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.
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.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I believe we all want the same thing, and Painhas always shown with his actions that he wants the same thing.
No, we definitely don't want the same thing. I want true net neutrality, nothing like the things that you guys like.
I'm not saying you are wrong, you have completely different priorities than I do. I think the things you are describing are terrible.
-
@dashrender 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.
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..
They are making you pay for one thing more than another. It's a total data form or prioritization.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
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.
There is no free. Ever. You pay, THEY decide how much of what you get. It's ALL paid for by you, it's just not neutral.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
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.
The codec would also have to apply to ALL media types, all possible types. Everything that could possibly exist. Audio, text, video, downloads, you name it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@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.
What you want too see from TMo instead of this 'free' space when you that codec, you want to see a lower bill, then you get to choose to spend that money buying bandwidth as you desire.. instead of seeing a higher bill ( but drastically less than the competition) that includes the "free" space... I think this is what you are saying.. and what you are calling a lack of NN.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@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.
What you want too see from TMo instead of this 'free' space when you that codec, you want to see a lower bill, then you get to choose to spend that money buying bandwidth as you desire.. instead of seeing a higher bill ( but drastically less than the competition) that includes the "free" space... I think this is what you are saying.. and what you are calling a lack of NN.
What I want is neutrality. I never, ever, ever, ever, ever want an ISP to have the right to ever, ever, ever prioritize (in speed, bandwidth or antyhing else) where my money goes. I want to pay for access to the Internet, all of the Internet equally, and not have some private company deciding that some data gets to me faster or some data costs more than other data. I don't want a filtered Internet, I want a neutral Internet.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
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.
The codec would also have to apply to ALL media types, all possible types. Everything that could possibly exist. Audio, text, video, downloads, you name it.
fine.
-
Imagine if your electric company said that powering Sony appliances gave you unlimited power, but if you powered Samsung, you'd have to pay? Instantly people would rave about the "free" power they now get... but of course, the power company could make a deal with Sony to raise their prices way higher than the power cost, and then pocket the difference. And if you didn't buy enough Sony devices, they'd fix that by raising the price of power until you did.
You, as the end user, would say "see how buying Sony saves me money" all while being manipulated by fake "free" costs and artificially raise prices for the vendors that don't pay off the power officials.
