Will The Net Neutrality Repeal Affect Lichess?

I understand most of the arguments from both sides. I do not side with either one. As usual, much of it is about politics and who at this moment in time is in control.

There is a 3rd solution. One that requires objectivity; not preconceived bias and or personal gain. Unfortunately, such considerations are seldom given.

There are two sides to every issue, and usually both are wrong.
There is much doom and gloom predicted over the repeal, from outright discrimination of woman and minorities to price gouging and restricting access to the average consumer.

We'll just have to wait. Law suits are threatened. The court system is not speedy by any means.

I do agree that Congress is likely going to need to step in and mandate what controls are going to be done. Something as vital to the economy as the internet shouldn't be regulated at a whim by the FCC, and should have the protection of federal law. If you have a third solution other than treating data the same or allowing ISPs to discriminate data usage, I would love to hear it.

Obama's Legacy: 2016 Ends With A Record-Shattering Regulatory Rulebook
www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2016/12/30/obamas-legacy-2016-ends-with-a-record-shattering-regulatory-rulebook/#164be5711398

The last thing I would suggest is for Congress to step in. Did I infer this? Who needs more crooks with their fingers in the pie? The problem with Congress stepping in is the same as it's always been. The next administration is free to to alter/change/repeal all previous regulations. New laws are written, decisions by court justices are given, they all can be over-turned a few years later. Politics, my son, politics.

One thing remains the same. Democrats love to regulate. Republicans are hands off. The companies, big or small, should not be restricted by regulations. The best and strongest survive.

@lovlas #35, that is the problem. If the service of a new website loads slower, people will stop using it. The big websites make deals with the providers. We will see a lot of those things happen. Unless the FFC really does its job well, which i doubt, or unless the next government will roll back this decision, which is relatively sure, should people decide to vote for Clinton in next elections.

Quote from Wikipedia:

Clinton strongly supports net neutrality. Senator Clinton was a cosponsor of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, also known as the Snowe-Dorgan bill, as an amendment to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that protects network neutrality in the United States. The bill aims to protect internet consumers and small businesses from Internet service providers charging large companies different amounts for Internet access than smaller customers.

Clinton has stated that the Internet must continue to use an "open and non-discriminatory framework" so that it may be used as a forum where "views are discussed and debated in an open forum without fear of censorship or reprisal".

In 2007, she stated, "I support net neutrality... [The Internet] does not decide who can enter its marketplace and it does not pick which views can be heard and which ones silenced. It is the embodiment of the fundamental democratic principles upon which our nation has thrived for hundreds of years."

While secretary of state, Clinton delivered a major speech (entitled "Remarks of Internet Freedom") in January 2010, declaring that "We stand for a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas."

In her 2016 platform, Clinton proposed to defend and enforce "the FCC decision under the Obama Administration to adopt strong network neutrality rules that deemed internet service providers to be common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act."

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#Technology_policy

And here is what trump has to say about Net Neutrality:

As of June 2016, Trump has published no tech policy proposals. On the campaign trail, Trump has frequently antagonized Silicon Valley figures, using his Twitter account to lambast tech leaders such as Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, and Brian Chesky of Airbnb over a series of months.

He is particularly concerned about the social breakdown of American culture caused by technology, and said, "the Internet and the whole computer age is really a mixed bag," having "complicated lives very greatly."

Trump is opposed to net neutrality, asserting that it is "Obama's attack on the internet" and saying that it "will target the conservative media."

Trump has suggested closing "certain areas" of the Internet. Regarding how this relates to freedom of speech, he added "Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people."

The tech publication Recode reports that Trump has made no public statements on the issues of patent reform or broadband access.

The Free Press Action Fund, a group of tech policy activists, rated Trump the worst 2016 presidential candidate for "citizens' digital lives," citing his positions opposing reforming the Patriot Act, favoring Internet censorship, and opposing net neutrality.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Technology_and_net_neutrality

Here's my friend's opinion on it; I'm curious as to what others think.

"Well, first of all,
the internet was fine in 2015 before NN went into effect.
When they say that ISPs have to treat each byte of data equally, that means that videos would load a lot slower, and text files would load a lot faster,
because you need a lot more data to load a video, and a lot less video to load a text file.
Before, ISPs were giving video bytes priority over any other byte, so videos would load without buffering.
So yes, that did leave a little less data to load pdfs, but they are smaller, so it didn't make much of a difference.
And, it's not going to be bad now that it was repealed;
Sure, current giant ISPs can charge a ton more for internet, but then other ISPs will get all the business because who wants to pay a lot for internet?
And yeah, FaceBook could charge 5 dollars per visit, but then no one would use Facebook, and everyone would switch over to a different social media and FaceBook would fail.
But facebook obviously doesn't want that,
so they aren't gonna charge money to access the site.
The experience is going to be pretty much the same as before;
it's funny that a lot of people are acting like it's gonna be the end of the world, but it's really not."

@FunnyAnimatorJimTV thanks, that is an interesting point of view from your friend. Lets see what will happen, i hope your friend is right in the end ;-)

Exactly. The large provides are not going to price themselves out of business. They will charge what is determined as a maximum, affordable rate the market will bear. It seems likely for faster services a higher premium naturally will be charged. A tiered rate system along the same lines as the entertainment cable, satellite companies. The practice of degrading the existing service to force customers into paying more, if it were tried, would end up with consumers revolting, taking their money elsewhere.

Quite naturally, a small company as lichess, whose primary feature is it's fast internet service is holding it's breath. There's always the possibility their provider will unfairly charge a Kings ransom. I've suggested looking into an exempt status as a .org/non-profit entity entitling such companies to discounts. This could be through the regulatory commission, legislation or even the large providers themselves, who as a good will gesture, may consider the proposal.

The thing about monopolies is that they can do whatever they want.