Preferentjal treatment over what exactly? You are asking why does one set of companies get preference to block speech over another, with the solution that new segments of the industry should also be able to block speech?

Just want to make sure I understand what you are asking before I answer.

Quote: (12-14-2017 07:19 PM)8ball Wrote:  

2nd this will take away the power from the TALENT, the talent(actors-directors etc) though good at what they do, are completely uncontrollable and extremely narcissistic, they cannot and must not have any influence. Right now they have never had it so good. The content bubble has given them almost equal power to the distributors. Netflix will finance 80 films next year and most likely they year after that, the content bubble has never been bigger. This gives the talent too much options, the roles are now reversed, if they are not catered to 100% they will leave nbc/abc or fox/disney for a crazy netflix deal that was considered unheardoff 10 years ago. If an actor is unhappy about the political views of another, refuses to work with that individual and the content provider will now submit to their will. Meanwhile the royalty payoff deals have never been higher. Its never been this bad.

wow sounds like you like totalitarianism over personal freedom. faget

Would be nice if FCC went after comcast and verizons monopoly practices. Basically they are often the only internet provider in town. Smaller cable networks should be allowed, or other competing technologies.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comm...h=8856da12

According to this Net Neutrality eventually would allow the president to shut down any website he deemed subversive. This was set up over 50 years in terms of consolidating power, like all entertainment controlled by 6 companies. Interesting read, but not sure how accurate.

Removing this net neutrality now means that smaller ISPs can compete with Comcast, ATT etc now that they no longer need to comply with Title 2 regulations which put most of these smaller players out of business since the regulations were so expensive for them to comply with. It would be nice to have more choices than the big ISP players that force you to bundle services in order to get reasonably priced internet. I redid my ATT home service and in order to get the best price, I had to get a landline phone of all things! I have zero sympathy for Facebook etc crying about how it's going to cost them more money to expand their bandwidth capacity which we've all been stuck subsidizing.

As far as censorship, the big ISPs never had any history of censoring websites and general content in the entire history of the internet whereas in the last two years since NN, Facebook, Twitter and Google have been going wild with censorship. These companies have shown themselves to be the much greater threat so anything that limits their power I'm all in favor of.

Quote: (11-22-2017 12:39 AM)Suits Wrote:  

That's the problem with the current conservative stance. It's always free market, free market, free market, like that's some sort of magic pill that makes everything better.

It's true that free market and fewer regulations typically are good. Except for where the free market makes it easy for people in a significantly advantages position to prey on those in considerably weaker positions.

See healthcare, food, housing and meaningful education.

Not a single one of these has a free market. Every one of them is highly regulated and subsidized, thus all the inefficiency, corruption, high prices, and overall fuckery.

Maybe I misunderstood your post.

Quote: (11-22-2017 11:46 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

Control the information and you control the truth.

This seems to have escaped everyone who supports Net "Neutrality". Do people honestly think that putting the government in charge of what information is allowed to be shared is a good thing?

All of the talk about prices, throttling, innovation, etc are just fear mongering, a distraction. Talking points designed to get people emotional.

The core issue is who controls the information.

Would you rather pay an extra $5/mo so you can access a site like this forum or would you rather save $5/mo and have the government determine what is acceptable content for you to view?

ETA: I see Forney saved this thread on page 2. For a minute I thought I accidentally clicked on Digital fucking Underground.

Quote: (12-14-2017 10:20 PM)Repo Wrote:  

@8ball

If you have read the rest of the thread, they want more control over everything that consumers use. With net neutrality they had no real liability and essentially just delivered the internet as a utility. Now they will be able to start blocking or throttling things they don't like. This will probably happen gradually and not start for a while, since this is still a hot topic.

@Samseau

Last I checked Comcast and Verizon where big corporations.

This is already going on under Net Neutrality.

Sites/content are blocked.

Data is throttled.

How some of you can't comprehend this is mind boggling.

Net Neutrality is doublespeak. Wake the fuck up.

Quote: (12-14-2017 05:52 PM)Repo Wrote:  

At least Amazon video comes with Amazon prime, which at the moment is still worth the money. Netflix is relying more and more on their original content, they are in trouble. I wouldn't be surprised if someone buys them in the near future. Media consolidation continues.

Do people actually think that Disney and Fox produce top grade shit? It's a race to the bottom as far as I'm concerned. Net neutrality wasn't going to do jack about Disney's monopoly/consolidation, just like it didn't do jack with much of anything since it's brief run.

The Ajit Pai video appears to have been pulled from YouTube, but it's still available at The Daily Caller.

