By LumosJared on Dec 13, 2017 at 6:19 PM
  1. LumosJared

    LumosJared Director Staff Member Direction3

    Jul 17, 2012
    Likes Received:
    Hey folks. We usually stay far, far away from politics here, but as most of you are aware, this topic is integral to Massivecraft as a business and a community.


    In the United States, the Federal Communications Commision (FCC) has been able to stop ISP's from selectively slowing down internet speed for particular services. Your connection to the internet cannot pick favorites when it comes to the content you consume. The laws making this so, in particular, Title 2, are known as "Net Neutrality". Without this oversight, for example, Comcast could make the internet speed of its clients on Bing hyper fast, while Google runs at a slog. But consider the impact on smaller communities. If Mojang decided to run their own corporate multiplayer roleplay/factions server, and slow down internet speed around Massivecraft, they can effectively squash any and all smaller business, and inhibit growth. If Youtube wanted to kill a smaller streaming service by paying ISP's to slow down the ability of anyone to even connect to their website, it stifles competition in the marketplace. If you're convinced that future would be problematic, and are a United States citizen, here is what you can do.

    Go to the website "", where you will be carefully guided into not only finding out who your representative is, but what to say to get your opinions across. Regardless of age, you are a constituent of your state, and your voice does have an impact in large numbers.

    Alternatively, go to the url "" and click on "Express". Here, you can leave comments directly to the FCC. Among your respectful comments, specifically state you support strong net neutrality, backed by title 2 oversight of ISP's. Or, maybe you agree with Ajit Pai's plan. Your voice is important too. For more info on what you can do, see this thread.

    Border 2.png

    Unless you are the children of the owner of Verizon, or Ajit Pai, repealing Net Neutrality is an active threat. Massivecraft simply wouldn't be where it is without Title 2 Oversight. Thank you all for reading.

    Have a Massive Day.
    • Winner x 42
    • Agree x 6
    • Thank You! x 2
    • Informative x 2
    • Useful x 2
    • Like x 1
    • Cuddles! x 1
    • Powerful x 1
    • Optimistic x 1


Discussion in 'Server News and Announcements' started by LumosJared, Dec 13, 2017.

    1. Maytee
      Great post for an extremely important subject.
    2. indyfan98
      Luckily for us, Mojang has supported net neutrality in the past, but now that they're under Microsoft, who knows?
    3. AtticCat
    4. YouDontKnowJack
      Thanks for your activism Jared, everyone should do everything they can!
    5. Valto
      I don't think net neutrality being removed (reclassification of internet from a utility to an information service) will directly impact the server. Mojang/Microsoft getting ISPs to throttle private servers to inhibit competition seems like it will draw more ire than benefits. This is also assuming they will actually release official servers, and official servers would make them highly liable for the content and chat due to the age range of minecraft players. They've always avoided assumption of liability in the past and the minecraft realms service demonstrates this.

      In regards to the argument as a whole, I'm not in favor of net neutrality's removal (sort of in the middle), but there's a lot of misinformation about what it actually will cause due to all of the websites that would be possibly adversely affected campaigning hard against it. Currently the internet is being treated as an utility by the FCC which is a misclassification intentionally put forward with the purpose of helping consumers. The FCC administration is voting on reclassifying it to an information service which would allow ISPs to legally regulate the flow of data. If the vote passes and the ISPs have the ability to throttle or boost connection speeds, they will be directly in the spotlight for some time and won't be able to change anything major without massive disapproval. Charging money for proper access to certain websites will kill their national businesses overnight, so this seems like a strong slippery slope argument. In order to maintain their businesses after this change, I believe ISPs will probably only use their new "powers" to boost specific services with a small throttle to all other connections. This is already controversial since it is decreasing the internet connectivity of all other services evenly, but it's nowhere near the things people are stating will happen. The ISPs are all separate companies, so any major changes will fuel actual competition since they are no longer parallel to electric or gas companies which all have to offer the same service.

