How does Net Nutrality affect SE/XIV?

[Lokier]

Ashit Pie, this is your fault.

Is that his actual name? No wonder he's mad at the world, smh...

[SendohJin]

Is that his actual name? No wonder he's mad at the world, smh...

no, it's Ajit Pai.

[Xtrasweettea]

[...]

Nothing is going to happen with the repealed regulations at the moment. There are several steps that have to be done first, including going to court.

Assuming that those regulations are successfully removed, I see nothing happening to FF14.

[…]

I keep seeing these examples of pricing tiers and packages, and there is no context applied at all.

• What is the infrastructure like in these countries?
• Are the ISPs government owned or heavily regulated by the government?
• How many ISPs within the country? Do those ISPs compete? Can the ISPs share their traffic over other ISPs method of transportation (lines, towers, etc.)?
• What are the regulatory rules for data within those countries (example: are you allowed to have unlimited data or are you capped)?

As someone who is a shill for the ISP, and works for one of them, I can state that context is important to when stating these tiers and packages. Some of the countries that have these types of plans have them because of government regulations and/or infrastructure. For example, when dealing with countries like China, who have per-byte type plans, the infrastructure within the country is still poor compared to the USA. There is also the fact that the Chinese government owns the utilities there.

I can see an ISP try to pull what you are stating within the USA, and get reamed for it. Ever since we could have access here to the internet here in the USA, you just paid for bandwidth. I can’t see this being changed unless an ISP wanted to commit suicide.

You can trust me *puts on jack boots* that nothing is going to *puts on riot gear* affect your *puts on obvious Nazi metaphorical patches onto company uniform* gaming experience on *grabs paper containing addresses of all customers* FF14 *leaves to take everyone’s first-born child/cats*.

[KaivaC]

I'd have to say that it doesn't affect XIV/SE itself as much as it affects your internet service provider.

[whiskeybravo]

Why would they beg so badly, to have the rules removed, to just do nothing different? Despite being caught attempting to break the laws repeatedly?
(Plus they were already working on these things back then anyways)

Because it had Obama's name on it

[uvuvwevwevweonyetenyevweugwemu]

For SE/ffxiv, it doesn't mean anything. Many companies pull their product out of US market literally in decades but doesn't mean they don't keep producing new games or content. Would you expect the world to stop eating because you can't watch <insert-your-favorite-tron> ?

[Roth_Trailfinder]

I’m really not sure what a visit to court would or could do, TBH.

These are the guys who get to write the rules. That means, they’re allowed to change them, whether someone else likes the changes or not. A ruling that they cannot change the rules could then be used to point out that if they lack that power, then the FCC had no power to put them in in the first place, resulting in no NN laws anyway. That’s speaking logically, anyway.

[StouterTaru]

With how it looks in other countries, most likely you'll pay for basic internet connection. (what you pay now)
Then you pay to be allowed to access sites based on content.

Other countries have actual broadband competition, so what happens there isn't what will happen in the US. Only about a third of households in the US have access to more than 2 ISPs that offer 10mpbs. Laws are in place to stifle competition, so the ISP will do whatever they want, and your options are limited.

[Catwho]

I’m really not sure what a visit to court would or could do, TBH.

These are the guys who get to write the rules. That means, they’re allowed to change them, whether someone else likes the changes or not. A ruling that they cannot change the rules could then be used to point out that if they lack that power, then the FCC had no power to put them in in the first place, resulting in no NN laws anyway. That’s speaking logically, anyway.

Individual states are suing because the FCC has said that the federal government does not have the right to regulate ISPs, but has ALSO said that it is not something that a state may regulate, either.

This is blatantly unconstitutional, because all powers not explicitly granted to the government are reserved for the states (10th Amendment.)

So either the FCC is wrong about the federal government having no authority to regulate ISPs, or they are wrong about states having no authority to regulate ISPs. The authority has to rest in at least one of them.

[Fredco191]

Ashit Pie, this is your fault.

NICE!

R.I.P.