Net Neutrality is gone. How does that affect DragonBall?

[Chuquita]

I can picture some pretty bad results: The internet condensed down into a small handful of sites already owned by large corporations. Kanzenshuu is gone. Crunchyroll and ANN are gone. The only streaming anime you can get would be a small chunk of mainstream hits via Netflix/Amazon/Disney. The internet by way of cable TV.

Who knows what's gonna happen though. For all I know enough people will rally together to prevent this from going any further. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that people prevented this twice from happening before.

[Cure Dragon 255]

Is there anything we can do? There has to be something.

[sintzu]

Is there anything we can do? There has to be something.

Call and tell your congress men that if they don't turn it down they'll lose your vote. If enough people do this they'll listen.

[Cipher]

I think there’s a lot of misinformation about this subject. Net Neutrality was only put into place in 2015 and we didn’t have the supposed negative consequences of this before it passed.

This is false.

But it's also not rocket science. Telecom companies did not just collectively lobby for a vastly unpopular protection repeal only so they could not take advantage of it. Unless you believe they're just into intellectual experiments.

Use this site to make yourself heard by congress. It's easy and you can use the script they provide you. (Obviously only for U.S. citizens.)

[Draconic]

How does this affect websites like Kanzenshuu? I assume that, the more well-known a website or online service is, the more likely it is that it'll be affected? Or am I wrong about that?

No-one knows.

Your ISP may classify it under a "social" category due to the forum and its traffic. That may automatically place it in a higher-tiered access level, meaning you have to pay more to access the website, and there's absolutely nothing I would be able to do about it.

Or they could just block it entirely, and there's absolutely nothing I would be able to do about it.

This website existed in it's current format 3 years prior to the "Net Neutrality" rules adopted in 2015 and if you count the two sites that formed it, for as far as 17 and 10 years prior to it. Why would this change now?

[Michsi]

How does this affect websites like Kanzenshuu? I assume that, the more well-known a website or online service is, the more likely it is that it'll be affected? Or am I wrong about that?

No-one knows.

Your ISP may classify it under a "social" category due to the forum and its traffic. That may automatically place it in a higher-tiered access level, meaning you have to pay more to access the website, and there's absolutely nothing I would be able to do about it.

Or they could just block it entirely, and there's absolutely nothing I would be able to do about it.

This website existed in it's current format 3 years prior to the "Net Neutrality" rules adopted in 2015 and if you count the two sites that formed it, for as far as 17 and 10 years prior to it. Why would this change now?

I think this is a misconception. (Look at post before yours) Net neutrality existed long before it was coined as a term or made law. It's simply how the net operated in the west since the start. They only made it a law in 2015 precisely to prevent companies from ever attempting price-based preferential treatment.
So yes, if access to internet will be different, this site might get effected too.

[Doctor.]

Calm down dude. Jesus...

To be quite honest, if you are calm then clearly you don't know what will happen if this passes. This is serious shit.

Life goes on, same as usual. He's right, overreacting like this helps nobody.

[VegettoEX]

You can be apathetic toward a weekly cartoon series. Don't be apathetic toward real-life issues.

[sintzu]

You can be apathetic toward a weekly cartoon series. Don't be apathetic toward real-life issues.

Being apathetic is how this mess started in the first place so hopefully enough people voice their disapproval so that congress will turn it down. People always make a fuss over none issues but this is where it counts so hopefully they put their energy to good use for once.

[Doctor.]

You can be apathetic toward a weekly cartoon series. Don't be apathetic toward real-life issues.

I can be perfectly apathetic in regards to real-life issues. Prevents you from thinking a doomsday scenario is the first possibility, actually.

so hopefully enough people voice their disapproval

They have already.

[MrTennek]

You can be apathetic toward a weekly cartoon series. Don't be apathetic toward real-life issues.

I can be whatever I want. It's my life, thank you very much...! I don't need others dictating how I run it!

[Cipher]

I can be whatever I want. It's my life, thank you very much...! I don't need others dictating how I run it!

Then you might want to be a little more aggravated by the thought of the only ISP in your area dictating how easily you can use, say, the streaming sites you use to access Dragon Ball, if they compete with a service the ISP is financially invested in.

EDIT --

Ah, wait. You're outside the U.S. (though still stand to be potentially affected if you access American sites or media companies impacted by these changing policies.) So you just popped in here to disagree with VegettoEX's reasonable statement on principle?

I can be perfectly apathetic in regards to real-life issues. Prevents you from thinking a doomsday scenario is the first possibility, actually.

