Net Neutrality, or How the Telecom Companies Killed the Internet

VectorVictor

VectorVictor

Donor
Considering we're posting on an internet message board, and Ma Bell and her stooges are dead set on trying to piecemeal and ultimately kill the Internet as we know it, this is a rather apt topic for discussion, IMO:

Article

Last week, an obscure but potentially internet-transforming document was leaked from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission...The proposed rules were revealed in the New York Times, and they would overturn the principle of "network neutrality" on the internet.
Put simply, network neutrality allows you to use services from rich companies like Google and small startups with equal speed through your ISP. You can read a blog hosted on somebody's home server, and it loads just as quickly as a blog on Tumblr.

Without network neutrality, Tumblr could cut a deal with your ISP — let's say it's Comcast — and its blogs would load really quickly while that home server blog might take minutes to load pictures. It might not even load at all. You can see why people in the freedom-of-speech obsessed United States might not be happy with chucking network neutrality. It privileges some speech over others, based on financial resources.
Click to expand...
Folks--this crap needs to stop, and stop fast. It shouldn't matter if you're wanting to access Netflix, Playboy.com, or Huskerboard.com--they should all have the same, unfettered, fast-as-possible-always service. And the infrastructure costs to make this happen are a mere drop in the bucket for Telecom companies--but these costs are being used as a smokescreen so Telco can gouge companies like Google, Netflix, etc. for extra money.

In short, Internet in the 21st century is a utility, not unlike water or electricity. But there's not as much profit in utilities as there is for being a service provider, hence their attempts to nickel and dime customers to death.

 
I have to admit, this issue is way above my technical pay grade. I'm not educated enough on the issue to be able to formulate an educated opinion. Without knowing all the intricacies of the issue, it would be too easy to jump on the band wagon of one side or the other.

 
Here's an explanation that is pretty obviously for Net Neutrality but also isn't overly sensational. In this link it uses the word VOD with no explanation. VOD = Video on demand

https://medium.com/how-digital-affects-us/4540fb1c0023

I've had a hard time finding a positive spin article about Net Neutrality being a bad thing. The biggest thing I see is that the government should not regulate the telecoms and that the free market will deal with it.

 
I have a hard time thinking this makes it past the Supreme Court, should it make it that far anyways.

Free speech is by far our most protected right. Whether you have no monies or lots of monies, you have the ability to voice your opinion. Now, the person with more monies might know ways to more effectively state their opinion or might have the backing to have their opinion turned into action. Nevertheless, the person with no monies can still state their opinion. It can't be any different on the interwebz. If you have more financial backing, you can use that backing how you normally do. If you don't that's fine as well.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Are these two threads related?

LINK
Click to expand...
Yes and no. Cable television providers are feeling the sting of people "cutting the cord"--that is, people shutting off television service and using OTA (over the air--antenna service) and Internet for streaming media. The crappier, less-respected cable companies, such as Time Warner and Comcast, have seen an overall decline in subscribers on a yearly basis because of this.

The only thing keeping folks (such as myself) from cutting the cord is sporting events and channels such as the BTN. This is why the cost for sports channels with living programming (e.g. ESPN, BTN) keeps increasing--it's one of the few sure draws for media where they can get advertisements in front of people.

Once live sports become available with consistent quality online (like with ESPN 3, for example), that's the hypothetical last straw, and we'll start seeing more and more people 'cut the cord'. Revenue streams for Telco and Cable providers will be cut significantly, as they'll be relegated to being a 'utility'--providing internet service, and that's it.

---

But we should already be at the end game where the Telco companies are utilities and provide unfettered internet access to our homes. This way, people can enjoy a la carte programming (being able to choose your channels on an individual basis) can happen, and by cutting out the middle man (Cable and Telco) who raise rates and get money by doing very little other than handing off media.

Instead, Cable and Telco want to go the other route--they want to strong arm everything going into your home, including the internet, by forcing providers to pay for access to you. Since they're not going to get money off of you watching their television service any longer, they're going to get money by forcing companies like Netflix, Hulu, Google, etc. to pay for the same access they have now. If they don't pay, the connections to those sites can be drastically slowed down or blocked completely.

We're already seeing bullying by Telecom companies with Verizon FiOS and Netflix right now: Verizon wants Netflix to pay an exorbitant amount of money to them to upgrade infrastructure--upgrades that should have been done years ago. Since Netflix isn't wanting to play ball, Verizon has (unofficially) put a cap on service speeds to Netflix's site, and those of us trying to use Netflix on FiOS (like myself) are seeing poor and spotty service. What used to be a steady 1080p stream for movie content is barely 480p, and has plenty of stuttering. Some folks can't even access the site at all on the weekend.

It's a pretty big deal that's starting to get traction because of the proposed cable mergers and recent court decisions, not to mention what it could mean down the road to our economy--right now, our economy is built on equal and unfettered access. One that people need to get off their arse and be cognizant off...because if you wait too long, you may not be able to come back to Huskerboard.com to b!^@h about it without paying an extra $10 fee per month.

Bye Bye Big XII said:
I have a hard time thinking this makes it past the Supreme Court, should it make it that far anyways.

Free speech is by far our most protected right. Whether you have no monies or lots of monies, you have the ability to voice your opinion. Now, the person with more monies might know ways to more effectively state their opinion or might have the backing to have their opinion turned into action. Nevertheless, the person with no monies can still state their opinion. It can't be any different on the interwebz. If you have more financial backing, you can use that backing how you normally do. If you don't that's fine as well.
Click to expand...
Except that the current Supreme Court has ruled that Money = Free Speech, in so many words. :-|

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just a random question that came to mind reading your post.

Shouldn't a company that makes a profit off of using a much higher amount of bandwidth than someone else pay more to use the internet?

 
The problem is, the amount of money that can be gouged out of someone like Netflix is way, way over the top compared to how much extra load (and thus distributed cost) an ISP deals with. It's essentially the same as someone running a business out of their house where the average person comes over three times per month and pays $20 to do so. But for those that stop by more, maybe 10 times, they're charged $750 per month because they supposedly "create more wear and tear on the house." But the reality is, they may create enough wear and tear to justify charging $5 more per month.

So what one aspect of it boils down to is "cable" TV providers being pissed because they're losing some of their customers since they refuse to make their pricing competitive. In turn, they're trying to gouge the people taking their business away (Netflix, etc).

 
Also, I forgot to add (there are a lot of aspects to this issue), it means big companies can pay lots of money for something akin to preferred, faster access. So what you could very well see is a throttling of startup content providing companies because they can't pay the fees to compete with the big companies. In other words, a stifling of competition, and the almost certain drop in quality of service provided that eventually follows.

 
Nothing but corporate greed and trying to charge someone or another multiple times for the same content. This is going to lead to costs being passed onto the consumer. Netflix is not going to want to go bankrupt paying fees, and those would get passed on. Quite possibly with your cost being tied to who you are logging in through. And with the telecoms buying content makers, things could get really, really bad fast. Comcast, owning NBC could decide its competitors are not going to get bandwidth, no matter what. And we havnt even gotten into this ending innovation all together. Youtube and Netflix would never have existed if this had been the rules when they were getting started. A small business who wants to use the internet as a primary aspect of their vision would never get off the ground, from this BS.

This needs to be a priority issue with the next election cycle. Congress could solve this quickly, if those idiots would ever get off their moronic asses.

 
Back
Top