Net Neutrality might end.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Already notice the change in net neutrality. AT&T didn't waste any time at all for their mobile data plans. They now have packages which give you access to HD streaming. You must subscribe to the higher costing plan to get the HD streaming unlocked on common services such as Hulu, YouTube, and Netflix.

"Nothing will change, it's not that bad."

Bullshit. It's 2018.

As I've posted before on this topic, there is not a bandwidth issue at all. The lie that "Netflix hogs all the bandwidth" is not true unless you're in a hotel with a shitty internet service.

Holy shit, AT&T already made changes? Jesus Christ, I honestly didn't expect them to move this quickly. That really blows.

Luckily I live in California where they're currently enacting statewide NN laws. But man, red states and probably purple states are going to be in a world of shit.

It’s a joke

https://www.forbes.com/sites/fredcampbell/2017/05/03/the-truth-about-net-neutrality-the-left-and-google/#3c4ed8f83745

I'm surprised.

I thought the tech moguls had more clout then this.

The cable networks sure must be happy, cord cutting becomes much less viable..

Originally posted by dadudemon
You do know I was legitimately butthurt and angry, right? I don't get angry very often. Extremely rarely. Maybe once a year. But when I went to change my plan because I do not need tethering service anymore (I don't travel for work anymore), it then gave me these "HD" options.

And some are packaged with HBO.

This is EXACTLY what all of us were whining about. "Pay more to unlock HD service." Like... holy shit, this is so extremely specifically the point we were making that it cannot get any more clear. This is EXACTLY what we said would happen. This specific example I am listing is the exact damn shit we said would happen.

Mother ****er

uhuh

^
Obvious "Leftist cuck in the Dem's pocket"

Originally posted by dadudemon
You do know I was legitimately butthurt and angry, right? I don't get angry very often. Extremely rarely. Maybe once a year. But when I went to change my plan because I do not need tethering service anymore (I don't travel for work anymore), it then gave me these "HD" options.

And some are packaged with HBO.

This is EXACTLY what all of us were whining about. "Pay more to unlock HD service." Like... holy shit, this is so extremely specifically the point we were making that it cannot get any more clear. This is EXACTLY what we said would happen. This specific example I am listing is the exact damn shit we said would happen.

Mother ****er

uhuh

So...why shouldn't you? It takes more data to send HD video as opposed to standard or just regular sites. Also, don't like it then don't go to AT&T.

Originally posted by Playmaker
So...why shouldn't you? It takes more data to send HD video as opposed to standard or just regular sites. Also, don't like it then don't go to AT&T.

Well not all places have a choice, right? I know around here for a long time if you wanted high speed internet it was pretty much...you go with Comcast.

Originally posted by Playmaker
So...why shouldn't you? It takes more data to send HD video as opposed to standard or just regular sites. Also, don't like it then don't go to AT&T.

That would be good advice, if AT&T wasn't essentially a legal monopoly in many areas (In cahoots with Verizon and Comcast)

Excuses abound like the cost of infrastructure, but everyone knows there's government corruption involved here, like in most anti-competitive things..

Originally posted by cdtm
That would be good advice, if AT&T wasn't essentially a legal monopoly in many areas (In cahoots with Verizon and Comcast)

Excuses abound like the cost of infrastructure, but everyone knows there's government corruption involved here, like in most anti-competitive things..

Well, yeah, when you put government in a business, the business always ends up controlling the government.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well not all places have a choice, right? I know around here for a long time if you wanted high speed internet it was pretty much...you go with Comcast.

But government was the reason so many places only have one choice to begin with. There's a reason that less than a decade after the '96 Telecom Act was signed in, ISPs in the United States shrunk by nearly 3/4.