Real-life rarely gives us "doomsday scenarios." But it often gives us forks between "much better" or "much worse." It's a dangerous thing to pretend there's no difference or no way to change the outcome.

[Kunzait_83]

You can be apathetic toward a weekly cartoon series. Don't be apathetic toward real-life issues.

I can be perfectly apathetic in regards to real-life issues. Prevents you from thinking a doomsday scenario is the first possibility, actually.

This can easily be interpreted as "I try to ignore serious real-life issues of consequence because it makes me feel comfortable, safer, and sleep easier at night". Willful ignorance for peace of mind in other words.

That may be all well and good for you alone personally in the short term, but it does very little good for the greater, broader well being of the world around you - in which you yourself live in mind you - in the long term. The fact of reality is because you live in this world same as the rest of us, major issues that affect society at large are inevitably going to affect YOU personally as well one way or another somewhere down the line. Not a single one of us, including yourself, exists within a total vacuum where major political/cultural events don't impact multitudes upon multitudes of people in almost a domino effect.

As an ostensibly nerdy-sort who uses the internet frequently and chats about/consumes media through it, clearly it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see how a total repeal of net neutrality will directly impact your life and your ability to use the internet for whatever you like with relative impunity. Very much for the negative. To say nothing of what it will do in the much broader sense and on a MUCH more important scale to society at large around you (we use the internet now for EVERYTHING from managing the day to day tasks at hospitals, schools, police departments, etc. to say nothing of vast multitudes of poor people who can't afford proper college educations and thus take free online courses to try and compensate as best they can), and how THOSE misfortunes suffered by others under these new laws will ultimately domino back onto you and/or other people close to you at some point down the road.

If you're unable to see why such MASSIVE restrictions of free and open connectivity for something as all-encompassing to everyone's daily lives as the internet - a technology who's freedom of use has TREMENDOUSLY improved the lives and educations of COUNTLESS people around the globe - is as big a deal as it gets and are able to dismiss and shrug off people's concerns about this as simply "overreacting", then I'll be blunt as can be here: you're simply not that intelligent or forward thinking of a person.

Point being, unless you're a hermit living alone or with a small commune somewhere deep within the Tibetan mountains, you're not in a fucking safe vacuum where nothing that ever happens outside your doors can ever reach you or impact you. You're a part of a greater civilization. And as a part of a larger society, then there inevitably will come a time when we all, as a collective populace, have a basic social and civic responsibility to get informed, band together, and get the fuck involved when an issue or problem comes down that is a direct threat to our basic day to day way of living, our freedoms, civil liberties, etc.

Yes of course you have every right in the world to sit those fights out, bury your head in the sand, and sing "la la la la!" to yourself while others around you engage in the discourse to protect our freedoms when they come under fire: but bear in mind that should those battles be lost, that you'll still suffer the same consequences just like the rest of us. And when that happens, you'll always know somewhere deep down that you didn't do your part, that you sat it out and didn't lift a finger to become informed and pitch in, and that this will ultimately paint you in the eyes of your fellow man (quite correctly) as something of a callous, selfish, short-sighted, myopic coward more concerned with immediate personal comfort in the short term than the larger betterment, both for yourself and for others around you, in the long term.

The choice is yours, but if you decide to opt for the "Meh, fuck it. Not my problem." option, then should things happen to go south, you've completely forfeited your right to bitch and complain for so much as a nanosecond when suddenly one day you're completely and nigh-permanently shut out from accessing what was once basic free information (on both minor and vastly important matters) of your choosing because the sites that once provided it run counter to the whims of price gouging telecoms and service providers who only care about adding an extra couple digits to their already enormous bottom line; even at the direct expense of what has been for more than 20/30 years now one of the single most singularly and IMMENSELY important pieces of technology of the past century, bar none.

The cartoons and video games can wait: this is shit that actually matters.

[apex_pretador]

Wait, can't you guys just use VPN?

[Luso Saiyan]

It's amazing how conservatives has tricked its base into thinking the 'free market' is a god and that it's actually a good thing to have no laws or enforcement agencies to insure that the powerful do not make prey of the weak. Today has seen two major defeats for the actual free market, all in the name of giving more freedoms and money to the mega rich. So disgusting. I hope this repeal gets shot down. Fast.

I'm sorry, but nobody who defends the free market thinks its a god. It's about defending freedom. You should be free to do what you want with what's yours so should everyone else. Nobody owes you anything.

