that badly. What's the point in accessing Google, for example, if you can't access any of the search results?

The first aspect of monetization will be making content providers pay premiums for speedy access to the main trunklines. Even that's not going to affect small sites much - unless they're really data/bandwith intensive. Which Paizo isn't. Which none of the small TTRPG companies are. Maybe some small video game companies?

Small video game companies tend to be less bandwidth heavy than TTRPGs due to doing most of their advertising and distributing through other companies or platforms, like Nintendo, Microsoft, or Steam. TTRPG companies will be targeted before they will.

Then they won't be targeted. I mean, they'll all fall into the "low rent" part of the web, but that's not going to be that big a deal, since they're not high speed services anyway.

It's things like streaming video or downloads where this is going to be important.
At least at first. I'm sure they'll come up with clever abuses over time.


Sissyl wrote:
The point is: Get rid of streaming. That is why this is happening. Only really old people watch traditional TV now.

I'm not sure what you mean?

Are you saying they're going to use the rules change to kill streaming? I don't believe that. That's where the money is. They're going to try to monetize streaming - cut the ISPs and backbone providers in on more of the cash the distribution services and content providers make.


thejeff wrote:
Terrinam wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Terrinam wrote:

My money is on net neutrality being gone forever.

I think it won't be that you have to pay to access Google or Facebook or Twitter. Or even the DnD website. Or to play Call of Duty online or download updates for your Mario game. These are large companies with a lot of clout; they will be the basic package everyone gets. And for most people, this means no change.

But access Paizo? Paizo has to pay for net speeds, and you have to pay for an expanded package to access them. Does Paizo have the money or political clout to prevent this? Does Frog God Games? Does Harebrained Schemes? Do most of these small TTRPG or video game companies? How many developers on Steam will survive?

I think that is the nightmare for us. A stranglehold on gaming we have never seen before.

I doubt it'll be "pay to access". I doubt, at least at first, they're going to break the net that badly. What's the point in accessing Google, for example, if you can't access any of the search results?

The first aspect of monetization will be making content providers pay premiums for speedy access to the main trunklines. Even that's not going to affect small sites much - unless they're really data/bandwith intensive. Which Paizo isn't. Which none of the small TTRPG companies are. Maybe some small video game companies?

Small video game companies tend to be less bandwidth heavy than TTRPGs due to doing most of their advertising and distributing through other companies or platforms, like Nintendo, Microsoft, or Steam. TTRPG companies will be targeted before they will.

Then they won't be targeted. I mean, they'll all fall into the "low rent" part of the web, but that's not going to be that big a deal, since they're not high speed services anyway.

It's things like streaming video or downloads where this is going to be important.
At least at first. I'm sure they'll come up with clever abuses over time.

I doubt they'll hit streaming first, since most streaming services on the net tend to be free. There's no profit to cut in on, and their first moves will likely be to to secure a steady revenue stream before they cut off people who don't have any income.

That's where video games and TTRPGs come in. For their bandwidth, both are high-profit industries. Also, both are less popular than the streaming is, so the companies can use them to create the standard and get the public used to it before they kill the free streaming sites.

It would be an easier path to long-term control, and would be far more profitable in both the short and long runs.

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / saving net neutrality All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.