Stefan Molyneux does an amazing job here going through all this. Starting with the Communications Act of 1934 which basically ensured that AT&T would become a monopoly. Definitely worth a listen to get a full understanding on Net Neutrality:

YouTube video

Sources: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/41125-youtube-the-truth-about-net-neutrality/

Originally posted by Playmaker
So...why shouldn't you? It takes more data to send HD video as opposed to standard or just regular sites. Also, don't like it then don't go to AT&T.

.....where did I put all my Kettle Pot Black pics again...

Originally posted by Surtur
Well not all places have a choice, right? I know around here for a long time if you wanted high speed internet it was pretty much...you go with Comcast.

It's very likely that if one company starts profiting in this manner, the others will soon follow.

Playmaker can’t rebut so I’ll take that as a concession, kid.

Originally posted by Playmaker
So...why shouldn't you? It takes more data to send HD video as opposed to standard or just regular sites. Also, don't like it then don't go to AT&T.

If he's in my situation, my choices are AT&T or Verizon, who mirror each other's practices pretty much. I can go to the odd smaller company, but then I have basically shit coverage by comparison. eg no reception when I visit my brother in Richmond Va, no reception when I go camping a few hours Northeast etc. So my "choice" as a consumer isn't much of a choice.

Originally posted by Robtard
If he's in my situation, my choices are AT&T or Verizon, who mirror each other's practices pretty much. I can go to the odd smaller company, but then I have basically shit coverage by comparison. eg no reception when I visit my brother in Richmond Va, no reception when I go camping a few hours Northeast etc. So my "choice" as a consumer isn't much of a choice.

And that sucks. But ask yourself, "Why are my choices only AT&T and Verizon?" Watch the video I posted. It goes into very great detail explaining why that occurred.

Tl;dr - the history of the Telecommunication Act of 1934 to regulations enacted all the way up leading to today (like act of '96 in which 13 of the 15 FCC members who wrote that act ended up as lobbyists) is what led to such limited choices to begin with. Historic consequences of regulations has always been less choices for the consumer.

And ultimately the consumer is the one who gets phucked when regulations meant to protect the consumer from virtual monopolies are removed. So my choices are A) or B) which is basically a clone of A or very shitty service from a lowly contender who will never really be able to compete or no service at all. Hmmm.

Originally posted by Robtard
And ultimately the consumer is the one who gets phucked when regulations meant to protect the consumer from virtual monopolies are removed. So my choices are A) or B) which is basically a clone of A or very shitty service from a lowly contender who will never really be able to compete or no service at all. Hmmm.

But it was the government that made those virtual monopolies possible in the first place. Kansas City is a prime example of a city that was in that situation but has since been transformed into a tech hub: http://time.com/9199/the-surprising-best-thing-about-google-fiber-coming-to-your-town/

These things will come once you deregulate the market and increase the incentive to provide better options.

Just like PG&E is a needed monopoly, unless we're going to be tearing up roads over and over to install new lines for new power companies, but it's also why a company like PG&E needs to be regulated so they don't screw over the consumer who basically has no little to no choice in picking their product.

There was this one company that piggybacked off of PG&E, forget the name, but it didn't last as it couldn't complete.

Originally posted by Robtard
And ultimately the consumer is the one who gets phucked when regulations meant to protect the consumer from virtual monopolies are removed. So my choices are A) or B) which is basically a clone of A or very shitty service from a lowly contender who will never really be able to compete or no service at all. Hmmm.

Scholarly articles talk about "regulatory capture", where the regulators get turned towards the interests of the company they're supposed to be regulating, as an inevitability.

Of course, a company that has captured an agency would like deregulation wholesale, but I suspect they'd be happy with a status quo, over a complete shakeup, where they need to begin the capturing process all over again.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just like PG&E is a needed monopoly, unless we're going to be tearing up roads over and over to install new lines for new power companies, but it's also why a company like PG&E needs to be regulated so they don't screw over the consumer who basically has no little to no choice in picking their product.

I don't know what PG&E is. So I can't comment on that instance. But once you add government into a business, the business controls the government through its money and lobbyists.