This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Would you pay $9.99 a month for Steam?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Would you pay $9.99 a month for Steam?

User Info: Biceptual

Biceptual
4 months ago#71
vlado_e posted...
Biceptual posted...
Probably will make VPN service even more mandatory. And more costly.

VPN gets subscription to everything. You subscribe to the VPN. Get to access everything and mask identity. VPN price goes from a couple bucks a month to a hundie. :/

Uh, your ISP would still be your ISP. Sure, you might get to mask your traffic by going through VPN but they will know you are using a VPN. Throttling or even blocking that is not still entirely feasible - since your traffic doesn't magically disappear from your ISP. That's pretty much why they are called that, they provide your internet service.


Running under the assumption here they could not throttle your VPN bandwidth because you get a new IP address? I could be wrong, certainly not an expert here but I thought it might be hard to throttle a connection to VPN? Simply choose another access point if they throttle/ban one. And it would be up the VPN provider to keep their connections "fresh".

IDK, like i said i'm a newb but in my mind it would work like pirate bay? They ban one just mirror that s*** and move on.
Steam: Biceptual | Bnet: Biceptual#1627 | FC: 3179-6963-0491
Origin: Biceptual0 | Twitch: Biceptual0

User Info: vlado_e

vlado_e
4 months ago#72
Biceptual posted...

Running under the assumption here they could not throttle your VPN bandwidth because you get a new IP address?

That still makes no sense. You don't have a single IP, you would have one for the VPN and one from your ISP, at the very least. You can easily prove that's the case - if you have any way to have a LAN, and you probably do, then you would have your local IP which is likely 192.168.0.1 or somewhere in that range but if you go to https://www.whatismyip.com/ you'd be shown a different one. That's because each network will have a separate IP. IPs are not unique, for the most part.

I could be wrong, certainly not an expert here but I thought it might be hard to throttle a connection to VPN?


Your ISP will still see traffic between you and the VPN. Remember that the VPN only provides alternative route and/or obfuscation of WHAT the traffic is, the traffic itself is still going through your ISP. They may not know what you do with it but it's still there. So, it's still possible to affect it.

Simply choose another access point if they throttle/ban one.


And how often do you do that? Every fortnight? Every couple of days? Moreover, that relies on the VPN having multiple ways of accessing it - if the service you use, and have paid for, doesn't then are you going to pay more money to another one? Besides, VPNs may be "private" in terms of what you use them for, but any reputable one would still have public information available. If an ISP doesn't really need to play whack-a-connection with VPNs, when they can just look up what to throttle/block and be done with it, instead of waiting patiently for one of their users to have some obfuscated traffic going through.

IDK, like i said i'm a newb but in my mind it would work like pirate bay? They ban one just mirror that s*** and move on.


That relies on law having to get involved, so it would be some time before a mirror goes up and somebody can get a legal way to bar it. The ISPs generally don't care much about this. If they did, and they had free reign to block any website they wanted, they'd just go to a TBP mirror listing and block all of those. Refresh and do it again. No need to wait, no need to get anybody involved. Heck, they can even just have an automated script running so new mirrors are blocked as soon as they are announced. Can you still have mirrors? Sure - you'll just have to hide them from the ISP...which means that they'd be hidden from most normal users, too.
We do what we must / because we can. / For the good of all of us. / Except the ones who are dead.

User Info: anonymous02135

anonymous02135
4 months ago#73
steve_madsci posted...
Nixemo posted...
No, and that's what's great. I can vote with my wallet. If ISPs f*** over consumers, I will cancel my subscription. I can live without the internet and its various services and have plenty of other things to occupy my time. Surely you all do too?


This is a joke right?

The Internet provides more news than print and television combined. People rely on email and social media for communication more than the telephone. If you have a job or attend school you're basically required to have Internet access to communicate with your employer/teachers. More companies than ever will only accept resumes transmitted via the Internet.

So yeah, you can live without the Internet; you can also live in a cave and use a horse and buggy to travel into town to sell your wares, but if you want to participate in civilized society, the Internet is non-optional.

this

User Info: cancerquake

cancerquake
4 months ago#74
MarceloSampaio posted...
Umn...

