Net Neutrality, or How the Telecom Companies Killed the Internet

Army_Allen said:
https://petitions.wh...states/9sxxdBgy

That's the White House petition for reopening the issue to retain true net neutrality.
Click to expand...
Good find, and thank you. Everyone using Huskerboard.com should be signing this thing, if they know what's good for them.
default_smile.png


EbylHusker said:
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).
Click to expand...
True, but historically the 'superusers' that run torrents, businesses, etc. on residential accounts are less than 10% of the overall subscriptions, and the Telecom companies typically have an out in their contract that says (in essence) if you're using what we determine to be an excessive amount of data, you may be asked to justify that it is being used for residential needs--otherwise, you'll be asked to subscribe to a business plan.

And another thing to keep in mind--the USA isn't even in the Top 20 in terms of average network speeds per household any longer. And Telecom companies routinely overestimate the costs of providing data service--one insider on Broadbandreports.com had indicated it's likely less than $.10/GB of transmission. Speeds could be significantly increased and data caps lifted (for those providers that have them), and they'll still turn a profit--just not as huge of one as they do now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I apologize if this question has been answered somewhere, but let's assume for a second that there was "AN END TO NET NEUTRALITY" but it was under a heavily regulated system. I ask if this is possible because it seems to me that services like Netflix, Youtube, etc. require more resources to make function properly because of the type of service they provide. Does Huskerboard need the same fast lane as Netflix? Would it change your average user's experience if Netflix got preferred speeds for money.

I admit that I am about as conservative as it gets when it comes to the internet. I like that it's basically the wild west and I despise the idea of companies being able to buy something extremely valuable while the little guy is cut out. The thing is, when everyone starts panicking about something, it leaves me with more questions than I started with. Like, is this new policy--assuming it ever takes effect at all--really going to blow up the internet?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Undoubtedly Netflix requires more resources to run than Huskerboard, but they already pay for that in the form of much, much more storage, servers, maintenance, and so on. And it's not like Netflix or Google couldn't afford it. They assuredly could, but the fresh new startup can't. That's bad for innovation.

At least that's my admittedly superficial take on it.

 
This video is fantastic. It's very informative and hilarious. It's clearly in support of Net Neutrality but at this point I struggle to figure out why any consumers would be against it.

There are a few bad words but well worth the 15 minutes to listen to it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
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?
Click to expand...
No, because the consumer is the one paying for the internet access, not the websites. ISP's (TW, Comcast, etc...) have been banking on oversubscribing the amount of users for a data line, and now that the consumers are starting to use that amount of data they were promised and are paying for, the ISP's want to stick it to VOD providers (like Netflix). It shouldn't matter if I download 50 gigs of software, HD video, or play games. But the ISP's want to double dip (charge end users and providers) to keep their enormous profits. This is also why you're starting to see talks of bandwidth caps. It's a crock. The US infrastructure is lagging compared to other 1st world countries.

I have zero faith that net neutrality will remain. The lobbyists are well connected in the government (Comcast President regularly plays golf with President Obama), and Congress is full of retards.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Husker_x said:
I apologize if this question has been answered somewhere, but let's assume for a second that there was "AN END TO NET NEUTRALITY" but it was under a heavily regulated system. I ask if this is possible because it seems to me that services like Netflix, Youtube, etc. require more resources to make function properly because of the type of service they provide. Does Huskerboard need the same fast lane as Netflix? Would it change your average user's experience if Netflix got preferred speeds for money.

I admit that I am about as conservative as it gets when it comes to the internet. I like that it's basically the wild west and I despise the idea of companies being able to buy something extremely valuable while the little guy is cut out. The thing is, when everyone starts panicking about something, it leaves me with more questions than I started with. Like, is this new policy--assuming it ever takes effect at all--really going to blow up the internet?
Click to expand...
It would effectively end new competition. No one who wanted to start up a new business that needed consumers to have bandwidth would be able to afford it. If this policy had existed 15 years ago, we would not have Youtube, Netflix, or any streaming video. Online videogames would not exist. iTunes? nope. Very simply the internet would not be the way it is today.

The whole issue is very simple. The telecoms have hot a breaking point with what they can charge for what are NOT first world internet speeds, so they are trying to find a new way to boost stock prices. And if we did not have monopolies in this industry in the first place, it would not really even be an issue. But there is obvious collusion between the telecoms to not compete with each other.

And just wait for the US being sued in international court by European businesses that are not going to pay.

 
strigori said:
Husker_x said:
I apologize if this question has been answered somewhere, but let's assume for a second that there was "AN END TO NET NEUTRALITY" but it was under a heavily regulated system. I ask if this is possible because it seems to me that services like Netflix, Youtube, etc. require more resources to make function properly because of the type of service they provide. Does Huskerboard need the same fast lane as Netflix? Would it change your average user's experience if Netflix got preferred speeds for money.

I admit that I am about as conservative as it gets when it comes to the internet. I like that it's basically the wild west and I despise the idea of companies being able to buy something extremely valuable while the little guy is cut out. The thing is, when everyone starts panicking about something, it leaves me with more questions than I started with. Like, is this new policy--assuming it ever takes effect at all--really going to blow up the internet?
Click to expand...
It would effectively end new competition. No one who wanted to start up a new business that needed consumers to have bandwidth would be able to afford it. If this policy had existed 15 years ago, we would not have Youtube, Netflix, or any streaming video. Online videogames would not exist. iTunes? nope. Very simply the internet would not be the way it is today.

The whole issue is very simple. The telecoms have hot a breaking point with what they can charge for what are NOT first world internet speeds, so they are trying to find a new way to boost stock prices. And if we did not have monopolies in this industry in the first place, it would not really even be an issue. But there is obvious collusion between the telecoms to not compete with each other.

And just wait for the US being sued in international court by European businesses that are not going to pay.
Click to expand...
I think between you and Oliver, I'm swayed.

 
Those comments are piling up:

LINK

The net neutrality debate has generated a record 1,477,301 public comments to the Federal Communications Commission, the agency said Wednesday, surpassing the 1.4 million complaints sparked by Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction at the 2004 Super Bowl.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler went back to the drawing board on net neutrality after a federal court tossed the agency’s previous set of rules for ensuring all Web traffic is treated equally. But Wheeler’s new proposal has sparked controversy for allowing Internet service providers like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast to charge content companies for an online fast lane — a move critics say would undermine the goal of net neutrality.

The comment total is likely to climb as a result of the symbolic “Internet slowdown” protest going on Wednesday. Netflix, Reddit and other websites are featuring an image of a loading symbol — the spinning wheel of death — to illustrate the dangers of Internet slow lanes and make the case for more robust net neutrality rules. The images link to a site that lets people send comments to the FCC, Congress and the White House.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top