      Despite not being aligned with net neutrality advocates, I think people campaigning against its removal are doing good for the internet. There's a united front actively showing that they will respond to any sweeping restrictions introduced.
      Last edited: Dec 13, 2017
    6. Amores
      i'll just pay for google, thanks
    7. Osowiec
      I've already mailed my representative. He seems pretty for protecting Net Neutrality, but who knows - just hope we don't lose it.
    8. Nekoii
      why pay for google when you can just have it for free
    9. ZiggyStarDusted
      They will never take our freedom!!!
    10. Nathan
      Yes! I did this yesterday in class actually! Long live Net Neutrality!
    11. MyCatBubbles
      nah bruv if my isp starts throttling sites im outtie and off to find another one regardless of net neutrality or not, kiss my $50 a month goodbye.. but yet again this is only an american problem as canada has an army of local isps ready to take advantage of such a change.
    12. MrScafuto
      A lot of your arguments for the remove of the regulations in place for ISPs (otherwise known as Net Neutrality) is based on the fact that big companies like Microsoft, AT&T, Comcast, etc, actually care about the moral or ethical standards concerning throttling speeds, access to certain sites, and the whole slew of issues that come with unshackling what ISPs from their Net Neutrality shackles. If they're already doing things like throttling speeds and sites (which they indeed are), what truly prevents them from going further in the pursuit of capitalism? Moral outrage? A sense of decency to not wring every single cent someone owns just so they can open a Google page?
    13. ZiHAMMER
      Better submit your freedom so corps can take over and then I can take over the corps to make a proper totalitarian society which I will assimilate into clone based united mind.
    14. Gabauchi
      isn't this a little late? i mean, the vote is tomorrow.
    15. Amores
      because i'm driven by decadent capitalism
    16. Magivore
      Until your state representative gets in their car to drive to work (or for some highly immoral reason chooses to not listen to thousands of angry Americans and nerds alike for the next 24 hours), it's not yet too late. I tend to see a lot of big issues gaining their greatest support in the final hour, but that's anecdotal on my end.
    17. Jalapeno690
      I do find American politics most boring
    18. Kaezir
      Most people don't realize this issue affects most of the world.

      As businesses such as YouTube and Google reside in the US, if they were forced to find more ways to make money in order to stay competitive and for sake of the argument, pay to not be throttled, they may be forced to come out with pay services. Sure YouTube already has Red, but imagine what this does to other sites who have no pay models. And those who already do likely to increase how much their monthly payment costs.
    19. Sozzer

      I'd argue this is a bit misleading, frankly. While I agree that it isn't as simple as it's often made out to be, when saying that it's unlikely for any major throttling - let alone outright denial of access - being used to extort "bill" businesses, you're definitely not looking much at the history behind this. Not only are there several examples of this exact scenario (none of which, you might notice, were resolved by anything but the FCC getting involved despite considerable public disapproval), but many areas around the US only have a single option for a broadband provider, meaning that the argument of "strong competition" is entirely moot in those regions. To make things worse, local ISPs are nonexistent - I live in Australia, and over here there are no net neutrality laws, but there is heavy local competition, which by and large prevents any of this kind of activity. There are still numerous laws and regulations, practically all of which are totally independent of the Title II classification, keeping this sort of local competition from being possible in the US. As a result, it's just not realistic to say that any particular activity will somehow kill off their business.
      As for your argument that the Title II classification is actually a misclassification, you don't really seem to have much of an understanding of what it actually means. A Title II classification means they are a Common Carrier, rather than that they are classified strictly as a utility. This does not mean they cannot determine their own pricing or services, it means they are:
      1. Entirely liable for any loss of and/or damage to the goods they carry (in the case of telecommunications, data).
      2. Not able to discriminate with regards to who can send or receive these goods barring exceptional circumstances such as illegal goods.
      3. Able to be overseen by a regulatory body, namely the FCC.
      While Title II is often represented as a "utility classification", this is entirely false, as it also applies to a variety of things that are rather distinctly not utilities- railroads, taxi companies, and Disneyland, to name a few examples. The restrictions currently in place are far from the draconian nature they're presented as by many opposed to the classification, and indeed give plenty of room for ISPs to vary their services and have competition, without the need for any real change as it stands.
    20. aprader1
      Although yes the net neutrality thing is super important, I’m not sure if it’s as big of a concern as we think. Sure they CAN lower speeds of certain things but those that do won’t have as many customers and hence lose money. Any company dumb enough to change based on the vote will simply lose money and popularity. Yes the net neutrality thing is an issue but I don’t believe companies are that dumb. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you will.
    21. Maytee
      No, you clearly don't understand the situation. It's not a matter of if ISP's will throttle data, block sites, etc. it's a matter of when.