Excuse my ignorance, but I don't understand how censorship plays a role in this at all. Can't the big tech companies still censor conservative voices, regardless of whether the tech companies or ISPs are footing the bill for bandwidth? That seems like a business decision to me.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/6162...in-the-us/

A lot of people here sound like they started using the internet 5 years ago. The internet quality has improved drastically since the days of AOL in the 90s. Fucking Aol was 20 bucks in like 1995, you can buy much faster plans than that for about 20-40 bucks a month and much better quality.

Sounds like capitalism is working, working slowly, but working...with or without net neutrality.

Delete - wrong thread

I find it hard to understand how some people on this thread, even with all the facts and explanations presented still defend internet 'neutrality', good riddance to that crap. Even if you don't know much about it you just need to know that Bernie the commie sanders, all the LGBTQX56Z groups, the rabid SJW crowd, the democrat apparatus, facebook, amazon, google, twitter, cnn, Jimmy the pathetic crier Kimmel and all that garbage are for it, if that doesn't dissuade you from supporting it nothing will.

Quote: (12-14-2017 07:19 PM)8ball Wrote:  

Hollywood and America was better off when the suits that controlled the studios had the power. The current content bubble created by netflix and co. will probably last for another 2-3 years but ultimately it will burst.

This is extremely good news. First and foremost, people shouldn't spend all day browsing for new content from 10 different streamers, they should be outside actually doing shit.
2nd this will take away the power from the TALENT, the talent(actors-directors etc) though good at what they do, are completely uncontrollable and extremely narcissistic, they cannot and must not have any influence. Right now they have never had it so good. The content bubble has given them almost equal power to the distributors. Netflix will finance 80 films next year and most likely they year after that, the content bubble has never been bigger. This gives the talent too much options, the roles are now reversed, if they are not catered to 100% they will leave nbc/abc or fox/disney for a crazy netflix deal that was considered unheardoff 10 years ago. If an actor is unhappy about the political views of another, refuses to work with that individual and the content provider will now submit to their will. Meanwhile the royalty payoff deals have never been higher. Its never been this bad.

Netflix or amazon don't release viewership stats, but believe me most of their shows dont' get alot of viewership, their films even less and they know this. Their service is the middle man, nothing more. The entertainment industry will be in for a major correction in the coming years. To add salt to the wounds, many states have figured out that the film tax incetive scam doesn't pay off. At first it seems great, studios move in and invest 35$ mil on a film and all you have to do is give them a 30% tax refund. Sounds great right? you are helping the local film industry, creating jobs along the way. But after a while, you find that its not sustainable, if you even adjust those incentives a little, production moves elsewhere immediately.

I don't know what you mean by bubble, streaming services are not the dotcom bubble of late 90s.

Streaming services like NETFLIX actually give quite power to directors and actors, lots of content created by NETFLIX is based on rejected ideas by big TV and movie studios.

Their shows get a lot of viewership when you consider people watch marathon of the shows and movies they make in a short amount of time. Channels like CNN can barely keep above 1 million, and that is counting the number of TVs on airports and hospital waiting rooms. People don't seek CNN, is just on when they arrive to one place, on streaming services, people seek the content.

This make me question your idea that there is a bubble, are you saying there is going to be too much content to watch and people will turn off? of there is going to be too many services to pick from?

I don't see this as being a danger to companies like Netflix. If the ISPs do start collecting fees for using so much bandwidth I feel Netflix has a LOT of price flexibility. How many people would really cancel their Netflix sub if the price went from 11 to 15?

That said it could be harder to launch a competitor to Netflix.

The content bubble means heavily inflated tv/film production. It means there is too much scripted content being produced and not making a profit. It means acquisition prices for new content at film markets(Caen, Toronto, etc) has never been higher. Netflix has been outbidding every chance they get. They over pay for everything, they are the midle aged persian guy at the nightclub paying 20 grand for a table so he can squeeze the bottle girls ass once or twice. Netflix has been over paying for talent and severely disrupting the pipeline of hollywood.

The common flow of hollywood is, acquire script, attach talent, produce, test, market, if successful - remarket and pile on again, if not then kill and forget. Netflix on the other hand has been making garanteed 1 season sometimes 2 seasons or even 4 film deals without even reading the final drafts of the scripts. All in the hopes that by splurging they will land gold somewhere and not have to overpay in the future. Sandler got a ridiculous 4 film deal, Chelsea Handler has a regular talk show(never would have happened 10 years go), depleted Shonda Rhimes is leaving her black woman shows at abc for netflix after abc decided to pull the plug on most of them and refused to garantee episodes for any new ones.

Netflix current US subs are hovering over 52 million(market saturated), thats over 6 billion a year in revenue, which is what their US content costs are. Mind you they have another 50 internationally, but users that don't speak english love that big budget shit that will disappear in 2019 even more than americans. Netflix doesn't provide any viewership data so no one knows if those 52 million americans are watching "Dear white People" some anime stuff or "Orange is the New Black." Keep in mind they have poached some of the best executives from Fox, best publicist and best "Award Buyers"(these would be people that have an entire list of who votes at the emmies and then spends months on courting their votes).