Net neutrality is basically pretending that everything is the same, but it isn't. Everything has a cost. And some things cost more than others. Why should people pay X for something when it can be offered for less since they don't need it all? And if a company starts to charging more to its consumers, others will fight to offer better services at more cheaper price, because there's money to be made.

Take food, for example. Are you for food neutrality? Should all food be treated the same and have the same price? If you go to a restaurant, should all offers on the menu have the same price? Or should the people dictate the price based on supply and demand (free market)?

What there is, as someone already mentioned, is fearmongering by the mainstream media and entertainers who don't know a thing about what's actually at stake. There was no net neutrality until 2015. How was your internet experience in 2015? Not much different, right? So let's stop pretending this is the end of the world.

[VegettoEX]

Food is a limited supply. Data (effectively) is not.

Cipher already detailed the conservative base's misrepresentation about the 2015 enactment and how that related to the policies in place before it. Furthermore, your classification of this discussion as "fear-mongering" is as concerning to me as some of the gross ideologies expressed in a certain thread this month.

I, again, encourage everyone to actually do a little long-form reading and reflection.

[Luso Saiyan]

Food is a limited supply. Data (effectively) is not.

Data is not a limited supply in and on itself, but supplying and transfering data is limited and as a cost.

Cipher already detailed the conservative base's misrepresentation about the 2015 enactment and how that related to the policies in place before it.

I didn't misrepresent anything. My point is that the people are (or should be) their own judges and they are free to not support any alleged anti-consumer practices. Legislation should be made and reviewed, but I don't defend increasing regulation, in this instance or in any others that don't affect or try to limit the freedom to provide something better.

Furthermore, your classification of this discussion as "fear-mongering" is as concerning to me as some of the gross ideologies expressed in a certain thread this month.

I didn't classify this discussion as fearmongering. I said there's a lot of fearmongering in this discussion from the mainstream media and entertainment, which is completely different. As for gross ideologies, I'm a classical liberal (I need to be this specific because liberalism in the US has a different connotation). If you don't consider it a gross ideology, you don't need to worry about me or my views.

I, again, encourage everyone to actually do a little long-form reading and reflection.

I agree. No arguments there.

[Cipher]

I didn't misrepresent anything. My point is that the people are (or should be) their own judges and they are free to not support any alleged anti-consumer practices. Legislation should be made and reviewed, but I don't defend increasing regulation, in this instance or in any others that don't affect or try to limit the freedom to provide something better.

Sure, every bit of consumer protection or corporate regulation should be reviewed on its own merits. No arguments there. But you're going to have to convince me what the positive upshot to repealing this particular protection would be.

Rolling it back results in more freedom for the ISP companies, as they can now be selective with site access or speed in accordance with their commercial interests (or more insidiously, even information-related interests), but the only thing it means in terms of the average consumer's freedom is that they're now at the mercy of whatever telecom companies happen to be in their areas. Paying for the internet previously meant you got the whole internet. Now it means you get whatever your telecom company decides you should see. Non-American members might have different experiences with this, but for vast swathes of the country, there's also no more than one choice in terms of local providers.

There is no conceivable way in which this repeal leads to freer access for the consumer. If you have an argument to the contrary, please feel free to leave it here.

As detailed in the link I posted last page, net neutrality regulations were finally pushed through in 2015 after telecom companies had already made attempts to privilege or deny access to certain content. In 2017, with even more convergence with media empires, there's ever more incentive to do so, and they would not have lobbied for this protection to be repealed were they not going to take advantage of it.

This isn't about the dogma of "regulations/protections are good" and "regulations/protections are bad." This is about a single protection, the removal of which is singularly bad.

[lancerman]

I'm not as concerned about it just because if it gets too bad a nitch company will take advantage of it and say "hmmm net neutrality is very popular, maybe our internet service should operate under this principle everyone agree's upon".

[Cipher]

I'm not as concerned about it just because if it gets too bad a nitch company will take advantage of it and say "hmmm net neutrality is very popular, maybe our internet service should operate under this principle everyone agree's upon".

This is is:

1) Only fine in a fantasy world in which ISPs are not essentially regional monopolies (which is why they pushed for this repeal; they don't want it to drive competition, but to instead provide more power to the holds they already have; there's no other logical motivation to do so)

2) A poor reason to be okay with removing the protection in the first place. Why push current, guaranteed protections into the realm of the hypothetical?

But I can't stress enough that this is not the kind of thing you lobby for if you aren't confident in your ability to capitalize upon it.