      Please refer to @Sozzer 's comment here for examples and a great explanation on the importance of Net Neutrality.
      In many places of the United States people only have access to one ISP. You really don't expect these mega-companies to not scum those people over? It's happened before, and it will happen again.
    22. aprader1
      However most of the US DOES have access to MANY providers. Bright house, Verizon, Comcast, etc. it’s hard to ignore the basics of business. And I said it already but I am on your side. The net neutrality thing needs to stay as is but in the case it does not it won’t end the entire internet as we know it and all you know what breaks loose. Even at the worst it’s still not at the end of the world scenario.
    23. Maytee
      Again - No, the United States is home to many ISP's BUT not everyone has access to many providers. By claiming that everyone has the same options that you do is being quite naive. Please read about Net Neutrality here before claiming our freedom of choice and speech is "basics of business". I understand you're pro-neutrality, but I don't think you're comprehending the importance of this subject.
      Last edited: Dec 14, 2017
    24. aprader1
      I am fully aware of how important it is. But to think businesses will make a poor decision and loose customers is just wrong. Ya places with only one option are kind of screwed but that in itself is an entirely different issue. Besides, the chances of the vote screwing us over at this point is slim.
    25. Maytee
      But that's the thing, it's NOT an entirely different issue! Million's of people across the United States will be screwed over if Net Neutrality is repealed. At this moment the FCC is deciding the vote so we will see soon enough.

      Watch the Livestream here.
    26. aprader1
      I tuned in for a quick second and read the subtitles. The business idea I just described was also stated by an official in the video. That throttling speeds will ultimately hurt the company
    27. MrScafuto
      No it wont. Throttling speeds will happen, whether you think it will or not. Why do I say this? Because, in a sense, they already are, if you take a look at "unlimited" data plans for mobile phones. If they're already doing it, what in the hell stops them from doing when they can do it legally?
    28. Sozzer
      I'd like to point out that over here in Australia, the solution most corporations have found to this is that if everyone does it, consumers can't do a damn thing about it.
    29. Amores
      they voted to repeal it but ultimately congress has the final say and if it's serious enough it'll go to supreme court so i wouldn't say its over yet ok guys..
    30. aprader1
      First of all they throttle speeds after you have reached a certain amount of data usage. This has nothing to do with net neutrality as ALL websites and services are throttled. Plus this is clearly stated on both their websites plain to see as well as the contract you sign.
    31. aprader1
      That only works if EVERYONE does it. If one person is left out then they get all the business.
    32. Snore
      Good bye sweet internet connection~
    33. AtticCat
    34. Reaganism
    35. AtticCat
      Congress still has to have its say though- hopefully it will do the right thing and keep net neutrality
    36. Kaezir
      That is far too simplified. If everyone does it, where will the customers go? There will be no choice but to choose one.

      As Snowden said, "Saying you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is the same as saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
    37. DrFong

      But, this isn't the end.

      Now, we resist in what ways we can.

      Now, we work to elect people who will fix this mess!
    38. Nekoii
    39. Jalapeno690

Share This Page