http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20029105-266.html I am surprised there's not a thread talking about this currently consider that Verizon is trying to over turn the FCC's watered down Net Neutrality regulations....Verizon other major ISP's and conservatives are positioning this as "Free the Internet". But I wonder if people realize what eliminating these regulations would me. It would mean for example that if you had Verizon broadband they could control the bandwidth based on what you surfed...so for instance, you get slower connection rates for Hulu but higher for Verizon's own VCAST service. It also means they could charge you to visit websites or access content. Basically the internet wouldn't be "free" anymore. But businesses would be free to charge you! I mean, on one hand, I can see allowing ISP's do whatever they want. Right now, it has to be transparent - but Verizon is fighting that also. So for example, you might not know what you are being denied or limited in access. I'm curious to know if anyone has an enlightened and perhaps greater understanding. I'm concerned both as someone who works in the industry (my job is fueled by small start-up being able to freely access people) as as an entrepreneur myself. If the courts overturn the FCC rulings, does it mean ISP's can favor other applications than the one my business is creating? I think it will stifle innovation and basically give all the power to the big players.
hmm last i checked there was no net neutrality in place and the internet has been fine the past 20 years. I say leave it alone.
the Internet is 'fine' because of net neutrality. That's what you've been enjoying, essentially. These companies/service providers are looking to take that away.
That's because of a lot of people who fought for it. But it won't last. I am surprised it's lasted this long. The FCC is likely to lose in court, and when it does, expect content to be a lot more filtered or at least you will have to pay a premium to ISP's to access free content.
really?? who is threatening to take that away?? This net neutrality thing is probably the most vague/confusing/mysterious thing I have read. Both sides seem to be spewing a lot of BS.
the courts have already told the FCC it has no jurisdiction over the internet these rules will be struck down eventually, if not by Congress
Argument for taking away net neutrality - Telecom providers want to be able to tier the contents streamed across their services. This will allow them to make sure PROVIDERS of content pay for using the content. I.e. youtube uses a large chuck of available bandwidth, therefore youtube needs to pay a premium for their content to be delivered to the consumers. Also, the competition among companies keeps them honest and from being to draconian in terms who they charge more. Argument for keeping net neutrality - Layered services keeps small companies/start ups from being able to compete. For example if net neutrality was available three years ago, we probably wont have youtube and hulu, as it requires a ton of bandwidth and when it first started with no way to pay for it. Ditto for facebook, twitter, and etc. Telecom companies will also have the right to block access to any site, powers that seem pretty far reached. My view: If net neutrality is taken away, you will probably see the telecom industry going the way of the cable companies, with a different tiered plan for the consumers to offset the costs to the content providers. I.e. gamers will probably have to pay more to the providers to cover their premium costs. On the other hand, you might see some providers if they are big enough to start charging back the telecom companies (think ESPN3.com and timewarner's spat last year). With the barrier to entry for new websites/providers to replace older providers being higher, the content providers can take more risk in finding ways to get revenue for their content without fearing the next big thing on the web replacing them on top the of the mountain heap when they piss off the general public. I would also guess that we might see some monopoly and oligopoly law suits happening if the telecom providers also dip into content. I.e. can Verizon charge hulu for content streaming if they own Vcast that does similar things?
Yup you got it exactly right, it's what ISP and telecom wants and why they bribed the Republican party to put out their propaganda campaign to defeat Net Neutrality. They have no idea what they will do. People will never make the connection when they start paying for or going without a lot of the stuff they get now, and it will kill silicon valley, alley, and pretty much innovation will come from big companies like Verizon. Could you imagine if telecom controlled the internet form the beginning. No Youtube, No Google, no facebook, no foursquare or twitter. No Clutchfans.net. That's right. The NBA would work with telecom to prevent you from being able to access this site or any other NBA related fan blog that wasn't their own - all legal because they'd simply make Clutch pay high fees to be able to put their site out there. Fees the NBA can afford but Clutch could not. So it's ironic that people would argue against it. I also love the argument "There was no net neutrality before, and it didn't seem to affect things" Well the morons who make this argument forget that until 3 years ago, broadband didn't dominate the space. When you had thousands of ISP's competing for you service and sites were pretty thin because a modem could only do so much, the free wheeling frontier ways of the internet were protected. Once broadband penetration topped 80%, massive consolidation occurred as Comcast, Verizon, and TWC basically took over the "last mile". That's why the FCC has to create these rules.