Someone called Marcelo Sampaio being called a Trumpster is so ironic. :p

i dont think most people know you're in brazil
boom

User Info: vlado_e

vlado_e
4 months ago#75
khunki posted...
So...the ISPs can basically charge you whatever they want right now, anyway? So, what are you complaining about? They could decide to charge you more and call it a "special package" or they could decide to charge you more and call it the "basic package".


Sure, they could do that but that doesn't really cover the problem with a lack of net neutrality. The ISP can also go and demand money from the actual companies to provide THEM with a fast access. So, while the user might be made to pay for some, what if they went to, say, Facebook and demanded money from them for a double dip? OK, maybe Facebook is too big but the ISP can definitely bully smaller businesses. Want to work on the Internet? You might need to pay to the ISPs so they let users have fast access to your website. Want to compete with somebody else? Well, now you can't unless you have a significant capital to invest in bribe...I mean "ensuring competitive access". With your argument, the ISP can charge you 5x more but they won't be able to affect any business that is outside of their network. Without net neutrality, they are free to throttle access to whatever they want and can definitely then ask for "protection money" so it doesn't happen. Moreover, they can just throttle access and still not give you an option to pay to get more speed.

But that's not all, of course. Let's suppose that an ISP is involved with some political party or another. Surely that can never happen but let's just examine it - what if the users suddenly don't have access to anything but good news about that party - any websites promoting a rival political power are not accessible any more. And no matter how much you pay, you just don't have the option to visit those websites. Or maybe that block can extend to religion or other beliefs. With your argument, even if the ISP decided to charge you 5x more, you still won't be denied access to content on the Internet. That's the point, really. Without net neutrality they can charge you 5x more, if they wish, and can still deny you access to whatever they want.
We do what we must / because we can. / For the good of all of us. / Except the ones who are dead.

User Info: cubiehole

cubiehole
4 months ago#76
You can tell Net Neutrality is bad because it has a misleading name.

Net Neutrality translates to Government regulated internet. Government regulated means government controlled. Sounds great at first, until after a not too long amount of time, the biggest businesses will be able to buy elected officials, which equals buying control of government regulation. They change the regulation to benefit and monopolize themselves and squash competition. With the government being their 500 lb gorilla of "regulatory control" against competition, they can raise prices at their leisure. Don't believe it - look at drug manufacturers and the FDA.
I don't like to brag, it's elitist and I hate elitism, but your comments seem pretty hilarious considering that I write stuff Obama reads. - Terran

User Info: Ivany2008

Ivany2008
4 months ago#77
Lemonspice posted...
yohabroha posted...
where was the announcement from Valve for this??


It does not have to be Valve, Comcast/Cable companies can now charge that to access Steam/Uplay/ect. They have already been caught throttling services and demanding money before a few times.


Its a good thing that I'm not with Comcast then? My cable company would never do things like that.

User Info: khunki

khunki
4 months ago#78
vlado_e posted...
The ISP can also go and demand money from the actual companies to provide THEM with a fast access. So, while the user might be made to pay for some, what if they went to, say, Facebook and demanded money from them for a double dip? OK, maybe Facebook is too big but the ISP can definitely bully smaller businesses.


https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/

Companies already provide special servers for the biggest websites because those sites have a lot of people using them. Maybe they should pay more. Small businesses, on the other hand, don't have that issue because they are, by definition, too small to be noticed and singled out for special privileges. It wouldn't make sense to badger their small consumer base with fees. Also, why would ISPs block internet access when their entire purpose is to provide internet access? If you put up a pay wall for everything, then no one will use your service because it would suck and if you think that people don't have a choice, you're wrong because people can live just fine without 90% of what's on the internet. In fact, people were happier before the internet.

vlado_e posted...
Let's suppose that an ISP is involved with some political party or another. Surely that can never happen but let's just examine it - what if the users suddenly don't have access to anything but good news about that party - any websites promoting a rival political power are not accessible any more. And no matter how much you pay, you just don't have the option to visit those websites.