Netflix has a negative cash flow and they have made their 'spend now and monetize later' plan very clear. They extreme spending on original content which will peak in 2018 will result in virtually nothing because they can't keep it up.

Netflix is simply the new blockbuster, except they decided to poach talent from the hand that feeds it.

The original distributors can make life very hard for netflix in the next coming years. On top of refusing to license their much more desired content, They can sign long term EXCLUSIVE contracts with top directors and their respective production companies.

The content bubble will burst once Netflix can no longer burn 100million$ a season, once they have to get clever about how they bid at film markets instead of pissing money away. Remember some of their top shows, they DON'T OWN the rights to these characters: The punisher, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, Iron fist etc..

One day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free and could roam the internet without paying for online titties.

But seriously, do some of you guys actually read what you write? Big sites on the internet censor or restrict content so we should just accept that all content should be restricted or censored everywhere? It's inevitable because The Man wants to keep you down? We might as well just give up all sorts of shit with that attitude.

Quote: (12-16-2017 11:11 AM)Enoch Wrote:  

That said it could be harder to launch a competitor to Netflix.

That is the big issue. Before net neutrality, Netflix was entering into a contract with Comcast because they were losing a lot of subscribers due to throttling. Their service wasn't usable for Comcast customers. I don't believe they would have survived if they didn't pay up.

If you're not well funded, you are screwed if the ISP does the same to you.

All of the big companies can afford to pay up and continue censoring content on their sites. If you think about it, they should be happy because this could be another barrier to entry for competitors.

That is what is funny about the guys getting all happy because the big tech companies may have to pay more. Paying won't hurt them in the slightest and they will continue censoring or banning people they don't want on their platforms.

Any competition that would allow their voice may never make it if the ISP's do what it did to Netflix.

I don't make my decisions based on who is for or against it. I think it is rather silly to think if the gays and the rich are for something, I should automatically be against it.

I do think with 5G will create enough competition for broadband access that this becomes a mute point.

I understand why the FCC did it. I hope they are right in that it creates more incentive to build out more infrastructure and more competition. Without the competition, this could give big monopolies even more control over our internet access. Infrastructure is tough to build out since you are dealing with local and state municipalities. Then factor in the ISP's deep pockets to help keep out competitors will also be an issue. Google found that out when it entered the ISP market. That is why I think we won't see more competition until 5G becomes the norm.

Quote: (12-16-2017 12:35 PM)Alpharius Wrote:  

One day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free and could roam the internet without paying for online titties.

But seriously, do some of you guys actually read what you write? Big sites on the internet censor or restrict content so we should just accept that all content should be restricted or censored everywhere? It's inevitable because The Man wants to keep you down? We might as well just give up all sorts of shit with that attitude.

So then advocate for a different regulation that promotes total freedom of speech across all platforms, as opposed to promoting some corporations over others.

These people I'm hanging out with tonight are talking about this net neutrality stuff.

I know nothing about this, and I'm just trying to have a good time, get laid, and outrun the cops later on. They are really serious and passionate. These are not stupid people. They also all got a couple bucks in the bank, so they aren't ultra-liberal.

So somehow, this plays in to net neutrality, and sounds like a massive bunch of bullshit where almost people should Boston tea party over it. Here it is:

For sure in hawaii, and also in a lot of other states, infrastucturally, hard wire cable internet providers cannot, no chance at all, provide individual customers with service at the speed they advertise. In all of city and county of Honolulu it is impossible, and easy to prove, that they can deliver what they say.

Spectrum, here on Oahu, tells you "speeds up to" but they no full well they can never hit the number they say. That number is 60 Mbps. The cables all over the island are not able to do that.

I personally have spectrum at home and at work, but also have some goofy satellite that happens to work real fast, but is more expensive. My phones are a tt and 4g LTE and fast as the spectrum I hardly use.

Does this make sense to any of you guys? Should I class action sue the cable company?

Keep in mind hawaii has attorney general Doug Chin (of travel ban fame) and we answer to ninth circuit of appeals. Liberal as fuck.

Is the cable company taking advantage of us?

Aloha!

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat the same damn thing.

>Repeal net neutrality.
>Wait for ISPs to censor material.
>Insist that ISPs can no sooner censor content than electricity companies can deny service.
>Use the outrage to slam the 1A into internet provision.
>Win.

So can the copper cable that brings you electricity actually piggy back high Mbps internet on it?

Is he only reason the power companies don't do this government regulation?

Aloha!

I feel its one of those things nobody knows what will happen until stuff actually starts being done, sort of like the Patriot Act.