This argument is ridiculous. I've heard hollow rumors how providers were going to tier services to preferred sites since broadband came about. Which ISP was it that started capping their download limits? How long did that last? Customers will not tolerate it. You do not need the FCC regulating this. The .gov has been trying for awhile now to find some reason to start regulating the internet. If anything will stifle the growth on silicon valley, it will be the unnecessary regulations passed down on the FCC.
Spoiler Seriously though, how is keeping the internet a level playing field for all participants going to stifle tech growth?
face it. "net neutrality" is a thinly veiled attempt by torrent users to protect the speeds of torrent downloads and little else. No one cares if youtube gets faster access than joe shmoe's ****ty website. But once the gov. gets its hold on the internet that's going away anyway just like everything else because the govt. is bought and paid for by those very corporations you think it is trying to fight. Plus, government regulations will cause the barriers to entry to rise making the powers that be even more entrenched.
This isn't about torrent users or protecting them. It's about the ability of ISP's to charge content providers money to get access to people. If you allow that to happen, the whole face of the internet changes. Imagine how hard it is to make a film and to show it in a movie theatre. That's what TWC wants to do. It wants to turn the internet into that. It wasn't to make Hulu another cable channel so that not only the users pay for access, but so does Hulu - millions of dollars. To do that, they have to slowly whittle away all the free stuff. No more blogs with video. No more Youtube. No more videos of your kids singing with you. You can make them, but not share them with the world, not without paying a little money at first, than 1,000's later, and then eventually millions. It may also go beyond video to applications, and to general content as well. All the blogs - conservative and liberal, will slowly go away. First it will be $30 bucks a month. But soon it will go higher and higher as certainly blogs and media resources can pay millions. Better to charge a thousand companies millions of dollars than millions of people 30 bucks a month. Do you see that? do you understand that the internet inherently functions in a way that empowers people that will never ever be duplicated? It's a very special thing, and wouldn't you want future generations to experience all the great things we have? Instead of people writing about it in history books. The internet has spawned innovation and strengthened democracy. It's employed millions and millions of people and generated enormous wealth in this country. Don't let them turn it into cable television.
Alright. You know how you basically have to pay for premium content like T-Mobile TV or SprintTV or stuff like that right? Well the internet can do all that for free since every website is pretty much like a private sector, where the webmaster and founder can pretty much do whatever they want. Without Net Neutrality, all the ISPs are going to step in and try to regulate all the content that happens on the internet. I'm guessing they'll do that in the form of monthly subscription fees for something like YouTube or something. In the end it just means more money in their pockets. That's why this is so ****ty. If there was ever a time where I'd condone a crazy gunman to go shoot up those that are against net neutrality, well... No love lost.
I knew someone was going to bring this up as justification. Wireless internet is very different. There is only a very finite amount of bandwidth. Does the ATT/Iphone debacle ring a bell? It becomes a supply/demand issue. Also, in your example, you are watching content that the wireless carriers must pay royalties for your subscription. Thats about on par as saying Netflix should be free since Youtube is free.
What happens to the next Netflix or the next Youtube that never gets off the ground because they are relegated to lower tier speeds and can't compete? Charging for access makes sense on one hand, but it stifles any startups by giving an advantage to the already-existing companies that didn't have those same restrictions or costs when they started. Basically, it benefits all the existing large companies by creating barriers of entry for potential new ones.
Yeah, you can only fit so much wireless in the series of tubes. The 4G tubes are much bigger though. I've seen prototypes of the 5G tubes. They are like 1 foot wide. Embarrassing. Stop posting.