Why would the other political party let this happen? It could only happen if there was a news outlet which does propaganda instead of reporting and despite what liberals claim about Fox News, this is really not how major news outlets work. If for some reason, all the online newspapers went hyperpartisan then I guess it would make a very strong case for a resurgence of local news outlets.
X

User Info: KillerTruffle

KillerTruffle
4 months ago#79
cubiehole posted...
You can tell Net Neutrality is bad because it has a misleading name.

Net Neutrality translates to Government regulated internet. Government regulated means government controlled. Sounds great at first, until after a not too long amount of time, the biggest businesses will be able to buy elected officials, which equals buying control of government regulation. They change the regulation to benefit and monopolize themselves and squash competition. With the government being their 500 lb gorilla of "regulatory control" against competition, they can raise prices at their leisure. Don't believe it - look at drug manufacturers and the FDA.

Yes, it does translate to government regulation. However, that does not translate into government control North Korea or China style. There's a pretty big leap between the government saying ISPs cannot arbitrarily throttle different types or sources of traffic, and the government outright dictating what sites can or can't be visited, dictating the content of those sites, etc.

At this point, as crappy as the government is, I'd still trust them to keep ISPs in check MORE than I'd trust the ISPs to self-regulate in a way that comes anywhere close to benefiting consumers. And since the internet is effectively a common carrier now, regardless of whether the government chooses to define it as one or not, it's a bad thing for it not to be regulated. Phones have been regulated for ages, but you don't see the government blocking phone calls to certain places or not - the regulations ensure that service is available to everyone, and that providers do not charge outrageous prices and gouge their customers. That's the same sort of regulation we're looking for with ISPs, along with requiring them to not throttle specific traffic.
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23

User Info: vlado_e

vlado_e
4 months ago#80
khunki posted...
Small businesses, on the other hand, don't have that issue because they are, by definition, too small to be noticed and singled out for special privileges. It wouldn't make sense to badger their small consumer base with fees.


That doesn't really preclude an ISP from just not giving traffic to "non-important" websites a priority. If a business is part of that, eh, so what.

Also, why would ISPs block internet access when their entire purpose is to provide internet access?


You'd think so, yet why would they want the ability to do that? And I don't mean that they COULD do it:

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2048427/lawyer-verizon-should-be-able-to-block-websites.html

Verizon Communications should be able to block its broadband customers from going to websites that refuse to pay the provider to deliver their traffic, a lawyer for Verizon told an appeals court Monday.

[...]

The net neutrality rules prevent Verizon from charging websites for bringing traffic to them, Walker told the three judges. “But for these rules, we could be pursuing those types of commercial arrangements,” she said. “My client wants freedom to explore that.”


They have literally stated they want to be able to block traffic to websites. Oh, and to charge the website, too.

If you put up a pay wall for everything, then no one will use your service because it would suck and if you think that people don't have a choice, you're wrong because people can live just fine without 90% of what's on the internet.


So, people can live without most of what's on the internet, however, having a paywall to access most of what's on the internet will make the internet suck. Huh, it seems like you're contradicting yourself there.

Why would the other political party let this happen? It could only happen if there was a news outlet which does propaganda instead of reporting and despite what liberals claim about Fox News, this is really not how major news outlets work. If for some reason, all the online newspapers went hyperpartisan then I guess it would make a very strong case for a resurgence of local news outlets.


You are focusing on only one aspect seemingly as a way to disregard the point. ISPs would be able to control what you do and what you do not have access to. That's some serious 1984 stuff there.

You don't even seem to offer a reason for why this should be allowed. The entire point you've made so far is "it's fine if people will be forced to pay more, because the ISPs can charge them more, anyway". So, care to provide an argument why that is a good idea? I've already shown you it's not only a matter of the customer paying more, so that's out the window.
We do what we must / because we can. / For the good of all of us. / Except the ones who are dead.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Would you pay $9.99 a month for Steam?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived